ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - Bureau of Reclamation · Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation Oral History Interview conducted by George Petershagen, Bureau of Reclamation,

ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW

David G. Coleman

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

STATUS OF INTERVIEW:OPEN FOR RESEARCH

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

Interview Conducted and Edited by:George Petershagen

Interview reedited and desktop published by:Brit Allan Storey in 2011

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

Interview conducted–1994Interview edited and published–2011

Oral History ProgramBureau of ReclamationDenver, Colorado

SUGGESTED CITATION:

Coleman, David G., ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW. Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of ReclamationOral History Interview conducted by GeorgePetershagen, Bureau of Reclamation, in Sacramento,California. Edited by George Petershagen and BritAllan Storey. Repository for the record copy of theinterview transcript is the National Archives andRecords Administration in College Park, Maryland.

Record copies of this transcript are printed on 20 lb.,100% cotton, archival quality paper. All other copies areprinted on normal duplicating paper.

i

Oral history of David Coleman

Table of Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Statement of Donation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Oral History Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Born, Raised, and Educated in Wisconsin . . . . . . . 1Completed a Master’s in Engineering at the

University of Wisconsin in 1959 . . . . . . . . 2Attended Northwestern University for a Year

Working on a Doctorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Became Interested in Hydroelectricity and Worked

Briefly for Wisconsin Power and LightCompany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Applied for a Job with the Bureau of Reclamation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Developed a Taste for Supervision in the Air Force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hired as a Mechanical Engineer at Reclamation in1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

During His Rotation Assignments He Was Assignedto Gates and Valves in Denver and Then toConstruction of the Spring Creek Powerplantout of Redding, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Moved into Construction and Was Reassigned to theBlue Mesa Dam and Powerplant Constructionout of Gunnison in 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Took an Assignment at Grand Coulee Dam in 1964

ii

Bureau of Reclamation History Program

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Fall of 1969 Transferred to Sacramento as Head of

the Water Control Branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9“Throughout my career with Reclamation, I was a

company person–I was very loyal to theorganization. Reclamation has always been avery family-oriented . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Stayed in Amarillo a Little over a Year as AssociateRegional Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

“. . . when I got there . . . they were kind of ten yearsbehind in terms of looking to the future andthe needs. . . . lot of serious problems withregard to completing some of the construction. . . But it was good experience. . . .” . . . . 18

Approached about Going to Billings as RegionalDirector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

“. . . several months later I was told that they weregoing to put a political appointee up there, aswell as up in Idaho–Boise–and either one ofthose would have been a good choice for meto become regional director. . . .” . . . . . . . 19

“. . . I had loved Reclamation . . . what they did, but Irealized at that time that certain things werehappening in the dynamics that maybeweren’t favorable toward me and my career,and I had been a very faithful soldier to thistime . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Approached by the Western Area PowerAdministration about Becoming an AreaManager in Sacramento, the Equivalent of aRegional Director in Reclamation . . . . . . 21

iii


“Actually, three years before I had been offered thearea manager/regional director for Westernwhen it was formed, to be in Salt Lake. Butat that time it didn’t seem apropos to movemy family from Sacramento to Salt Lake. . ..” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Working in the Regional Office in Amarillo . . . . 22“. . . we should have been downsized . . . we had

about almost 700 people in our region and . . .enough work . . . to support about 500. So Ihad laid out a plan . . . how we could . . .make some changes here, so that out in thefuture, Amarillo . . . wouldn’t be a target ofsome major shutdown. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . 24

“. . . as early as 1979 and ‘80 and ‘81, there washandwriting on the wall. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . 24

Believes He Is Remembered More as a People Personthan a Technical Person by the People HeSupervised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

“The big thrust was the water contracts. . . .” . . . 29Worked Through Some Issues with Recreation and

Environmental Proponents in the Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Became Area Manager for Western Area PowerAdministration in Sacramento . . . . . . . . . 32

“We were located in the same building as theReclamation. [I] was looked upon as atraitor, which was very hard for me to take . ..” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

While in Sacramento He Led a Fight to KeepWestern Area Power Administration from

iv


Taking a Lot of Reclamation’s FTEs . . . . 33“. . . Sacramento was the only region that didn’t give

up much to power. There were only likesome thirty positions . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

“. . . then I go to Amarillo, and I’m down there forthirteen months, and that’s probably the onlyreason Western could even hire me, becauseotherwise there was some distaste toward mefrom Western, because I had supportedReclamation’s position. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . 34

“But when I switched back here then to become theArea Manager, my boss, [Bob] McPhail, who. . . had offered me the area manager job, andhe said, ‘I’m going to offer this to you, but Iwant you to undo what you did against us ayear-and-a-half ago.’. . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

After He Came to Sacramento He Recognized a Needfor More Staff since Things Had Changed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

“So my marching orders, when I came back . . . wasto go after all these benefits that the Feds aregiving away to the investor-owned utilities,and somehow bring those back to your mainclient, the preference customers . . .” . . . . 36

“. . . they weren’t aware that we’re trying to undosome things that Interior had not been doingand had just let go for twenty years. . . .” 37

Hoped to Have Close Relations with Reclamation,but That Has Been Developing Only over theLast Few Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Reclamation Hasn’t Had Money to Maintain and

v


Upgrade Units, and Western Cannot ProvideMoney for That . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

“. . . we can’t come up with a way of providing thatmoney whereas we could actually increasepower rates and find that money and do that,because it’s in the power community’s bestinterest. But what has happened year afteryear after year with Reclamation, they have toprioritize their funding and the upgrading ofmaintenance–generation gets a much lowerpriority. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

“. . . something that should have been rewound . . .say eight years ago . . . it’s always in the outyears . . . being slipped. . . . one of those unitswill crash and they will have to go in anemergency . . . But you’ve always got thatdifference of opinion and view from theWestern as opposed to the Reclamation,where to spend the money. There’s alwaysthe emphasis on the water with Reclamation. .. .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

“And of course then you had the issue of ‘Should thepowerplants come to Western?,’ and that wasdecided in 1979-80 that no, it should not, butthat still resurfaces. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Environmental Issues and Auburn Dam . . . . . . . 44Flood Control Issues in Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . 46Reclamation and Western Have Lost Corporate

Memory in Recent Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Issues with People and Esprit de Corps . . . . . . . . 52Creation of the Western Area Power Administration

vi


in 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Reclamation Power Customers Had Sometimes Felt

They Were Shortchanged . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Work as Associate Administrator of the Western

Area Power Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 60“. . . overseeing the contract negotiations with our

two major labor unions, which cover thefifteen western states. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Mentors at Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Peripheral Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68“. . . people need to make some priorities . . . because

. . . you can’t build a large water project andserve the whole metropolitan Los Angeleswith Feather River water or Shasta water,without having some system to do it with. . ..” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Economic Issues Include the Need to Provide Waterto Plants in Los Angeles or They WillRelocate and Providing Water to Agriculturein Kern County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

“I don’t think a Peripheral Canal, as it’s been on thedrawing board over the past fifteen years, willever get built. They can’t get approval to dothat. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

“To what degree can we raise the power rates so that. . . people . . . will . . . be willing to have thatincreased by ten percent so we can protect thesalmon run? Because that’s how it playsitself out. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

“We can’t have it both ways, and that’s what we’reseeing right now, is who’s pushing and

vii


shoving. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72“You can conserve some water, but there’s no new

way to grow rice . . . when water wasrestricted during the droughts was, ‘Let’s letLouisiana grow the rice, or let’s let Taiwanand China grow the rice and import it.’ . . . Ikind of think I would like to keep the jobs inCalifornia, or keep them certainly in theUnited States. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Ways Reclamation Projects Might Conserve Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

“. . . we produce about a third of the power that weactually sell. The Central Valley Project,during a good year, above average water year,will produce between one-fourth and a thirdof all the power that we market. . . .” . . . . 77

“We have utilized the Intertie system . . . to importlow-cost, coal-fired steam, which otherwisewould have been trapped in the Wyoming-Montana-South Dakota area, as well assurplus hydro out of Canada and on theColumbia River . . . so that industry coulddevelop and residential people wouldn’t paythe exorbitant costs. And so we have foundthat we would be importing $200 millionworth of power to add onto what would bethe equivalent of about $35 million costs toproduce the power here in California; andmeld it in . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

“. . . of course, you don’t have the subsidy factor inpower. By congressional law, we cannot,

viii


we’re not on a subsidy, so we must chargeour power customers our actual costs . . .”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Effects of the Washington Public Power SupplySystem Bankruptcy on Western . . . . . . . . 81

“. . . where it did impact us is that we wereanticipating buying the surpluses from theNorthwest, and also then there was aturnaround where they were going to be short,and so we had to go to the Midwest, but wenegotiated a transmission pass through theNorthwest to bring Midwest power. . . .” 82

“. . . for a five-year period, the Northwest wanted theprivilege of interrupting power that we werebuying from the Midwest . . . wanted theprivilege of interrupting it, if that power wascheaper than what they could buy for, andthey had a need, so we had to give that tothem. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

“. . . we were careful to not enter into long-termcontracts so that those additional costs wouldbe stuck to us, so we were able to escape that,just in proper planning . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . 83

“. . . in California the big thrust still has been to gowith co-generation and wind and things likethat . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

“Our customers are saying, ‘We’ll do our ownresearch here and pay for it ourselves. Don’tyou go out and do research and then send us abig bill for it.’. . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

“Congress is not authorizing us big bucks that just

ix


come out of the Treasury. Anything that wespend has to be rate-based back to ourcustomers. . . . They may allow us to spend asmall amount of dollars, but it’s not a hugeamount. We do some minimal research. . . .”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Relationship to the Northern California PowerAgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

“. . . they represent almost 700 megawatts of ourmarketing program, which is the size of, well,that’s almost, you know, fifty to fifty-fivepercent of our whole load. . . .” . . . . . . . . 87

“. . . at one time we had seventeen congressmen inour area–the two senators and fifteencongressmen or women–and I’ve tried tomaintain that relationship with many of thoseoffices, along with our customers. . . . ifwe’re aware there is a concern out there, andwe’re working with a customer, we’ll advisethe congressmen, so they’re just alerted tothat. . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

The California Water Project basically said, ourhydroelectricity is “. . . ‘going to go to thehighest bidder,’ . . . We continued ourexisting customers, but we didn’t add on anynew ones, because we thought that the Stateof California was, in a sense, using us . . .They had power that they could havedistributed . . . power plays a much lesser rolein their project. . . . They don’t want tomarket to the various cities or their own

x


institutions . . . they’ve alreadyinstitutionalized how they want to do it, andit’s not the same as how we do it. . . .” . . 89

“. . . right now under the dynamics the way it’s setup, they wouldn’t want us to do theirmarketing for them . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Thoughts on His Government Career . . . . . . . . . 93“. . . it wasn’t without its difficulties. I moved my

family fifteen different times in my career,and I doubt if many people will do that in thefuture . . .” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

xi


Statement of Donation

xii


xiii


Introduction

In 1988, Reclamation began to create a historyprogram. While headquartered in Denver, the historyprogram was developed as a bureau-wide program.

One component of Reclamation’s history program isits oral history activity. The primary objectives ofReclamation’s oral history activities are: preservation ofhistorical data not normally available through Reclamationrecords (supplementing already available data on the wholerange of Reclamation’s history); making the preserved dataavailable to researchers inside and outside Reclamation.

The senior historian of the Bureau of Reclamationdeveloped and directs the oral history program. Questions,comments, and suggestions may be addressed to the seniorhistorian.

Brit Allan StoreySenior Historian

Land Resources Division (84-53000)Policy and AdministrationBureau of ReclamationP. O. Box 25007Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0007(303) 445-2918FAX: (720) 544-0639E-mail: [email protected]

For additional information about Reclamation’s

xiv


history program see:www.usbr.gov/history

1

1. Note that in the text of these interviews, as opposed toheadings, information in parentheses, ( ), is actually on the tape. Information in brackets, [ ], has been added to the tape either by theeditor to clarify meaning or at the request of the interviewee in order tocorrect, enlarge, or clarify the interview as it was originally spoken. Words have sometimes been struck out by editor or interviewee inorder to clarify meaning or eliminate repetition. In the case ofstrikeouts, that material has been printed at 50% density to aid inreading the interviews but assuring that the struckout material is

(continued...)


Oral History InterviewDavid G. Coleman

Petershagen: This is George Petershagen conducting aninterview of David Coleman on behalf ofthe Bureau of Reclamation. This is Tape1, Side A, and today’s date is June 14,1994. We are in the Sacramento AreaOffice of the Western Area PowerAdministration.

And Dave, just to get us started, I’dlike, if you can please, if you would, justgive us a little bit of your childhoodbackground, such as where were you bornand where did you go to school, on upthrough your collegiate degrees?

Born, Raised, and Educated in Wisconsin

Coleman: Okay, fine. Dave Coleman was born inLowell, Wisconsin, January 4, 1933. [I]1

2

1. (...continued)readable.

The transcriber and editor also have removed some extraneouswords such as false starts and repetitions without indicating theirremoval. The meaning of the interview has not been changed by thisediting.


did my grade school and high school rightthere in central Wisconsin, and attendedthe University of Wisconsin from 1950 to1954, and then was employed by EastmanKodak for a short period of time. Wentback, after the military, a couple of yearsin the Air Force, and worked inMilwaukee from ‘56 to ‘59.

Completed a Master’s in Engineering at theUniversity of Wisconsin in 1959

Attended Northwestern University for a YearWorking on a Doctorate

During that time I took someevening courses, doing some graduatework through the University of Wisconsin,and later finished my master’s inengineering in 1959, did a year atNorthwestern in a postgraduate, actuallyworking on my doctorate there.

Became Interested in Hydroelectricity and WorkedBriefly for Wisconsin Power and Light Company

3


And then I developed an interest inthe hydroelectric field. I worked for ashort time with Wisconsin Power andLight Company, and was also planning togo down to Ecuador, working with aChristian radio station to install ahydroplant down there that they werepurchasing from Seattle.

Applied for a Job with the Bureau of Reclamation

That didn’t work out, but it was throughthat interest in hydroelectrics and waterresources that I applied for a position andwas accepted with the Bureau ofReclamation in the fall of 1961. I startedin the Engineering and Research Center inDenver, the Federal Center.

Petershagen: Before we get too much farther now ontoReclamation, what’s your baccalaureatedegree in?

Coleman: My bachelor’s actually is in business. (Petershagen: In business?!) And I wastaking a double major with engineeringand business, but I was in the Air Forcecadet program and had to graduate, and soI got my bachelor’s in business and thenthe master’s in mechanical engineering

4


and engineering.

Petershagen: I see. And what did you do in the AirForce?

Coleman: I was in aircraft maintenance.

Petershagen: So that certainly had nothing to do with astep on the path towards Reclamation, Iwould think.

Developed a Taste for Supervision in the AirForce

Coleman: Not directly, but I had–I was put right intoa supervisory position, and that didinfluence my years later in terms of Ienjoyed being a supervisor and workingwith people.

Petershagen: Did you stay with the Air Force as far asReserve service?

Coleman: Yes, I did, I left as a Colonel in 1981, hadan opportunity for a B.G. [brigadiergeneral] slot if I wanted to go back toWright-Patterson, but that would havemeant leaving my new position here everyother weekend, and I didn’t feel I could dothat, so . . .

5


Petershagen: I see. Then you said your first positionwith Reclamation was in Denver.

Coleman: Yes.

Petershagen: Would you describe that for us, please?

Hired as a Mechanical Engineer at Reclamation in1961

During His Rotation Assignments He WasAssigned to Gates and Valves in Denver and Then

to Construction of the Spring Creek Powerplantout of Redding, California

Coleman: Yes, I was hired there as a mechanicalengineer, and spent my first rotationassignment in large gates and valves, theMechanical Design Unit there. And it wasthe old Building 53 in Design. I was therethree months and then was assigned out toRedding on construction of the SpringCreek Powerplant for the following sixmonths.

Petershagen: So that was on a detail from Denver?

Coleman: It was a detail, I was on a rotation, oneyear. I was given an option of coming inas a rotation engineer as a GS-7, or notcoming on rotation but being directly

6


assigned to a unit, and that’s where Iwould have remained as a GS-9. And Ifelt I wanted to go through the rotation.

Petershagen: And then your “tour of duty,” so to speak,at Spring Creek, was that start to finish onthe project?

Coleman: No, that was just for six months, duringthe installation of Unit Number One, Ibelieve it was there up at Redding. Sowhatever that six-month increment–thatwas between February and August of1962.

Petershagen: I see. So then that ended in August of ‘62,that ended the detail.

Moved into Construction and Was Reassigned tothe Blue Mesa Dam and Powerplant Construction

out of Gunnison in 1962

Coleman: That ended the detail, and I enjoyedconstruction so much, and I had notenjoyed my three months just sitting at adrafting board, so I looked at what otherconstruction jobs were open, andultimately was reassigned down toGunnison on the Blue Mesa Dam andPowerplant, but during the interim, I wentback to Denver and spent additional time,

7


August and September, in the E&R[Engineering and Research] Center, butthen subsequently transferred on down toCurecanti Project in late ‘62.

Petershagen: And that was a permanent transfer . . .?

Coleman: That was a permanent transfer down to theconstruction office, yes.

Petershagen: Okay, let’s jump back into your personallife for just a few minutes here now. Wereyou married by that time?

Coleman: I was married, yes, and I had two littlechildren when we first moved to Denver,ages two and one. I was married in ‘59,this would have been in ‘61–we had twochildren then that moved with us to theBureau of Reclamation in the E&RCenter.

Petershagen: So the family started really before youcame on board with the Bureau.

Coleman: Yes.

Petershagen: I’m sorry, you said that from Denver youwent to Gunnison?

Coleman: Okay, when I came back to finish up one

8


month or six weeks in the E&R Center, Iwas in the process of transferring toGunnison, because they had a need formechanical engineers. So I moved downthere in the fall of ‘62 with my family.

Petershagen: And how long were you there?

Coleman: I was there until January of 1964, so abouta year-and-a-half.

Petershagen: And more than one position there?

Coleman: No, I had the same position as amechanical engineer, GS-9.

Petershagen: I see. Then from Gunnison where did yougo?

Coleman: From Gunnison I was offered a position totransfer up to Grand Coulee Dam, up inWashington, in Coulee Dam, Washington,and so I took that assignment then andstayed there through August of ‘69.

Petershagen: And what was that position then?

Took an Assignment at Grand Coulee Dam in 1964

Coleman: The first position up at Grand Coulee wasa mechanical engineer, a staff engineer,

9


and that was for about three years. Andthen in 1966 I was promoted to asupervisory civil engineer over all the civiland structural maintenance at the dam andpowerplant and Banks Lake and thecanals.

Petershagen: And then from Grand Coulee?

Fall of 1969 Transferred to Sacramento as Head ofthe Water Control Branch

Coleman: From Grand Coulee, in the fall of ‘69, Itransferred down to Sacramento, to headup the Water Control Branch.

Petershagen: And so that would have been about a two-or three-year position then?

Coleman: Yes, I was in that position about two-and-a-half years when my supervisor, Mr.[Jake] Ossofsky had a heart attack, and soI was put in the division position, in anacting basis, and subsequently waspromoted to a GS-14 at the time when heretired. So from about ‘69 to ‘72 I washead of the water side, and then from ‘72on I was even acting over all the FieldOffices in O&M [operations andmaintenance]: Shasta, Willows, Tracy,Fresno, Folsom. For about a year-and-a-

10


half, I was responsible for all of those aswell as the Central Valley OperationsOffice.

Petershagen: When you say “in charge of O&M” for allthose field offices, that includes bothwater and power, correct?

Coleman: Both water and power, and managing thesuperintendents, who were over the fieldoffices. Before I got the permanentposition over water and power in theCentral Valley Operations Office here inSacramento, there was a reorganization,and those field offices were assigned tothe assistant regional director’s position,who was my immediate boss.

Petershagen: Now, were you in your position at thattime when that reorganization took place? (Coleman: Yes, I was.) And yourparticipation in that? Was it your idea? Were you in support of it? How could wedescribe that?

“Throughout my career with Reclamation, I was acompany person–I was very loyal to the

organization. Reclamation has always been avery family-oriented . . .”

Coleman: Okay, well, I was not involved in the

11


decision to go in that direction, but Icertainly supported it, if that’s what theregional director wanted to do–I mean,we’re a family working together, and soall these different moves that I made, evenduring my last year at Grand Coulee,before I transferred down, I was in atraining program, and so I lived in Boiseand had my family in Burley, Idaho, andWashington, D.C., and backup for anActing Maintenance Chief up at GrandCoulee, before I transferred down. Sothrough all these contacts I had a chanceto get to know a lot of different peopleworking all the way from the professionalsand the directors of the offices, down tothe wage board people, the people thatreally do the work out there in the field. Itwas a good family organization, per se.

Petershagen: I see. I think, just as an aside, I’m startingto learn that as I become more and morefamiliar with the Bureau. I hear that sortof a thing from almost everybody as we gothrough this interview process.

Now, if memory serves, duringabout the early 70s is a time that, as JakeOssofsky described it, the Bureau wentfrom almost a military hierarchical kind ofa management to a more participative

12


style of management. I’m sure you musthave been a part of that. (Coleman: Yes,I was.) And at that time you wereworking for Mr. Ossofsky, and since hepicked up that ball and ran with it sostrongly, it must have had a major effecton your life and your career.

Coleman: Yes. Even as early as the time I was atGrand Coulee, I had gone through acertain type of matrix managementtraining. I remember going for a one-week down at Mount Hood, and settingthe stage then, when I came toSacramento, to work under a supervisorwho was so forward and interested inbringing in new managerial techniques,that Blake and Mouton [phonetic] andothers–Hirschberg, [phonetic] later PeterDrucker–those were all the kind of ideasthat he fostered. and so under his tutelage,I took different courses, I believed in it, Iwas able to implement it, and we saw achange within the organization in ‘72-,‘73-, ‘74, as far as the ability to managepeople and pay attention to that side of it. So definitely I would support what you’vejust mentioned, that there was a change. Iwould say that fifty to sixty percent of themanagers bought into that and went withit. You had some old-line managers who

13


didn’t want to change, and then you had afew people that always questioned itanyway, who weren’t the older ones. Butthere was, I would say, a vastimprovement in terms of managingpeople, managing the way we managedpeople.

Petershagen: How about the workers themselves? Wasit evident to you that they observed achange?

Coleman: I believe that they did. I believe that therewas quite a bit of participation. I feel thatperhaps more could have been done toinvolve the actual staff, but reflectingback, and when I ultimately became aregional manager for Western, or evenwhen I tried to institute it down asassistant regional director in Amarillo, Isensed that probably Sacramento and theideas here were much more progressive,so I felt in moving to Amarillo I wasprobably going back in time ten years. Asa matter of fact, just as an example, twoweeks after I was in Amarillo as the newassistant regional director, a number of thewomen filed an EEO [equal employmentopportunity] complaint against theregional director and myself and another,Don Hawks [phonetic spelling], who was

14


the assistant regional director overadministration, and bringing these chargesagainst us. And I subsequently, when wefinally got it resolved, and I played aprincipal role in that, and some changeswere made in Amarillo, I asked a coupleof the people why they’d named me, I hadjust arrived, and they indicated, “Well, weknew things had been changed inSacramento. We thought unless wenamed you, we might not bring aboutsome change here.” Anyway, there werechanges there. I don’t know if we’regoing to get into this, though. There aresome changes that Reclamation wasunable to do. They made changes in termsof dealing with people and thesupervision, but they were unable to turnthe corner in some other areas.

The early period of my career wasunder direction of the Floyd Dominy whoreally understood water resourcedevelopment, water and power, and thebuilding of dams and canals, and knewwhat the people wanted, what thecongressional representatives wanted, andhe was able to deliver. And so during thefirst ten years, although I was just a staffengineer, I was well aware, I had had achance to spend a short time back in

15


Washington, was interested in the wholepolitical side of developing. But afterMr. Dominy left, and people like Mr.Armstrong and others, who, for variousreasons, had their own ways of managingReclamation, I believe the Reclamationleadership lost touch with what was reallyhappening in the western United States asit relates to the environmental side, thewhole interest of people, what they werewilling to pay in taxes, and that we asReclamation . . . And by then, I was a GS-14, so I did have opportunity to beinvolved with higher-level decisions. AndI remember trying to operate the systemhere in Sacramento as a [GS]-14, just thewater and power facilities, and then as anassistant regional director in Amarillo, thatwe really had one foot back in ancienthistory, and we were trying to stepforward into the future, but did not knowhow to do it, and really were stubbing ourtoes and tripping up and falling, and it wasvery difficult to try to, in a sense, bringthings together so that there was ameaningful and absolutely necessary rolefor Reclamation. And this was evenhappening in the mid-70s. Before I wentto Amarillo as assistant regional director, Iwas responsible for the finishing of theconstruction of New Melones–not the

16


construction per se, because the Corpsbuilt it, but the person down there reportedto me. And then when in filling, we had atremendous turmoil with theenvironmentalists. The person chainshimself to a rock, and I get a call from adeputy assistant secretary asking me to–it’s raining –and so asking me not to allowthe water to come up, don’t releaseanything more downstream, because of theproblems with the farmers downstream,and so it was one of these things whereyou hoped that it would stop raining,because that’s the only way we couldcomply with the Secretary’s Office. Iunderstood where he was coming from,but even then, in 1978-79, we were goingthrough a very difficult time inReclamation, of knowing how to balancewhat we were so good at, and that wasbuilding dams and canals andpowerplants, and operating them, asopposed to all these various interests fromthe environmental, and so it was at thattime, of course, in 1980, that I leftReclamation for Western Area Power. But it was with a certain sense thatcertainly at that time, Reclamation had adifficult time facing in 1978, ‘79, ‘80, thefuture of what they might be if theywanted to be something other than just an

17


O&M organization of existing facilities.

Petershagen: Interesting. Now, when did you go toAmarillo, then? That was still a Bureau ofReclamation job, correct?

Coleman: Yes, it was. That was the SouthwestRegion, one of seven regions at the time,and I went there in the fall of 1979. As alittle bit of history, I had been selected fora regional director candidacy program. Ialso was thinking I was going to beselected for the assistant regional directorin Denver. And really, Amarillo was mythird choice, and I had been encouraged tobid on that, something that would be ademonstration of good faith, a willingnessto move anyplace within Reclamation. Also, I had been, through someWashington sources, encouraged that if Iwould take any one of these, that within ayear I would be elevated to regionaldirector, which was really my ultimategoal. That was my goal, was to become aregional director for the Bureau ofReclamation. And so a day after I got thephone call saying I wasn’t going to be theassistant regional director in Denver, I gotthe phone call saying I was going to begoing down to Amarillo, which kind ofwas a surprise to me, but as a good

18


soldier, I told my wife and family, and wemoved to Amarillo, Texas, and spent alittle over a year there as the assistantregional director.

Petershagen: Oftentimes we have to make career-enhancing moves to areas that we may nototherwise choose to live in, and I think Isense, in the way you’re describing this,Dave, that that was behind the Amarillomove, that you certainly had not selectedAmarillo as a place that you wanted to livesome day. How long were you there then?

Stayed in Amarillo a Little over a Year asAssociate Regional Director

Coleman: I was in Amarillo a little bit over a year–about thirteen months. I had beenstationed in Texas at Wichita Falls manyyears before, so I was a little bit familiarwith the Panhandle of Texas.

“. . . when I got there . . . they were kind of tenyears behind in terms of looking to the future andthe needs. . . . lot of serious problems with regardto completing some of the construction . . . But it

was good experience. . . .”

I was more concerned about the culture ofthe organization down there, and when I

19


got there, that was true, that they werekind of ten years behind in terms oflooking to the future and the needs. Andwe got caught up with a lot of seriousproblems with regard to completing someof the construction down at CorpusChristi, Three Rivers, and then a projectwe got started in Oklahoma. But it wasgood experience.

Approached about Going to Billings as RegionalDirector

I enjoyed working down there withthe people, but what happened is, midwaythrough that assignment down there, I hadbeen approached about going to Billings,Montana as the regional director, and Iwas very excited about that.

“. . . several months later I was told that they weregoing to put a political appointee up there, as well

as up in Idaho–Boise–and either one of thosewould have been a good choice for me to become

regional director. . . .”

And then several months later I was toldthat they were going to put a politicalappointee up there, as well as up in

20

2. The appointment in Boise was Lester (Bill) W. Lloyd whoserved 1980-1986 and had previously been regional director in Billings,and the appointment in Billings was Joseph B. Marcotte Jr. who serveduntil 1985.


Idaho–Boise2–and either one of thosewould have been a good choice for me tobecome regional director.

So when that happened, alongabout June of 1980, I realized that somepeople who within Reclamation I’m surewith very good intentions at the veryhighest levels–and I should back up andsay that when I was in Amarillo I wascompeting for what was then the first ofthe SES [Senior Executive Service]candidate positions, and Reclamation onlyhad one. And I went up against a verygood friend of mine, Warren Jamison–who left the Bureau and went withSouthwestern Power Administration–butWarren and I were neck-and-neck, and Ibasically won out over Warren and wasappointed to that position, had just startedit then in the summer.

“. . . I had loved Reclamation . . . what they did,but I realized at that time that certain things werehappening in the dynamics that maybe weren’tfavorable toward me and my career, and I had

been a very faithful soldier to this time . . .”

21


Approached by the Western Area PowerAdministration about Becoming an Area Manager

in Sacramento, the Equivalent of a RegionalDirector in Reclamation

But when I got the word that I wasn’tgoing to be considered for regionaldirector for the other jobs, and they weresorry but that’s the way it was, and thereprobably wouldn’t be any other openings. I could wait until my boss in Amarilloretired, and he was looking at three or fouryears. I was in that kind of a state where Ihad loved Reclamation, I loved what theydid, but I realized at that time that certainthings were happening in the dynamicsthat maybe weren’t favorable toward meand my career, and I had been a veryfaithful soldier to this time, but when I gotthat phone call the end of July saying,“Dave, would you like to be our regionaldirector back in Sacramento with WesternArea Power [Administration]?” and thename there was area manager, but it hadthe same level and you interacted with thesame–at the political side–that was anopportunity that I weighed very carefully,because I didn’t want to leave theReclamation family, but I weighed it andfelt that maybe now was the time.

22


“Actually, three years before I had been offeredthe area manager/regional director for Western

when it was formed, to be in Salt Lake. But at thattime it didn’t seem apropos to move my family

from Sacramento to Salt Lake. . . .”

I had watched power that changedin the mid-70s under President Carter’sadministration, a new Department ofEnergy. Actually, three years before I hadbeen offered the area manager/regionaldirector for Western when it was formed,to be in Salt Lake. But at that time itdidn’t seem apropos to move my familyfrom Sacramento to Salt Lake. And sothat’s in essence one of the major reasonsI left Reclamation and moved over toWestern Area Power then in the fall of1980, about October of 1980.

Petershagen: If we can go back to Amarillo for just aminute (Coleman: Yes.) you were therefor a year or thirteen months, and as youdescribed it, it was somewhat of a stepback in time in terms of management styleand so forth. Did Dave Coleman leave amark in Amarillo, do you think?

Working in the Regional Office in Amarillo

Coleman: Well, I think so. When some people

23


heard, some of the very people that hadstuck their head in the door and said,“We’re gonna burn a cross on your lawntonight,” or when they made otherstatements that, “You can’t ride a bus,people of your stature don’t ride buses inAmarillo,” or “You can’t go out and docertain things,” I feel that I was muchabove board, but I brought to Amarillo anew sense of humanity, plus I brought anew sense of how to get a handle on theorganization as far as our purpose in lifedown there, and interacting with all thefive states. I met with congressmen andsenators, I was out there at the forefront inmanaging the day-to-day operations. As amatter of fact, my boss did like to do thesocial circuit and interact with thecongress people, and I was happy if he didthat and I ran the internal operations of680 people in some twelve offices. WhenI was to leave, many people came by andsaid, “Would you reconsider, would youplease stay here?”

“. . . we should have been downsized . . . we hadabout almost 700 people in our region and . . .

enough work . . . to support about 500. So I hadlaid out a plan . . . how we could . . . make some

changes here, so that out in the future, Amarillo . .. wouldn’t be a target of some major shutdown. . .

24

3. Additional information about this topic may be found in BillyE. Martin’s oral history interviews in the Reclamation history program.


.”

I think in other areas where I left myimpact, we should have been downsizedeven then, and we had about almost 700people in our region and basically we hadenough work, in looking to the future, tosupport about 500. So I had laid out aplan in the summer of 1980 to my boss ofhow we could go through and make somechanges here, so that out in the future,Amarillo as a regional headquarterswouldn’t be a target of some majorshutdown.3 That went on deaf ears, butlater on, ultimately they did shut it downand consolidate, and you have all thatinformation.

“. . . as early as 1979 and ‘80 and ‘81, there washandwriting on the wall. . . .”

But as early as 1979 and ‘80 and ‘81, therewas handwriting on the wall. And I hadtalked to some of our managers downthere about, “How could you stand backand make your organization moreefficient? Because someday these waterusers and the power users are not going tobe willing to continue such a large payroll

25


here in Amarillo.” And we started someof the decentralization, in terms of like theAlbuquerque Office, the El Paso Office,looking at our offices in Oklahoma Cityand Austin in terms of planning. So someof that was dealt with.

Believes He Is Remembered More as a PeoplePerson than a Technical Person by the People He

Supervised

Probably the people saw me theremore as a people person, rather than atechnical person, even though at that timeI had a couple of engineering degreesunder my belt. They saw me more as apeople person and somebody that knewtheir family, asked about their childrenand such. Where I couldn’t do that withall 700, I knew quite a few people, thefamilies. So when they’re hurting or suchlike that, I would say, “How’s your wifedoing? How’s your husband? How aboutyour oldest son? He did a super job in thefootball game last Friday,” or somethinglike that. That’s probably how theyremember me, just as I think probably thepeople in C-V-O [Central Valley Office],over here in Cottage Way, the few that areleft that worked for me, still remember memore as a people person. Although I

26


always felt that I was able to get the bestout of the people in terms of theirtechnical side also. I mean, here . . .

END SIDE 1, TAPE 1. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.BEGIN SIDE 2, TAPE 1. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.

Petershagen: This continues the interview of DavidColeman on June 14, 1994. This is Tape1, Side B.

Dave, I’m sorry the recordercaught us and shut off there as you were inmid-sentence. Can you complete yourthoughts that you were trying to makethere?

Coleman: Well, George, you were asking what Imight be remembered for with the peoplethere in Amarillo. And of course theAmarillo Office has long since beendissolved, but I think people remember meas a people person, one who cared aboutpeople and recognized them, providedincentives, gave them credit for the kindof work that they did. They probably alsosee that I set a professional example interms of the quality of work, the type ofboth technically . . . We had an interestingcustomer base there in Amarillo that wehad to serve, primarily water. The Plains

27


Electric really had taken with purchasingpower out of Elephant Butte, and we justhad a few small powerplants in thatregion. But I think for the most part thepeople would remember me as a caringindividual, a strong manager, strongsupervisor. I knew how to set goals, aparticipative type manager, learned fromsome of the things that we had talkedabout earlier, with my experience withJake Ossofsky and several others whowere very high on making good managersout of junior supervisors.

Petershagen: Of course you weren’t in Amarillo verylong, but another one of your strongpoints, I think, that people around thisoffice would talk about, is communityinvolvement. Were you able to reallyinvolve yourself very much in thecommunity in Amarillo?

Coleman: Well, not to the degree–for instance backat Coulee Dam I was in Rotary Club andan officer in Rotary Club; officer in theToastmasters, area governor, traveled toCanada and central part of WashingtonState. Down in Amarillo I joined theChamber of Commerce, I was involved ina local non-denominational church there,active there in ministering to the

28


community in different areas. And thenalways had an interest in the professionalside of ASCE [American Society of CivilEngineers] and IEEE [Institute ofElectrical and Electronic Engineers]. While I was there, the big seam [?] for mewas to really get acquainted with what wasgoing on in the Southwest Region.

And then also I’m a family person,and I wanted to make sure that . . . It wasquite a transition: I had a daughter whowas a junior in high school, and that wastough, because she had been a cheerleaderat her high school here, and she moveddown after the football season to Texas,and didn’t miss a beat, and continued, andended up coming back her senior yearhere and was one of three valedictorians. So to be able to make that transition to anew high school and then come back andstill keep “A’s” . . . But as a father and ahusband, I wanted to make sure I putenough time in on that. So the first year Ibalanced between my job for Reclamationas a new assistant regional director, andbeing a family person. And that limited,to a certain degree, how much time I couldput out into the community. Had I stayedthere, I would have been much moreactive in the community the second and

29


third years, as I have–my history willshow that I’ve coached Little League andI’ve been involved in counseling withfoster children and foster parents,Sacramento County, and major activitieslike that–alcohol and sexual abuse, tryingto help people to transition, families andsuch like that.

Petershagen: Now, you mentioned that you hadsomewhat of an unusual customer basethat you had to deal with while you werethere? Can you amplify that a little bit? What do you mean by unusual? Let’s justput it that way.

“The big thrust was the water contracts. . . .”

Coleman: Okay. Well, maybe it’s unusual from astandpoint of what they expected out ofReclamation. Reclamation hadobligations to provide water throughout allthe five states. The big thrust was thewater contracts.

Worked Through Some Issues with Recreationand Environmental Proponents in the Region

But for instance, I was in Amarillo abouttwo to three months when I was asked togo up to Oklahoma and meet with a group

30


of recreation and environmentalists whowere very unhappy over how we had beenoperating a reservoir up there. And a veryhostile crowd. My boss said, “Dave,you’ve got a good record in Sacramentomeeting with hostile crowds and workingthings through. Would you go up there?” Well, I did, and I found myself, it wassuch a hostile crowd, I had met with someof our own staff who’d been up there, andI was wondering how could I approachthis whole topic here, and back when Iwas first married, we went fromWisconsin, a cold winter, to SouthernCalifornia where some relatives lived. Onthe way we drove through WesternOklahoma and down through thePanhandle, and I made reference to that,that I enjoyed . . . My first time I haddriven through this country was right afterwe were married, and I really enjoyedOklahoma and West Texas and had stayedovernight right out here, which was thetruth, I enjoyed it. A snowstorm wasfollowing us, but I enjoyed that. And Iused that to kind of break some ice. AlsoI got there early, as I normally do in thesekind of situations, and found a couple ofpeople that I’d got to know, so that I knewI had somebody out in the audience who atleast I had made some contact, and I

31


remembered their names, and I said, “Iappreciated all of you coming out here,and I’ve had a chance to talk with JoeSmith and Mrs. Carnegie here, andthey’ve expressed their concerns, andwhat I want to do, I’ve got somebodythat’s up here with me, I’m brand new tothis region, but we want to hear yourconcerns, and we’re going to put them ona flip chart.” This was one of the firsttimes that Reclamation used flip charts outthere to capture people’s ideas. And Ididn’t think it was so innovative, but sincethen, that’s been used, for the last fifteen-,twenty years, now used to take a hostilegroup, so they could see their concerns. Anyway, we had an interesting customerbase, because we had not gone through–we did serve, we had contracts onrecreation, but it did allow us to fluctuate,but now they were unwilling, see. And wedidn’t have the Park Service and the Fishand Game standing with us on that. Andin a matter of a year, we were able to getsome of those folk, where theyunderstood. We made some concessionson the rivers: Pecos, some of the other–Rio Grande–river systems to try toaccommodate what I considered a broadercustomer base, than just looking at onesegment, the water customers. And I

32


think that’s one of the reasonsReclamation ran into so much difficulty inthe 80s, is they had a tough time standingback and looking at the broader customerbase. They’re now doing it, they’ve beendoing it here in California. I think we’vedone it for a much longer period of time,but I think that that’s what I meant interms of the unique customer base–maybenot so unique with any area, whether it’sNebraska or South Dakota–but at that timeit was a unique customer base.

Petershagen: I see. Then from Amarillo you returned toSacramento, correct?

Became Area Manager for Western Area PowerAdministration in Sacramento

“We were located in the same building as theReclamation. [I] was looked upon as a traitor,

which was very hard for me to take . . .”

Coleman: I returned to Sacramento, yes, and Ibecame the Area Manager for WesternArea Power. We were located in the samebuilding as the Reclamation. [I] waslooked upon as a traitor, which was veryhard for me to take–not everybody. Whathad happened, and it’s very unfortunate . .. Well, I should give some history.

33


While in Sacramento He Led a Fight to KeepWestern Area Power Administration from Taking a

Lot of Reclamation’s FTEs

When Western was formed in 1977under the Carter administration, the powerfunctions were separated away fromBureau of Reclamation. I’m sure youhave this all documented. It was a fairlyclean break in the other regions. Therewas hardly any power in Amarillo, so thatleft us there. But we were predominantlywater in Amarillo. But in other areas, inBillings, and in Loveland-Fort Collins,which was the equivalent of Denver, andin Salt Lake, you had large powerorganizations that there was a clean breakand they were all moved over. Whathappened is, I carried the responsibilityfor Reclamation, arguing against thedivision of losing power. And as a result,somebody by the name of Eb Watts andmyself were a team that then went upagainst Gordon Estes and Jerry Jubba[phonetic spelling] from Watertown,representing Western.

“. . . Sacramento was the only region that didn’tgive up much to power. There were only like

some thirty positions . . .”

34


We went through a tremendous push-and-shove, but as a result, Sacramento was theonly region that didn’t give up much topower. There were only like some thirtypositions, whereas in Billings you had350; in Salt Lake and Phoenix and otherplaces, several hundred switched over. But I was on Reclamation’s side before Iwent to Amarillo, fighting the issue whyWestern Area Power should not take theseFTE [full-time equivalent]. And theycould only just have part of thedispatchers.

“. . . then I go to Amarillo, and I’m down there forthirteen months, and that’s probably the onlyreason Western could even hire me, becauseotherwise there was some distaste toward me

from Western, because I had supportedReclamation’s position. . . .”

“But when I switched back here then to becomethe Area Manager, my boss, [Bob] McPhail, who . .

. had offered me the area manager job, and hesaid, ‘I’m going to offer this to you, but I want youto undo what you did against us a year-and-a-half

ago.’. . .”

So as a result, obviously there werea lot of victories for Reclamation here inSacramento. But then I go to Amarillo,

35


and I’m down there for thirteen months,and that’s probably the only reasonWestern could even hire me, becauseotherwise there was some distaste towardme from Western, because I had supportedReclamation’s position. But when Iswitched back here then to become theArea Manager, my boss, [Bob] McPhail,who I had known from beforehand, hadoffered me the area manager job, and hesaid, “I’m going to offer this to you, but Iwant you to undo what you did against usa year-and-a-half ago.”

After He Came to Sacramento He Recognized aNeed for More Staff since Things Had Changed

And I said, “Now Bob, I’m going to haveto be true to my conscience on this, but letme look at all the things that might have tobe done.” I ultimately accepted theposition, came here, and the organizationthen changed where we were able tosuccessfully point out why some changesshould be brought about, because now it’s1981-82, and so Western’s organizationnow is currently about 125 FTE, plusanother 100 contract people, whereaswhen I came here it was like 35 andmaybe another 10 contract people. We’vetaken on major responsibilities, though,

36


over from Reclamation, and all new, sothere’s justification. But it was in thattype of environment that I came back.

“So my marching orders, when I came back . . .was to go after all these benefits that the Feds are

giving away to the investor-owned utilities, andsomehow bring those back to your main client,

the preference customers . . .”

So some of the people that Iworked with over at Cottage Way reallyfelt I was a “traitor,” per se, by nowcoming back to Western, and now kind ofrebuilding and trying to maintain status. And of course I had some differences evenwith Gordon, my predecessor, becauseprobably the biggest move was in thewhole power contract side. Mypredecessor, who had come fromReclamation, didn’t want to rock the boatwith regard to PG&E [Pacific Gas andElectric] and all those other things. Andthat then was part of the old school ofReclamation, because from a politicalstandpoint, they didn’t want to doanything against PG&E or Southern CalEdison, or the powers in the Northwest. They didn’t do anything for the powercommunity, and that’s one of the reasonswhy our power customers wanted to see a

37


new Western Area Power. So mymarching orders, when I came back toreplace Gordon, who’s a friend of mine,was to go after all these benefits that theFeds are giving away to the investor-owned [utilities], and somehow bringthose back to your main client, thepreference customers, the SMUDs[metropolitan utility districts], City ofRoosevelt, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, all theirrigation districts, all the military bases,all the state institutions, the prisons, thehospitals, whatever. And so that’s what Iwas challenged to do.

“. . . they weren’t aware that we’re trying to undosome things that Interior had not been doing and

had just let go for twenty years. . . .”

So in a sense, where some of mycritical people are saying, “Well, Dave’sbuilding an empire over there,” theyweren’t aware that we’re trying to undosome things that Interior had not beendoing and had just let go for twenty years. And so that’s been brought back on track. But our power organization today is somuch different than what would be viewedback in 1979 and ‘80. But that gives youa little more personal how I viewed it. I’ve sensed people who are my friends

38


remain my friends, but those I had workedwith who weren’t my friends, there alwayswas a sense of “Why did he betray us bycoming here, and now making Westernalmost an equal to Reclamation?” Anyway, you always have to deal withthat. That’s life, you know–I’m willing toaccept that. But I still have many friendsin Reclamation, and Reclamation still hasa very warm spot in my heart.

Petershagen: You used the expression “that’s life,” andyou’re “willing to accept that,” but I’msure that in the sense of trying to be agood company man or a good soldier onbehalf of the Bureau of Reclamation, andalso as a people-oriented person, thatwhile you were experiencing this,certainly in the first couple of years youwere here at Western, it must have tornyou up a little bit inside.

Hoped to Have Close Relations with Reclamation,but That Has Been Developing Only over the Last

Few Years

Coleman: Yes, it did, because I didn’t change mywork ethic, and I didn’t change havinggoals and that, but to try to establish . . . Iwanted to establish a partnership withReclamation, and to meet with the

39


regional director, because I felt thatReclamation was going to run intotroubles in the 80s, and they could haveutilized a good strong other agency,Western, because after all we take aresource that they generate for us and wemarket it. And I felt that there was a placeto have a very strong partnership. Butmost of the regional directors really werefocused-in on what Reclamation wasdoing, and they never–it’s only been in thelast five or six years–the last two regionaldirectors who really look at Western asbeing a potential partner, or it could becomplementary to what Reclamation does.

Petershagen: Who was the regional director at the timethat you took your position with WAPA[Western Area Power Administration]?

Coleman: Okay, well, we were in transition. Therewas Billy Martin, Mike Catino, these arethe people. And Dave Houston came in asregional director. And then LarryHancock, and then Roger Patterson. Daveand I became friends, and it wasn’t onlyuntil the second half of Dave’s tour overhere. I helped Dave . . . Dave had nevermanaged an organization before, and so heand I met and I gave him a lot of help onthat. But the first several years, I sensed

40


that he didn’t want to really give muchcredit to Western, because it wasn’tpolitically healthy to carry any messageback to headquarters or the newCommissioner that things were workingout. But the last several years that DaveHouston was in office, we workedtogether quite a bit, and he sensed thatwe’re going to be around, and why notwork with us. Of course Larry Hancockused to work for me, and Roger’s beenaround, fairly young, but I had known ofhim and he had known of me.

Petershagen: So that alliance that you speak of betweenthe two agencies is really starting to takeshape now.

Coleman: Well, it has over the past several years. We started a task force when I was here, Iwas instrumental in starting it. And that’snow still meeting every several months,whereas before there was lack ofcommunication. Let’s face it, I saw iteven before I became an employee ofWestern. But Western Area Power, forwhatever reason, and there are a lot ofthem that are laid out there, has alwayshad an abundance of money, and until thelast year, abundance of FTE employees. And so for all those years I was area

41


manager for Western, rarely was it anissue of needing money or staffing and soforth, whereas you just go down the streetto Reclamation, they have been hard-pressed. And so that’s been a sore,sensitive spot between Reclamationemployees.

Reclamation Hasn’t Had Money to Maintain andUpgrade Units, and Western Cannot Provide

Money for That

But in Western, for instance, we can’tspend money for cloud seeding or forupgrading units, like the ShastaUnits–there’s three of those that need tobe rewound. And the it’s in the powercustomers’ best interest to have thoserewound and upgraded, because once theyfail, that costs a lot of money, we have togo replace it with Northwest power. Butwe can’t provide Reclamation with moneyto do that. Or like building the fishstructure to divert water through thepenstocks, rather than having to bring thecold water through the outlet works.

“. . . we can’t come up with a way of providing thatmoney whereas we could actually increase power

rates and find that money and do that, becauseit’s in the power community’s best interest. But

42


what has happened year after year after year withReclamation, they have to prioritize their funding

and the upgrading of maintenance–generationgets a much lower priority. . . .”

But we can’t come up with a way ofproviding that money whereas we couldactually increase power rates and find thatmoney and do that, because it’s in thepower community’s best interest. Butwhat has happened year after year afteryear with Reclamation, they have toprioritize their funding and the upgradingof maintenance–generation gets a muchlower priority.

“. . . something that should have been rewound . .. say eight years ago . . . it’s always in the out

years . . . being slipped. . . . one of those units willcrash and they will have to go in an emergency . .. But you’ve always got that difference of opinion

and view from the Western as opposed to theReclamation, where to spend the money. There’s

always the emphasis on the water withReclamation. . . .”

And as a result, something that shouldhave been rewound– generators three,four, and five–say eight years ago, it’sbeen in the budget, it’s always in the outyears, but it’s still being slipped. One of

43


these days, one of those units will crashand they will have to go in an emergency,and hopefully we will able to rebuild it. But you’ve always got that difference ofopinion and view from the Western asopposed to the Reclamation, where tospend the money. There’s always theemphasis on the water with Reclamation.

“And of course then you had the issue of ‘Shouldthe powerplants come to Western?,’ and that wasdecided in 1979-80 that no, it should not, but that

still resurfaces. . . .”

And of course then you had the issue of“Should the powerplants come toWestern?,” and that was decided in 1979-80 that no, it should not, but that stillresurfaces. It resurfaced when the State ofCalifornia just two years ago, with someblessing under President Bush’sadministration, should you transfer theCVP [Central Valley Project] to the Stateof California? and should the powerplantsgo, or should the powerplants go toWestern? So anyway, that’s kind of anoverview from the power versus water andthe attention that’s placed on it, and theinterest there.

Petershagen: So if I understand correctly what you’ve

44


said, it sounds as though the Bureau ofReclamation’s focus really is on waterdelivery, and it’s almost as though they’restuck with generation, and I guessprobably depending who you talk to inReclamation, they may or may not want tohave that function.

Coleman: Oh, I think that’s true, although most ofReclamation would like to retain thegeneration, because they, of course, gettheir O&M covered by our powercustomers, and so in a sense it’s alwaysreferred to as kind of a “cash cow.” Andaccording to Reclamation Law, whenReclamation can’t pay for their own bills,they can tap into the power side. So Idon’t think they want to give up thepowerplants, but it’s just that water hasalways had a priority, and now they’rebeing forced to take a harder look at theenvironmental, the fishery, and such likethat.

Environmental Issues and Auburn Dam

Now, I don’t want to give theimpression that we didn’t look at it in thelate 1970s and 80s, but we looked at

45


salinity control in the Delta and such, butwater to our water customers was alwaysthe highest priority. The only thing thatusurped that was a flood control operation,and so that was the highest priority. BothReclamation and Western are paying somepenalties now that are being extractedfrom us by the environmentalists, and theinfluence that they have with Congress. And I’m not saying that’s all bad–I mean,I was caught up with the whole issue ofShould Auburn Dam be built? And weoperated it and were involved when thediversion structure was first put in. I hadleft Reclamation when they had theflooding and it washed it out, but thewhole scenario of who’s going to pay forwater and power?–because the waterpeople could not pay for the price of waterif they built Auburn–and I maintain that atleast the numbers that we had processed,that our power customers could not affordto pick up the power costs, and surely notany additional water costs.

Petershagen: Another component of all that, though, isflood control. When we talk about theAuburn Dam–well, even today now, stillpart of the discussion focuses on justexactly what kind of a dam should it be,and that’s largely a functional

46


determination: Should it be a floodcontrol dam, or should it be a high dam, orwhat are we going to do with it? Whenwe’re putting together a project like that,what sort of a value do you put on floodcontrol? Is there a way of assigning adollar value to that?

Flood Control Issues in Sacramento

Coleman: Well, I believe there is, but when youassign a dollar value, then you also haveto decide who’s going to pay for that. Justthis past week, Joe Countryman, who wasone of my counterparts with the Corps ofEngineers for many years and is now aconsultant, is working for the City andCounty of Sacramento, and they havecome up with a new plan which doesn’tinvolve building Auburn Dam, but itinvolves operating Folsom a littledifferently, and it involves beefing up thelevies, and it involves certain otherevacuation, if there could be a once-in-a-hundred-years flooding. So at this point intime, those are the experts, with the Corpsand other people. I felt when I wasresponsible for those ten years inoperating Folsom, that we could operate itand the levy system and that, and meet theneeds of the people in Sacramento County

47


without an Auburn Dam.

Part of my concern on Auburn iswho is going to pay, because I think we’veseen evidence, the different task forces,that neither the people of the city or thecounty really want to pay very much forflood control. They don’t want it tohappen when you get the floods thatwe’ve had over the last twenty years–it’sonly happened three or four times whenthe levies along the American River havebeen very high, but for the most part, Idon’t think that Congressman [Victor]Fazio or [Bob] Matsui will be able to putforward a plan that the people ofSacramento are willing to pay for, at theprice that there will be for floodcontrol–because if you just build a floodcontrol dam at Auburn, the water people,the power people, are not going to want topay for that, because they’ll pay a smallincrement and say “that’s our share,” butthat will have to be shared, the burden. And I don’t think the taxpayers fromBoston to Atlanta are going to want to payfor that anymore either. Those days aregone when they’re willing to, like they didin Shasta and other of the CVP.

Petershagen: So there’s almost no advocacy group that

48


could be put together, there’s no agendathat you could frame that would bringenough people together, I think is whatyou’re saying, that would really be willingpay for an Auburn Dam anymore–or atleast as you see it today. Is that a fairparaphrase of what you said?

Coleman: I think so. I think that’s a fair assessmenttoday–unless, of course, somethinghappens and we do lose control of Folsomor something happens, and then the peopleexperience some heavy flooding, then theymight be willing to. But I think for rightnow they’ll try to make modifications inthe various existing features, and maybepay for a little flooding of trailer courts orsomething, somewheres in the county, andthat’ll be the extent of it right now. I thinkthat that’s basically the mentality of thepeople, and even though I felt thatCongressman Fazio had a good plan, andhe moved it out and tried to get a sense ofthe support, but the support wasn’t there.

Petershagen: Some of, especially the more modernprojects that I can think of here inCalifornia, have involved, perhaps, dam-building by the Corps of Engineers, andthen operation is assumed by Reclamationin one shape or another. And of course

49


then if there’s power generation associatedwith that, the power is then marketed byWAPA, and it just seems that that sort of asequence of bringing all these differentgovernment agencies together is terriblyconfusing as opposed to kind of thethumbnail sketch, I guess, of maybeputting in Keswick Dam, where that’s allthe Bureau of Reclamation, just oneagency doing it, sounds easy. So, in yourrole as the area manager for Western,would you confirm that sort of anassessment? Is it really difficult when youget all these agencies working together onthese projects, or do they go just likeclockwork, just the way they read in thehistory books?

Coleman: Well, actually, those that I’ve beeninvolved with, we did pretty well. I wasnot involved in the construction ofFolsom. The Corps built Folsom Dam,but the Bureau built the powerplant, andthen ultimately the Bureau operated thesystem and I got involved then in 1969with that. At New Melones, the Corpsbuilt both the dam and the powerplant, andthen we took over from there. Theyactually built the switchyards too, but wetook it all over and operated everythingthere. But a part of that is how Congress

50


has decided to divide up responsibilitiesamong the agencies, where the Corps hadflood control, and so they get mandated,like the 1944 Act, to build certainfacilities, but they know they can’t operateit. Interior has the responsibility to marketthe water. And now of course we have theresponsibility to market all the power fromall the powerplants–even though we can’tbuild a powerplant. Interior can build one,or the Corps could build one, but we can’tbuild a powerplant–we have the marketingresponsibility. I don’t see it as thatconfusing for people like myself who areinvolved with it, but today you have tohave a whole series of contractualarrangements with the State of Californiaand Fish and Wildlife and National ParkService, as well as between Interior andWestern, and what I see today is anorganization like mine here, we have to doa very good job of somehow bringing ournew people in, who have no history withReclamation.

END SIDE 2, TAPE 1. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.BEGIN SIDE 1, TAPE 2. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.

Petershagen: This continues the interview of DavidColeman on June 14. This is Tape 2, SideA.

51


Dave, as we finished the previoustape, you were describing someorganizational changes or at least anorganizational way of doing business thatyou thought needed to be established tocoordinate some of these projects, and tocontinue our operations.

Reclamation and Western Have Lost CorporateMemory in Recent Years

Coleman: Yes. Well, I feel that in today’s world,there are so many other organizations andinterest groups that an organization likeReclamation and Western need tocoordinate with, that it’s extremelyimportant, particularly if we’re makingsome major decisions that are going toimpact some people out there, that we do agood job of communicating andcoordinating within our own organization,as well as to all these externalorganizations. I also believe, too, that thekind of staffing that Reclamation hasacquired over the last ten years, as well asWestern, do not have any corporatememory, and so they’ve never worked forReclamation. Most of the people thatcame to Western had worked forReclamation. Today that’s not true, sothat I find, in dealing with my own staff

52


here, they don’t necessarily understandwhy certain decisions were made in the‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s, or ‘80s, and so if theydon’t ask, I find we need to give themsome history, some background–not thatwe want them to operate like it was 1965,because they can’t, but that they shouldhave some understanding of what went onin terms of the whole Trinity RiverDivision, why that water was divertedover to the Central Valley, and why thingshappen in Bakersfield that somehow couldimpact both Reclamation and Western. Ialso feel that we need to provide thattraining.

Issues with People and Esprit de Corps

We have a different type ofindividual. I was joking with some peopleout at UC-Davis a couple of weeks ago,that I will finish forty years here thismonth, working ten hours a day, and thatI’d be retiring later this year, and theykind of looked at me and said, almostimplied, “Well, that sounds good, but itsounds kind of dumb too. And we reallydon’t want to work that hard. We thinkwe can do well for a company . . .” WhatI see in the generation that’s working here,the younger generation that we’re bringing

53


in, both with Reclamation and Western, isthat they have some very strong technicalskills. They’re actually far more skilledthan I was when I was a junior engineer,in terms of their skills and abilities. Butthey are loyal–my goal is if they can beloyal to their immediate supervisor and tothe project that they’re working on, andthat I pay them well so that they don’t juststay six months or a year and go on for anew challenge. That’s my goal. Theydon’t have any interest in looking at beinga part of a Reclamation family or part of aWestern family. It’s very hard to get themto come out to company picnics and beinvolved with the company spirit, so thenthat plays itself out as they interact in themajor projects, and I see that inReclamation and other Federal employees,but I’ve always felt that Reclamation, andlater Western, had a higher professionalstandard, and a higher quality than otherFederal agencies–and I don’t want toname other Federal agencies–but I alwaysfelt that. But I feel that as we look to thefuture and we look at what we can do toserve our taxpayers and our customers outthere, both in water and power, we have tomake sure that the people that work for usbelieve in what we’re doing, and haveenough training and background so they

54


understand a little bit about the water,whether it’s water rights or quality in that,that they understand more than just thetechnical book-learning, which isexcellent, or just all the different featuresof their new personal computer they haveon their desk, or the mainframe, or thelinkage–that they don’t lose sight of theoverall mission of Reclamation, themission of Western Area Power: thatwe’re in this to serve our community, andour power customers, and our watercustomers, and many other new customergroups out there–but we need tounderstand the dynamics that’s going onin today’s world there.

Petershagen: So I take it if I were to walk in the door asa new employee here in the SacramentoArea Office for Western, that I couldexpect, at least for the next few months, tohave several hours of indoctrination?

Coleman: That’s true, you’d get something as itrelates to Reclamation, the history, since1902, something on Reclamation Law,then why there was a change in 1977 andhow Western Area Power was formed. You’d get some history on our customers,much more than just learning how atransmission tower is put together–

55


although that’s important–or theintricacies of a specific power contractwith Trinity County PUD [Public UtilityDistrict] or something like that.

Petershagen: In answering that, use the term why thedivision was made in 1977. Maybe nowwould be a good time to address that. Maybe you could give us your ideas onthe advent of Western or an independentmarketing agency within the Departmentof Energy.

Creation of the Western Area PowerAdministration in 1977

Coleman: Okay. Well, I think there’s two or threefactors, George: one is from the politicalstandpoint, some things were happening atthe national level that President Carter andhis staff maybe were forced into makingthe decision, but there were too manydifferent features in Energy that were alldoing their own thing–you had the wholeAtomic Energy Commission, you hadNuclear Power, and then you had thehydro side, like ourselves, the five power-marketing agencies. And quite frankly,it’s my opinion that in ‘77-‘78, theyweren’t sure what to do with the powermarketing agencies, because we’re quite a

56


bit different than operating the LivermoreLab, or Berkeley, or Los Alamos, or OakRidge, and Argonne Laboratories,Battelle, and so forth. But they decided tolump us all together, because in someway, somebody could relate electricity toenergy. So we became that. That’s onephase of it from a political standpoint. Ithink that the Democrats were right, thatsomething needed to be done to bringthem together. I’m not sure the powermarketing agencies needed to have beenbrought in, but that was mandated.

Reclamation Power Customers Had SometimesFelt They Were Shortchanged

There was another factor, though,that people who were receiving powerfrom Interior have always felt that thewater got such a strong emphasis and thatthey were always being shortchanged, andyou saw movement in the mid-70s of that,power customers, various cities and soforth, would not get a fair hearing–at leastin their perception–when they would comeand complain about certain things withInterior. It was always the water peoplewere always held in the highest level, andpower was kind of a second-rate type of–at least in many of the offices. And they

57


didn’t like that, and they saw this as anopportunity. “Let’s have the Federalgovernment form a separate, just forpower.” And of course there was even amovement within Interior, withinReclamation, of the people who weregoing to go into power saying, “We thinkwe can, now is the time to do it, we can dobetter, we can serve you better if you’llsupport us in making a Federal power-marketing agency.” Now keep in mindsome of them already existed–Bonnevilleexisted–so you had that, and you haddifferent types of things happening, likewith the Southwest, with TVA [TennesseeValley Authority], so that it made it a littlebit easier to carve that out. And I don’twant to say that Southwestern out of Tulsais just a paper organization, but they onlyhave about 170 employees and deal withcontracts, and they don’t worry about allthe major features. But Western was a bigoperation. When they were formed, theycovered fifteen states and took all thepower facilities that Interior had. And ofcourse you had Alaska Power which kindof stands by itself as . . ., and there’s oneother project up there. But anyway, thereseemed to be those two motivating forcesthat said, “It’s time to break away powerfrom Interior.”

58


There were several other factors, just Ithink the environmental community, someother communities out there, felt thatmaybe they would have better access ifsomehow separate power and we can workboth interior and power and get them . . . . I don’t know, that’s speculation on mypart. Maybe even some of the bona fideFish and other organizations felt thatwould be a better arrangement, byseparating power from interior. But thoseare what I saw within the United Statesimpacting it.

Petershagen: Why this sort of an organizationalarrangement? It seems to me that anotherapproach that might be just as valid, if onewere to set up a separate scheme forpower distribution, would be to put all ofthis under the Federal Power Commission. Is that a valid thought, do you think, firstof all? And was something like thatlooked at, do you know?

Coleman: I’m sure it was looked at, but the oldFederal Power Commission, which is nowFERC, Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, was a regulatory body, and Idon’t think that it would fit to put lineorganizations like Western and Bonnevilleunderneath a regulatory body. I think they

59


want to keep them separate. So no, Iprobably couldn’t support that, becauseyou probably want to keep the regulatorycommissions separate. They review ourrates, they review some other things. Ithink probably Congress and the taxpayerswould not want us linked that closely tothem. A person that was involved withthis whole thing is Robert Olson, who wasthe regional director for Reclamation, laterbecame area manager for Western. But hewas involved, along with Bob McPhailand the existing administrator, but he’slocated in Sacramento, in case you want totalk with Robert Olson. He works forBookman-Edmonston consulting firm.

Petershagen: Alright, thank you. To go on from there,let’s just talk about Western organization alittle bit. You were the area manager,roughly the equivalent, I think you’ve saidbefore, of the regional director (Coleman: Yes.) here in Sacramento. (Coleman: Yes.) And your immediate boss in thatrole was the administrator of the WesternArea Power Administration, correct?

Coleman: Yes, located in Golden, Colorado, inDenver.

Petershagen: Right. And now, since you’re no longer

60


the area manager, your official title I thinkis associate administrator?

Coleman: Yes, it is.

Petershagen: What do your duties involve in thatparticular position?

Work as Associate Administrator of the WesternArea Power Administration

Coleman: I have several responsibilities. I still workfor the administrator, and spend aboutforty percent of my time working out ofthe Denver headquarters office, but I’minvolved with Federal legislation, inreviewing that, and making some impactsin that area. More recently I’ve beeninvolved with strategic planning for ourorganization.

“. . . overseeing the contract negotiations with ourtwo major labor unions, which cover the fifteen

western states. . . .”

My principal duties, though, havebeen overseeing the contract negotiationswith our two major labor unions, whichcover the fifteen western states. And wehave major contracts with IBEW[International Brotherhood of Electrical

61


Workers] and A-F-G-E [AmericanFederation of Government Employees],and there’s been a lot of union activity inthe past several years, so they’ve asked meto bring some senior managementemphasis on that. So that’s taken a lot ofmy time.

Petershagen: That might be another area to look at. Inmaking the shift or the split from theBureau of Reclamation and establishingthe marketing agency, there must havebeen a lot of negotiations with the unionsconcerning that. All cordial? Allfriendly? Was all that smooth, or werethere any difficulties in making thatmove?

Coleman: Well, there were very limited activitieswith the professional or white collar unionat that time. They are just now gettingactive within the organization, even just inthe past year. IBEW, of course, it waswell coordinated. Earlier I was involvedin negotiating contracts with IBEW on themanagement side in the 70s, and so I’mwell acquainted with what went on there. What happened is that when Western wasformed, IBEW wanted to take all of thewage board people, Western-wide, andmake that one union, whereas we had a

62


local here, and we were fairlyindependent. The IBEW was fairlyindependent from the rest of the world,they were kind of–I don’t want to say“blinded,” but didn’t care what happenedin South Dakota or Colorado. Theywanted to make sure that right here inCalifornia IBEW got what they thoughtthey deserved. That all changed whenWestern was formed, and by choice ofboth Western and IBEW, there’s now afifteen-state union, so that when I’mnegotiating or working with the presidentof the union, even though right now thatindividual is located near Modesto, heactually represents all of Western, allfifteen states, and you have variousrepresentatives of IBEW in differentoffices, but they report to the head of whatwe call the Government CoordinatingCouncil Number One of IBEW.

Petershagen: Alright. Now I’m going to shift trackshere on you altogether. As you weregrowing up in the Bureau of Reclamation,most of us can point a finger at somebodythat we would consider a mentor thatfostered our careers along. Who mightyou nominate as the “Coleman mentor”?

Mentors at Reclamation

63


Coleman: Okay, there are going to be two people. One is Borden Wilbur [phonetic spelling]who was head of maintenance at GrandCoulee Dam, who when I was amechanical engineer, for three years there,I was extremely bored, and I didn’t likejust being a staff engineer. And herecognized that, but he also recognizedthat I generally had a good attitude, and hegave me some additional responsibility. But he did far more than that, heencouraged me, and when an openingcame to be supervisory civil and structuralengineer, to head that up, even though Ididn’t have a civil engineering degree, andeven though there were twenty people onthe surplus list, all civil engineers, he gaveme that opportunity. And then after beingin it two years, he also put me in and I wascompetitive and got in on what was calledthe Bureau’s Manager DevelopmentProgram. He had confidence in me, and Iwent on that for a year, all the way aroundthe country on different assignments. So Iwould pick him as one who was mymentor, and I still stay in contact withhim.

When I came down here, I had nowater experience, but Jake [Ossofsky]picked me over other people who were

64


already thirteens that wanted the job, orhad water. He had interviewed me, heliked what he saw, but I liked him, and wetalked some of the same language, but Icouldn’t spell water or hydrology. He hadthe confidence that I could gather aroundme the people that did know it, and gaveme a free hand. He didn’t bug me everyother day, in particular, when within threemonths we went into one of the worstflood control operations, and I was downhere around the clock with my staff. Andthat brought us together, we were verysuccessful, got recognized by the secretaryof interior, and by the Corps of Engineers. He had confidence in me that ultimately Iwas advanced to a [GS]-14, sitting next tohim, who was a fourteen, not beingthreatened by me. And then ultimately,when he had a heart attack, recommendedI take his place there, which I did.

So it would be both of those twoindividuals who I look to as mentors.

Petershagen: I think when I spoke with Jake Ossofsky,he led me to the impression that anybodycould learn the water aspect–what he waslooking for was somebody that couldmanage, and you’d pick up the waterbusiness as you went along.

65


Coleman: Uh-huh. Actually, you oversimplified, healways did take that position. (Petershagen laughs) But the waterbusiness in California, the dynamics, it’smore than just what releases to meetcontract, because it’s broader. So he’soversimplified the dynamics, but I alwaystried to protect our behinds. I figured if Iprotected his behind, mine would beprotected too. But I always looked at thatwater job over there as the toughest job inthe Bureau of Reclamation. I still feel thatway, because you can, in a very shorttime, get yourself in so much trouble, andall your superiors. And you can’t unravelit when the political calls come in.

Anyway, I have the greatest respectfor him. I learned from him to leave yourstaff alone, even though you kind ofquestion their abilities -- they’re so new,they’re learning. But he left me alone andrarely would he have to point out amistake or something. I mean, Iknew . . . . Anyway . . . .

Petershagen: Well, to follow along with the waterbusiness a little bit: I know in talking withpeople, some would describe the CentralValley Project as a water project, and ofcourse some of us that use electricity from

66


it, it’s just a big source of electricity. Then, of course, you get the people thatsee it as centered in the Delta, with part ofwhat is going on with the Central ValleyProject is trying to take the inflow fromthe north and somehow use that toaugment the irrigation that’s available inthe south. And I think we can say thatthat’s been done fairly successfully, butthen one of the issues we get into, ofcourse, is drainage coming out of the SanJoaquin Valley. That, and I think the issuewith the Peripheral Canal, are a couple ofthe major issues that Reclamation stillhasn’t solved. From your perspective–well, perhaps you’d like to tell us if youhad any association with any of thosedevelopments while you worked forReclamation, let me start there.

Coleman: I had quite a few associations with thosedifferent projects. I guess in response,George, to the question, though, I want togo back and acknowledge the people thatstood back and looked at the westernUnited States and the vision that they had,and not just doing things piecemeal,because if you look at the water systems,and the Central Valley is no exception, butif you look at what happened in the ‘30s,and Interior came in, even though the

67


State wanted to build the project first, andultimately did build their own project andyou look how that’s all complementary,that people had the vision to see how youcould spread those benefits across amajority of the people that lived there, andthe same was done in the power network. We have a doughnut in the western U.S.,but you have the ability to move insurpluses from Canada and the Midwest,through Oregon, to serve big loads, butalso to keep a balance, so you don’t haveoutages. There’s the links that goes backdown around Arizona and the MeadSubstation, and Phoenix and that area. Okay, looking at that, people werevisionary, so I have to give credit to them. But as we move then, to the transition, Ithink that changes did take place, and forthe most part, if you were oriented towardwater, you could make that change, butwith the exceptions that I’ve outlinedearlier. So could you be maybe a little bitmore specific with your question that Icould speak to?

Petershagen: Okay, sure. Let’s take the issue of thePeripheral Canal. That’s been politicizedand emotionalized and we’ve had chancesto vote for and against it. As I understandthe entire Central Valley, it would seem

68

4. Editor’s note: the Corps of Engineers constructed NewMelones in the late 1970s, but Reclamation operates it for waterdeliveries in the Central Valley Project. Since that time major dam

(continued...)


that the Peripheral Canal probably couldhave been built, say, twenty to thirty yearsago, whereas I’m not sure it can ever bebuilt now. And I think part of the reasonthat I say it can never be built now iseconomics, but far more is just thepoliticism–making politics out of it–andhow emotional we’ve all become about it. Maybe you could kind of provide us somesense of balance with how and why itreally is necessary.

Peripheral Canal

Coleman: Yes. Okay. Let me say that in looking atthe Delta, and for all those years that Iworked in the Central Valley OperationsOffice, I became very well acquaintedwith the Delta and the movement of water. And I was involved with the constructionof some of the Trinity River projects, soI’m well acquainted with diverting waterout of the Trinity River to the Sacramento. And I was involved in construction ofNew Melones, and I realized at that timethat was probably the last dam that wouldbe built by Interior,4 and come into

69

4. (...continued)construction by Reclamation has included McPhee Dam on the DoloresProject and Ridges Basin Dam on the Animas-La Plata Project–both inColorado. Once Ridges Basin Dam is completed, the only anticipatedconstruction on major dams is for reconstruction of existing dams toaddress safety of dams issues.


operation in ‘79, and that’s proved to betrue.

“. . . people need to make some priorities . . .because . . . you can’t build a large water projectand serve the whole metropolitan Los Angeles

with Feather River water or Shasta water, withouthaving some system to do it with. . . .”

But I think the people need to make somepriorities, and some choices, because onthe one hand, you can’t build a large waterproject and serve the whole metropolitanLos Angeles with Feather River water orShasta water, without having some systemto do it with. And I think that there’s beenso many alternatives put up to somehowmove water across the Delta, that if youdon’t want the smelt pumped out at Tracyor the Delta pumping plants, which hasmade the papers in the last three weeks,then you have to have some other arterythat takes the water from the North Deltaand gets it to the South Delta, so you canjump across there.

70


Economic Issues Include the Need to ProvideWater to Plants in Los Angeles or They Will

Relocate and Providing Water to Agriculture inKern County

But I don’t think the people will stand forany . . . They don’t understand all thedynamics, special interest groups knowthat if there’re plants at Pittsburghpolluting, they should get shut down; butthey don’t care, I don’t think, about theemployment of those plants. The same istrue if you stop the pumping at Tracy, thatmeans that a certain block of agriculture inKern County can’t be watered. So youtake that out of service. Of course, certainplants will pay higher costs and may moveout of Los Angeles County. I’m not thatknowledgeable to decide how we shouldmake those priorities, but somebody isgoing to have to make those decisions inthe future.

“I don’t think a Peripheral Canal, as it’s been onthe drawing board over the past fifteen years, willever get built. They can’t get approval to do that. .

. .”

I don’t think a Peripheral Canal, asit’s been on the drawing board over thepast fifteen years, will ever get built.

71


They can’t get approval to do that. Butpeople will have to make priorities,because we’ve seen it, like on theColorado River where they’ve shut downthe operation of certain powerplants to tryto protect the Grand Canyon. As a result,we’ve got to find power to replace thatpower. Now I’m not saying you shouldn’thave shut that down, but we’re seeing asimilar thing that could happen on theSacramento River to protect winter andspring and summer runs of salmon.

“To what degree can we raise the power rates sothat . . . people . . . will . . . be willing to have thatincreased by ten percent so we can protect thesalmon run? Because that’s how it plays itself

out. . . .”

To what degree can we raise the powerrates so that–like people who typically pay$35 a month, or $50 a month on a certainwater bill, or pay $125 a month on apower bill, will they be willing to havethat increased by ten percent so we canprotect the salmon run? Because that’show it plays itself out. Or you back it intoadditional water costs, which plays itselfout in higher grocery prices, if you’regoing to protect the salmon run.

72


“We can’t have it both ways, and that’s what we’reseeing right now, is who’s pushing and shoving. .

. .”

We can’t have it both ways, and that’swhat we’re seeing right now, is who’spushing and shoving. And as far as thePeripheral Canal, you’re right, twentyyears ago, it might have gotten built, butas late as ten years ago, it could not getbuilt, and I don’t think it will get built. Soother alternatives will have to bedeveloped. In the power generation side,we have come up with some new ways ofbuilding powerplants and producingpower, and new conservation techniques. We haven’t found very many ways on thewater side.

“You can conserve some water, but there’s nonew way to grow rice . . . when water was

restricted during the droughts was, ‘Let’s letLouisiana grow the rice, or let’s let Taiwan andChina grow the rice and import it.’ . . . I kind of

think I would like to keep the jobs in California, orkeep them certainly in the United States. . . .”

You can conserve some water, but there’sno new way to grow rice, and so peoplewho fly out of Sacramento going east ornorth raise questions why so much water

73


is wasted here? Well, is it really wasted? Does it come back to the Sacramento andmove on? There’s no better way. Thealternative a couple of years ago whenwater was restricted during the droughtswas, “Let’s let Louisiana grow the rice, orlet’s let Taiwan and China grow the riceand import it.” Is that what we want todo? I don’t know. I kind of think I wouldlike to keep the jobs in California, or keepthem certainly in the United States.

Petershagen: Let me stop you right there, because thistape is about to expire on us now.

END OF SIDE 1, TAPE 2. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.BEGIN SIDE 2, TAPE 2. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.

This continues the interview with David Coleman onJune 14. This is Tape 2, Side B.

Petershagen: Dave, someplace before we’re through, soI’ll just do it now and get it over with, Ineed to get an acknowledgment from youthat we are tape recording this interview,and we’re doing that with yourpermission.

Coleman: Yes, I acknowledge that we’re taping this,and you have my permission, George.

74


Petershagen: And the other thing is that this doesbecome a gift on your part to the UnitedStates, that you understand the terms ofthe Deed of Gift that I had you sign.

Coleman: Yes, I do understand the terms of the Deedof Gift.

Petershagen: Thank you.

Now, we were talking about, thePeripheral Canal was the particular subjectas we closed the last tape, and I think youhad completed your thought on that. (Coleman: Yes.) Is there anything furtherthat you need to add to that?

Coleman: Not for the Peripheral Canal, but there’sbeen several other projects that have beenextremely controversial also.

Petershagen: Let me come from way out of left fieldand mention the Eel River. Were youinvolved in any of the investigations thatwent on at looking at perhaps bringingwater from there?

Coleman: I was not personally involved in theinvestigation–only that we had certainneeds that we were projecting out in thefuture–but I had nothing to do with the Eel

75


River investigation or development.

Petershagen: But that was proposed, I think, largely toreplicate the Trinity River sort of thing(Coleman: Yes.) where water that goesdirectly into the ocean would be broughtby some means into the Sacramento River.

Coleman: Yes, they were considering both theRussian and the Eel Rivers up there, andto a limited degree, the Klamath.

Petershagen: And let’s see, going on from there, youhad talked about there are certain limits, ofcourse, that are placed on what you can doin the ways of water conservation. Besides exploring for new sources likethat, what might Reclamation be able todo, and still serve their customers?

Ways Reclamation Projects Might Conserve Water

Coleman: Well, they have done a number of things–and I’m sure you’ll be talking toReclamation people on this–but ways toprevent evaporation on reservoirs, ways touse a new lining system so you don’t havewater somehow disappearing out of thecanals because of leaks and otherdegradation of the system. Also, in manyareas the customers have gone to new

76


crops which take less water. And also thewhole area of the type of irrigation, to dripand sprinkler, rather than general flow outof an irrigation system, irrigation canal. So there’s a number of things that peoplehave done. That’s not my expertise interms of water conservation, but there’s alot of different things that have been usedto conserve it.

Petershagen: I understand. Let me try to shift subjectstotally once again and we’ll get right intoyour area of expertise, and that is, in aquick snapshot of the Central ValleyProject, it was largely begun as some sortof a water project, and using hydroelectricgeneration and transmission as a means ofhelping to pay for the project. Now, overyour career, electricity has certainlybecome a more important part of theCentral Valley Project–I’ll say it that way,I know that’s bad terminology–but youhave looked, I know, at bringing differentsources of power into California, such aswith the California-Oregon TransmissionLine. We’ve always had–“always” isanother bad word–but we’ve always hadsome sort of intertie with other sources. But looking at it from a customer[’s pointof view] why should I pay for more thanthe cost of hydrogeneration?

77


Coleman: Okay. Well, you’ve just picked out a verysensitive subject, and if you were on theSMUD [Sacramento Municipal UtilityDistrict] Board, you might argue that, andyou did in court in the early 80s, and sodid the irrigation districts, and theirrigation districts lost in court with us,and we worked out a compromise withSMUD. But another question that onewould have to ask is, “Do you want tohave just one-fifth of your power needsmet at a certain rate and then pay muchhigher costs for the other eighty percent,or do you want a melded rate?”

“. . . we produce about a third of the power thatwe actually sell. The Central Valley Project,

during a good year, above average water year, willproduce between one-fourth and a third of all the

power that we market. . . .”

Because what has happened is that thepower that’s produced–we produce abouta third of the power that we actually sell. The Central Valley Project, during a goodyear, above average water year, willproduce between one-fourth and a third ofall the power that we market.

“We have utilized the Intertie system . . . to importlow-cost, coal-fired steam, which otherwise would

78


have been trapped in the Wyoming-Montana-South Dakota area, as well as surplus hydro outof Canada and on the Columbia River . . . so that

industry could develop and residential peoplewouldn’t pay the exorbitant costs. And so we

have found that we would be importing$200 million worth of power to add onto what

would be the equivalent of about $35 million coststo produce the power here in California; and meld

it in . . .”

We have utilized the Intertie system,which Congress saw fit to build in the 60s,to import low-cost, coal-fired steam,which otherwise would have been trappedin the Wyoming-Montana-South Dakotaarea, as well as surplus hydro out ofCanada and on the Columbia River, toimport into California, which is theeighth-largest country in the world with30 million plus people; to bring low-costpower to Californians, so that industrycould develop and residential peoplewouldn’t pay the exorbitant costs. And sowe have found that we would beimporting $200 million worth of power toadd onto what would be the equivalent ofabout $35 million costs to produce thepower here in California; and meld it in sothat instead of having a hydro rate ofmaybe twelve mils per kilowatt hour, our

79


customers are willing to pay twenty-nineto thirty, thirty-one mills. Now, one of thereasons is that the PG&E rate–if you wantto go to some other supplier here, thePG&E rate instead of being thirty-one, isall the way from forty-five to sixty-fivemils. So even though we’ve melded it, westill have kept our costs only two-thirds ofwhat the investor-owned utilities are outthere.

Now if you’re one of the first thatgot in line, though, in like Palo Alto and afew of those, if you could protect thattwelve mil and make it fly, you probablywould. But Congress felt we shoulddistribute this power to the greatestnumber of users, and why let the surpluswater just go out to the ocean on theColumbia, when you could generatesurplus power. And part of the conceptwas there would be times maybe when wehad surplus in California, and there was aneed in the Northwest: why not move thatpower up there? And for the first time,with the construction of the third A-C[alternating current] line, last year was thefirst time in history that very much powerwas moved to the Northwest. We wereable to move some power back up there tohelp them. But globally, looking at an

80


inter- and intra-regional transfer of power,it seems in the best interests of everybodythat we have this melded rate andsupplement hydro, because the goodexample was the drought of ‘85, ‘86, ‘87,‘88, ‘89, when our reservoirs were verylow: We used the system to import powerin here for this whole northern and centralCalifornia. I’m not saying they wouldhave burned up, but it would have been adisaster for them economically, withoutthe power that we were able to bring in. And one can’t talk about power alone. You have to move that over into theability to pump water and do other thingsduring the drought for a shortage of water. So there’s a very complementary activity. But you don’t have that luxury on thewater side to be able to import water tokeep the water prices down. And so youjust have to pay what the costs are there.

“. . . of course, you don’t have the subsidy factorin power. By congressional law, we cannot, we’re

not on a subsidy, so we must charge our powercustomers our actual costs . . .”

And, of course, you don’t have thesubsidy factor in power. By congressionallaw, we cannot, we’re not on a subsidy, sowe must charge our power customers our

81

5. Referring to the Washington Public Power Supply System(WPPSS) ill fated venture involving a number of public utilities in thePacific Northwest.


actual costs, plus any incremental water itgives us to pay to help them. It’s differenton the water side–that still has majorsubsidies out of Congress–in fact, they’reunder attack continually for that.

Petershagen: Now, in looking at this sort of a network–if I could use that term–where all of theregions of the West are tied together–youmust have built some of your plans aroundthe Washington system, the coalition thatthey put together to go so heavy into thenuclear business, that I don’t know if itstarted out being called WHOOPS,5 butthat’s the way it ended. How much didthe coming and going on that sort of anorganization affect your planning?

Effects of the Washington Public Power SupplySystem Bankruptcy on Western

Petershagen: It didn’t impact us very much as it relatesto our pricing here.

“. . . where it did impact us is that we wereanticipating buying the surpluses from the

Northwest, and also then there was a turnaroundwhere they were going to be short, and so we had

82


to go to the Midwest, but we negotiated atransmission pass through the Northwest to bring

Midwest power. . . .”

But where it did impact us is that we wereanticipating buying the surpluses from theNorthwest, and also then there was aturnaround where they were going to beshort, and so we had to go to the Midwest,but we negotiated a transmission passthrough the Northwest to bring Midwestpower. When they’ve gone through all oftheir transitions, it’s made it more difficultfor us because of some restraints.

“. . . for a five-year period, the Northwest wantedthe privilege of interrupting power that we were

buying from the Midwest . . . wanted the privilegeof interrupting it, if that power was cheaper thanwhat they could buy for, and they had a need, so

we had to give that to them. . . .”

For a while there, for a five-year period,the Northwest wanted the privilege ofinterrupting power that we were buyingfrom the Midwest, like the Dakotas,bringing it through. They wanted theprivilege of interrupting it, if that powerwas cheaper than what they could buy for,and they had a need, so we had to give thatto them. That meant we had to have some

83


other alternatives for our long-rangepower contracts here. So it definitely hadsome impact on us when they wereplanning to build those nuclear, and thenonly basically [Number] One came on andthe Two was in all the trouble, and Three,Four, and Five never got built, never gotfinished.

“. . . we were careful to not enter into long-termcontracts so that those additional costs would bestuck to us, so we were able to escape that, just in

proper planning . . .”

But we were careful to not enter into long-term contracts so that those additionalcosts would be stuck to us, so we wereable to escape that, just in proper planningdown here.

Petershagen: So the regionalization then does give ussome independence yet.

“. . . in California the big thrust still has been to gowith co-generation and wind and things like that .

. .”

Coleman: Still gives us some independence, yes. And of course in California the big thruststill has been to go with co-generation andwind and things like that as supplemental.

84


At the Federal level, except for somefinancing that has come through theDepartment of Energy in a differentcomponent than us, we have not done verymuch in co-gen to encourage ourcustomers. We had like 30 megawatts setaside to help back in the early 80s. But ifthey want to build windmills or go tophotovoltaic and that, they’re welcome todo that, but we have to buy the powerfrom them on a competitive basis. And soit’s unlike with some of the other entitieslike PG&E, who under PURPA [PublicUtility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978],the Federal or State Acts, are required tobuy generation at the cost of it. We do nothave to do that. While we supportresearch in innovative things out there,we’re very careful what we buy, the ratebase for our customers.

Petershagen: I see, so you’re not–I think what I heardyou say behind all of that is that Westernis not really into the business ofencouraging a whole lot ofexperimentation–not encouraging it byanything economics, or making anyinvestment in it.

“Our customers are saying, ‘We’ll do our ownresearch here and pay for it ourselves. Don’t you

85


go out and do research and then send us a big billfor it.’. . .”

Coleman: For the most part, that’s true today. Thelimited dollars that we have . . . In part,though, that’s by our customers’ choice. Our customers are saying, “We’ll do ourown research here and pay for it ourselves. Don’t you go out and do research and thensend us a big bill for it.”

“Congress is not authorizing us big bucks thatjust come out of the Treasury. Anything that we

spend has to be rate-based back to ourcustomers. . . . They may allow us to spend asmall amount of dollars, but it’s not a huge

amount. We do some minimal research. . . .”

Because again, remember, I’m suggestingthat Congress is not authorizing us bigbucks that just come out of the Treasury. Anything that we spend has to be rate-based back to our customers. And whatour customers are saying [is], “We don’twant you to spend $150 million this yearon new research in undergroundcompressed air storage or something.” They may allow us to spend a smallamount of dollars, but it’s not a hugeamount. We do some minimal research.

86


Petershagen: So when I see the members of N-C-P-A[Northern California Power Agency], forexample, maybe two or three cities ormunicipal districts or whatever, gettingtogether to build some powerplant on theirown, that’s largely their choice and theywould just as soon that you stay inSacramento and not get involved in it–isthat what I hear?

Relationship to the Northern California PowerAgency

Coleman: I think that’s pretty true in terms ofgeothermal plants that they built, althoughthey offered us, if we wanted to jump infor twenty-five megawatts. But that’spretty . . . Calaveras Hydroplant that theybuilt, they’re building some gas turbines–they did down at Lodi and down at PaloAlto. They pretty much want to do thatthemselves, and not have Westernfinancing it for them. Plus we’ve beenvery careful not to jump into thoseprojects too.

Petershagen: It’s been my observation that the workingrelationship, especially between N-C-P-Aand Western has really been close andcordial, almost from the day it began. Isthat fair?

87


“. . . they represent almost 700 megawatts of ourmarketing program, which is the size of, well,

that’s almost, you know, fifty to fifty-five percentof our whole load. . . .”

Coleman: That’s a fair statement, yes. We’veworked very carefully to–since they’re ourbiggest–I mean, they represent almost700 megawatts of our marketing program,which is the size of, well, that’s almost,you know, fifty to fifty-five percent of ourwhole load. So yeah, we try to maintain agood relationship between NCPA andSMUD, they’re our biggest. You know,that’s our biggest share of customer base.

Petershagen: And I think a lot of that relationship, that’sa direct reflection of the Colemanmanagement style. I think that you’veworked pretty hard here at Western to tryto foster that relationship, throughout thetime you’ve been here, correct?

“. . . at one time we had seventeen congressmenin our area–the two senators and fifteen

congressmen or women–and I’ve tried to maintainthat relationship with many of those offices, along

with our customers. . . . if we’re aware there is aconcern out there, and we’re working with acustomer, we’ll advise the congressmen, so

they’re just alerted to that. . . .”

88


Coleman: Well, I’d like to think that, yes. Andtrying to maintain that relationship, andthen also at one time we had seventeencongressmen in our area–the two senatorsand fifteen congressmen or women–andI’ve tried to maintain that relationshipwith many of those offices, along with ourcustomers. So if a customer has aconcern, first of all, I’d rather have themcome to me than to a congressman’soffice, but if we’re aware there is aconcern out there, and we’re working witha customer, we’ll advise the congressmen,so they’re just alerted to that. And sowe’ve tried to work at that. I see it as apartnership between Western and ourcustomers–a partnership to work togetherand also to have a format or a vehicle, ifyou have differences, that you can workthem through, outside the courtroom oroutside some kind of a public forumwhere the whole world gets to jump in andpush and shove. I think you end up with abetter product.

Petershagen: How about the State Water Project? Thathas remained, as I see it, totallyindependent. Would there, when thatcame on line, have been some advantage,or would there be an advantage or

89


disadvantage now for an organization likeWestern to be their power marketer, ratherthan have the State do it on its own?

The California Water Project basically said, ourhydroelectricity is “. . . ‘going to go to the highestbidder,’ . . . We continued our existing customers,but we didn’t add on any new ones, because we

thought that the State of California was, in asense, using us . . . They had power that they

could have distributed . . . power plays a muchlesser role in their project. . . . They don’t want to

market to the various cities or their owninstitutions . . . they’ve already institutionalizedhow they want to do it, and it’s not the same as

how we do it. . . .”

Coleman: Well, it’s hard to just address the powerside, because first of all, the State ofCalifornia was eager to build their ownproject, and they didn’t want to be underthe Federal restriction of the 160-acrelimitation; plus they wanted to serve theconstituency of Southern California. Andso your earlier statement about totallyindependent, with the new coordinationagreement which had been in effect six orseven years now, maybe eight, they do getto call some shots with regard to theFederal, in terms of the water. Now interms of the power, they view power

90


differently than we do, in that they don’thave the preference customer restrictions,and what they did, they were unhappywith P-H-D, and so they basically saidgoodbye when their contract ended, Ithink, in about ‘86, in terms of marketingthe power out of Oroville and ThermalitaPowerplants. They basically said, “We’regoing to go to the highest bidder,” andSouthern Cal Edison became the highestbidder, so they since then have beenpurchasing the power. At the same time,state institutions bid on getting Federalpower, because ours was cheaper, andthey qualify as a preference customer. Butwhen we did the allocations in ‘83, andagain in ‘91, I think it was, we used therationale, “Well, look, why don’t you getan allocation out of Oroville?” But theState of California was unwilling to do thesame allocation like we do, to any of theirstate institutions, whether it’s FolsomPrison or Vacaville or University ofCalifornia at Davis or whatever. Wecontinued our existing customers, but wedidn’t add on any new ones, because wethought that the State of California was, ina sense, using us and not . . . They hadpower that they could have distributed, butthey opted to just market it, and put themoney in the till and use it. So they view

91


power differently–I’m not going to arguethat they’re right or wrong–but they havetheir own dispatch center. But powerplays a much lesser role in their project. They market it, they just sell it wholesaleand then get the money and then go evenbuy power back. They have anarrangement on power, and their Deltapumping plant on San Luis with PG&E. But I feel that they really don’t want to bein the power business, and we couldmarket it for them, but they already havedone their marketing. They don’t want tomarket to the various cities or their owninstitutions, all the university systems inCalifornia and that. And so there’sprobably very little that we could do thatcould help them, because they’ve alreadyinstitutionalized how they want to do it,and it’s not the same as how we do it.

Petershagen: So we’re looking at people with totallyseparate missions, really.

Coleman: Well, certainly for power there’s separate,they view it different. They look at it asthey can make money off it, not who of itfrom the state should they better serve andjust sell it to them at cost. But not to saythat’s wrong–I’m not saying that’s wrong,that’s just a different view. And so they

92


wouldn’t want us to take their power atcost and just turn it around and transmit toeverybody in the state, because they don’tview everybody in the state entities onequal so they should spread the benefitsaround like that–I don’t think they view it. They could make the argument, “Well, weget the most out of selling the power, andwe can turn around then and keep thewater costs lower, and therefore that doesdistribute to all our water customers.” And so there’s an argument on that sidetoo.

“. . . right now under the dynamics the way it’s setup, they wouldn’t want us to do their marketing

for them . . .”

I’m not saying theirs is right and we’rewrong, it’s just that right now under thedynamics the way it’s set up, theywouldn’t want us to do their marketing forthem–or they wouldn’t want Interior tooperate their powerplants either.

Petershagen: I see. Maybe this would be a good time tosay, What else should I ask you? Or tosay it the other way, What might you liketo say, just given the opportunity? Dave,the mic is open and it’s now yours, goahead and address whatever issue you

93


might like to.

Thoughts on His Government Career

Coleman: Well, for me, as I close out my career, Ihave felt that it’s been very rewarding,working for Interior, in the water sideprimarily, and then in power over thesethirty-plus years, and have had theprivilege of working with some verydynamic and forward-looking people. And I think that the West has been wellserved, and the whole United States, andthe world, based on what has developed. I’m hopeful that the new people that comeinto leadership, both in Interior,Reclamation, and Western will not losesight of some of the basic premises ofwhich, say, Reclamation was founded.

We have to take change and movewith it. We have to look at the prioritiesand how people want to make differentchoices. So I’m not suggesting we goback to the old Reclamation, but some ofthe basic needs that were provided for inthe water and power are still out there. And I hope that under new leadership inReclamation, in particular, that they don’tlose sight of what some of those basicneeds are, and they’re able to project over

94


the next ten, fifteen, twenty years, aseffectively as the people of forty years agoor fifty, and say in the ‘40s and ‘50s whenthe Central Valley Project was beingplanned–I hope the people today can haveas much success in predicting the futureand developing what needs to bedeveloped, as the people did back in the40s. And I was a great [beneficiary]benefactor, I came kind of in the middle ofthat era, stepping into it in 1961, andreaping the benefits that had the vision,and being able to be involved in theconstruction of a number of projects, butmore in the operating and seeing thedynamics change. It’s been just a terrificcareer. And as I look at my militarycareer and kind of look at it there,although the Air Force was very good tome, [it has been] much more rewardingbeing involved in water and powerresources and meeting basic needs.

And I think people haveappreciated what’s happened. In morerecent years, you have to advertise a littlemore, or people know that the watercomes on, and if they flip the switch,generally power comes on. And there’snot patience, if you have a power outage,they want it back on in five minutes, even

95


though you got a set a new pole or dosomething differently. But it’s been veryrewarding, and some wonderful people towork with, and so I have those fondmemories.

“. . . it wasn’t without its difficulties. I moved myfamily fifteen different times in my career, and I

doubt if many people will do that in the future . . .”

And it wasn’t without itsdifficulties. I moved my family fifteendifferent times in my career, and I doubt ifmany people will do that in the future, tomove their families from school to schooland that. But that was part of it, and yet ithas been rich and rewarding. I appreciatean opportunity even to talk a little bitabout the history of Reclamation and ofWestern.

Petershagen: Well, Dave, I think that will close thingsout. Now I’ll let you get back to work. Iknow you’ve got a busy schedule. Thanksvery much for taking this time, and thankyou for agreeing to participate with us inthis program.

Coleman: Thank you, George.

END OF SIDE 2, TAPE 2. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994.

96


END OF INTERVIEW.

Documents

ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW - Bureau of Reclamation · Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation Oral History Interview conducted by George Petershagen, Bureau of Reclamation,