Margaret S. Petersen
He said that was something relatively new in the Corps because it had just started to have
some of these big dams. They figured they needed to have a sub-area of responsibility for
that.
Yes.
Well, that's one of the questions that we have that we're looking at because some of the
interviews have been a little testy on, mainly the hydrologists, on their relations with the
hydraulics people.
Well, it's true that we used to have a lot of arguments. But it usually boiled down to the fact
that they really didn't understand what hydraulic engineers were trying to do. Once they
understood, then it was fine.
Their work is a lot different than what you were doing.
I know, but we used their storms to design the reservoirs, saying, if we did this, what would
A:
happen? I don't really think there was controversy in Sacramento, but there were heated
discussions. Most of the time I worked in Sacramento, Bill Doyle was head of the planning
branch. He began working for the Sacramento District right out of Berkeley, and he worked
there until he retired. He knew every river and every dam in the district intimately. In 1965,
hydraulic design was in the design branch and hydrology was in the planning branch.
That's a little different, isn't it?
Irene was in hydraulic design in the design branch, and I worked as a planner in the planning
A:
branch.
Because normally they were both in the same branch with two sections, a hydrology section
and a hydraulic design section, if I'm not mistaken.
A:
always thought that they were different from other Corps districts. Anything east
of the Sierras was always referred to as "back east."
had been some reorganization in
the Sacramento District shortly after they hired Irene, when
established a hydraulic
design section.
to that time, hydraulic design had been
a part of design branch. But
Sacramento was very strong in hydrology because the same people had done the planning
and hydrology for many of their big dams.
Previous Page
