Water Resources People
issues
It's hard to say how we got so much done. One of our failings was that the
commission didn't narrow things down. They wouldn't let go of anything that
we started. Incidentally, the report was unanimous except that there was one
dissent on an item where the commission recommended that water rights ought
to be only for a set time; in other words, for enough time to amortize the
investment, rather than in perpetuity. The commission's recommendation gives
the option of reallocating water without paying somebody to give up their water
rights. Roger Ernst, as a dedicated Westerner, dissented from that. That is the
only dissent in this whole report. Such unanimity was not achieved without an
awful lot of work, and believe me, these members worked.
The commission really got started in about January 1969. I worked the last few
days of December in 1968. We had 54 meetings, including the hearings, some
of which were two days. Almost all of the meetings in Washington were two
or two-and-a-half days. We did have a few one-day meetings. Counting all 54
meetings and hearings, the attendance record was something like 89 percent.
Q: Amazing.
A: Just amazing. Due largely, I'd say, to
leadership ability. He did so
much work himself that he really inspired everyone else. I understand that he's
been like that on every job he's ever had. So I would attribute the success of
the commission to his leadership and the hard work of the staff-especially
during the preparation of the final report, when the staff was very diminished
because we told everybody when they came to work that it was for a set time.
About a year and a half before the end of the commission, I set up a schedule
of when people were going to terminate their employment and what they had
to finish before they left.
With only one major exception that I can remember, they did it. They worked
right up to the last day if they had to and finished their reports, I have to
particularly give credit to
Koelzer. Because
was one of our
paid people, we had to let him go before he wanted to go. He had wanted to
be in on the final writing of the report. He was an engineer who knew how to
get things done, and the reports for which he was responsible were in such
good condition that we didn't really need him any more. So he left kind of
reluctantly, being one of the first staff members we had to let go.
188
Previous Page
