Engineer Memoirs
I also believe that the Corps should contract the operation and maintenance of the
waterways-the locks and dams. Also, there's no reason why the Corps can't contract people
to run power plants.
Q..
The Corps was still using government employees for a long time to lay mat on the Mississippi,
wasn't it?
A
Well, they did as long as I was there. That was one of the things we did consider carefully,
but because the work was so specialized, private industry was not yet ready to do it by
contract. So the best thing was keep it.
Back in the 1930s and earlier, even earlier, there was limited or no capability in the civilian
community to accomplish many of the tasks needed to execute the Corps' programs, so the
Corps did it with its people and with hired labor. As the nation's private capabilities reached
adequate levels in various fields, including construction and engineering, the federal
government moved aside. Well, mat laying on the Mississippi was one of those areas in which
the civilian industry had not quite yet gotten the capability to do it, so the Corps kept it.
There's a lot to that question. We should not privatize everything. The Corps should keep
house enough requirements to maintain an engineering capability and enough construction to
keep our contracting and construction management capabilities, et cetera. So there is a balance
in there.
In the period from 1970 to 1980, I really do believe more things happened to change the Corps
of Engineers than in any other period in recent times: The National Environmental Policy Act
followed by all the regulatory regulations that came along; the change in the Corps' workload
in the civil works field from new work to operations; the arrival of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works; the impact of rebuilding the Army's physical plant to suit the
volunteer force; the growth of American presence internationally, beginning after World War
II and continuing through the 1970s in various countries; all the congressional and legal
battles that went on to determine what various new laws meant to name a few. All together
these involved a period of about ten years and created a tremendous amount of turbulence and
change.
Your comment on the culture is absolutely on target. The Corps in the late 1980s and early
1990s became a far different organization than in 1960 when I went to Tulsa, even when I
went to Omaha in 1970. You know, the old-timers speak of the "good old days" when
discussing or complaining about change. There's little they can do about it, however. It's
going to happen.
Now, I think the important fact about all this is the Corps has survived. It's still looked upon
and respected at home and abroad as a premier source of engineering, construction, and
management talent.
We're roaming around here a little bit.
Q ..
Yes, but I want to roam just a little more. One thing that came to mind as we were talking-I
remember seeing a quotation from General Heiberg, sort of fondly but with some frustration,
I think. He referred to that "great inertia-ridden organization, the Corps of Engineers."
Looking back at your career, you came out of the experience of a changing organization.
Some of the leaders of the Corps made the transition, and it was a difficult transition, and
some people took a lot longer. I guess what I'm saying is, "Why did you perceive the changing
environment and others were slower?"
110
Previous Page
