________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
The senator's office was smart enough to know that he couldn't just pick on us to keep us in
the middle. Gianelli was putting us in the middle but Senator Byrd's office knew we didn't
belong in the middle, so he would focus attention back on Gianelli. He knew to deal directly
at the top, knowing that's where the deal had to be made. The secretary chose not to engage
there for the longest time, until after I left.
Q:
Did you have other projects during your time in the Ohio River Division that the assistant
secretary's office got involved in to that degree, had that strong feelings about it, or was this
really the major one for the division? How about the recreational areas closing in Pittsburgh
and Louisville Districts and reduction of locking services?
A:
Oh, yes, those were other raw spots.
Q:
Let's see, were they tied together as issues?
A:
No, they were really separate issues. They did focus on the same thing, and that was on the
administration's goal to cut back federal expenditures. Secretary Gianelli was the
administration's responsible man in the water resources arena, and he was trying to make it
happen. The problem was in all of those things, there would be a pronouncement of the
policy and then the facts would be requested. When we'd present the facts, they weren't
always supportive of what had ever been in the secretary's mind when he made the policy.
So, the statement might be made, "We need to close recreation areas and you can do this
without any problem and save so much." Then we would be asked to go through the drill to
evaluate our recreation areas, address potential savings and how we would do it. Our Corps
recreation areas, for the most part, are very austerely manned. A lot of times they're
contracted out. A lot of times the only people we have at a dam are the people required to
operate the dam for purposes of safety, and then they check, as our contracting
representative, the contractor who would operate the associated recreation area.
If you only have two people at a dam and recreation site, you can't really cut them--so you
don't really have a saving. The idea, then, would move on to, "Well, then contract more out."
Contractors only contract places where they think they can make a buck and have a going
organization. So, the good ones were already taken over and the other ones they didn't want.
Then what remains of our responsibility? We have a lot of roadside pull-offs, which we
didn't particularly care for either. Maintain those? A motorcycle gang could trash one in a
matter of a few hours, chuck stuff out, rip stuff up, throw all the beer cans around. I mean,
these were not all fun responsibilities to have, but we'd build the recreation areas of every
type under some kind of program. So, do we have a responsibility or don't we? How do we
get out of that responsibility?
The states said they didn't want to take them over because they didn't want to clean up after
those motorcycle gangs either. So, can we just walk away from it or can't we? I'm saying this
to highlight the kind of issues we faced. Once you then add up all of those things, those we
think we can do, the things we think we shouldn't do because of low levels of use, and the
things we know no other state or contractor wants, when the answer is not satisfactory to a
secretary who has decided it is all a pretty simple matter--you just have to close down this
281
Previous Page
