hall, joe d. d2 › history › oralhistories › hall, joe.pdfjoe hall background storey: this is...

ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS

JOE HALL

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

STATUS OF INTERVIEWS:OPEN FOR RESEARCH

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

Interviews Conducted and Edited by:Brit Allan StoreySenior HistorianBureau of Reclamation

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

Interviews conducted–1993, 1996Interview edited and published–2015

Oral History ProgramBureau of ReclamationDenver, Colorado

SUGGESTED CITATION:

HALL, JOE. ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW. Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation OralHistory Interviews conducted by Brit Allan Storey,Senior Historian, Bureau of Reclamation, in Denver,Colorado. Edited by Brit Allan Storey, further editedand desktop published by Andrew H. Gahan. Repository for the record copy of the interviewtranscript is the National Archives and RecordsAdministration 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

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

Statement of Donation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Editorial Convention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Oral History Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Canadian River Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Working as an Inspector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Kansas State Water Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Oklahoma City Planning Office.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Environmental Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Coming to Grips with Environmental Regulations. . . 12Becoming Regional Director in Denver.. . . . . . . . . . . 15Western Area Power Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Coming Back to Study Reclamation's Future. . . . . . . 18Regional Responsibilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Regional Construction Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Political Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Pressures on a Regional Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Reclamation's Relationship with Water Users. . . . . . . 27Working at WAPA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Tensions between Reclamation and Western Area

Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Assistant Administrator for Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . 35Reasons Congress Created WAPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Working with Power Customers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Public Utilities and Private Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Setting WAPA Power Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Western's Conservation Officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Conservation Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Oral History of Joe Hall

ii

Environmental Considerations at WAPA. . . . . . . . . . 50Water and Power Resources Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52The Carter Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Assessment '87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Reclamation's Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Changes in Reclamation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60New Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Closing Regional Offices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Leadership Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Changing Perspectives Over Time.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Reclamation Commissioners and Chief Engineers. . . 71Teton Dam Failure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Merging Reclamation with the Corps of Engineers.. . 74Becoming an Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Reclamation Construction Inspectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Safety Issues.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Working with the Contractor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Inspecting Earth-Moving Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Laboratory Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Quality Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Concrete Placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Problems in Inspection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Career Goals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Reclamation Engineering Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Chief Inspector.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Chief Inspector's Duties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Placing Pipe for the Canadian River Project. . . . . . . 103Using Bicycles to Inspect Pipe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Being Chief Inspector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106Forever Meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Making Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Project Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Project Responsibility Divisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Moving to a New Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Moving to Topeka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Great Learning Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Bureau of Reclamation History Program

iii

Issues that Arose Preparing the State Water Plan. . . 117Reclamation Projects in Kansas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119Encountering Opposition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Reporting to Two Regional Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . 121Balancing Regional Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Regional Director James Ingles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Becoming the Area Manager in Oklahoma City. . . . 126Norman Flagg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127Kenny Kaufman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Grade Advances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Spike Crane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131Transferred to Oklahoma City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132Leadership Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134Identifying Leadership Qualities in Reclamation.. . . 135Did Not Want to Return to Construction. . . . . . . . . . 138Challenges in Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139An Oklahoma State Water Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Keeping Good Relations with State Representatives

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Dealing with Political Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143Bugaboo Canyon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145Proposed Projects in Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147The Otoe Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Dealing with Indian Tribes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151Oklahoma City Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153Moving from Oklahoma City.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155Gil Stamm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Organizational Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160Moving Reclamation's Planning Functions from Project

Offices to Regional Offices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Becoming Regional Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162Increase in Political Pressure becoming Regional

Director. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Congresswoman Virginia Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Regional Projects under Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . 171Seeing the End of the Construction Era. . . . . . . . . . . 174


iv

Changing Nature of Business Over Time. . . . . . . . . 177Becoming Deputy Commissioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179Regional Budget.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180


v

Statement of Donation


vi


vii

Editorial Convention

A note on editorial conventions. In the text of theseinterviews, information in parentheses, ( ), is actually on thetape. Information in brackets, [ ], has been added to thetape either by the editor to clarify meaning or at the requestof the interviewee in order to correct, enlarge, or clarify theinterview as it was originally spoken. Words havesometimes been struck out by editor or interviewee in orderto clarify meaning or eliminate repetition. In the case ofstrikeouts, that material has been printed at 50% density toaid in reading the interviews but assuring that the struckoutmaterial is readable.

The transcriber and editor also have removed someextraneous words such as false starts and repetitionswithout indicating their removal. The meaning of theinterview has not been changed by this editing.

While we attempt to conform to most standardacademic rules of usage (see The Chicago Manual of Style),we do not conform to those standards in this interview forindividual’s titles which then would only be capitalized inthe text when they are specifically used as a title connectedto a name, e.g., “Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton” asopposed to “Gale Norton, the secretary of the interior;” or“Commissioner John Keys” as opposed to “thecommissioner, who was John Keys at the time.” Theconvention in the Federal government is to capitalize titlesalways. Likewise formal titles of acts and offices arecapitalized but abbreviated usages are not, e.g., Division ofPlanning as opposed to “planning;” the ReclamationProjects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, asopposed to “the 1992 act.”

The convention with acronyms is that if they arepronounced as a word then they are treated as if they are aword. If they are spelled out by the speaker then they havea hyphen between each letter. An example is the Agency


viii

for International Development’s acronym: said as a word, itappears as AID but spelled out it appears as A-I-D; anotherexample is the acronym for State Historic PreservationOfficer: SHPO when said as a word, but S-H-P-O whenspelled out.


ix

Introduction

In 1988, Reclamation began to create a history program. While headquartered in Denver, the history program wasdeveloped as a bureau-wide program.

One component of Reclamation's history program is itsoral 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.

Questions, comments, and suggestions may beaddressed to:

Andrew H. GahanHistorian

Environmental Compliance Division (84-53000)Policy and AdministrationBureau of ReclamationP. O. Box 25007Denver, Colorado 80225-0007FAX: (720) 544-0639

For additional information about Reclamation's historyprogram see:

www.usbr.gov/history


http://www.usbr.gov/history

x

(Intentionally Blank)


1

Oral History InterviewsJoe Hall

Background

Storey: This is Brit Storey in the offices of Joe D. Hall,the deputy commissioner, at the Bureau ofReclamation, June 11, 1993, at 2:15 in theafternoon.

First of all, Mr. Hall, could you tell me alittle about your early life and your education,and how you became interested in Reclamation? What your professional background was? Thosesorts of things.

Hall: Sure. I was raised in Dallas, Texas, and went toschool at Texas A&M where I took civilengineering, and I'd like to say that I had a deepand abiding concern with the water resources ofthe nation, and that led me to work for theBureau of Reclamation, but that's not true. What I had was the need for a job, and when Igot out of school, I was in the home buildingbusiness with two partners in Amarillo, Texas,and there came a time, then, that they announcedthe closing of the Air Force Base in Amarillo. Well, when you close an Air Force Base in atown of 100,000 people, your home buildingbusiness goes down in a hurry.

And that's what happened to our homebuilding business, and I did have, as anyonefrom the West has, a sort of intuitive interest inwater resource development and I wassomewhat familiar with the need there in


2

Amarillo and surrounding cities, and, as ithappened, the Canadian River Project–CanadianRiver was just north of Amarillo–50 miles. 1

That project had been authorized and was justbeginning construction. And so, with thedemise of our home building company, I wasable to go down to the Bureau of Reclamationand talk to them about me maybe coming onwith them, and they did hire me, and I came onas a junior engineer. I started with them in thesurveying and construction inspection activityaround Amarillo, and since then, have had along, and, I think, a happy relationship with theBureau of Reclamation.

Storey: When was that that you graduated, and thenwhen did you come to Reclamation?

Hall: I graduated from college in 1957. With myyears out in the private sector, then, it was 1961when I came with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Storey: Really. Okay, what else did you do in Amarillowhile you were there?

Hall: I was . . . the construction business was mystrength, as far as my business opportunity. Asfar my private life, I was at that time still had

1. The Canadian River Project is in the Texas panhandle,providing municipal and industrial water for 11 cities and townsthroughout the High Plains area. Primary purpose of the project is tosupply water to the Texas cities of Borger, Pampa, Amarillo, Plainview,Lubbock, Slaton, Tahoka, O`Donnell, Lamesa Levelland, andBrownfield. Principal storage structure is Sanford Dam on theCanadian River about 37 miles northeast of Amarillo. Additionalfeatures include 323 miles of pipelines, 10 pumping plants, and 3regulating reservoirs.


3

time to play golf, I was a member of civic clubs,the Optimist Club included, and the churchactivity, was in JayCees, and organizations suchas that. I was an active, civic mindedindividual, I think. And the Bureau ofReclamation provided a good niche for mebecause it let me put some of my engineeringtalents to good use and, because I had had someexperience in the business community, I think italways gave me a different perspective about thebusiness community, the non-federal sector, thatI would have never had had I just come directlyfrom college.

Storey: Did you only do the one job as a junior engineerin Amarillo?

Canadian River Project

Hall: No, well, it was progressive after that. After Istarted with the surveying in Amarillo, that wasin Amarillo proper, then the dam, which iscalled Sanford Dam, was being constructedabout 50 miles north on the Canadian River. And I went to the project manager, whose namewas Spike Crane, and asked Mr. Crane if itwould be possible for me to go up and get someexperience on the dam, because although I hadhad experience in the home building business inlight construction, I'd never been around damconstruction. Unlike many of my colleagues,who kind of grew up on a dam, I did not. Andso Mr. Crane agreed, and as any rookie engineermight get assigned, I was assigned to go up andwork the graveyard shift from midnight untileight in the morning, starting with the inspection


4

of the outlet works, which meant that I wasinspecting the outlet works—the tunnel.

My shift was, as I say, the graveyard one andthe graveyard shift, at that time, was allHispanic, or more specifically, Mexican, and Isay that because they were from Mexico. Theyworked for the H-B Zachary Co., the generalcontractor, and they listed their address asZapata, Texas. And if you look where Zapata is,it's right on the Rio Grande River [sic]. Andalmost all of them were from across the border,non-union, even the foreman was a Hispanicgentleman. And I used to carry on this dialoguewith them because they preferred to speakSpanish in the tunnel, and I used to give them agood-natured bad time and tell them that thiswas an American tunnel, and I expected them tospeak English during the construction–andthey'd all laugh and we'd go on about ourbusiness.

It was fun . . . their lunch hour was like fourin the morning–we'd start at midnight. And theylived in what we might call today almost acommune relationship. They all lived in thisone big house there in Rich, Texas, the nearesttown, and they would bring these big sacks. And in the sacks they would typically havetortillas, tostadas, and they would be filled withall sorts of things. They could be filled withgreen beans, but more likely they were filledwith something hot, and they loved, since I wasthe only gringo, they loved to get me biting intosomething hot and watch the tears flow downmy cheek. And we had our dinner, they always


5

built a fire, always you know, it's about four inthe morning, always had a fire going, alwaysheated their lunch. And I was always welcometo join them, me and my sandwiches and theyand their tortillas, and they would pass mesomething. And I was quite cautious, usually,but sometimes I'd get a little bit too risk-takingand would bite heavily into something, and itturned out to be something that'd just wipe youout–which they took enormous glee when theysaw me choking and crying around the campfire.

But we had a very good relationship, goodinspection, and the tunnel was completedsuccessfully. While I was up there at the dam, Iwas able to involve myself in a number of otherconstruction activities including theembankment, both the excavation and theplacement of the earthfill, the control of that Iwas able to put some little time in the laboratorywhere I was able to see how we maintainedquality control. I did some concrete placementinspection, and I think [I did] just about everyaspect of that mostly earthfill dam plus concreteappurtenances. But I think I was able to get inon the inspection of just about every aspect ofthat dam while I was up there. It was greatexperience for me. From that . . .

Storey: Excuse me, who was your supervisor?

Hall: Spike Crane was the overall supervisor. Theresident engineer I'll have to search for hisname. Bill something . . .

Storey: Okay, go ahead, I'm sorry.


6

Working as an Inspector

Hall: That's quite all right. I remember the nextsupervisor's name very well, from there,because, well, you know, I was starting mycareer. I had done my sort of junior assignmentsand that was '61, probably in about 1963, then, Iwas selected to be the chief inspector atPlainview, Texas.

Now, this project, Canadian River Project,was primarily for the municipal use of 11member cities, Amarillo and Lubbock being thelarger of the cities, and then a lot of smallerones. And a lot of the construction of thisproject was the pipelines–huge pipelines,ranging up to 96 inches, that went all over thatpart of west Texas. Sort of the central part ofthat pipeline system was headquartered out ofPlainview, Texas. Both our pipelaying crew andpipe manufacturing was done there, and I wasselected as chief inspector, and got to supervisethe installation of the pipe and the manufactureof the pipe from our location in Plainview.

My supervisor's name there was LavernLincoln, and [he] not surprisingly went by thename of Abe. So Abe Lincoln and I wereheavily involved in getting that project built andunder way. And did it–the contractors involveddid that in what, was then, record time withnew, innovative pipelaying procedures,including developing cradling machines thatwould carve out the curvature of the earth andeven the machinery for making the bell wherethe pipe fit together. And probably what's since


7

become commonplace in pipelaying was prettyinnovative at that particular time, back in '63,'64.

I was engaged in that part of it until 1967,the early part of 1967, and then I decided–and Idon't know for my career, I determined that Ineeded to do different things fairly early in mycareer, as opposed to sticking in this case withconstruction. That it would be better for me inthe long run if I did some different things, andjust as I wanted to get some different types ofconstruction experience, then I went back to Mr.Crane and he, in turn, had me go visit with thethen regional director, whose name was LeonHill, in Amarillo. And my pitch with him was2

that I would like to be considered for some othertype of position other than just construction–Iloved construction, but I felt that in the long runit'd be important to my development andhopefully–ultimately, to the Bureau ofReclamation.

Kansas State Water Plan

I guess that was '66 when I first visited withMr. Hill about this. Well then, either late in '66or early in '67, then, Mr. Hill came to me withan opportunity and that opportunity was this . . .that the state of Kansas was very interested indeveloping a State Water Plan in which theywould go in and assess all of the developmentthat had taken place, thus far. What thedevelopmental opportunities were, and then to

2. Leon W. Hill was regional director of the Southwest Region(Region 5) from 1959 to 1972.


8

assess if they needed to move water from onepart of the state to the other, and how that mighttake place. And so they needed a person . . . wedid not have an office in Topeka, nor in the stateof Kansas, save just a few operational peopleout at the dams themselves. We didn't have anypeople in the planning arena, so Mr. Hill askedme if I'd be interested in going up there andbeing, in effect, "Our Man in Kansas"–workwith the state of Kansas, develop that StateWater Plan in a cooperative way, and shepherdit, from the Bureau of Reclamation'sperspective.

I accepted the assignment. Because the stateof Kansas was divided into two regions, Iworked with two regional directors: Mr. Hill,from Amarillo, and Mr. Jim Ingles, who wasthen the regional director in Denver, Colorado,3

and their staffs in different places–for example,Oklahoma City and McCook, Nebraska. Iworked with both of those offices closely inputting together a State Water Plan with thestate.

[I] was there about 4 years, and interestinglyenough, since I was the only fed in the Stateoffice building, I became the receptacle for allsorts of federal complaints. And these bigpeople would come to me–state agency headsand state employees would come to me withconcerns about the then Federal Water PollutionControl Administration and what the InternalRevenue Service was doing, or whatever. I was

3. James M. Ingles was regional director of the Lower MissouriRegion (Region 7) from 1968 to 1975.


9

a very handy sounding board for all sorts offederal problems, which was kind of interestingbecause I got a different perspective in dealing,for example, with the health agencies of thestate of Kansas, and just what some of theconcerns were from their perspective.

So it was another good, broadeningexperience for me, and one that I enjoyed, and Istill enjoy some of the relationships that I hadback there, and actually officing with the Kansaswater resources board. Some of thoserelationships exist even to today.

Oklahoma City Planning Office

Having developed that State Plan, I was thengiven the opportunity to take over ourOklahoma City Office. At that point in time,Oklahoma City was a planning office with some40 employees that were involved in the planningactivities in the southern part of Kansas,Oklahoma, and the northern part of Texas, and Iwas fortunate to be selected for that position. Went down to Oklahoma City, spent some fourand a half [4½] years, and at that point in time,the states were heavily into state water plans.

We were, of course, in a transition in thewater resource business that most of us didn'tunderstand yet–we still thought that we were ina lull and going to start building any day now. I'd like to look back and say I was so wise that Icould see all that–I don't think any of us were. Ithink it took awhile for [us] to realize that wewere coming to the end of an era, as far as


10

building large dams and large water projects. But because most of us in the water businessdidn't realize that, we were at that point–maybewe did in a way, maybe it was this way: that weknew we weren't going to be building as manydams and reservoirs.

Therefore, what was in vogue was the notionthat you would transfer water from one locationto the other, and that was sort of the notion inKansas and in Oklahoma–huge, massivepipelines recommended in a proposal inOklahoma, where it made a lot of sense. Youhad the water in the southeastern part of thestate, where the rainfall was in the 40-inch-per-year, even up to 50, and in the northwest to thenorthwestern part of the state, where the annualrainfall was about 12 inches a year. And so youjust looked at that, and you said, "Well, thething to do is to move it from where you have itto where you need it," which made some sense. The economy of that, the environmentalconsequences, and all that, we were yet to beable to realize.

And so a good deal of my time there[Oklahoma City Office] was spent in developinga State Water Plan with them, although we didhave some particular projects authorized, suchas McGee Creek, during my tenure down


11

there–that's since been built. 4

And there, I guess McGee Creek is a goodexample of where I first started to learn aboutother people's interest, and I learned this fromother individuals that when we proposed theMcGee Creek Reservoir, which is in the southcentral part of Oklahoma, a lot of environmentalconcerns. We didn't know exactly how tohandle them, but we knew that just intuitivelythat there was a necessity to talk about thosethings.

Environmental Concerns

And so, in concert with the local people,what we did was to arrange an overnight tripthat went into Bugaboo Canyon–that was the bigissue. Well, Bugaboo Canyon is a preservedarea, and should be maintained in its pristinecondition. Well, it sort of worked all sorts ofways in that those of us from the developmentstage were able to see that it does have a certainbeauty, and certain things should be preserved. And those from the environmental communitywere able to see that the way it was was just ahuge thicket–that there was no way to even getinto it with four-wheel drive vehicles. It wasnot there really for the enjoyment of anybody,and so some of the results of that were that the

4. The McGee Creek Project in south central Oklahoma suppliesmunicipal and industrial water to the McGee Creek Authority, as wellas downstream flood protection, water-based recreation, fish andwildlife enhancement, and environmental quality purposes. For moreinformation, see Jedediah S. Rogers, "McGee Creek Project," Denver:Bureau of Reclamation History Program, 2013,www.usbr.gov/history/projhist.html.


12

combinations were made for certain portions ofthe reservoir to not be used by motorized craft,and it would provide access by water to certainareas within the canyon. And, in short, therewere accommodations made and not, I think,maybe compromise is the wrong word–butarrangements were made where some of theenvironment that exists, to large measure, couldbe maintained, but yet access to it could beprovided in a way that was environmentallysensitive. And just sort of the notion of takingpeople–I'm not naive enough to believe thatevery time you take people out on an overnight,and sit around the campfire and talk about thosethings, that the solutions always fall out. But Ithink it's a significant part of it if you can getpeople to really be engaged in something likethat, where they can express their interest, andnot just their position, that's been expressed bysome group, be it development or environmentalgroup–just learn to state your interest, whatyou'd really like to see done. It was sort ofamazing to see that that sort of came together,and that the project did indeed proceed withcertain environmental placards andconsiderations.

Storey: That would have been about the time NEPA[National Environmental Protection Act] wasbeing passed?

Coming to Grips with Environmental Regulations

Hall: Yes, about that time we started passing laws thatI would characterize a lot of us in the watercommunity thought were sort of liberal, a little


13

bit off-the-mark laws such as NEPA–that wealmost viewed it as a passing thing; that there'scertain groups out there that are having theseenvironmental laws passed, and probably, thesewill go away in time.

It took some maturing for those of us whowere active in the water community to realizethis was not some small segment of theAmerican population, but was representative ofwhat's turned out to be a real and abidingconcern for the environment. The Americanpeople are very concerned with the environmentin the United States. But, we didn't take NEPA,when it was passed, in what '69 I think, andimmediately embrace it and say, "Yes, thisrepresents the will of the American people." Itwas considered as sort of a fluke, but in time, ofcourse, we've all learned it's not a fluke–it's avery real expression of the American people'sconcern for the environment. But to those of uswith a more traditional background inReclamation, it took us awhile to really realizethat–for many of us.

Storey: You think they're still having problems withthat? A lot of the folks, especially the olderfolks?

Hall: I think some do. I go to meetings such asNational Water Resources Association andmany of the state associations and powerorganizations, such as American Public Power,and National Rural Electric CooperativeAssociation, and there is still a segment ofpeople who view that as not mainstream, sort of


14

liberal, not representing the views of theAmerican public. I believe they are in anincreasing minority, I think that most–and it'spartly a function of age, but there are some oldthinkers in young people, and young thinkers inold people. So it doesn't necessarily go alongchronological lines, but I think it's fair to saythat you're more likely to find that view in theolder people that say, "Yes, this too shall pass,and we'll go back to like we were."

I think most in the water community, and Ithink the public power community, haverealized that concern for the environment isreal. I think that many still feel that it is out ofbalance, that the environment always wins, andeven when they try to accommodate theenvironmental considerations, that if it comes toshove, that the more traditional users lose everytime. But, partly because of that, there's moreand more emphasis on reaching solutions toactivities that fall under NEPA, or theEndangered Species Act, or the Water QualityAct.

You'll see more and more water districts thatare employing consultants, attorneys–not aimedat just fighting the issue, but first seeing if thereis a solution, seeing if there is anaccommodation. And I think that's a healthfulthing, because that's not just the Bureau ofReclamation's role to find that–that is, in fact, upto the users of the water and power to try andfind some of those solutions.

Storey: Yes, well, we were talking about your


15

Oklahoma City office and McGee Creek, I guessbefore we–I, sidetracked you.

Becoming Regional Director in Denver

Hall: Okay, then I–from Oklahoma City, I was thengiven the opportunity to go be regional directorin Denver, Colorado, when we had a regionaloffice in Denver. It was really a matter, as thethen Commissioner Gil Stamm said to me, I did5

not have the opportunity to stay there[Oklahoma City]. That I would take apromotion, and I would either go toWashington, D.C., or Denver, Colorado, whichis sort of the way you did things back in thosedays. It was–if you had been identified, and youwere given the opportunity, then you wereexpected to move, and move onto other things. And that was fine, my family was sort ofreaching the age . . . one in junior high, one inhigh school, where the move became moredifficult. But that was fine, we moved toDenver, and I took over what was called theLower Missouri Region–had several hundredemployees scattered throughout the Region, andoperating projects, as well as the Regional

5. Gil Stamm was the commissioner of the Bureau ofReclamation under the administration of President Gerald Ford, 1973 to1977.


16

Office. 6

And the regional director, I still believe thatthe regional director's–it's a kind of a tossup asto what's the best job in the Bureau ofReclamation. It's either project manager, of afun project to run, or regional director. I'm sureit's not assistant commissioner, and I know it'snot deputy commissioner, and I'm absolutelyconvinced it's not commissioner. The betterjobs of the Bureau of Reclamation, if aperson–man or woman–could make their choice,I think would be project manager or regionaldirector. And the reason is that all the factorscome to play at that position, all of the . . . Youmust match the environmental considerationsagainst the developmental ones. You mustconsider what your employees would like you todo. Or the number of employees you haveversus the financial constraints that you have,and employment ceilings, and that sort of thing. It's the places within the organization that allthose factors come into focus, and you sit at aplace that's high enough where you're able to seethe impact of all those decisions, and lowenough to where you can tell the difference inwhat you do, and you can see your progress dayby day.

You get the position such as assistant

6. The Lower Missouri Region (Region 7) was one of theoriginal regions created in 1946. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado,the Region focused on coordinating the Colorado-Big Thompson,Kendrick, Shoshone, and North Platte projects with the Pick-SloanMissouri Basin Program. In 1985, regional alignment absorbed theLower Missouri Region into the Upper Missouri Region in BillingsMontana.


17

commissioner, this is my view, or deputycommissioner, and so much of what you do isadministration, and trying to keep the show onthe road, that you kind of lose focus. It's easierto lose focus of what you're about, and that's thereason I say, if a person could really choose,you'd choose project manager, or regionaldirector. So I guess being regional director wasone of the real highlights of my career, I enjoyedit a great deal.

Storey: And when did you go to Denver? Come toDenver?

Hall: I came here in 1975.

Storey: And how long were you here?

Hall: Okay, I was here until 1980. And then somethings happened in the Bureau, and some shiftsbeing made, and it was my time to move again. This time to Sacramento to be regional director,and I accepted that. However, it was not in theinterest of my family to accept that move, and sowe had, you know, a daughter that was ateenager then, and really, for some specificreasons, needed to stay here.

Western Area Power Administration

So I opted, rather than to take that move toSacramento, to move to go to work for WesternArea Power Administration [WAPA], and I waswith them for about seven years, where I wasstill involved with the water community, butalso the public power community, which gave


18

me an even additional insight into our business,I think, and I served in three principal capacitiesover there.

First, I was Conservation Officer, and thenas Assistant Administrator for Engineering, andthen as Assistant Administrator for PowerMarketing and Operation and Maintenance. Terrific titles–they paid me a little, too. But itwas a fun experience and one that I learned agreat deal more about the power aspect of ourbusiness that in my view, meaning Reclamation,sort of treat the power aspect as a bit of astepchild when, in fact, it's a major, principalingredient in water and power out West and, infact, furnishes the checkbook for a great deal ofthe water operations throughout the West. Agreat experience.

Coming Back to Study Reclamation's Future

I came back to Reclamation when thenSecretary [of the Interior Donald Paul] Hodeland Assistant Secretary [James W.] Zigler askedme if, because of my background, would I bewilling to head a team to take a look at theBureau of Reclamation, and what I saw as thefuture of it. I did not go into that with anyanticipation, or expectation, that I would returnto the Bureau of Reclamation. I headed thestudy called Assessment '87, used as a team allcareer Bureau of Reclamation employees. Wewent through the Assessment '87 and came outwith some recommendations that we might well


19

talk about later in this interview. 7

But, what it led me to believe [was] thatthere was a place for the Bureau of Reclamationin the future, it was even more important, and aneven harder job, than it was back when we werebuilding a lot of water resource activities. Andabout that time, Secretary Hodel asked me if Iwould consider coming back as deputycommissioner, and I agreed to do that and havebeen back with Reclamation then since 1987.

Storey: Well, when we got to your stint as regionaldirector in Denver, obviously you enjoyed that,but I didn't hear much about what happenedwhile you were there–as I did in Oklahoma andso on.

Regional Responsibilities

Hall: Yeah, that was part of the transitional period, wewere still finishing up projects. Some were stillunder construction–we had a number of olderprojects that we were operating. All of thosewere faced with the same situation, though, andthat is changing conditions–with NEPA, withoverall reduction in the flow in many areasbrought on by soil conservation practices and

7. Assessment '87 proposed utilizing Reclamation's engineeringand technical resources in a new manner to better operate existingfacilities. In addition, proposed new projects would be smaller in scalenad rely more on funding from "non-Federal finances." Reclamationwould work closely with other federal, state, and local agencies onwater resource problems, especially those concerning environmentalprotection and water conservation. For more information, see theDepartment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Assessment '87 ... ANew Direction for the Bureau of Reclamation, 1987.


20

others, including just less rainfall, in somecases. It started to bring about more emphasis towater management, and we probably were oneof the leading regions in taking the initiative towork with the districts to find new conservationmeasures, so that we were able to divert lesswater to grow the same crops. We were theleading region, I believe, in putting in soilmoisture probes, where we could actually figureout what the demand was for the particular cropand to measure that. And then we found thatwe, in fact, used less water, and it was eveneconomically rewarding to the farmers, becausethey leached less of the nutrients from the rootzone. We were able to grow the same cropswith less water, and at less expense.

So I would say that that was the era, when Iwas regional director, when we were starting toget a handle and starting to get a glimpse of thefuture–that it was going to be more of a watermanagement and less of a water developmentactivity. Seemingly every time before that thatwe needed some additional water, the answerwas to go build an additional water resourcefacility. Now the answer started coming aboutthat we would get that additional water throughsome conservation activity, or watermanagement activity, where we'd actuallydemand less to do the same thing. That was sortof our belief, and you have to kind of get aheadand look back in the rear-view mirror to see thatsometimes. But I believe that was in my tenureas regional director, where we really started thatapproach to water management, as opposed towater development at the Bureau of


21

Reclamation.

Storey: Well, things like the soil program and so on. Was Reclamation doing that, or were we doingany cooperation with A-S-C-S [Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service] and S-C-S [Soil Conservation Service], or how doesthat work?

Hall: Yeah, Reclamation was the real leader in thatarena. Now in many cases, we would havesomebody like at McCook, Nebraska, whowould come up with the right . . . would havethat interest, and they may end up working withthe head of the Nebraska University ExtensionService. They were cooperative efforts all theway along, but as far as I could tell, the realinitiation for that–in figuring out and using lesswater, and using better management practices,although not exclusively the Bureau ofReclamation, were initiated by the Bureau ofReclamation.

Now keep in mind, that these were on ourprojects, and so it made some sense. There mayhave been other initiations not on our project,that I'm not familiar with. But those wereReclamation people, and they were evenReclamation people, as opposed to the districtpeople, and surely as opposed to the farmers. Most of the farmers, frankly, thought it was abunch of bunk. They said they'd been farmingfor years, and their fathers had farmed beforethem, in many cases, and they knew how muchwater was required to grow the crops. And sothe notion that you could put a moisture probe in


22

the ground, and advise them better as to how todo it and when to do it, was foreign, and theyfelt as intrusive and a bunch of college punksout trying to tell them what to do.

But then, as it developed, and they began tosee that not only did it make some sense thatthey, in fact, could use less water, but in fact,use less fertilizer because they didn't wash it allfrom the root zones. Then they began to kind ofget interested, and once the irrigators themselvesbegan to get interested, well then of course, thewhole thing began to turn and they began to takesome initiative.

Storey: What kind of construction was going on–any,while you were regional director?

Regional Construction Projects

Hall: Well, we were finishing up a lot of the activitiesin the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Project, and anawful lot in the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,8

the project that was heavily . . . it was activelyunder construction during my tenure.

It's a project that diverts water from the westslope, to the east slope, for a number of uses

8. The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is a multipurposetransmountain, transbasin water diversion and delivery project inColorado. It makes possible an average annual diversion of 69,200acre-feet of surplus water from the Fryingpan River and othertributaries of the Roaring Fork River, on the western slope of the RockyMountains, to the Arkansas River basin on the eastern slope. For moreinformation, see Jedediah S. Rogers, "Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,"Denver: Bureau of Reclamation History Program, 2006,www.usbr.gov/history/projhist.html.


23

here in the east [eastern Colorado]. And, withthe passage of NEPA, then there wasconsiderable opposition to the diversion of thatwater from the west slope–albeit, it had beenauthorized for a number of years. Theopposition was strong–a lot of the diversionswere from the area of Aspen, Colorado. JohnDenver . . . I just mention John Denver becausehe lived over there, he even went to Congressand sang to the committees about the evil of thatdiversion.

I had many many meetings, still believingthat the best way to try to resolve those issueswas for people understanding each others'interests, and making accommodations wherewe could, and hopefully, the other parties'making suitable accommodations, as well. Butthe project proceeded with–in that environment,with a great deal of opposition and on the otherside, a great deal of support for it. The projectdid proceed, was completed, and now is inplace, and works very well.

All of that sort of marked . . . it's reallyinteresting to get to a stage of my career, as Iam, near the end and to look back and, as I saidbefore, it would be nice to say, "I knew all thatat the time." But I don't think you did. I don'tthink I did–I don't think I knew exactly whatstage we were in. I think you look back and say"Yep, that was part of the evolution, that waspart of the transition to the real environmentalbent of this nation–a real shift to watermanagement" . . . seeing if we could figure out abetter way to manage the projects, rather than


24

just develop more to where we have evolved totoday. Which may not be the end of theevolution, I don't know, but clearly we're in anera where it's extremely difficult to go out andbuild something new. So the thrust is mostassuredly along the way that the Bureau ofReclamation is headed, and that is one of watermanagement. [Background noise is swinging ofmetal handles on the table at which interviewtook place.]

Storey: You moved from basically a constructionproject, to a planning study in Kansas, to aproject office in Oklahoma City?

Hall: It was called a Planning Office at that time, itwas ...

Storey: And then on to the Regional Office?

Hall: Yes, regional director.

Storey: How did the nature of your contacts and thingschange, for instance, with the water districts? How did political concerns begin to change asyou moved through that system of Reclamationoffices?

Political Considerations

Hall: Yeah, in each of those positions, I think I wasgoing up in both grade and then stature, I think,and in the need to know and understanddifferent perspectives, including the politicalperspectives.


25

By the way, along the way, I would try tomake up for certain weaknesses. For example, Ihad a difficult time speaking before groups, andwould rather avoid it, and went throughToastmasters. And did that purposefully,because I knew it was a shortcoming, and thengot to where lo and behold, I liked to dothat–and it's a real joy for me to be able topresent to different groups.

But I think that you realize–I think I realizedmore and more, it was less and less data, and theknowledge of information that causes one to besuccessful. That's true in some technical arenas. It's always true in some technical arenas, but in abroader perspective, I think, both personally andprofessionally the increasing awareness thatthere are different perspectives, and gaining theability to work with people who do not agreewith you, is ever important as one goes throughhis career. And by professionally, I mean, whenwe try to accomplish something in the Bureau ofReclamation, I just think it's essential that youunderstand the political structure with both acapital "p" and a small "p", and understand howsystems are represented, how different groupsfunction and are represented, and increasinglylearn to work with them.

The reason I said what I did earlier aboutproject manager and the regional director, you'restill at a level then that allows you to work withenough of those groups personally where youfeel like you can accomplish something. Whatyou have accomplished, you can see. Once youget to assistant commissioner or deputy


26

commissioner level, it's my belief that you sortof lose touch with that, because you're dealingwith such broad aspects of administration of anagency, that you sort of lose touch with theindividual constituencies–both those that are foryou, and those that are against you.

Storey: Yeah, like the regional director's job. Do youget a lot of outside pressure, for instance, fromCongress, from Washington, D.C., from otheragencies?

Pressures on a Regional Director

Hall: Oh yeah, you get an awful lot of pressure forregional directors. I think we've been blessedthrough the years with some really outstandingregional directors in the Bureau of Reclamation,but because it is such a focal point formanagement, you get tremendous pressure.

Now, there is another aspect of pressure inthat it's been my experience that people will goas high in the organization as you will let themgo. They will come to me, if they think they canget away with that, rather than the regionaldirector, or go to the commissioner, rather thanme, if they think they can get away with that. It's our responsibility . . . one of the sort ofManagement 101, at least in the upper echelonof management, is to try to put people in theright court. If it's a regional issue, and they havenot yet discussed that with the regional director,then that's where we need to send them, is totalk with the regional director. Very essential,because people will go to the highest level


27

possible.

But assuming we do a good job, then, ofgetting people in the right court, then theregional director, or in some cases, the projectmanagers sit where those things come intofocus, and that's where the regional director, heor she, can then attempt to balance thoseenvironmental concerns againsteconomic/developmental concerns, and so on.

Storey: There are a lot of people who, I think, perceivethat Reclamation is a vehicle for water usersgroups. How do you respond to that sort of anattitude?

Hall: I think . . .

END TAPE 1, SIDE 1. JUNE 11, 1993.BEGIN TAPE 1, SIDE 2. JUNE 11, 1993.

Reclamation's Relationship with Water Users

Hall: I think that it's been true, that we have been anadvocate for the traditional water users for anumber of years. Now, that came about withsome validity, in that these traditional waterusers were the ones who bellied up to the bar,who signed contracts, who said that "I will payfor this water or power," in the case of powerusers.

Consequently, when challenges came to theright to use that water or power, or to chargethem more, or to take some away forenvironmental purposes, or whatever, I believe


28

that they were our ally, and I believe that wenaturally defended them, said "wait a minute,these people have contracts." I think that it'sless prevalent today, and I think it's stillchanging, in that it's not that we don't still likeour traditional water users, or power users, it'sthat we see it in a different light.

We see that so often, there is an opportunityto solve the problem, for example, inEndangered Species Act. You know, I think afew years ago, we might have said, "Well, wedid not build this project for the humpbackchub. We did not build this project for thatpurpose. Therefore, that's not our problem, noris it the water users." Now, then, I think the firstapproach would be to say okay, what is therequirement for maintaining this humpbackchub? It could go into the necessary biologicalstudies to determine that, and then to figure out,is there a way we can do this? Is there a waythat we can satisfy the traditional project needsand, at the same time, provide the waternecessary for the humpback chubs?

So I think in that sense, we have becomeless of an advocate for the traditional waterusers. Not opposed to the traditional users, butmore of the mode of trying to figure out ifthere's a solution to the problem. In some cases,that pits us against the traditional water users,because we may be in agreement, let's say, withthe [U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service, that thereis a way to accommodate that need. And someof the traditional users might be saying, "Wedon't care, that's our water and we don't want to


29

give any of it up for that purpose," and in thatcase, we would be opposed to it.

But I think the notion that we have stronglyrepresented the water users is a true one, and Istill think it's true to a certain extent. I just thinkthat we represent them in a different way now. We don't blindly represent them–"This is okay,if they don't want to give up the water, if thewater's theirs, they shouldn't give it up." We'drather represent their interest, along with otherinterests, to see if there's a solution to theproblem.

Storey: Well, I know that Karen said you wanted tospend about an hour, and it's been almost anhour now. So I would like to ask you if it's allright to use this material, and release it toresearchers, and that sort of thing.

Hall: You have my permission to do that.

Storey: Great. Thank you. And we can proceed withthe interview some other time. I appreciate it.

Hall: Okay. Thank you, Brit.

END TAPE 1, SIDE 2. JUNE 11, 1993.BEGIN TAPE 1, SIDE 1. JUNE 28, 1993.

Storey: This is Brit Storey, in the office of Joe D. Hall,deputy commissioner of the Bureau ofReclamation. It is July 28, 1993, at 2 o'clock inthe afternoon.

Storey: Let's see, when we talked last week, you talked


30

about leaving Reclamation to go to WAPA,Western Area Power Administration, orWestern, I guess, as they prefer to call it. CouldI get you to talk some more about what wasgoing on in terms of responsibilities being splitaway from Reclamation, and going over there,and your perspective on what was happening,and then what you did at Western?

Hall: Okay, and I prefer to call it WAPA.

Storey: Oh. Okay.

Working at WAPA

Hall: I guess we can call it whatever. And they–someof them feel like they like to call it Western, andsome of them like to call it WAPA. Theoriginal administrator of Western Area Powerwas named Bob McPhail and, originally, they9

all called him the "WAPA Papa," so it kindastuck. What happened back in those days, a lotof emphasis was put on the energy in the UnitedStates following the oil embargo of '73, and itresulted in the Energy Organization Act beingpassed in 1978, where the attempt of the nation,in addition to other things, was to consolidate allof the energy-related activities into onedepartment, namely the Department of Energy. That's when it was created. There was a part ofthe Bureau of Reclamation that went over toWestern Area Power, and that was thetransmission and the marketing of the electric

9. Before becoming the administrator for Western Area PowerAdministration, Robert L. McPhail was regional director for the Bureauof Reclamation's Great Plains Region, 1973-1978.


31

power. Some of us in the Bureau ofReclamation felt like that was not the thing todo, but we were advised at that time by theupper echelons of the Department of Interior notto fight that issue, and not to do anything overon the Hill that would keep that from happening. It did have the blessings of the then [Carter]administration, and we were advised to just let itgo, and whatever passed, passed. And so wewere . . . at least I was not actively involved inthe legislation, one way or the other.

But the legislation did come about,established the Western Area Power, and assuch, withdrew a part of the Bureau ofReclamation. As I say, the transmission and themarketing of the electric power to be handled bythem. A number of the Bureau people wentover to work in that endeavor, and I know thatoriginally, almost all of their hierarchy,including the administrator Bob McPhail . . .Bob McPhail was a regional director in Billings,Montana, for the Bureau, and he went fromthere to be the administrator of WAPA. TomWeaver was a key player with the Bureau, andhe went over to be an executive and soon–almost all of their top staff, at that time,came from the Bureau of Reclamation.

Well then, as things happened, about 1980,it was my time to move, and to go be regionaldirector at the Sacramento Office. Rather thantake that reassignment, for personal reasons, Idecided to stay here in Denver, and BobMcPhail offered me a job over there withWAPA.


32

And I took that, and I went over there at thattime as Conservation Officer, and, subsequent tothat, I became Assistant Administrator forEngineering, and then, after that, AssistantAdministrator for Power Management andOperation and Maintenance. So I was thereduring some of those formative years ofWestern Area Power. It was, at that time, a funplace to work, because it was a growingorganization, and getting their feet on theground, and establishing themselves with thepublic power customers. So I enjoyed myassignment over there with the Western AreaPower.

Storey: Were there a lot of tensions between Westernand Reclamation because of the–basically, mostof Western came out of Reclamation, didn't it? Or did it? Maybe I'm . . .

Tensions between Reclamation and Western AreaPower

Hall: Oh, yes, yes, they did, all of Western came fromwhat was a part of Reclamation. And I wouldhave to say yes to your question, I think therewas some inherent tensions that existed, becauseit was kind of like this new kid on the block hadtaken away part of our playground and had goneover–although it was none of their doing. It wasdone legislatively, and the decision was made inthe Congress to create this entity, and to do thepower marketing. And the split was to go in,and them do the transmission and powermarketing, and us still do the generation. Nowthere still had to be a Memorandum of


33

Understanding between the two agencies as tohow that would take place, and that was donewith key officials of both organizations. I knowit was headed by Cliff Barrett from the Bureau10

of Reclamation, and I don't remember for surewho headed the Western Area Power side,maybe Bill Claggett. Bill Claggett was thedeputy at WAPA, and is now the administrator,and it may have been Bill Claggett who did thenegotiating for the Western Area Power.

But at any rate, the agreements were madeproject by project as to what we in the Bureau ofReclamation would continue to operate, andthrough a certain bus bar, or a certain activity,and Western would pick it up at that bus bar oroutside the generating plant, or whatever. Thosedecisions were made as to the specific projectand specific location, and I think with a goodbusiness sense–that is to say, it didn't fall intoone category of saying okay at a certain bus baror station outside the generating plant on everyproject. Here's where the transition occurs,because in some places, it just would not havemade any sense from an operation andmaintenance standpoint.

Let's say that in some cases, WAPA wouldhave had people there, and we would have just

10. Clifford I. Barrett was assistant commissioner, Planning andOperations (1977-1981) and regional director of the Upper ColoradoRegion from 1981-1989. Mr. Barrett also participated in Reclamation'soral history program. See, Clifford (Cliff) I. Barrett, Oral HistoryInterviews, Transcript of tape-recorded Bureau of Reclamation OralHistory Interviews conducted by Brit Allan Storey, senior historian,Bureau of Reclamation, in 1996, in Salt Lake City, Utah, edited by BritAllan Storey, 2009, www.usbr.gov/history/oralhist.html.


34

had to keep a force there just to keep up aMemorandum of Understanding agreement. Itmight make sense for Western to take over allthe operations maintenance in that case, andvice versa. Sometimes it worked the other way. So the actual position of where the split wouldoccur was determined project by project, and Ihope with a business sense, and in the publicinterest.

But I think tension did remain in that time–Ithink it lessened over the years, but I think it'sstill there to a certain extent. There's a kind ofnatural competition, I guess, that the Congressset up between the Department of Energy andthe Department of the Interior, because there'sturf that exists, and there's legitimate operationand maintenance questions. There's legitimaterepayment questions, and all those get intowho's going to do it, but my experience has beenthat we just face those one at a time, and getover them, and usually people at the top are ableto . . . Fortunately, we have never had people atthe top management tier, let me call it, at theexecutive management of either organizationsthat have allowed themselves to get drawn intothose real serious turfy issues. Most of themhave been at levels lower than the topmanagement, and therefore, we've always beenable to get over them by just sitting down at topmanagement and saying, "Okay, we've got someconflicts here and let's settle them this way." And so the question's a good one–the tensionsdid exist, perhaps more pronounced and moreintense in those early years, but to a certainextent still exist.


35

Storey: Well, it was assistant administrator forengineering, right?

Assistant Administrator for Engineering

Hall: Yes.

Storey: What were you in charge of in that position?

Hall: I was responsible for all of the construction oftransmission lines, and substations, and electricties throughout the grid system of the thousandsof miles that are operated by WAPA. Maintaining the integrity of the system, thedesign of the system, it was a job probably mostcomparable to our Assistant Commissioner forEngineering and Research, because you endedup handling all the design, construction,research . . . We entered into operatingagreements with Electric Power ResearchInstitute, and others, to be sure that we wereright at the front of technology, as far astransmission is concerned.

I was only at that for about a year, and then Iwas asked by the administrator to take over asassistant administrator for Power Managementand Operation and Maintenance–it's a long title. That was where the hot spot was, the powermarketing is where all the contracts areadministered from, where all the rates areestablished and, consequently, that's where theinterface is with most of the power customers,not unlike here. A lot of people don't have areally intense interest in what we're doing from adesign and construction standpoint, but they


36

have a great deal of interest in matters likecontracts and length of repayment, and theamount that they have to pay, and that's the wayit is with WAPA. But the power customers,every change brought about a great deal ofpublic interest and scrutiny and a number ofpublic meetings, and I was at the head of thatpart of the operation for the latter years inWAPA.

Storey: Before we get away from the engineering part,I'm sort of interested. Did WAPA findReclamation's system that was turned over tothem to be acceptable, sort of up-to-the-minutein engineering, or were they spending a lot oftime making corrections?

Hall: The former, I'd say that . . . of course, keep inmind that the people who went over there to runWAPA were the same people who were withReclamation, doing that in large measure. Inother words, people who were involved in thedesign and construction of transmission lineswere largely the ones, and mainly the ones, whowent over to Western to do that type of activity. They were people who were involved in designand construction for the Bureau of Reclamationand so, I think, they would be naturally lesscritical than someone who came in from theoutside. These are people who had a part inputting it together, and then they just transferredto another agency, so it was more of acontinuation of what they'd been doing. And Ithink, as such, they were much more likely toaccept the way it was.


37

I think over the years, there has been a greatdeal of improvement in the transmission system,however, I believe that–I just think technologyhas changed a lot, and they have all sorts ofactivities and equipment now that they didn'teven have when I was over there. They havedirect current, you know, where they can gowith converters from alternating current to directcurrent and back to alternating current, andwhichever combination works the best to lowerthe resistance in the lines, so that they cantransmit it across the country with less loss ofpower and an increase in efficiency. So I reallythink WAPA has done a very good job ofkeeping up with technology and accommodatingthe change, but I have to say that I think most ofthose took place generally across the industryafter WAPA came into existence. So I think theanswer to your question is that they were prettypleased with the system that they inherited, theyjust got one that they knew in many cases was40 years old. They knew that transmissionpoles, themselves, were just deteriorating, andso they had to set up a very active program ofreplacement and maintenance, and then couplethat with the increasing improvements intechnology. They've had a very activeconstruction and maintenance program for theyears that they've been in existence.

Storey: I guess one of the things I'm sort of interested inexploring is whether this separation of WAPAfrom Reclamation was just a politicalreorganizational type of thing, or whether therewas some underlying issue within Reclamationthat the Congress was trying to address. At the


38

same time, they created B-P-A [BonnevillePower Administration], didn't they?

Hall: No, B-P-A was already in existence.

Storey: Okay.

Reasons Congress Created WAPA

Hall: And they had handled the power marketingfunction up there for some time. I think thatprobably Bonneville may have provided a modelfor the way it could have been working, becausethey'd been handling the marketing of Corps andBureau power for some time up there. And Idon't believe it was so much an internaldifficulty or strife that was existing, as much asit just got kind of caught up in the notion of thecountry and the Congress that "let's just get allthe power facilities over into one entity." Now,one could have gone a step further in that theBureau of Reclamation could have lost if it wasa win-lose proposition–they could have lost thepower generation, also. But I think theCongress was wise in not doing that, because totry to separate out the generation, the actualoperation of turbines there at the dam that are soclosely intertwined with the release of the waterand the other functions of running a dam. Thatwould have been almost insurmountable,because you would have had Western AreaPower people there operating the turbines, youwould have had Bureau of Reclamation peoplethere operating the gates, and making thereleases for other purposes, and the coordinationwould have gotten to be very difficult. So


39

probably, since they were trying to justconsolidate these energy functions, theyprobably made the right call: separate it outsidethe generation, do it from the transmission on,and then let them take care of the powermarketing.

Western and the Bureau, over the years,have done a great deal in bringing theirorganizations back together. And you'll seeplaces like at Loveland, Colorado, where theyhave a joint dispatch and area control centeroperated with Bureau people, and Western AreaPower people, physically sitting there side byside doing their functions, because it just worksout better that way. And there are similaractivities in California, and I think Arizona,where they've just moved to the place where inthe control of the way the water and the powerflow, they've found it advantageous to get thepeople where they're in the same proximity. SoI think there's been improvements in that arena,and that even goes further to tear down whateverturf issues might have existed.

Storey: When you were assistant administrator forPower Management and O&M, Western coversa pretty large area of the West. You justmentioned California, for instance, Arizona withmajor population centers, I think, in Western'sarea of responsibility. How did you find . . . Ipresume you were marketing to the major powercompanies and so on?

Working with Power Customers


40

Hall: The power is marketed by law to what's calledpreference customers. They get the first optionfor the power, which is basically public-ownedutilities, as opposed to investor-owned utilities,where people are involved for profit and put upthe money and get a return on their investment. The public-owned utilities take the form ofirrigation districts, public utility districts,municipalities, and the like, that do it in a publicway, and by law, this power is marketed to themfirst and secondly, it is offered on a cost basis, itis a not-for-profit operation. There's been muchdiscussion and debate whether that is the rightdecision or not, but that is by act of Congress,the language goes something like, "shall bemarketed to preference customers at the lowestpracticable cost available to them."

So it's not a matter that either we, or WAPA,could decide that, "Well this would be a goodthing to simply to increase the power rates tobring in more revenues." It's by law the lowestcost. Now, that may come face to face withsome of the revenue enhancement proposals ofthis administration [Clinton Administration],and, in fact, there may be attempts to change thelaw. There are decisions that you can makeadministratively, you know, as to whether it'sthe lowest practicable cost. You can go aboutand make other decisions in regard to whichare–you know, you have different interest rates. Which ones you require them to pay off first,and that sort of thing, that can affect the amountof money returning to the Treasury. But to go inand try to simply say, "Okay, we're going tocharge more for this product," you may come


41

face to face with the law and may, in fact,require a change in the law.

Storey: Did you also deal with the privately held utilitiesin marketing when you had surpluses?

Hall: Yes, yes, and that's exactly the criteria. In someareas, there might not be a need or a desire onthe part of the public power consumers topurchase all of the power, and then the surpluswas available with the consumer-ownedutilities.

Storey: What kind of differences did you see workingwith municipally owned utilities or publicutilities as opposed to investor-owned utilities?

Public Utilities and Private Utilities

Hall: Not very much. Not very much. They all aresort of faced with the same changes, that is tosay, how will they provide for the future powerneeds of their given area? And they're all facedwith rising costs, and they're trying to providethe power to the end consumer in the mostreliable way that they can, and at the lowest costthat they can. So they're kind of faced with thesame thing, and because they happen to work forPacific Power & Electric out of San Francisco,does not make them much different in approachto Platte River Power Authority up here in FortCollins, Colorado. They got the same generalconcerns, the only way–and here they're similar,too. The big organizations tend to take onbureaucratic layering, that's whether they're in orout of government. Pacific Gas & Electric has


42

bureaucratic layering, and legal constraints, andseemed to get in the way of themselves–andthey have two left feet, just like the federalgovernment or other big public powerorganizations. They're very, very similar, exceptby law, one is entitled to the first choice oftaking this preference power.

Storey: The fact that you had to sell to public utilitiesfirst, did that mean Western's power tended toconcentrate in smaller urban areas, in ruralareas, as opposed to large urban areas?

Hall: Both, I think. There is a lot of rural area publicpower provided, because that's sort of the natureof the beast. That is to say, it's in the 17 westernstates to begin with, and there's an awful lot ofthat public power available in rural areas,whatever big power developments down in theMissouri River, the Missouri River system, thatis, then power's available in Nebraska and SouthDakota, in North Dakota, and those places, thatis sort of by description mostly rural area. Onthe other hand, we have some power that'savailable from Hoover Dam, which Los Angelesis one of the customers, so it's some of both. Because we operate in the West, a lot of it justtends to be rural in nature.

Storey: When you say that WAPA was to provide thepower basically at cost, I have visions of anaccounting structure similar to Reclamation'sstructure for recovering costs for Reclamationprojects. Is that the case, is it a verycomplicated system where you've got things thataren't charged to the cost, and things that are,


43

and so on?

Setting WAPA Power Rates

Hall: Yes, yes, you have and they actually start–sinceWAPA is setting the power rates at the lowestpracticable cost available to the customer, someof those power rates that they are recovering arethose–let me call them Reclamation's cost,starting with the irrigation cost. As you mayknow, by law, the irrigators are only responsiblefor paying that portion of the irrigation bill, thatthey have the capability to repay as determinedby a preset set of rules and guidelines todetermine what the payment capacity is. Theremaining portion of that irrigation tab is paidfor by the power users, so Western Area Power,in addition to their rate that they would send outa bill to collect for, their expenses–let me callthem–has a portion of what are actuallyReclamation's expenses. So there is a veryinvolved set of determinations beginning withcost allocations, how the costs are actuallyallocated, flood control for a project isnonreimbursable, municipal water is allreimbursable at the current interest rate at thetime it was authorized, Fish and Wildlifeactivities are usually a mixed bag: some of thatis nonreimbursable and some of it reimbursable. We have recreation the same way, but that allboils down to it's a very complex, sometimesdifficult determination process, as to whatactually does constitute the cost that's to be paidback by these power customers.

Storey: I imagine, once again, there are tensions


44

between Reclamation and WAPA about howthat's determined, and so on.

Hall: Yes, yes, and some of them are longstandingissues, like the Fryinpan-Arkansas Project–theway those costs are allocated have been an issuefor five or more years. I know that we've beenstruggling with that issue to get that straightenedout, and how the costs are allocated on theGarrison Project, and other things. And theneven the amount that we're spending, the cost ofour operation and maintenance, or theirs mightbe challenged by either party, and we havesometimes long sessions to get through that andsee if we're charging the costs right, and all thatsort of thing.

Storey: Now don't I remember, from the other day, thatyou had a third position at WAPA, rather thanjust two?

Hall: Yeah. Well, I started as conservation officerwhen I first went over there, and then I went toassistant administrator for Engineering, and thenassistant administrator for Power Managementand O&M.

Storey: Conservation Officer is conserving electricity, Itake it?

Western's Conservation Officer

Hall: That's right. When I first went over there, BobMcPhail asked me to be what was Reclamation's[WAPA's] first Conservation Officer and thereason was this: that he had determined that we


45

would have an active conservation program, andthat the entities to which they sell the publicpower this power from federal facilities would,in fact, participate in a conservation program. And here's the kicker OR . . . or they would notget their full allotment of federal power. Generally, this federal power is cheaper thanother sources of energy. Now, maybe that's anoversimplification, but generally that's true–bothcapacity and energy. It is cheaper to get thepower from the federal facility, such as Hoover,as it is to go out and purchase power from anall-fire generation, or something like that. Sogenerally, people want their allocation of federalpower, it's done by an allocation processdependent upon the applicants and all that.

But Bob McPhail's notion was that in orderto maintain this cost-based power, then surelythey should be doing a good job of conservingthat energy that they get. And so, he asked meto come over and establish this conservationprogram, including the requirement that theyhave an active conservation program, that it beapproved by WAPA, and if they do not, thenthey were subject to losing a portion of thatfederal power allocation. Now, 13 years later,that is a well accepted premise for the publicpower customers–that they have to have anactive conservation program or they will lose aportion of their federal power allocation. Butthen, it was very controversial, very hostile attimes. The public meetings were quite exciting,which I was called several things besides aconservation officer (laughing). I was called alot of names! But in the end, it was something


46

that most of the public power community couldsee the rationale in doing. That is to say, it waslike many stages in our history, one of changingconditions, one in which the whole ethic of thecountry was changing to one of conservation,and to argue that it didn't make sense to arguethat these entities that were described by law asgetting the benefit of this federal power andgetting it cheaper, could afford to be in anyposition with even the perception that they werewasting this federal power.

And so the notion that they have aconservation program–and we didn't even tellthem what the conservation program had toconsist of, they had a whole laundry list, a wholemyriad of activities that they could be doing. Alot of them you see now, a lot of them you see,you know, going in and having people come outand look at your home and looking at takingultraviolet pictures and determining where theenergy might be escaping from your home, andall those sorts of programs. Some of them cameabout by virtue of things just like this, arequirement they have a conservation program. But it was up to them, they would go back anddevelop their own program, then they wouldcome in to us and say here's what we intend todo, and we would look at it and see if it madesense.

And obviously, we didn't have a cookiecutter approach to this, because we wouldclearly expect the city of Los Angeles to domore and to have a more sophisticated approachthan we would to consider the city of North


47

Platte, Nebraska. It's just, you know, theircapabilities, the level of their people, withexpertise to get in and get things done. So wewould look with a more stringent eye to thosethat had the capability of carrying out a realconservation program.

Storey: I understand, for instance, nowadays they'relooking at these kinds of energy conservationmeasures as a means of avoiding capital outlays,in terms of new plant construction, and that sortof thing.

Hall: Absolutely, absolutely, it went from being arather bad thing to do to a very good thing to do. In many instances it was the cheapest form ofenergy is to go in and conserve the energy. Ofcourse you have to remember that it was kind ofat the end of the era where people . . . if youremember that years ago, you tried to get peopleto use more electricity so you could sell themmore. Well now then, with the changingconditions in the country, it just doesn't make asmuch sense, I mean power companies don't evenwant to build . . . Every time they go in andbuild a new powerplant now, it is absolutely, ofcourse, their most expensive segment of energy,the most recent that they have added, plus mostpublic utility commissions will not let theminclude in the rate base all of the those newcosts, much less the risks that they are takingwith that new construction. So there's very fewutilities around the country that are anxious toget in and create some new generation forthemselves and so they find that if they can beinvolved in conservation measures, that actually


48

is the cheapest and best energy element that theycan develop right now.

Storey: As a practical matter, did any of the powercompanies actually not get their full allotment[because they didn't meet energy conservationrequirements of WAPA]?

Conservation Programs

Hall: My recollection on that is a little vague, but I dorecall some that fell within the first year of . . . Ithink the way the system worked, myrecollection is the way it worked is that if theydid not meet the criteria, they were given ayear–you were notified officially, and then theywere given a year to correct whateverdeficiencies they may have had. There wereseveral who got those notices that they had aninadequate conservation program, or maybe theyjust blew it off and decided we're just not goingto send it in. I know there were several who gotnotices, and I believe my recollection is thatsome of those then lost a percentage of theirfederal power the following year. Andbasically, I'll tell you what it was, those thatwere trying, we always gave the benefit of thedoubt. If they were doing the best they can, andthey were from Podunk, and they just didn'tcouldn't quite get it together, but they weretrying, then we would go the second and thirdmile.

On the other hand, those entities that werefor whatever reason . . . their manager or boardsof directors had simply decided, "Well, this is


49

silly, we don't want to participate in this," thenthey kind of told us to stick it in our ear. Thenwe kind of told them, "Okay, then you lose theportion of your federal power." So when youboiled it all down to, you know, if they weretrying to set up a conservation program, thatwe'd be in there helping them–and it wasn't a"gotcha" kind of program. In fact, it was justthe opposite–we were trying not to have a"gotcha" program, but to help them establish ameaningful conservation program. And thosethat were trying, even if they didn't meet everyletter of the law, and they didn't dot every "i",and cross every "t", they generally came out allright. But those that were just set in their ways,and would not do anything, I believe myrecollection is some of them did lose power and,of course, that's since changed.

Now, I doubt very seriously if WAPA hasany customers now that don't meet theirconservation requirements, and meet them in atimely way. But it's like anything else intransition, it sounds like a bad, heinous thing forthem to do. It's like saying well, you've got newrequirements under the Endangered Species Act,and people rebel at that, or Clean Water Act, oranything else. And these were conservationrequirements that some of them just didn't like,and were bound and determined they justweren't going to do.

Storey: When you were in charge of engineering atWAPA, and O&M also, how had . . . well, theenvironmental laws were still continuing tofunction, and by then, they were gaining more


50

and more momentum. And you know, youtalked the other day about your experience withthe environmental laws at the beginning of theirexistence. What are your perceptions about theway it was while you were at WAPA, and theway things had changed?

Environmental Considerations at WAPA

Hall: Yeah, I think that the realization had set in withthe leadership at Western Area Power and theBureau of Reclamation. But with a greatnumber of the power customers, that realizationhad not yet set in. I believe that they stillthought that this environmental movementwould go away, somehow it was going to be . . .it was a short-term deal. The next election, youknow, things were going to be all right but thatthe . . . you know, but I think that it really waschanging in there. I think it really startedchanging because, let's see, when was [PresidentRonald] Reagan first elected, 1980?

Storey: '80, he became President in '81.

Hall: Okay, so I went over there in 1980, and I believe. . . let's see, a number of the power customerswho tended to be Democrats–by the way, mostof them, for some reason, seemed like to memost of them were Democrats. But they still feltlike that this Jimmy Carter machine was kind ofa strange situation environmentally, but whenReagan was elected, then this would go back toa more normal business-like approach. Butthen, I think the evolution occurred by seeingthat "Hey, guess what," under Republicans or


51

Democrats, that the thrust of the nation is stilllargely toward environmental concerns. And it'snot towards building any more, and it's moretowards doing things in an environmentallyacceptable way including, the generation ofpower, and the way the power is handled, andconservation, and all those measures. So Iwould describe it as a rapidly evolving mentalitytowards environmental considerations just basedon reality. The reason I was recalling with youthe politics and who was in office I reallythought–they always think it's going to be betterand they saw you know Democrats getting inwith the . . . they were going to have their way,and then they saw that well, what they viewedthen as a bunch of environmental kooks, andthen they thought well now that we have aRepublican elected, things are going to go backto the way they were. But the thread existed,the environmental thread existed you know inboth parties, and I think that realization startedto really set in with the power customers, and Iwould guess with the water people, along aboutthat same time. I think the '80's was a timewhen the realization that this is not just somecrazy, wild-eyed scheme of a few people in theUnited States, but it is a thread that ispermeating the country and continuing and issomething we're going to have to li

hall, joe d. d2 › history › oralhistories › hall, joe.pdfjoe hall background storey: this is...

Documents