9298

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9298
• Author: Water Education Foundation.
• Title: Colorado River Project
• USFW Year: 1999.
• USFW - Doc Type: Symposium Proceedings.
• Copyright Material: NO

[Jenkinson] made that you have to judge an adminis-
tration in terms of its era. Therefore, in recent times,
as I've read Bob McNamara's book and as I read some
of Stewart Udall's speeches and, indeed, as I read the
proceedings of your session two years ago, it seems to
me that we are mistaken when we try to judge the
actions of the past in terms of knowledge about the
present. As I reviewed what happened between 1961
and 1966, when I left the Department or, 1968 when
[Stewart] Udall left, we must remember that we are
judging it in terms of the situation as of that time.
The second primary point I want to make is a
kind of tribute to old age, if you will, or at least to
seniority. I'm sorry that Floyd Dominy [former
commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation] isn't
here because Floyd Dominy would be able to speak to
many of the things I speak to with a good deal of
authority because, at age 90 plus, he's still going.
For my own part in preparing for today, I would
remind you that I went to the trouble of writing
down my recollections and my research on that era
and they are available to you for whatever reference
you want to make. [See Appendix C.]
My instructions from Mr. Johnson were to address
the questions he posed. One was whether the river
was an important part of our administration. I don't
think I have to go any further than reminding you
that it was very important from day one.
Stewart Udall's appointment was one of the early
announcements by President Kennedy. Udall was an
Arizona Congressman. Within a few days, there was
an announcement that the Under Secretary was going
to be Jim Carr from California. Everybody in
Washington, knew that Jim was appointed to watch
Stewart. In other words, the controversy [between
Arizona and California] over the Colorado River
dictated the manning of the Department of the
Interior from the very first day.
Another one of Bob's questions had to do with the
role of the Secretary. I tried to go back and find out
what the Secretary's role had been before we came
into office. Although Arizona v. California, the
Supreme Court Opinion, was two years in the future,
the controversy over the Colorado River was well-
known. It was very apparent to Secretary Udall that
one of his predecessors, Ray Lyman Wilbur, a
Californian, back in the '30s, had, on behalf of the
Department of the Interior and at the behest of the
Bureau of Reclamation, signed contracts for the
delivery of water from the Colorado River and from
Boulder Dam in excess of the amount which, by that
time, we knew was the dependable flow of the river.
A third point that Bob was interested in was how
policy was made. The point that I've emphasized in
my paper is that we came to office at a time when the

Congress had become very, very strong in the
resources area. There had been a huge influx of
Democratic Senators in 1958. Lyndon Johnson and
Sam Rayburn were extremely powerful. Stewart
[Udall] was himself a Congressman and had played a
major role in debates within the Congress in his
preceding two terms on Bridge Canyon Dam and
Echo Park Dam.
When we came into office, Udall, Carr, I, Ken
Holum and others, we were under no great illusions
about the limits to our ability to set policy or to
announce policy with reference to the Colorado
River. The "Board of Directors" was the Congress of
the United States. When you think about the
personnel we had to deal with, Wayne Aspinall, Clair
Engle, Clinton Anderson, Scoop Jackson, Warren
Magnuson and all of those giants, it would be
presumptuous on the part of any Secretary at that
time to take the position that he was, in fact, the
water master of the river.
The same thing is true with reference to Bob's
question about how we dealt with the states. Of
course we dealt with the states, but not as directly as
has become the pattern since. During that time, at
least, the states were represented by these very
Senators and Congressmen that I've mentioned. If we
wanted to deal with California or Nevada or Wyo-
ming or Utah, we knew, and the Congress people
knew, and the governors knew our channel to the
states was through their Congressmen.
Now, Bob asked a question about Native Ameri-
cans. Stewart Udall came from a state, as he was wont
to say, with more Indians than any other state in the
Union. Indian policy was very high on his agenda.
But, with reference to the Colorado River, a review of
history would indicate that the Indians' claims were
nomincally recognized - they had been put forward
before the Special Master and in the Supreme Court
argument - but we had no idea at that time, I think I
can honestly say, exactly what was involved when the
Supreme Court finally came down with Arizona v.
California.
The point I emphasize most strongly in my paper
in reference to the role of the Secretary in connection
with the river, focuses on the fact that the Secretary of
the Interior presides over a very diverse group of
Bureaus. The Park Service, the Indian Bureau, the
Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological
Survey have differing missions so that the function of
the Secretary with reference to the river or almost
anything else was refereeing disputes.
In my paper I mention the fact that I was in one
meeting when I thought Conrad Wirth, the Director
of the National Park Service, was going to have

THE
CHANGING
ROLE OF TH E
SECRETARY ON
TH E COLORADO
RIVER

SYMPOSIUM
PROCEEDINGS
SEPTEMBER 1999

o