Table Of Content

California State Archives State Government Oral History Program Oral History Interview with DAVID R. SCHUSTER Water Management and Pohcy Consultant, 1989 present General Manager (Califorma) State Water Contractors, 1982 1989 Umted States Bureau of Reclamation, 1965 1982 August 1, August 13 October 2 November 19 1991 January 21, February 6, February 28 1992 Sacramento Califorma By Malca Chall Regional Oral History Office Umversity of Califorma, Berkeley RESTRICTIONS ON THIS INTERVIEW This entire oral history transcnpt and tapes are sealed until the year 2005 or until David Schuster agrees in writing to unseal the transcnpt LITERARY RIGHTS AND QUOTATIONS This manuscnpt is hereby made available for research purposes only No part of the manuscnpt may be quoted for pubhcation without the wntten permission of the Califorma State Archivist or Regional Oral History Office, Umversity of California at Berkeley Requests for permission to quote for pubhcation should be addressed to Califorma State Archives 1020 O Street Room 130 Sacramento, California 95814 or Regional Oral History Office 486 Library Umversity of Cahforma Berkeley, Califorma 94720 The request should include information of the specific passages and identification of the user It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows David Schuster, Oral History Interview, Conducted 1991 and 1992 by Malca Chall, Regional Oral History Office Umversity of Califorma at Berkeley for the California State Archives State Government Oral History Program PREFACE On September 25, 1985, Governor George Deukmejian signed mto law A B 2104 (Chapter 965 of the Statutes of 1985) This legislation estabhshed, under the administration of the Cahforma State Archives a State Government Oral History Program "to provide through the use of oral history a contmumg documentation of state pohcy development as reflected m Cahforma's legislative and executive history The followmg mterview is one of a senes of oral histones undertaken for mclusion m the state program These mterviews offer insights mto the actual workmgs of both the legislative and executive processes and pohcy mechamsms They also offer an increased understandmg of the men and women who create legislation and implement state pohcy Further, they provide an overview of issue development m Cahforma state government and of how both the legislative and executive branches of government deal with issues and problems facmg the state Interviewees are chosen primarily on the basis of their contnbutions to and influence on the pohcy issues of the state of Cahforma They mclude members of the legislative and executive branches of state government as well as legislative staff, advocates members of the media, and other people who played sigmficant roles m specific issue areas of major and contmmng importance to Cahforma By authorizing the Cahforma State Archives to work cooperatively with oral history umts at Cahforma colleges and umversities to conduct mterviews, this program is structured to take advantage of the resources and expertise m oral history available through Cahforma's several institutionally based programs Participating as cooperating institutions m the State Government Oral History Program are Oral History Program History Department Califorma State Umversity Fullerton Oral History Program Center for Califorma Studies Califorma State Umversity, Sacramento Oral History Program Claremont Graduate School Regional Oral History Office The Bancroft Library Umversity of Califorma Berkeley Oral History Program Umversity of Califorma, Los Angeles The estabhshment of the Califorma State Archives State Government Oral History Program marks one of the most significant commitments made by any state toward the preservation and documentation of its governmental history It supplements the often fragmentary histoncal written record by addmg an orgamzed primary source ennchmg the histoncal information available on given topics and allowmg for more thorough histoncal analysis As such, the program, through the preservation and pubhcation of mterviews such as the one which follows will be of lastmg value to current and future generations of scholars, citizens and leaders John F Bums State Archivist July 27, 1988 This mterview is pnnted on acid free paper TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERVIEW HISTORY i BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY iii SESSION 1 August 1, 1991 [Tape 1, Side A] 1 Grandparents and parents Education, religion, discipline College one year UCBerkeley thence to California Polytechnic College in Pomona for B S in cml engineenng 1965 Job with Bureau of Reclamation Mid PacificRegiononconstruction projectsinRed Bluff, andSanLms,1965 1966 Damdesign, 1966 1971 Operations,1972 1979 Corps ofEngineers and bureau relationships in Dos Rios and English Ridge Effect on bureau of anti government attitudes of Presidents Nixon Carter Reagan, and environmental movement Changes in the bureau and loss of expertise that could have been transferred to otherkinds ofprojects Participationin development ofmtemalfacilitatorgroupwhichtramedselectedmembers ofbureau staff on facilitation skills based on Carl Rogers model [Tape 1, Side B] 24 More onfacilitator traimngand effect onSchusters career Various reorgamzations ofbureau Differing professional categones m water orgamzations and how they relate to each other Ideal working team of Ossofski Coleman, Greenhall Schuster Bureau shuts down facihtator trainmggroup Analysis ofits influence Teamwork during wmterstorms of1974 dealmgwithdrought, 1977m Sacramentoand Washington, D C Delta Standard 1965 contract never signed SESSION 2, August 13, 1991 [Tape 2, Side A] 48 Discussion and analysis of the Task Force on the San Luis Unit, 1977 1978 How task force worked and tackled the issues before them Role ofadvisors Schusteramongthem Redraftingthe Delta chapter The Coordinated Operations Agreement ready durmg Carter administration restudied durmg the Reagan administration Major players on the task force Federal/state interests Carter changes the federal perspective Watching task force at work reahzes that pohtics dictates outcome, notwhat staffIS doing BRprior to 1977 Regional directormorepowerful thancommissioner Todaybureau's mission completed little power Stateinterestedintaking overoperationof the CVP Continuing discussion of task force studyofissues, role of staff, final recommendations, mmontyreports Task force challenged former ways ofdoing things Schustermoves to Washington, D C , 1979 1980 Assistant to Dan Beard to help with operation and maintenance Difficult to deal with personalities on staff, old line bureaucrats [Tape 2 Side B] 74 Companng work in the field to work in Washington Interaction among Andrus, Garter and othermembers ofthe White House and bureau staff The New Melones issue with Mark DuBois chained to a rock Special knowledge and insight required to draft contracts More onregionalvs fieldvs Washington admimstrationand policy development Use of the media Early views of Delta based on ignorance Techmcal data allows for understanding and dealing with the problems caused by the water projects More on changmg the bureaus Utle Effect ofcreation ofDepartment ofEnergy on bureaus power facilities, power and admimstration Schuster returns to Califorma, works on San Luis slip [Tape 3, Side A] 103 Continuing discussion of San Luis Dam slip Decision to leave the bureau Takes position with State Water Contractors SESSION 3, October 2, 1991 [Tape 4 Side A] 114 Continuingdiscussionon reasonsfor leavingBureauofReclamation Disillusioned by top management unwilling to change focus or pohcies regardmg bureau's mission Interest m Carter admimstration approachtowaterpolicy Shiftsin regionalmanagement personnel Effects ofCarter's reelectionloss on administration's plans to reform bureaucracy and Schuster's opportumty to become assistant regional director in Sacramento Effect ofReagan's election, 1980, and civil serviceregulations on SchusterspositionwithinMid Pacific Region Decision against taking position with bureau in Texas Leaves bureau Differences between Republicans and Democrats on water issues Carter's water project "hit list" Takes position with State Water Contractors, 1982 BackgroundofSWC its earlyfocus revised structure and purpose Developinga cohesive workmgrelationship among contractors and the leadership [Tape 4, Side B] 135 Schuster's minutes of SWC meetings detailed in order to give members an opportunity to understand what was going on and to feel part of the process Working relationships with board and its members Tryingto setpnonties Effect ofchangesinwaterdistnct managers and directors Hinngmore staffindicates SWCintends to carryon Duesstructureandproblemswithassessingcostsfairlyfor Bay/Deltawaterquahtyhearmgs and studies Handlmgall committee meetings Department of Water Resources during Governor Jerry Brown (Ronald Robie) admimstration The quest for geothermal power DWR and SWC during the Governor George Deukmejian (David Kermedy) admimstration The budget process and differences over ongoing SWP and DWR costs [Tape 5, Side A] 156 Contmumg discussion of differences about costs between contractors and DWR New management plan considered DWRaudits by SWC and MWD Writing policy statements and developing policy The hoped for 1985 policy to operate State Water Project as one big facility The need for Delta facilities Relationships with ACWA, Farm Bureau Federation and related agencies, various environmental orgamzations, state and federal fish and wildlife agencies [Tape 5, Side B] 179 Healingthe schismbetweenprosandconsinfailed PenpheralCanal referendum (1982) Boswell cotton crops and double subsidy argument Reasons behind Boswell/Salyeropposition to Penpheral Canal referendum Techmcal problems had it passed Ag/water industry now willing to consider environmental issues Cotton and neesubsidies SuisunMarshagreementnotyetfinalized Hurdlesin developmgthe CoordmatedOperatingAgreement (COA) 1960 1986 SESSION 4, November 19, 1991 [Tape 6, Side A] ^00 Background on negotiations and techmcal studies for Coordinated Operation Agreement, 1961 1985 Negotiations between state and federal interests prior to May 23, 1985 heanngs before George Miller's subcomrmttee on Water and Power Orgamzation ofBusmess Roundtable compnsed of representatives of busmess, academic, environmental water and agncultural interests who write a bill acceptable to vanous constituents to present to Miller at May 23 heanng not related to COA [Tape 6, Side B] ^21 More on behind the scenes meetings with environmental groups in Sacramento to define the issues and agree on a bill authonzing the COA ToughandemotionalnegotiationswithstaffsofCongressmen Miller, Lehman, Coelho, Bureau of Reclamation HR 3113 passes House Serious problems with bill in the Senate House/Senate competition Negative attitude toward Miller Senator Metzenbaum's mterest m ending double subsidyon federal water projects and other concerns Reagandoesn tveto as threatened COAworkingallnght Review unhkely at present unless State Water Resources Board sets new standards [Tape 7, Side A] 242 Analyzing Senator Ayalas opposition to the GOA Governor Deukmejian^s 1984water legislationfails in senate Reason for the water community's opposition Working with Assemblyman James Costa Settingup the special taskforce committee, 1984 Ayalaand Costa each have bills Contentious debate and defeat ofCosta's bill at2 00 A M WhyDeltafacilities bills arebasedonneedto enhance fish life and water quality as well as additional water for imgation andurbanuse Watertransfers andtheTorres Katz and Batesbills [Tape 7, Side B] 263 Ongoing negotiations for solution to water problems end with projected need for Delta facilities, a concept still unacceptable to many environmentahsts who insist on pohcies for the Bay first before facilities are built Use of the media SESSION 5, January 21, 1992 [Tape 8, Side A] 267 Analyzing Bay Delta heanngs Phase I, 1987 studies of historic natural flows mdicate diversions have not reduced amount offlow into the Bay changed pattern offlow caused by dams needs study, pollution control at source or added inflows, long term negotiation to achieve balance between environment and people Califormans for Water established to develop an updated Califorma Water Plan adding environmental values not considered in the 1930s plan Schuster assigned to draw up the draft Problems inherent m gettmg agreementwithin the Three WayProcess Agnculture readyto accept water transfers, conjunctive use, conservation, et cetera, but still believes some type of Delta facility needed Environmentalists disagree on need for Delta facilities Difference between 1982 and 1991 plans for facilities [Tape 8, Side B] ^87 Continuing discussion of the ramifications of the Delta heanngs Effects ofthe Racanelli decision Controversywith EPA overwater flows and quality control in the Delta Analyzing roles ofthe State Water Resources Control Board and staff in the disputed Phase I hearings and decision The structure and future role of the board withrespect to developing an acceptablewaterpohcy Press coverage on waterissues Currentscopingstudiesrelatingto difficultoptions re fish andpeople Background on relationship with GovernorWilson and the Task Force Some members of Califormans for Water Development of the rule curve [Tape 9, Side A] 307 Continuing discussion on rule curve The effect of the 1991 March rainfall Reasonwhystate pulledoutofrule curve plan The question ofsurplus water, transfers, increased demands on the system with needfor4 2 mafby 2000 MWD*s growingneed Arrangementwith ImpenalValley for tailwater MWD,the drought, and contractarticle 18a and 18b MWDand Kem CountyWaterAgency Differences m costs for cotton farmers in the state and federal projects possible reasonfor Reclamation Law ReformAct of1982 and the aftermath SESSION 6, February 6, 1992 [Tape 10, Side A] 328 SchusterexplainsthereasonforleavingtheStateWaterContractors m 1989 afteryears ofeffort to get the contractors workmg together with the objective ofplamung for efficient water use for the whole system, he sawnew management team at MWDstarting to develop their own pohcies without regard to coordmation Frustration led to resignation Watercontractorshire Schusteras consultant Phonecall tells Schusterthat GovernorWilson has signed a lettersupportmgthe Seymour Bill in Congress Discussion on background of Seymour's mterest m signmg the letter Schuster continues discussion about his career as consultant with Sacramento County city of Lompoc, SacramentoCity/CountyFloodControlAssociation TheStrawman agreement of the Three Way Water Agreement Process Environmentalandurbanmterestsvs ag Recent attempts to redefine the issues Contmumgstalemate overthe Deltafacihtyissue EastBay Mumcipal Utility Distnct and the process