Skip to main content

Full text of "The passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 1991-1992 : the role of John Seymour"

See other formats

University of California Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office University of California 

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California 

California Water Resources Oral History Series 

Richard K. Golb 



Interview Conducted by 

Malca Chall 

in 1996 

Copyright 1997 by The Regents of the University of California 

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading 
participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of 
Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral history is a method of 
collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a 
narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well- 
informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the 
historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for 
continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected 
manuscript is indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and 
placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in 
other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, 
oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete 
narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in 
response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, 
and irreplaceable. 


All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement 
between The Regents of the University of California and Richard K. 
Golb dated October 5, 1996. The manuscript is thereby made 
available for research purposes. All literary rights in the 
manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The 
Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part 
of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written 
permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University 
of California, Berkeley. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be 
addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, 
University of California, Berkeley 94720, and should include 
identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated 
use of the passages, and identification of the user. The legal 
agreement with Richard K. Golb requires that he be notified of the 
request and allowed thirty days in which to respond. 

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: 

Richard K. Golb, "Passage of the Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act, 1991-1992: 
The Role of John Seymour," an oral history 
conducted in 1996 by Malca Chall, Regional 
Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley, 1997. 

Copy no. 

Richard K. Golb. 

Cataloging Information 

GOLB, Richard K. (b. 1962) Senator Seymour staff 

Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992; The Role 
of John Seymour, 1997, ix, 136 pp. 

Legislative assistant, Senator John Seymour, 1991-1992; writing and 
revising Seymour bills S. 2016, S. 3365; efforts to pass Seymour bills and 
prevent passage of CVPIA and Omnibus Water Act (Miller-Bradley bills); 
relationships with Congressman George Miller, Senator Bill Bradley, members 
and staff of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, agriculture 
community; attempts to negotiate with environmental community; Governor 
Pete Wilson, Department of Water Resources, Metropolitan Water District; 
Somach-Graff negotiations; future of CVP and CVPIA. 

Interviewed 1996 by Malca Chall for the California Water Resources Oral 
History Series. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley. 







Richard Golb: Executive Director, Northern California 

Water Association 1 

Staff Position with Senator Thad Cochran 3 

Legislative Assistant to Senator John Seymour 4 

Senator Seymour's Background 5 

Early Drafts of Senator Seymour's Bill S. 2016 7 

Concerns About Reclamation Reform 8 

Concerns About the Miller-Bradley Bills 10 

Concerns About the Omnibus Water Bill H.R. 429 11 

Analyzing Senator Bradley' s Bill, S. 484 11 

The Minority Report of the Senate Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee 14 

Problems with the Bill 15 

The Activities of Senator Seymour and His Staff 16 

Contacts with the Environmentalists 17 

The Constraints of Compromise on Both Sides of the Debate 20 

The Environmental Community Defined the Debate Politically 21 

Policy, Not Politics Would Have Produced a Different Bill 24 

The Pivotal Role of the Metropolitan Water District 25 

The Problems with the Water Transfer Provisions of 

the CVPIA 26 

The Seymour Bill Moves Through the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee and the Senate 28 
Senator Seymour Offers Revisions: Fundamental Disagreements 

Remain 30 

Senator Seymour's View of the Committee's Maneuver 32 

The Agriculture Community 33 

Senator Bennett Johnston's Mark 33 

Governor Pete Wilson and the CVPIA Debate 35 

Transferring the Central Valley Project to the State 36 

The Continuous Round of Phone Calls, Conferences, Meetings 

Prior to the Energy Committee's Decision to Move the 

Seymour Bill 38 
The Agriculture and Environmental Communities Try to 

Understand the Committee's Decision 42 

The Business Community and the CVPIA 43 
George Miller Introduces H.R. 5099; Revises it to 

Accommodate Central Valley Congressmen 45 

The Conference Committee 46 
Senator Seymour's Stamina: Dealing with the CVPIA 

and his Election Campaign 47 

The Somach-Graff Negotiations 48 

The Ongoing Debate Over the CVPIA 50 

Correspondence Between Senators Seymour and Bradley 52 
Revisions of the Seymour Bill Rejected by Congressman 

Miller and Senator Bradley 53 
Senator Seymour Submits S. 3365 and Filibusters Against 

H.R. 429 54 

Attempts to Gain Agriculture's Acceptance of the Revisions 56 
The Conference Committee Produces the Final Draft of the 

Omnibus Water Bill 59 
The Omnibus Water Bill Passes Through the Congress: 

Analysis of Some of the Factors Involved 60 

The Effects of the CVPIA on California Agriculture 63 

The Effect of the Experience on Richard Golb 65 

Refining the CVPIA 65 




The Water Resources Center of the University of California, in 1965, 
established a History of California Water Resources Development Oral 
History Series, to be carried out by the oral history offices at the Los 
Angeles and Berkeley campuses. The basic purpose of the program was "to 
document historical developments in California's water resources by means 
of tape recorded interviews with men who have played a prominent role in 
this field." The concern of those who drafted the program was that while 
the published material on California water resources described 
engineering and economic aspects of specific water projects, little dealt 
with concepts, evolution of plans, and relationships between and among 
the various interested federal, state, and local agencies. 

To bridge this information gap, the Water Resources Center, during 
the past quarter century under the successive direction of Professors 
Arthur F. Pillsbury, J. Herbert Snyder, and Henry Vaux, Jr., has provided 
funding in full or in part for interviews with men who have been 
observers and participants in significant aspects of water resources 
development. Early advisors to the project on the Berkeley campus were 
Professors J. W. Johnson and David K. Todd. Gerald Giefer, librarian of 
the Water Resources Center Archives, Berkeley, has maintained an 
important advisory role in the project. 

Interviewees in the Berkeley series have been pioneers in western 
water irrigation, in the planning and development of the Central Valley 
and California State Water Projects, in the administration of the 
Department of Water Resources, and in the pioneering work of the field of 
sanitary engineering. Some have been active in the formation of the San 
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; others have 
developed seminal theories on soil erosion and soil science. But in all 
cases, these men have been deeply concerned with water resources in 

Their oral histories provide unique background into the history of 
water resources development and are valuable assets to students 
interested in understanding the past and in developing theories for 
future use of this essential, controversial, and threatened commodity 

Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Director 
Water Resources Center 

January 1989 

University of California, Riverside 


January 1997 

The following Regional Oral History Office interviews of have been funded in 
whole or in part by The Water Resources Center, University of California. 

Banks, Harvey (b. 1910) 

California Water Project. 1955-1961. 1967, 82 pp. 

Beard, Daniel P. (b. 1943) 

Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 1991-1992; The Role 
of George Miller. 1996, 67 pp. 

Gianelli, William R. (b. 1919) 

The California State Department of Water Resources. 1967-1973. 
1985, 86 pp. 

Gillespie, Chester G. (1884-1971) 

Origins and Early Years of the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. 
1971, 39 pp. 

Golb, Richard K. (b. 1962) 

The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992: The 
Role of John Seymour. 1997, 107 pp. 

Graff, Thomas J.(b. 1944) and David R. Yardas (b. 1956) 

The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992; 
Environmental Defense Fund Perspective. 1996, 133 pp. 

Harding, Sidney T. (1883-1969) 

A Life in Western Water Development. 1967, 524 pp. 

Jenny, Hans (1899-1992) 

Soil Scientist. Teacher, and Scholar. 1989, 364 pp. 

Langelier, Wilfred F. (1886-1981) 

Teaching, Research, and Consultation in Water Purification and Sewage 
Treatment, University of California at Berkeley, 1916-1955. 
1982, 81 pp. 

Leedom, Sam R. (1896-1971) 

California Water Development. 1930-1955. 1967, 83 pp. 

Leopold, Luna B. (b. 1915) 

Hydrology, Geomorphology, and Environmental Policy : U.S. Geological Survey. 
1950-1072. and UC Berkeley. 1972-1987. 1993, 309 pp. 


Lowdermilk, Walter Clay (1888-1974) 

Soil. Forest, and Water Conservation and Reclamation in China. Israel. 
Africa, and The United States. 1969, 704 pp. (Two volumes) 

McGaughey, Percy H. (1904-1975) 

The Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory; Administration. Research, 
and Consultation. 1950-1972. 1974, 259 pp. 

Nelson, Barry (b. 1959) 

The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992; 
Executive Director. Save San Francisco Bay Assocation. 1994, 88 pp. 

Peltier, Jason (b. 1955) 

The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992; 
Manager, Central Valley Project Water Association. 1994, 84 pp. 

Robie, Ronald B. (b. 1937) 

The California State Department of Water Resources. 1975-1983. 
1989, 97 pp. 

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 1964-1973. 

Interviews with Joseph E. Bodovitz, Melvin Lane, and E. Clement Shute. 
1986, 98 pp. 

For other California water-related interviews see California Water Resources 



Richard Golb, executive director of the Northern California Water 
Association, learned about California water policies and politics the hard 
way. A young, recent postgraduate student, with limited experience on a 
Senate staff, he was, in March, 1991, appointed legislative assistant to 
California Senator John Seymour. Assigned to the Senate Committees on 
Agriculture, and Energy and Natural Resources, he spent most of his time 
during the ensuing two years dealing with the contentious issues and 
debates involving the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 

John Seymour, a moderate Republican, with a background in local 
politics and eight and one-half years in the California Senate, began his 
U.S. Senate term in January, 1991, when he was appointed to fill out the 
term of California's newly elected Governor Pete Wilson. 

Thus both John Seymour and Richard Golb arrived in the Senate in 
early 1991 just as the debate over the CVPIA came into focus. It remained 
for them the center of attention until October 30, 1992, when a reluctant 
President George Bush signed it into law as Chapter XXXIV of the Omnibus 
Water Act. 1 Debate began in early 1991 when New Jersey Senator Bill 
Bradley (D) and California Congressman George Miller (D) each submitted 
bills designed to reform the Central Valley Project. Although originally 
differing in details, the Miller and Bradley bills, through redrafts and 
amendments, gradually came close enough to be referred to as the Miller- 
Bradley bills which were backed by the environmental community and major 
business interests. 

The alternative to Miller-Bradley, favored by the agriculture 
community which helped draft it, was introduced by Senator Seymour in 
November, 1991, and henceforth tagged the Seymour bill. 

In his oral history, Richard Golb has fleshed out the history of the 
Seymour bill and the senator's unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a less 
onerous reform measure by compromising the demands of both the 
environmental and agriculture communities . According to the environmental 
community, Seymour refused to negotiate. Golb offers a different story: a 
portrait of a senator who did want to compromise, who did offer amendments, 
and who did try to move, albeit in small steps, an agriculture community 
beset by internal factions. 

'Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992: Reclamation Projects 
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, pp. 4600-4769. 

Golb explains how and why the Miller and the Bradley bills differed, 
the background of the Central Valley's distrust of George Miller, and how 
the environmental community politicized the CVP reform debate. He explains 
the reason why the Seymour bill, not the Bradley bill, passed the Senate, 
but lost in the conference committee as Senator Seymour expected it would. 
"A slam dunk", according to the weary senator, at that time also 
campaigning to retain his seat in the Senate. 

Senator Seymour's filibuster, commended by some of his peers, 
according to Golb, and his offer of a new and revised bill in the waning 
hours of the session, could not thwart the passage of the CVPIA. Always a 
prime threat to the Seymour bill and a major factor in its defeat was the 
Omnibus Water Act which tied some dozen western water projects to Central 
Valley Project reform. In the end, congressmen from these states abandoned 
their former California allies in favor of their projects, for many years 
held hostage by Congressman Miller to the passage of CVP reform. 

The three and one-half hour interview with Richard Golb took place in 
Sacramento in the conference room of the Northern California Water 
Association on May 3, 1996. Mr. Golb and I first met by phone in 1993. He 
called to introduce himself after he heard that I was conducting interviews 
on the CVPIA with Jason Peltier and Barry Nelson. He said that he had 
worked with Senator John Seymour and would like to tell their side of the 
story. He also told me that he had kept a daily log and had a trunk full 
of papers which might be useful. Although at that time I had no funds for 
his interview, I wanted to see his source material. So twice during the 
following three years I spent time in his office perusing the relevant 
papers and those segments of his journal pertaining to the CVPIA. 

In 1995 funds became available for this long-desired interview, but 
it was not until 1996 that our schedules meshed. In the meantime, I had 
added interviews with Thomas Graff and David Yardas of the Environmental 
Defense Fund who explored the history of the Bradley bill, and with Daniel 
Beard, longtime staff director for George Miller, who highlighted George 
Miller and the Miller bills. The time had come to add John Seymour to the 
history of the CVPIA. 

With the aid of his journal (which remains his personal property), 
his valuable collection of bills, memoranda, correspondence (copies of 
which he has made available for the oral history volume and the Water 
Resources Archives), and his clear recollections of those two hectic years, 
Richard Golb has provided an account of John Seymour's essential link to 
the passage of the CVPIA. He carefully checked the lightly edited 
transcript to ensure its accuracy. Knowing that California water policy is 
never finished, he states succinctly, "Just because President Bush signed 
the CVPIA that hasn't ended the debate." 

Again I want to thank Don Erman, director of the Centers for Water 
and Wildland Resources, for enabling the completion of this series on the 


Central Valley Project Improvement Act. It is hoped that this and the 

preceding five interviews on the CVPIA will provide historians and water 

policy buffs with useful clues and insights into this major transition in 
California water policy history. 

The Regional Oral History Office was established in 1954 to augment 
through tape-recorded memoirs the Library's materials on the history of 
California and the West. Copies of all interviews are available for 
research use in The Bancroft Library and in the UCLA Department of Special 
Collections. The office is under the direction of Willa K. Baum, and is an 
administrative division of The Bancroft Library of the University of 
California, Berkeley. 

Malca Chall 
Interviewer /Editor 

January 1997 

Regional Oral History Office 

The Bancroft Library 

University of California, Berkeley 

Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 The Bancroft Library 


University of California 
Berkeley, California 94720 

Your full name ' 

(Please write clearly. Use black ink.) 


Date of birth /O - /O '&"*- _ Birthplace 
Father's full name / <?<-*<=*' > Sfi-S 6 *<;/+-> <- 

Mother's full 

Your spouse <<* 


Your children 






Where did you grow up? 
Present community ~S<& 


Occupation(s) x 

Areas of expertise 

Other interests or activities 

Organizations in which you are active_ 


[Date of Interview: May 3, 1996 ]ti l 

Richard Golb: Executive Director. Northern California Water 

Chall: I wanted to get some idea about your background so that we can 

understand how you got to this position as executive director of 
the Northern California Water Association. 

Golb: We're a 501 (c) (6), which is a nonprofit corporation. 

Our organization was formed in 199 Iprior to my arrival here 
--by landowners and farmers in the Sacramento Valley who wanted an 
organization that was regional. There's a lot of water 
organizations in California, but the Sacramento Valley felt that 
they were being overlooked: overlooked in the CVP [Central Valley 
Project] debate, overlooked in water transfer legislation that was 
occurring in 1990 and '91. So they felt that they needed an 
organization that solely focused on agricultural water suppliers in 
the Sacramento Valley. 

They're doing some really progressive things, and they wanted 
some help, they wanted some coalition efforts, they wanted to all 
come together in a unified voice. So the organization was formed. 
They hired an executive director, and there was a difference in 

Chall: Who was that executive director? 

'This symbol (If) indicates that a tape or tape segment has begun or 
ended. A guide to the tapes follows the transcript. 

Golb: His name was Kip Solinsky [spells]. 

Chall: Are these primarily rice growers? What else besides rice? 

Golb: A lot of crops are grown in the Sacramento Valley. Rice is the 
predominant crop. Tomatoes, melons, all kinds of row crops, 
there's a lot of orchards, peaches, prunes. 

Chall: These growers receive CVP water? 

Golb: Most of our members are senior water rights holders that have pre- 
1914 water rights and riparian rights on the Sacramento River, the 
Feather River, and the Yuba. 

Chall: I see. That's the basic difference between them and the other 

Golb: That's right. Their water rights and water supplies are very 

Chall: Valuable, but they have different kinds of rights. 

Golb: That's correct. 

Chall: Are these what are known as "exchange rights"? 

Golb: Similar. Most of these are called settlement contractors, in terms 
of on the Sacramento River. We represent fifty- two individual 
water companies, water agencies, and individual farmers that 
irrigate about 750,000 acres of land. Much of the acreage we 
represent is irrigated with settlement water supplies. 

Chall: There are fifty-two agencies or water rights people in this 

Golb: That's right. 

Chall: Who are your representatives primarily in the [California] assembly 
and in Congress? 

Golb: In the state legislature, it's Tom Woods and Bernie Richter. 

They're both in the assembly. The senators that represent most of 
the district are Maurice Johannessen and Tim Leslie, although there 
are other members of the legislature that are pretty close to what 
we do and follow it pretty closely. There's a certain affinity for 
what a lot of farmers in the Sacramento Valley have accomplished in 
the last ten or fifteen years. 

And then at the federal level, in Congress of course, it's Vic 
Fazio and Wally Merger that represent most of the acreage our 
members irrigate. 

Chall: And you are the executive director since 19 
Golb: Since September of 1993. 

Chall: That was after the election, of course. What did you do in the 
interim after you left Senator [John] Seymour? 

Golb: You know, I kind of look at it as though I was displaced. It's one 
way to look at it, in the election of '92. Which is something 
we'll have to talk about later. 

After Senator Seymour was defeated, Governor Wilson appointed 
me as a deputy director for policy and planning at California's 
Department of Food and Agriculture. I was there for nine months. 

Chall: Well, that was a good learning experience. 
Golb: It certainly was. 

Staff Position with Senator Thad Cochran 

Chall: What's your background in education that got you onto Senator 
Seymour's staff and then into this job? 

Golb: Well, I have a bachelor's degree in communication from Arizona 
State University in Tempe, Arizona [December 1985]. I have a 
master's degree in international relations from Columbia University 
in New York [October 1989]. I was particularly focused on trade 
and international economics when I came out of graduate school, 
went to Washington, D.C., and those jobsfor example, on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee or being a foreign affairs 
advisor, or a legislative assistant to a U.S. Senatorare very 
difficult to get. Most of the people who hold those jobs have a 
tremendous amount of experience, either in the military or in 
academics. And right out of graduate school, it was difficult for 
me to compete with them. Ultimately I did get offered a job in 
Senator Thad Cochran 's office. 

Senator Cochran is the senior senator from the state of 
Mississippi who's been in Washington since the mid -seventies. He's 
a very able, very well-respected senator--well-respected by both 
Democrats and Republicans. And they had a job available in their 

office. They couldn't find anybody from Mississippi, and I 
happened to show up on the doorstep. They put me through probably 
the most extensive interview process I've been through. I was 
waiting tables at night at the Restaurant America at Union Station. 
I was privileged to get that job; those positions are very 
difficult to get. So I was very fortunate and started working on 
agricultural issues [October 1989]. 

Legislative Assistant to Senator John Seymour 

Golb: After Governor [Pete] Wilson won the gubernatorial race against 

Dianne Feinstein in 1990, Senator Seymour was appointed to fulfill 
the remainder of Governor Wilson's term in the Senate. Most of 
Governor Wilson's staff that had worked on agriculture and resource 
issues knew me. They liked me because I was a guy from California 
working for a Mississippi senator. That doesn't happen a lot; 
Senate offices tend to hire people from their own state. 

So I had known and worked with many of Governor Wilson's 
staff, and they thought I would be a good candidate to work for 
Senator Seymour. So when Senator Seymour was appointed, I went 
through an interview process and was hired. My first day on the 
job was March 18, 1991. You've recognized that date because that 
was the date of the hearing in Los Angeles on S. 484. 

Chall: You did grow up in California? 

Golb: Pretty much. I lived in southern California, in Van Nuys, through 
elementary school and started junior school. Then our family moved 
out of state, and we moved all across the U.S. Lived in Minnesota, 
upstate New York, Arizona, Texas. 

Chall: You considered yourself a Calif ornian then to some degree? Or it 
didn't matter. 

Golb: Well, it matters. Much of my family is still here in California. 
My sister and father are in Los Angeles, and I have a lot of 
relatives in Costa Mesa and Santa Barbara and throughout the state. 
So I do consider myself a Californian with a lot of other state 

Chall: Now we have you in Senator Seymour's office on March 18. What kind 
of duties were you assigned at that time? 

Golb: I was hired as a legislative assistant, which as you are aware is a 
staff person that has responsibility for various issues or 

committees. In this case, I was assigned two committees that 
Senator Seymour served on: the Senate Agriculture Committee and the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It's a lot of work 
and is unusual that one legislative assistant would handle two 
committees, but in this case that's the way it was, and it was a 
wonderful opportunity for me to have that kind of privilege to work 
two committees and be involved in a lot of different legislation. 

Chall: Did water take up most of your time eventually? 

Golb: Eventually it became the dominant issue even though I still had a 
lot of other responsibilities. The Senate Agriculture Committee 
passed several bills, there were hearings, there were appointments 
--President Bush appointed a new deputy secretary of agriculture 
and a new secretary of agriculture during my tenure as well as 
other positions in the department. Those all require Senate 
confirmation, so there are lengthy confirmation hearings. There 
was some legislation on dairy issues as well as a technical 
corrections bill to the 1990 farm bill. So there was a fair amount 
of activity in the Senate Agriculture Committee. 

At the time, we were in the midst of NAFTA, the North American 
Free Trade Agreement. We had a lot of problems at that time during 
those two years with Mexico in terms of imports and exports of 
fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, of course, we had our 
trade negotiators overseas trying to finalize GATT, the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. So we were heavily involved, and a 
lot of my time initially was involved in a lot of agricultural 
issues to which Senator Seymour played at times a major role on 
some issues and at other times less of a role. But the water 
issues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and 
particularly the Central Valley Project Improvement Act [CVPIA]-- 
began to dominate not only my time but Senator Seymour's time. 

Senator Seymour's Background 

Chall: How much background did Senator Seymour have on water issues in 

Golb: Surprisingly more so than a lot of people initially gave him 

credit. He had been a local mayor; he was the mayor of Anaheim and 
was involved in the typical issues that a mayor is involved in 
which include water treatment facilities, water transportation 
facilities. He had been involved in real estate and had been 
involved in many office buildings and apartment buildings and other 
real estate ventures, so he was familiar with it at that level. 

Then when he came to the [California] legislature, of course the 
legislature had considered a number of water bills that he played a 
role in, to a certain extent. So he had a lot more knowledge than 
the average Calif ornian might about water issues in the state. 

Chall: In an article in the California Journal shortly after Senator 

Seymour was appointed, the author, Jeff Weir, said that when he was 
appointed the Republican conservatives opposed him. 1 That was 
primarily on abortion issues. The conventional wisdom was that 
Seymour would be defeated by the Democrats in 1992. I wondered 
whether that was a problem to him all the way through in his 
campaignstrying to appease conservatives. I'm not sure of that, 
but that was said at the beginning of his term. 

Golb: Jeff Weir was an optimist. He was an optimist because he came to 
work for Senator Seymour shortly after Senator Seymour was 
appointed and became his California press secretary. He served 
throughout and was equally displaced like I and others in December 
of '92. So he was an optimistic guy who made a prediction which 
came true. 

Senator Seymour, like Governor Wilson, is a moderate. He's a 
moderate Republican. He was pro-choice, and he had actually 
supported more environmental provisions than most people gave him 
credit for. He secured a provision in an energy bill that was also 
tied closely to the water bill: a ban on offshore oil drilling off 
the coast of California into the next century. He had done a lot 
of other things too, but they weren't widely acclaimed, they 
weren't picked up by the newspapers or the media. And they were 
basically overlooked by much of the environmental community who 
didn't want to give him credit and who were supporting Senator 

I'm not aware of Senator Seymour trying to appease 
conservatives on the issues that I was responsible for, primarily 
agricultural and water issues. I didn't see a philosophical 
difference in his perspective or his positioning on those issues. 
In fact, he was consistenthis initial position on CVPIA was 
fairly consistent all the way through to the end. His views became 
more focused and sharper, his knowledge increased tremendously, his 
grasp of the technical matters grew, but through to the end his 
initial position was pretty much consistent. 

In fact, it's probably easy for me to argue that had he wanted 
to take a more crass or political position, it would have been 

'Jeff Weir, "Seymour for the Senate," California Journal, February 
1991, p. 57. 

extremely easy, it would have been more lucrative in terms of 
fundraising, and it probably would have gathered more votes for him 
in the election. But he chose, I think, not to do that because he 
came up with a position, based upon the initial hearings. And I 
have to admit I didn't help him develop his initial position; all 
we did was refine it. 

Chall: By the time you came along, the Bradley bill [S. 484] had already 

been introduced- -February 1991--and the Miller bill, H.R. 1306, had 
been introduced March 6. There had been some drafts of [Senate 
bill] 2016 already written. 

Early Drafts of Senator Seymour's Bill S. 2016 

Golb: That's correct; 2016 was introduced on November 21 of '91. 
Chall: Prior to that there were quite a number of drafts written. 
Golb: Well, there were a number of drafts-- 

Chall: Because I have them dated May 21, '91; June 19; and September 5. 
There might have been others in between. Then S. 2016 was 
introduced on November 21. The earlier ones, I think, had been 
drafted by [Stuart] Somach, probably, and [David] Schuster. 1 
don't know who wrote the last one. So some of these bills were not 
written by Senator Seymour. 

Golb: You need to go back a little bit further. In March of '91, Senator 
Seymour introduced a bill that was S. 728. The title of that bill 
was the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries Restoration Act. That 
bill contained a number of provisions in it to resolve fishery 
issues on the upper Sacramento River. And that grew out of a local 
effortin the late eighties, early nineties. As the fishery 
problems began to increase in California, local fishermen, sport 
fishermen, commercial fishermen, as well as others that were 
interested in the watershed, came together and identified a number 
of projects needed to be undertaken to protect and restore the 
fishery. So Senator Seymour took those provisions that came out of 
that local effort and introduced that as a bill in March of '91. 
That bill was a genesis for a lot of the specific provisions that 
were included in 2016, that was introduced later in November of 
that year. 


November '21, 1391 


S 174H3 

relief or resupply. they held Corregi 
\or and the Manila Bay against battli 
irdened troops and constant bom 1 - 
ient until April of 1942. After 
er 4 months of savage fighting and 
sible deprivations, these Amari- 
heroes. were turned over to nith- 
\ captors and forced to endure /the 
pities of the Infamous Bataan 
march. The courage, vigillnce, 
pyalty displayed by the defenders 
l-taan will live forever in the 
i of American military history. 
As a result of this action, all U.S. 
Army \ personnel at Bataan/ were 
awarde* the Bronze Star. However, 
the over 3,000 sailors, and marines 
who fought with the same /tenacity 
and suffered the same terrible fate of 
the Bataan death march were not 
awarded the Bronze Star. /I believe 
that the tact that these Americans 
were in another branch of ihe service 
should not pen y them the same recog 
nition and \honor that their Army 
counterpartA received. Tne American 
heroes of tne United States Naval 
Service desenve that recognition and 
that honor. Ify my view. /that honor is 
long overdue. 

Mr. President. I ask unanimous con 
sent that the t_xt of trie bill be print 
ed in the RECOI . 

,o ob/ection. the bill 
be /printed in the 

There being 
was ordered 

RECORD, as folio 

Be it enacted try 
Representatives of 
America in Congress 



1PTI.VES. to' 

(a) FINDINGS. Congi 

'mate and House of 
United States of 


CD United States Arm 
the command of /Gen 
wright who fought In 
during the defend of Co: 
Philippines, at the outbrea 

I finds: 

personnel under 
Jonathan Wain- 
were cap cured 
:pdcr Island, the 
World War II 

United States 

>nnel. serving 

rail command 

t in the de- 

were awarded U* bronze 

(2) Approximately 3.( 
Navy and Marine Corps 
in various unit* under the 
of General wainwnghc. fou 
tense of Corrffgidor Island. 

(3) These Navy and Marine 
nel were not/awarded Che broi 
ant Co Navy/ policy not to a' 
gallantry to/ ail personnel in a 

(4) the Navy and Marine Co 
demonstrated courage, enduran 
trepidlty Ih battle and In suffe: 
vatlons ol battle, capture and 
after co.uc.ure that was every bit 
as their Army counterparts. 

(5) An award of the bronze star ihedal to 
Navy afad Marine Corps personnel who 
served inder General Wainwright Invthe de 
fense tl Corregldor Island provides Appro 
priate/ recognition of and honor fi 
courage, endurance, and intrepidity o 

President Is urged and requested to r 
that the Secretary of an appropriate 
department award the bronze 
mrfdal to each member of the United .._ 
Njtvy or Marine Corps who served under 
neral Jonathan Wamwngnt dunnc tr\e 
fense of Corridor Island, the Philli 
inea. during World War II. 

S. 2016. A bill to protect, restore, and 
enhance fish, and wildlife haoitat 
within the central valley of California, 
mitigate Central Valley project im 
pacts in order to maintain the contin 
ued orderly operation of the Central 
Valley project, and for other purposes: 
to the Committee on Energy and Nat 
ural Resources. 

ACT OF 19*1 

Mr. SEYMOUR. Mr. President. I rise 
today to Introduce the Central Valley 
Project Fish and Wildlife Act of 1991. 

Mr. President, this bill is a begin 
ning. It is a bill written in. by and for 
Californians. It is the product of Cali 
fornia groups: urban, agricultural, con 
servation interests all working togeth 
er to develop legislation to address the 
fish and wildlife needs in the Central 
Valley. This is a first step In an at 
tempt to resolve the water dilemma 
which has torn at the State of Califor 
nia for decades. 

Specifically, this bill provides a 
mechanism for water transfers from 
agricultural use to urban and environ 
mental uses. It includes actions for the 
restoration of fish and wildlife, and 
mandates firm water supplies for the 
wildlife refuges and fishery habitat. 
And it preserves the agricultural econ 
omy which is so vital to our state. 

For the record, my position on Cen 
tral Valley project legislation has been 
clear from the very beginning. I have 
strongly opposed a federally mandated 
reallocaticn of California State water, 
and I will continue to oppose any Fed 
eral legislation which dictates how a 
State will use or allocate water within 
its borders. Since the first hearing on 
Senator Bradley's bill. S.484. in Los 
Angeles on March 18. I have opposed 
any Federal reallocation of California 
water. In my remarks at that hearing. 
I stated that the political will of the 
citizens of the State of California 
should not be substituted by the 
wisdom of the Potomac. I said then 
and still do have faith in the people of 
California to resolve our problems. 
This bill is a step in that direction. 

I advocate consensus rather than ad 
vancing a particular bottom line or 
specific view or position. This bill 
allows flexibility for the people of 
California to work together to improve 
upon this legislation with one simple 
objective. The objective is balance. 

California is growing at an estimated 
rate of 700,000 people a year. Imagine 
a city the size of San Francisco. This la 
California's annual growth. The de 
mands upon the natural resources in 
California will only continue to in 
crease as our population grows. If Cali 
fornia is to ever clear this hurdle 
which threatens both our economy 
and the quality of life for our citizens, 
we must balance the often competing 
needs of our cities and rural communi 
ties with our limited natural resources. 
I do not believe that commerce and 
conservation are incompatible. 

I believe that we must balance the 
quality of life for our citizens. We 
must balance the often competing 
needs of cities and rural communities. 
And in ensuring that commerce and 
conservation are not incompatible, 
there is going to be sacrifice and diffi 
cult decisions lie ahead of us. but 
working together, we will resolve the 
water dilemma which has polarized 
our State for so long. 

Having attended all four hearings on 
CVP legislation. It is clear to this Sen 
ator that any CVP legislation that 
properly addresses fish and wildlife 
problems, can only result from com 
promise, cooperation, and consensus. 
Therefore, the only condition that I 
attach to this bill is simple. Califor 
nians must make the decisions that 
will shape this bill. As it will be Cali- 
fomians who will make the difficult 
decisions regarding water policy in my 
State, it will be Caiifomians ?.-ho must 
make these sacrifices. 

This bill will provide firm supplies of 
water for fish and for wildlife. It will 
result in the transfer of water from 
agricultural use to thirsty cities such 
as Los Angeles and it will begin to 
bring about the restoration of the en 
vironment. Are these not long-term 
water policy solutions? 

This bill is the beginnins of a re 
sponsible and equitable solution. I am 
willing to consider any ideas from Cali 
fornians on how to improve it. I am 
specifically Interested in several areas. 
Today I will be Ailing various mem 
bers of several conservation groups, 
such as the California Chapters of 
Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Con 
servancy, and agricultural organiza 
tions in California, to request their 
continued participation in developing 
a solution, as well as to discuss deliver 
ing much-needed water to rice land in 
the winter for duck habitat. 

This can provide off-stream storage, 
as well as provide substantial benefit 
to wintering waterfowl who rest and 
feed as they make their way south 
through the Pacific Flyway. 

I will also request their input, on the 
potential benefit and feasibility of in 
corporating fallowed and set-aside 
land into dryland habitat for wildlife 
benefits. I will also speak with fishing 
interests to seek their input on specific 
ideas and recommendations to begin to 
restore the north coast and river fish 
eries. This bill includes several provi 
sions such as the rehabilitation of the 
Coleman National fish hatchery, the 
installation of a temperature control 
device at Shasta Dam. and a program 
for the replenishing of river gravels 
for spawning. While these projects will 
help restore the fisheries. I realize 
that any restoration will not be com 
plete without increased supplies of 

This bill recognizes the importance 
of stabilizing and augmenting river 
flows to restore, and if possible, en 
hance the natural production of anad- 
roraous fish. The economic and asthe- 

S 17466 


tic importance of salmon and steel- 
hcad runs, striped bass, and other fish 
eries along the north coast of Califor 
nia and in the rivers and streams are 
vital to our Slate, as well as to the 
Stales of Oregon and Washington. In 
March of this year. I introduced S. 
728. the Upper Sacramento River 
Fishery Resources Restoration Act. 
Many of the requirements contained 
in that bill. Including mandated in- 
stream flow requirements, have been 
embodied in this bill. The Secretary of 
the Interior is directed to work with 
the State of California in establishing 
desirable flows in the rivers and 
streams below project dams. Once es 
tablished, these Hows will become a 
firm requirement of the Central 
Valley project. 

In addition, the bill immediately 
commits water to the wildlife refuges 
in the central valley and then in 
creases the supplies to be made avail 
able to these important wildlife and 
waterfowl areas. Upon enactment of 
this legislation, the Secretary of the 
Interior will begin the immediate de 
livery of more than 380.000 acre-feet 
of firm water supplies to the 15 Na 
tional Wildlife Refuges and Wildlife 
Management Areas in the central 
valley. The wetlands and associated 
habitat are important to several 
threatened and endangered species 
such as the American pei-grine falcon, 
bald eagie. Aleutian Canada goose, and 
San Joaquin kit fox. and support a 
winter population of nearly 6 million 
waterfowl. Sixty percent of the ducks, 
geese, swans, and millions of shore 
birds of the Pacific Flyway crowd the 
existing acres. The bill directs, by the 
turn of the century, the Secretary of 
the Interior to increase the water 
supply to over 525.000 acre-feet. This 
has been identified by the Secretary of 
the Interior as the amount needed to 
fully manage all lands within the ex 
isting refuge boundaries. 

I am committed to making such 
water supplies to the refuges and to 
fish a requirement of the Central 
Valley project. 

Growth in California's urban areas 
is causing an increasing strain on the 
State's developed water supplies. It is 
no secret that agriculture accounts for 
a significant amount of the water de 
liveries in California. This bill provides 
a mechanism for voluntary transfers 
of water from agricultural users to 
urban users. Water may be transferred 
from a Central Valley project water 
contractor to any water user in the 
State. Limits are placed on the quanti 
ty that may be transferred out of an 
area so as to protect local ground 
water and environmental resources 
and to protect the economies of rural 
farming communities dependent on 
water for agricultural production. 
Such transfers will be consistent with 
California State water and environ 
mental laws. The water which will be 
available for transfer includes water 
resulting from programs involving the 
conjunctive use of surface and ground 

water supplies, water conservation 
programs, and temporary or perma 
nent land fallowing. The transfer pro 
vision in this bill is the result of long 
ar.d difficult negotiations between ag 
riculture and urban users. This accom 
plishment is truly to the benefit of all 

On October 31. this body passed the 
Reclamation States Emergency 
Drought Relief Act of 1991 which con 
tained authorities for the Secretary of 
the Interior to carry out actions 
during drought conditions to reduce 
impacts on water users and fish and 
wildlife. Man}' authorities in that bill 
are needed even during nondrought 
years to meet the multiple demands 
for water in California. Some of the 
concepts of that bill have been incor 
porated here, such as conjunctive use 
of ground water and surface water and 
obtaining additional sources of water 
supplies. Others may be added as dis 
cussions are undertaken. 

I am also interested in a funding 
mechanism devoted exclusively to the 
restoration of fish and wildlife in the 
central valley. Provisions in the bill 
direct the Central Valley project con 
tractors to make annual payments into 
a fund established for this very pur 
pose. Payments to the fund, of ap 
proximately S5.5 to $7.5 million annu 
ally will commence the first water 
year following enactment. Over 40 
years, the total water contractor con 
tributions will generate nearly S290 
million for this purpose. 

Mr. President. I intend to continue 
to work with the chairman of the 
Energy Committee. Senator JOHNSTON. 
as we continue the development of a 
responsible and balanced solution for 
California. In fact. Mr. President, sev 
eral of the chairman's remarks at the 
September 4 hearing in San Francisco 
were helpful, and we have worked to 
incorporate these ideas into this bill. 

Mr. President. I am committed to 
the resolution of the fish and wildlife 
problems in California's central valley. 
I am committed to the resolution of 
the water shortage problems faced by 
urban areas throughout the State. 
This bill is the beginning of the resolu 
tion of those problems. 


S. 474 

At tlifev request of Mr. 
the namespf the Senator /from Ala 
bama [Mr. HEFLIN] was adaed as a co 
sponsor of S\474, a bin to prohibit 
sports gambling^under/State law. 

At the request/or\Mr. GLENN, the 
name of the >oenatoJ\from Florida 
[Mr. GRAKAMjwas addeckas a cospon 
sor of S. 487. a bill to fcmend title 
XVIII of/the Social Security Act to 
provide/for coverage of boms mass 
measurements for certain individuals 
under part B of the Medicare 

At tW 

name o 
[Mr. J: 
sor of S. 
tions ag 
United S' 




S. 4 

At the request of Mr. INOUYE. hut 
ame was withdrawn as a cosnonsor qf 
3. G64. a bill to require that healpi 
vmrnings be included in alcoholic twv- 
erpge advertisements, and for ottfcr 
purposes. / 

\ s ' * Ti / 

Al the request of Mr. DODD./ the 

name of the Senator from Connecticut 
[Mr .\LIEBERMAN] was added as k. co- 
sponsor of S. 878. A bill to assist ,tn im 
plementing the Plan of Action adopted 
by the World Summit for Children, 
and f o\ other purposes. 
a. n2 

request of Mr. GLENN, the 
the Senator from /Vermont 
RDS] was added as/a cospon- 
1128. a bill to impose sanc- 
nst foreign persons and 
tes persons than assist for 
eign countries in acquiring a nuclear 
explosive device or unsaferuarded spe 
cial nuclean material. arjd for other 

S. 1423 

At the rediiest of tyr. DODD. the 
name of the Senator from Tennessee 
[Mr. GORE] was added/as a cosponsor 
of S. 1423. a bfll to amend the Securi 
ties Exchange Act of 1934 with respect 
to limited partnership/ rollups. 

At the requestAof/Mr. BREAUX. the 
name of the Senator from West Vir 
ginia [Mr. RocKzmxER] was added as 
a cosponsor of S. 1641. A bill to amend 
section 468A of tr& Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 witp\respect to deduc 
tions for decommissioning costs of nu 
clear powerplant 

At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the 
name of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. MOTNTKMJ] was added as a co 
sponsor of S. 1677, a bill to amend title 
XIX of the Sacial Security Act to pro 
vide for coverage of alcoholism and 
drug dependency residential treatment 
sen-ices for .pregnant women and cer 
tain family members under the medic- 
aid program, and for other\purposes. 

S. 198 

At the rfequest of Mr. SAHBANES. the 
name of he Senator froimMichigan 
[Mr. LEVIN] was added as a cosponsor 
of S. 169B. a bill to establish \ Nation 
al Falleg Firefighters Foundation. 

S. 17SS 

At the request of Mr. BUMPERS, the 
names/of the Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. KOHL] and the Senator from Mis 
souri /[Mr. DANTORTH] were adaed as 
cosponsors of S. 1755. a bill to reform 
the^oncessions policies of the Nation 
al Hark Sen-ice, and for other pur- 

S. 1774 

It the request of Mr. BRYAN, flhc 
names of the Senator from Hawaii 
lyir. AKAKA], the Senator from Ca 
fornia [Mr. CRANSTON], the Senator 
from North Dakota [Mr. CONRAD], the 
/Senator from Arizona [Mr. DtCoN-\ 


Chall: [shows drafts to Golb] This is the information that I had on the 

earlier drafts of what were probably 2016. And I don't really know 
just where I picked that up. 

Golb: Yes, this is a draft of 2016 in some of the early stages. 

Chall: And they were written primarily by Stuart Somach and David 

Golb: That's correct. That first date on this draft is May 21. 

Chall: Right. 

Golb: May 21, then June 19, and September 5. That's correct. 

Concerns About Reclamation Reform 

Chall: Some of my information comes out of your files and your journals, 

which I will refer to quite often. On April 23, your journal noted 
that you wrote a letter to [Richard] Darman, who was in the Office 
of Management and Budget, about acreage limits and pricing 
provisions in the Miller-Bradley bill. And I wondered why you had 
written to Darman. 

Golb: Well, actually I didn't write to Dick Darman; Senator Seymour did. 
That letter was an attempt to address some rules that we believed 
the Department of Interior and the Bush Administration were 
considering changing that had to do with the Reclamation Reform 
Act. Not many people are familiar with it, but the way the 
Reclamation Reform Act works is that there's an acreage limit so 
that a farmer can own 960 acres of land, and they can receive water 
from a Bureau of Reclamation facility and receive it at the price 
it was agreed to when those contracts were negotiated. If a farmer 
owns land that exceeds 960 acres , then they have to pay a higher 
rate, the full price, on the acreage that exceeds the land. 

Well, the history of the West is one of partnerships, and 
there are a lot of cases where farmers have brothers or sisters or 
cousins or uncles or aunts or whatever that work together. It's 
not uncommon at all; we can go five miles from where we're talking 
today, and you can meet a farm operation where two or three 
brothers are involved. And because of tax purposes and because of 
federal requirements, each individual will own 960 acres. 

What the department was considering at that time, and what 
proponents like George Miller have always advocated is, "Well, 

that's an outrage, and we shouldn't let these individual landowners 
own 960-acre tracts separately when they're farming it as one 
operation." So Senator Seymour's letter to Darman was simply to 
advise them that, in California at least, there are common 
practices where people farm land together and that should not be 
unfairly jeopardized just because there are some out there that 
have taken advantage of the system. And there clearly are. 

There are some operations in the San Joaquin valley that have 
clearly flouted the 960-acre provision of the law. And everyone's 
aware of those operations, and all we were trying to do is to 
advise the department not to hit the smaller individuals that were 
living within the letter of the law and the intent of the law in 
their haste to go after those breaking the law. 

Chall: That's one of the oldest problems around for the Central Valley 

Golb: Have you seen a copy of the letter? 

Chall: No, all I had was your journal. 

Golb: I have a copy of the signed letter that Senator Seymour sent. 

Chall: I think that would nice to put into the archives. 

Golb: Here's the closing paragraph [reads]: "I strongly oppose any change 
in reclamation law that would disrupt normal management practices 
used by the family farmer to create economies of scale, to take 
full advantage of management and technical expertise, and to remain 
competitive at home and abroad." 

So you can see that this was not an attempt to circumvent what 
was happening in the legislature or within the department, although 
we were opposed to bills that Congressman [George] Miller and 
Senator [Bill] Bradley had introduced on acreage reform. This was 
simply to point out to the department: Look, if you're going to do 
this, do it right. You want to go after those that breaking the 
law, great. But in your haste, don't jeopardize normal family 

Chall: I know that you said that Senator Bradley attended only three of 
the hearings there were four in '91-- 

Golb: Senator Bradley attended three of the four hearings. Senator 
Seymour attended all four. March 18, Los Angeles; May 8, 
Washington; May 18, Sacramento; and September 4, San Francisco. 

Concerns About the Miller-Bradley Bills 

Chall: What was the primary problem with respect to Senator Seymour and 
the farmers' take on the Miller-Bradley bills? Was it primarily 
the transfer issue? 

Golb: Both Senator Bradley 's bill, which was introduced first, then 
Congressman Miller's bill, which was introduced second, were 
fundamentally different. You know now it's been almost five years 
since I've participated in that debate and I haven't had a chance 
to really consider those thoughtfully since, but they were 
fundamentally different. I think Senator Bradley philosophically, 
looked at this issue and sincerely wanted to address two problems: 
some of the environmental problems that the Central Valley Project 
had caused, which are well documented, and he wanted to develop a 
water transfer arrangement that would free up some of the water 
supplies from within the Central Valley Project. 

Golb: And I think there was a sharp difference between Miller and 

Bradley. And so even though everybody refers to the ultimate 
legislation in [H.R.] 429 as the Miller-Bradley bill, there were 
fundamental differences between the two in how they approached the 
issue as politicians, as policy makers, and where they were coming 
from philosophically. Very, very different. I personally believe 
that Senator Bradley was coming at this at a much more pure policy 
level as opposed to Congressman Miller, who had much more of a 
political objective. 

Chall: I see. You generally agree with Jason Peltier, who felt that 
Miller was punishing agriculture. 1 

Golb: It's rare that Jason and I actually agree. We're probably not 

going to agree on a lot of things, but yes, in that perspective I 
do agree with Jason. 

'Jason Peltier, The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act, 1991-1992. Regional Oral History Office, University of California, 
Berkeley, 1994. 

United States Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power, 
hearing on S. 484, Sacramento, California, May 18, 1991. 
Left to right: Senator Bill Bradley, Senator John Seymour, 
Richard K. Golb. 


Concerns About The Omnibus Water Bill, H.R. 429 

Chall: In June of '91, H.R. 429 [Omnibus Water Bill] passed the House. 
Initially it contained almost no CVP provisions, and it was 
considered weak on reclamation reform. In October, Bradley held a 
hearing and claimed that he would put the CVPIA into 429. Were you 
concerned about 429 even before Senator Bradley claimed he would 
include the CVPIA? 

Golb: There was always concern that CVP legislation would be included in 
429. Remember, in the prior Congress, going back to 1990 before 
Governor Wilson was elected governor out here and came into office, 
there had been an attempt to move reclamation reform legislation 
through that was tied to the projects. All the western water 
projects that were included in 429, all of those titleshave you 
looked at where they go? Arizona, Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, South 
Dakota, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, Utahjust about every 
state in the entire West had a provision in 429. And they had been 
held up, held hostage, by Congressman Miller and Senator Bradley 
for years. So we initially assumed that after Senator Bradley had 
introduced his legislation that it was very possible that the 
hostage for all of those projects would once again be something 
that they wanted. Initially, we were less concerned, but as time 
went on, it became apparent that their strategy was to tie CVP 
reform to all of the other western water projects. 

Chall: At the Sacramento hearing, Bradley was there with [Tom] Jensen; 

Somach and Schuster were present. According to my notes, there was 
a debate about transfers. Seymour said that the urban people must 
get on board the Seymour bill. Then, did he ultimately work out 
something with Carl Boronkay so that there would be water transfers 
that would be satisfactory to the Metropolitan Water District 

Analyzing Senator Bradley 's Bill, S. 484 

Golb: Right. Were you going to talk about S. 484 or the Bradley bill, or 
do you feel you have enough information on that? 

Chall: I'd like to find out whatever you have to say about S. 484. 

Golb: Okay. I think it's important to note and I didn't see a lot of 
this in Jason's or Barry's interviews that while I personally 
believe that Senator Bradley 's intentions were sincere, there were 


major legislative problems with his bill. 1 Even though Senator 
Bradley was focused on the water transfer issue--! mean, if you 
look at the bill, and I've got a copy of it right herethe total 
amount of water that could be transferred . Do you have a copy of 
the bill? 

Chall: Yes. 

Golb: What it basically says is that the secretary of interior is 

authorized to make available 100,000 acre-feet of Central Valley 
Project water for sale through water service contracts. That's on 
page five, line five. So basically the way that we were going to 
solve this water supply problem in California was by making 100,000 
acre- feet available. That's it. 

There was a lot of other problems with the bill. It would 
have set major precedents for all of the other irrigation projects 
throughout the seventeen western reclamation states. It would have 
redefined the project purpose of the Central Valley Project, which 
as you know was prior authorized for navigation, flood control, 
irrigation. In 1956 it was amended to include project 
authorization for fish and wildlife, even though it hadn't been 
operated appropriately to handle the problems with fish and 

But Bradley 's bill would have made fish and wildlife a project 
purpose almost to the exclusion of urban water supplies, 
agricultural water supplies, navigation, flood control, power 
generation. And there's big problems with that when you start to 
look at the financing. You can only pay a certain amount for water 
based on what you're doing with it. And if what you do with it is 
you take 10 percent of the entire water supply of the CVP--which is 
what the Bradley bill would have done- -and reallocate it, 
somebody's got to pay for that. The general public, water users, 
whether they are urban or agricultural, power contractors. Those 
costs have to be allocated somewhere, and the Bradley bill didn't 
include any provisions for allocation for the financial-- 

Chall: Just the water. 

Golb: Just the water. Just reallocate 10 percent of the water. And a 10 
percent reallocation of water is kind of like a 10 percent flat 
tax: it's fair to some, unfair to many. There are many water 
districts, urban and agricultural, that have implemented tremendous 

'Jason Peltier and Barry Nelson (separate volumes), The Passage of the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992. Regional Oral History 
Office, The Bancroft Library, the University of California, Berkeley, 199A. 


water conservation programs. And there are others that have a way 
to go. But a 10 percent reallocation from a water district that's 
already implemented extensive water conservation programs and is 
using a minimal baseline, that's a serious cut. You're talking 
about, you know, responding to that maybe by fallowing land. Well, 
that's a bad proposal whether you consider it under an economic 
perspective or under an environmental perspective. 

So there was some serious problems. The water transfer 
provision in the bill would have basically auctioned this off to 
the highest bidder. 

Chall: That's where the money would have come from? 

Golb: Well, that's where part of the money for the water transfer would 

have come. The secretary was available to make this waterthis is 
on page five, line eighteen: "Payments shall in no case be less 
than one hundred dollars per acre-foot." So they arbitrarily 
established the floor for what the minimal amount of the cost would 
have been for the water. So do you see what's happening here? 
It's that 100,000 acre-feet would have been taken out of the 
project, of water that was already being delivered to people, it 
would have been put on the auction block, the minimum price would 
have been a hundred dollars , the maximum price would have been 
whatever the highest bidder was willing to pay. Now who could pay 
for that water? If there was a bidding war, would you guess that 
MWD or the city of Orange Cove would win that bidding war? Now you 
know as well as I do that when you put a public resource like water 
on the auction block, you establish a real dangerous precedent. I 
believe Bradley 's provision needed to deal with third party 
impactsregional concerns, environmental ones. 

Chall: Now that water was already that isn't part of the unallocated 

water that was considered- 
Go Ib: That's correct. 
Chall: Is this unallocated water? 

Golb: No. This was water that the secretary of interior would have made 

Chall: Could he have taken it from unallocated water, though? 

Golb: Actually, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, there is no 

unallocated water in the Central Valley Project. There was talk years 
ago of a million acre- feet that was unallocated, but it's not there. 

Chall: And it wasn't there? 


Golb: I don't think it is. The bureau today says it's not there. I 

think water contractors in the San Joaquin Valley made the argument 
that there was always this unallocated yield so that they could get 
more water, but I've never seen it. It's never been put on--. 
There is a moratorium on contracting, which Congressman Miller got 
into effect precisely because he doesn't think there's an 
unallocated yield. I think most folks that are very familiar with 
the project and project operations would tell you that there is no 
unallocated yield in the Central Valley Project. 

Chall: I see. 

The Minority Report of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Golb: Have you read the committee report that was written on S. 484 7 1 

Chall: No. 

Golb: Okay. Can I read you a section of it? 

Chall: Yes. This is the committee report on S. 484? 

Golb: This is the committee report on S. 484 from the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on May 7, 1991, and I would be happy to make 
this copy available to you. Here's one of the editorial comments 
in the beginning of this committee report: "The impact of the 
legislation, S. 484, on the rural economy is likely to be 
devastating especially in those areas in which agriculture supports 
the entire economy." 

Chall: That's from the committee or the subcommittee? 

Golb: That's from Jim Beirne, committee staff, who has worked on the 
energy committee for--I don't know- -twenty- five years? 

Chall: He's the senior counsel for the minority. That means Senator 
[Malcolm] Wallop. 

Golb: That's correct. At the time, Senator Wallop was the ranking 
Republican on the committee. That's correct. 

Chall: All right, I would like to have this. Do you want to make a copy 
of it or just give it to me? 

report, plus correspondence, articles, and memoranda, have been 
deposited in the Water Resources Archives. 


Golb: Why don't you let me hang on to it, and what I'll doall these 

documents you want I'll put right there, and I'll make copies for 

Chall: I just wanted to know where that came from. That was the minority 

Problems With the Bill 

Golb: Right. The point of this is that there were a lot of problems with 
it. In addition, the state of California had just initiated a 
drought water bank which was much heralded in California. This 
would have put the state in competition with the federal government 
for making this water available in terms of the water bank. 
Bradley 's bill also really preempted state law in that the Bradley 
bill required, mandated, a 10 percent reallocation of water from 
farming communities to the environment. 

The only problem is that that water isn't federal water; under 
water doctrine law, all the water that resides in the state is 
California water. So really it was a preemption of states' rights. 
Most argue that the state should have the right to water use and 
water allocation. In this case, Bradley 's bill would have changed 
that and would have unilaterally redirected a certain amount of 
California's water supply. 

Chall: I was under the impression that Senator Bradley was always 

concerned that California water rights would be taken into account 
in his bills. 

Golb: I think overall he was concerned about some of the legal aspects, 
but the fact is that the way the bill was drafted there would have 
been some negative effects from it in terms of the reallocation of 
water, conflict with state law, auctioning off water, the way water 
contracts would have been amended- -there were some major problems 
with the bill. 

Chall: Let's see, that bill (S. 484) came out in February. What were 

Senator Seymour and his staff doing with respect to this? I mean, 
you had the ear of Jim Beirne and Senator Wallop. 

Golb: I don't know if we ever had Senator Wallop's ear. Senator Wallop 

was an excellent ranking committee member on the committee. He was 
a good senator, and he attempted to help us as much as possible. 
But his obligation in this situation was to the committee itself, 


which included a number of members, Republican and Democrat, from 
the West, that had projects in H.R. 429. 

We worked well with Jim Beirne. Jim Beirne is an outstanding 
Senate staff person; he is bright, he is knowledgeable, he is 
probably one of the finest Senate staff in Washington. 

Chall: I noticed that you had contacted him quite often. I mean, he was 
one of the people that you turned to frequently when things were 
getting pretty hot. 

Golb: He was very helpful, and at that time I didn't have a lot of 

experience on water issues from the federal perspective, and Jim 
was very helpful and also had high expectations for Senate staff 
whose senators were on committee. So his expectations of me were 
pretty high. He is a just a fine person and very knowledgeable. 

Gary Ellsworth, who was the counsel on the committee, was also 
heavily involved in this debate. Gary, very knowledgeable, worked 
on both the House side and in the Senate. He was also helpful to 
us. Both Jim and Gary attempted to do as much as they could for 
Senator Seymour. 

The Activities of Senator Seymour and His Staff 

Chall: We're still concerned about the senator's bill. 

Golb: I think you just asked me what we were doing after the Bradley bill 
was introduced. After the Bradley bill was introduced, we spent a 
lot of time talking to all of the various interests, trying to 
determine their view of the bill. We did a lot of analysis of the 
bill in terms of looking at it from the legal perspective, 
economic, environmental. The state of California reviewed the 
bill. A number of water districts, urban, agricultural, 
environment interests looked at the bill, and there were many 
problems with it. There were a lot of problems with the bill from 
a drafting standpoint, from a legal standpoint. The state of 
California opposed the bill, and a lot of water districts wrote 
Senator Bradley letterswhich I have some copies of where they 
had concerns with the bill. And there were some things that needed 
to be cleaned up. That's not unusual. Often when a bill is 
introduced, it's not a perfect product, but there were some things 
that needed to be addressed immediately. 

After the Bradley bill was introduced, Senator Seymour 
introduced S. 728, which was the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries 


Restoration billthat was in March of '91. Throughout the early 
part of that spring, we spent a good deal of time reviewing the 
Bradley bill and the Miller bill, doing a lot of outreach with 
California constituents and interests in the state, attempting to 
look at what the environmental problems really were. 

Senator Seymour spent a lot of time in California and spent a 
lot of time viewing facilities, talking to a lot of different 
people. I spent a tremendous amount of time in California and 
spoke with every single interest that either called, wrote, or 
asked for a meeting. And Senator Seymour talked with nearly every 
interest. Now I know that some in the environmental community, and 
Barry Nelson in particular, claim that Senator Seymour would never 
meet with them and had never met with them. That's just not the 
case. In fact, I have some documents that I think are pretty 
persuasive-- just to kind of show you what Senator Seymour had done. 

Contacts with the Environmentalists 

Golb: If you go back to the very beginning, Senator Seymour asked Ed 

Osann of the National Wildlife Federationthis is in June of 1991 
--to assemble all of the environmental interests that he believed 
would be useful to talk about Central Valley Project legislation. 
Ed Osann was in Washington; he was the representative of the 
National Wildlife Federation at the time, and it was our 
understanding that he was kind of leading the California 
environmental community effort on CVP reform. So Senator Seymour 
wrote him a letter and said, "We would like to get all these people 
together and start talking." 

Chall: Did they? 

Golb: Yes, we did. In fact, we met with Ed- -Ed did pull together a lot 
of people including Kathryn Tollerton from the Defenders of 
Wildlife, James Waltman from the National Audubon Society, Don 
Hellman from the Wilderness Society. 

These are all people that Senator Seymour wrote letters to on 
June twenty- seventh of 1991, thanking them for meeting with me and 
asked them a number of questions. Here's a couple of them: "Will 
the measures provided in Senator Bradley 's bill help solve fish and 
wildlife problems in the Central Valley? What additional measures 
should be considered? Are the timelines adequate and realistic? 
Do you have an estimate on whether the water resource requirements 
are available? Should additional storage capacity dedicated for 
fish and wildlife be considered?" A number of questions like that 


on what needs to be done. He said, "In order to facilitate this 
process, I request that you provide your written comments as 
quickly as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free 
to contact Rich Golb or Ann Ball of my staff, at this phone 

So we initiallybefore the Seymour legislation was drafted-- 
remember now, this was in June of '91; the Seymour bill was 
introduced in November of "91. The Bradley bill came out in 
February of '91, the Miller bill in March of '91. So immediately 
after the Miller and Bradley bills were introduced, and after we 
had a chance to review those, we started meeting with the 
environmental community and soliciting their input. Those meetings 
with the people I just listed were held in Senator Seymour's office 
in Washington, D.C., with me. Additionally, Senator Seymour met 
with a number of other members of the environmental and 
conservation communities and talked with them. 

There are two letters here from Senator Seymour: on July 15, 
1991, to Richard Spotts from the Defenders of Wildlife, and to 
Leslie Friedman from the Nature Conservancy- -who I met with here in 
California. In addition, there's a letter to John Buetler, who was 
the executive director of the United Anglers of California, a 
fishing group based in Berkeley that I met with in California. In 
these letters, which I will also make available, you can see 
Senator Seymour asks John Buetler and Leslie Friedman and Richard 
Spotts, "How do we make S. 484 better? How do we improve on it, 
how do we really solve the problems?" So there are those that I'll 
make available to you. 

Ducks Unlimited was also involved in these meetings in June 
and July in California, and I have copies of letters from Ducks 
Unlimited to Senator Seymour. 

Chall: You can lay those out as proof without going into them further 
because we can put some of them into the volume. 

Golb: Right. The last thing is that we also started working with Tom 

Graff from the Environmental Defense Fund and spent a lot of time 
with Tom throughout the process. 

Chall: You did? 

Golb: We did. Here's a letter from Senator Seymour again thanking Tom 
for meeting with me and others, and we asked him a number of 
questions. Seymour believed Graff wanted to be constructive and he 
respected him for that. 


Chall: And when was that? Because I know that he wrote to you in "92, 
after visiting with Senator Seymour [August 14, 1992]. l 

Golb: Right. There was a meeting in San Francisco--! believe in early 

July in '91--with the following groups: Environmental Defense Fund, 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Save San Francisco Bay 
Association, California Waterfowl Association, Pacific Coast 
Federation of Fishermen's Association, the Bay Institute, and Clean 
Water Action. Some of the individuals that participated in that 
meeting included David Yardas from the Environmental Defense Fund, 
Hal Candee from the National Resources Defense Council, Barry 
Nelson, David Behar from the Bay Institute, Zeke Grader and Bill 
Kier from Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, and 
Patricia Schifferle. I met with all of these people in San 
Francisco--! believe it was at NRDC's [National Resources Defense 
Council] officeto talk about what the best way is to develop CVP 
reform legislation. 

I think the environmental groups that we met with will tell 
you that they were pretty much wedded to Senator Bradley 's bill, 
and understandably so, since they wrote a good portion of it. But 
we continued to try and work with the environmental community 
throughout the entire debate. 

In May of 1992, Senator Seymour met with all of the fishing 
industries. Again, it's both the commercial and sport fishing 
groups: Golden Gate Fisheries Association, Pacific Coast Federation 
of Fishermen's Association, NorCal Fishing Guides and Sportman's 
Association, Central Valley Fisheries Coalitionall of these 
groupsand this is a document that I'll give you as well. That 
was on May 9 of 1992. Senator Seymour also met with Tom Graff at 
the September 4 [1991] hearing in San Francisco. 

Senator Seymour had a pretty good relationship with Tom Graff. 
He had a lot of respect for Tom Graff. They disagreed on a lot of 
issues and particularly on CVP reform. But Seymour liked Tom, had 
a lot of respect for him, felt that Tom was courageous 
particularly when Tom attempted to develop some legislation with 
Stuart Somach. He just had a lot of respect for Tom Graff. In 
addition, remember, at each of the four hearings March 18 in Los 
Angeles, May 8 in Washington, May 18 in Sacramento, and September 4 
in San Francisco- -many of the environmental groups did testify at 
these hearings. Senator Seymour was at the panel, and he asked a 
lot of questions of the environmental groups. At the September 4 

'Thomas Graff and David Yardas, The Passage of the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act. 1991-1992. Regional Oral History Office, 
University of California, Berkeley, 1996. 

19 a 


Rockridge Market Hall 
5655 College Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94618 
(415) 658-8008 
(415) 658-0630 FAX 

July 9, 1991 

National Headquarters 
257 Park Avenue South 
New York, NY 10010 
(212) 505-2100 

1616 P Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 387-3500 

1405 Arapahoe Avenue 
Boulder, CO 80302 
(303) 440-4901 

1108 East Main Street 
Richmond, VA 23219 
(804) 780-1297 

128 East Hargett Street 
Raleigh, NC 27601 
(919) 821-7793 

1800 Guadalupe 
Austin, TX 78701 
(512) 478-5161 

Richard Golb 

Ann Ball 

Office of the Honorable John Seymour 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Richard and Ann: 

Sorry not to have gotten the promised enclosure off 
to you earlier as a follow-up to our meeting of a week 
ago yesterday. The 4th intervened, I guess. 

I hope you will consider the letter carefully. 
Perhaps Governor Wilson and Senator Seymour could tackle 
this issue in tandem. I know it's a tough one both 
substantively and politically, but without some kind of 
resolution of this matter, I am deeply skeptical that 
any significant progress can be made in expanding the 
CVP's benefits to encompass all Calif ornians. 

In any event, let's keep the lines of communication 
open. I for one was really impressed with the time you 
two took with our community last week and with the 
patience you displayed in the face of not a little 

Sincerely yours, 

Thomas J. Graff 
Senior Attorney 


100% Krcyled Paper 





WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0503 

June 27, 1991 

Mr. Ed Osann 

National Wildlife Federation 
1400 16th Street NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dear Mr. Osann, 

Thank you for meeting with my staff on Monday, June 24th 
to discuss an alternate proposal to S. 484, The Central 
Valley Project Improvement Act, which was developed by the 
Central Valley Project water contractors and was presented at 
the May 30th hearing on S. 484 in Sacramento. The meeting 
was extremely useful to my staff in understanding your 
concerns . 

As you know, I believe that by focusing our attention on 
the fish and wildlife problems in the Central Valley, we will 
speed the passage of legislation which will specifically 
address these immediate needs. The alternate proposal 
provides a basis for us to build upon in developing such 

As a follow-up to the meeting, it would be extremely 
helpful if you would provide written comments on the 
proposal . I am particularly interested in any thoughts you 
may have on the following: 

1. Will the measures provided in the proposal help 
solve the fish and wildlife problems in the Central Valley? 

2. What additional measures should be considered? 

3. Are the timeframes proposed adequate and realistic?. 

4 . Do you have an estimate on whether the water 
resource requirements are available? Should additional 
storage capacity dedicated to fish and wildlife be 

5. Can you provide estimated costs, and relative 
priorities, for the measures in the proposal, or for any 
additional measures which you feel should be considered? 

Mr. Osaan ig 

June 27, 1991 
Page 2 

6. On each particular measure, would the action be 
better undertaken at the Federal or State level, or would a 
coordinated action be required? 

In order to facilitate this process, I request that you 
provide your written comments as quickly as possible. If you 
have any questions , please feel free to contact Rich Golb or 
Ann Ball of my staff at 224-9628. 

I appreciate the effort you have contributed to this 
process, and I look forward to continuing to work with you as 
we move toward the passage of Central Valley fish and 
wildlife legislation. 


John Seymour^ 


cc: Senator Bill Bradley 
Senator Malcolm Wallop 
Senator Conrad Burns 
Senator Mark Hatfield 


Central Valley Fisheries Coalition 

855 Gold Street Redding, CA 96001 916-244-5040 

May 6, 1992 

Craig Schmidt: 

The following is a list of the people who will be meeting with Senator Seymour 

Shel Meyer 

XZeke Grader 
Roger Thomas 

Nate Bigham 
Mel Dodgen 
Patricia Schifferle 
Herb Hplzapfel 

John Roberts 
Jeanne Mims 
Bill Huffman 

Chairman, Central Valley Fisheries Coalition 

President, Norcal Fishing Guides & Sportsman's Assn. 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Association 

Golden Gate Fisheries Association 

United Anglers of California 

Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman Association 

Golden State Trailers - 1086 Committee 

Share the Water 

Farmers Rice Cooperative 

Colusa Glen Production Credit Association 

Glen Colusa Irrigation District Farmers Group 

California Rice Industry Association 

Norcal Fishing Guides & Sportsrnan's Association 

Farmers Rice Cooperative 

Enclosed is a list of the organizations that are members of the Central Valley 
Fisheries Association, as well as a list of the agriculture organizations we are 
working with to save our salmon. 

Shel Meyer 


hearing in San Francisco, Senator Seymour asked a number of 
questions of Barry Nelson and Tom Graff, and this is included in 
the report language on the hearings on S. 484. I'll give you a 
copy of this. This is on page thirty-five. 

Chall: I think that's all in the public domain. Researchers can find that 
as long as we'll have the notation of exactly what it is. But I 
would like a copy for my files. 

Golb: The point is that this hearing was a good hearing because it was a 
small hearing; there wasn't a lot of people there. There was a 
real healthy exchange, a productive exchange, where Senator Seymour 
asked Barry Nelson, who was only sitting five feet away, a number 
of questions. He asked Tom Graff a number of questions. So there 
was a tremendous amount of dialogue between John Seymour and myself 
and the environmental community. Personal meetings, telephone 
conversations, written correspondence. 

The Constraints of Compromise on Both Sides of the Debate 

Chall: As you say, S. 484 and the Miller bill went through quite a number 
of changes. I think at various times they tried to meet some of 
your objections. I think that Senator Bradley tried to meet some 
of the objections. In trying to make some revisions in the Seymour 
bill over the years, who really made the decisions about whether or 
not there could be any kind of compromise? I mean, were you held 
or sort of constrained by the agriculture people in the CVP, many 
of whom didn't want to make any changes at all, from what I 


Chall: I was asking about constraints placed by the farmers on your making 
compromises. But you say that these environmentalists, primarily, 
were sort of wedded to S. 484 because they helped write it. That's 
Yardas, of course, and Graff to some extent. And your side, were 
they wedded as much to, let's say, some of the Schuster /Somach 
drafts of S. 2016 so that never the twain could meet? The twain 
seemed to meet occasionally, particularly toward the very end; you 
made some rather important revisions to 2016. But on the whole was 
this a real problem with respect, not of just meeting, but of 
compromising? Was there no way to compromise? Was that a problem? 

Golb: There were a lot of problems in this debate. There were a lot of 

problems. This was an extremely political debate. Extremely so on 


a state level, on a national level, in terms of political 
partisanship, in terms of organizations, even within the 
environmental community, within the agriculture community--! mean, 
some will probably portray or will attempt to raise a veneer that 
the agriculture community, the environmental community, the urban 
interests were a block, and each individually all agreed on how 
things should be done. That's not the case. There was tremendous 
acrimony within the various interest groups on how things should be 

This was unlike any other legislation in which I had been 
involved; it was extraordinarily political. The media had a 
particular direction that they were advocating. The Democratic 
party was doing their best to make sure that John Seymour was 
defeated. Some Republican members were trying to help John Seymour 
stay in office. The governor had a particular perspective- -which 
was a rightful role in what he was attempting to do. I thought he 
did a good job and acted appropriately. So this was an extremely 
political debate in how things were accomplished. The 
environmental community did a superb job of characterizing and 
defining this debate in a certain way, in such a way that they 
outmaneuvered most of the agricultural community from the beginning 
to the end. 

The Environmental Community Defined the Debate Politically 

Chall: What was their way? 

Golb: What the environmental community did isthis is my perspective on 
it; they probably have a different onethey did a very good job of 
capitalizing on the drought. Most of the fish and wildlife 
problems that we've had in this state have been going on for a long 
time. The salmon declines really picked up in the mid-sixties to 
early seventies, the problems in the Delta itself had been going on 
for some time, but most people didn't know about it. Well, the 
drought really was an excellent way to move these issues from the 
back page of the newspaper to the front page, to get local elected 
officials involved, and to get Congress to take the issue head on. 

What happened is that the environmental community did a great 
job of taking this issue, of taking the drought, where people were 
suddenly aware of water and where it went in the state, of what 
people were paying for it, and trying to put these environmental 
issues to the forefront. They did a great job of that. And the 
agricultural community had difficulty dealing with that from a 
political standpoint. They weren't as well equipped as the 


environmental groups were in terms of the political dynamics of the 

The agricultural community initially was focused on- -well, 
initially they just ignored the environmental community, which they 
had basically been doing for years in this state. And that's why 
we have the environmental problems we have; there wasn't enough 
focus and attention on it. But I think what happened is that the 
ag community initially did not view this as seriously as they 
should have. 

Chall: Now, would one of the reasons be that in all the years past the 
western senators had always been sympathetic to California? I 
mean, California never had lost all their western colleagues as 
they did because of the hostage of S. 429. They had always been 
able to be sure that western senators were on their side. That was 
one reason. The other reason may have beenat least that's what 
some people feelthat it never occurred to the agricultural 
community until the end that this bill would pass. Even Dan Beard 
said that up until the end there were times when he was sure it 
would pass, and then there were times when he didn't think it could 
or would, or even that the president would sign it. 1 There's a 
feeling that you didn't really have to do very much until the end 
because you were so sure that the Miller-Bradley bill would never 

Golb: Well, we weren't sure at all. What we were sure of is that there 
was an influential senator, Bill Bradley, aggressively moving a 
bill and we spent a tremendous amount of time on it. John Seymour 
made this legislation perhaps his priority during his tenure in the 
U.S. Senate. We took the environmental arguments and Senator 
Bradley 's and Congressman's Miller's efforts extremely seriously. 
Senator Seymour introduced three different bills to deal with it, 
he offered lots of new proposals, and we can talk in a minute about 
all the actions that he undertook. We took it very seriously. 

I think the environmental community took it seriously, and 
ultimately if you look at their actions, they did a good Job of 
creating the political will to move the bill along, coupled with 
Bradley and Miller's actions in terms of the hostages. So we took 
it very seriously, and we didn't think that we could just sit on 
our hands and let it happen. There were some in the agricultural 
community that felt that it would never happen, and they felt that 
you just, "Oh, don't worry about it; it'll get taken care of." 

'Daniel Beard, The Passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act. 1991-1992. Regional Oral History Office, University of California, 
Berkeley, 1996. 


Again, they struggled early on--I think the environmental community 
looked at it and said, "Okay, we have a policy, and a philosophical 
objective, and we need a political strategy to achieve it." What 
they then did was effectuate a political strategy, a media 
campaign, coalition efforts, grassroots, to do that. They hired a 
Washington, D.C., lobbyist, David Weiman. They raised a lot of 
money, they brought people together to work on policy issues, to 
draft amendments. They handled the issue politically. 

Additionally, there were also some of the members of the 
environmental community that went after John Seymour personally, 
and were quoted in newspaper articles which I have a copy of right 
here. This wasn't part of the CVP debate, but Barry Nelson was 
quoted in the Associated Press from July 9, 1992: "Barry Nelson 
complained that 'Seymour has repeatedly refused to meet with 
environmentalists about his bill. Senator Seymour is not the 
senator from California; he is the senator for welfare 
agriculture," Barry Nelson, coordinator of Share the Water 
Environmental Coalition, said Wednesday." 

Well, as we just talked about, I've just showed you letters 
that Senator Seymour personally wrote. We've talked about how 
Senator Seymour met personally with a number of environmentalists, 
how he talked on the phone to several of them, how he met 
personally with some of them, how I met with lots of them. So this 
is an incorrect statement, given its date and whatnot. I'll make 
that a copy for the record as well. 

They put together a very sophisticated plan to achieve a 
policy objective. The agriculture community initially did not. 
Initially, they dealt with this solely on a policy level, and they 
attempted to debate with the environmental community on a policy 
level. Well, it wasn't a policy debate; it was a political debate. 
So what happened is that while the agriculture interests were 
attempting to negotiate, to deal, to work with the environmental 
community on the policy aspects of it, the environmental community 
was approaching it politically and by leaps and bounds went ahead 
of the ag community. 

Ultimately, the agriculture community increased their efforts 
and became just as political as the environmental community and 
used every means available to them, some of which the environmental 
community never has available to it. But that's a really important 
part of the debate that people need to realize, that this was from 
day one an extremely political debate by most of the players, and 
that guided what happened. This was really not a debate about how 
to increase salmon numbers on the Sacramento River. 


Chall: It was not? 
Golb : No . 

Policy. Not Politics Would Have Produced a Different Bill 

Chall: You feel that if it had been done just on the policy itself that 
this bill would be totally different? 

Golb: The bill would have been different. I mean, if you look at 

Congressman Miller's bill initially, [H.R.] 5099, and if you look 
at Senator Bradley 's bill, S. 484, both of those bills don't 
include all of the specific provisions that were ultimately 
included in the final legislation that were in Senator Seymour's 
bill such as a temperature control device at Shasta Dam which is 
now under construction. All of those provisions came out of the 
fishing community. Those were in Senator Seymour's bill, S. 728, 
which came out of all the commercial and sport fishing industry. 
Those were the provisions that the fishery biologists said we 

You know, the Red Bluff Diversion Dam has historically been a 
major problem on the Sacramento River and took as much as 50 
percent of outmigrating salmon. The Red Bluff Diversion Dam is a 
very simple dam; it's just a straight diversion on the Sacramento 
River. But the way it was constructed, the fish ladders weren't 
completed correctly, so when young salmon would go underneath the 
dam's gates, the salmon would get tumbled around like in a washing 
machine, and they would come out disoriented. Huge squaw fish- 
three feet long--lurk on the other side of the dam and just nail 

They've made some changes up there, and the bureau's working 
real hard to fix that. But you see, Mrs. Chall, if the concern 
were really fish, what you would do is focus not on more water, but 
solving Red Bluff. Now, more water is needed for fish--I think 
most people agree on that. But no one ever had any defensible 
numbers as to how much. There was never any scientific documents 
or reports offered that justified three million, two million, one 
and a half, or 800,000 acre-feet. If you look at the CVPIA today 
with a retrospect of five years, you can see that the law has 
tremendous problems . And that is a function of the political 
debate that characterized most of the actions and discussions back 
in 1991 and '92. 

The Pivotal Role of the Metropolitan Water District 

Chall: Part of the debate was also besides fish--was on water transfers. 
That was another issue. I gather that you brought [Carl] Boronkay 
into some of the decisions about what would go into 2016 with 
respect to transfers. I think that Senator Seymour mentions this 
when he was trying to influence somebody elsethe fact that 
Boronkay did have something to do with this bill. Was the 
Metropolitan Water District really sort of pivotal in this whole 
issue of transfer? 

Golb: Boronkay did have something to do with the bill. Metropolitan is 
pivotal in just about everything that goes on in California water. 
They had expressed a tremendous amount of interest in CVP 
legislation. Initially, their interest was just water transfers; I 
don't think they were concerned about the fish and wildlife 
provisions or any of the other provisions. While the water 
contractors were working on S. 2016, before it was introduced and 
while they were working on some of the drafts, they negotiated with 
MWD and came up with the water transfer language that was 
ultimately included in Senator Seymour's bill. And that water 
transfer language was fundamentally different than what was in 
Senator Bradley 's bill or Congressman Miller's bill. Their 
language didn't even come close to it. 

The only problem is that that language was ultimately amended 
and changed significantly, and if you look at historyhistory's a 
good barometer of whether it's worked. This is 1996, May 3, and 
there hasn't been one water transfer from a Central Valley Project 
farmer or a water district to an urban or city or municipality 
outside the Central Valley Project. 

Chall: We've had plenty of water this year. 

Golb: We've had plenty of water this year; 1994 was the fourth driest 
year on record. 

Chall: Could transfers have taken place almost immediately? 

Golb: Almost. They would be authorized by law the law, after President 
Bush signed it, did authorize the secretary of interior to review 
water transfers. Of course, there has to be rules and regulations 
for the transfers, and that's been a lengthy process. I think the 
environmental groups and farm groups would agree few of the things 
they agree on- -but they probably would jointly agree that the way 
that law's been implemented has been inefficient. It hasn't worked 
out well. But the reality is that we've had no water transfers. 


That's a fairly good indication that that provision in the final 
bill doesn't work. 

And the Metropolitan Water District has been trying very hard 
to buy water from Central Valley Project water districts. 

The Problems With the Water Transfer Provisions of the CVPIA 

Chall: And why are they unable to? 

Golb: They're partially frustrated by the ambiguity that the law creates, 
and that manifests itself in terms of regulatory oversight, that 
makes it difficult. It makes it burdensome. The law is unclear. 
The political debate that characterized those discussions in '91 
and '92 are seen in the law itself. It's sloppy, it's not well 
written, there are provisions that refer to other provisions that 
don't exist in the bill. You've read it; you know. There's not a 
good audit trail of congressional intent. The report language is 
not very clear at all on what the law was intended to do. 

Many of the members that participated in the law's development 
had philosophical disagreements and different interpretations of 
various provisions. The administration changed hands right after 
the law was signed. So there are some fundamental problems with 
the law itself, and transfers are a good example of how the 
political nature of the debate has caused a problem that we're all 
living with today. 

Chall: Can these problems be solved without gutting the whole bill? 
Golb: Sounds like you've been listening to the environmental groups. 
Chall: [Laughter] I always ask those questions. 

Golb: You can solve a lot of the problems administratively. Some of the 
environmental groups --you know, David Yardas and Tom Graff, 
particularly, have noted that there are some administrative fixes 
that could be made to the law, and they're correct. You could 
solve a lot of the problems in the law administratively. Some of 
it is going to require a change in law. Now whether or not that 
will ever happen, I don't know. But some of it will. 

I'm sorrythe answer to your question is yes. Metropolitan 
was heavily involved; Metropolitan negotiated bilaterally with the 
water contractors that resulted in the water transfer language that 
was included in the Seymour bill. 


Chall: Ultimately, the Metropolitan Water District would go from your side 
to the other side. Is that because they felt one side might win 
rather than the other? Did they go to the winning side rather than 
care about what was in the bill per se? 

Golb: Metropolitan's general manager at the time initially 
Chall: That's Mr. Boronkay. 

Golb: That's correct. He personally negotiated many of the water 
transfer provisions that were included in the Seymour bill. 
Metropolitan Water District's Board of Directors on a 49-2 vote, 
supported Senator Seymour's bill. When the debate became much more 
intense over the summer of '92, Metropolitan began to waver, and 
they felt that they needed to consider other bills that they might 
get a better deal out of. 

Chall: Would that be a better deal in terms of transfer or a different 
transfer language? 

Golb: In terms of support from the environmental community- -they were 
looking for support. It seemed to me at the time that the deal 
that was struck was that Metropolitan supported Miller and 
Bradley 's efforts in order to obtain support for water transfer 
provisions from the environmental community. 

Chall: A different kind of transfer language, then? 

Golb: Similar. I think the transfer language that was included in 

Seymour's bill was pretty close to what they wanted, ultimately. 
After thinking about it, and as time went on, they learned- -we all 
learnedthat a lot of these provisions needed to be amended. The 
reason these provisions were never amended in the Seymour billand 
Seymour was criticized by the environmental community for never 
amending his billwas the reason Bill Bradley never amended his 
bill and George Miller never amended his bill. They couldn't. The 
legislative process didn't allow it. 



The Seymour Bill Moves Through the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and the Senate 

Golb: The Seymour bill was introduced in November of '91. It passed out 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee unamended [March 19, 
1992]. The agreement by the chairman of the committee and the 
committee members was to pass the bill unamended. It passed the 
floor unamended [April 10, 1992]; that was the agreement. Because 
Senator Bradley and Congressman Miller didn't want to support 
Seymour's billthey wanted to support their own billthey didn't 
offer any amendments to the Seymour bill, and we weren't allowed to 
either. So Seymour was unable to amend his own bill. 

And if you look at his statements his floor statement on 
November twenty-first when he introduced the bill, he said it's a 
beginning; it's not a complete product. 1 The quote is it's not 
even a perfect bill. He said that in committee hearings all along, 
and he made commitments to the environmental community, to the 
urban community, to Central Valley farmers that he knew it was the 
first cut, that it was the first draft, and that there were going 
to be problems with it. It was going to need a lot of changes. 

Chall: What was going on inside that committee that brought it out 
unamended? Could S. 484 not get out of that committee? 

Golb: It didn't. 

Chall: It didn't, but what was the reason why Seymour's bill did? What 
was happening? 

'Congressional Record, Senate, November 21, 1991, pp. S17465-17466. 

United States 
of America 


Congressional "Record 


Vol. 1)8 


Ho. 33 


Mr. SEYMOUR. Mr. President. I 
would like to commend Chairman 
JOHNSTON and Senator \\'AU.OI' for 
their leadership and efforts on pas.-.ap.e 
Of the Kcclai: atlon Projects Authori 
zation nnd Ad;ustmcnt Act of iyi'2. 

Boll) the chairman and Senator 
\VALI.OI- have been very accommodat 
ing In addesslng my concerns regard- 
IIIR scvcrr.l provisions of this hill spi;- 
clflc to my Stale of California. 

The bill Includes several titles which 
address California's pressinc water 
ncetl.s. These Include compiehcnslve 
water reclamation nnd reuse studies 
for southern California cities nnd 
counties. Further. It authorizes the 
Secretary of the Interior to participate 
with city and county of Los Angeles 
nnd the city of San Jose In the dcslr.n 
and construction of water reclamation, 
reuse, ajid water quality procrams and 

The bill R\! ~> authorises the Secre 
tary to conduct research on available 
methods to control salinity In the 
Sallon Sea. Additionally. I am delight 
ed that we were able to authorise a 
permanent water contract for the San 
Jonquil) National Vctcians Cemetery. 

Mr. President. I was pleased that the 
committee chose to adopt the S. 2010. 
the Central Valley Project Fish and 
Wildlife Act, I Introduced November 
21. 1991, Into the Reclamation 
Projects Authori/.atlon anil Adjust 
ment Act of 1992. This bill directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to undertake 
specific activities to luliln-.-..-. fi.-.h and 
wildlife problems associated with Cali 
fornia's Ccntial Valley project. The 
bill also removes the Federal barrier 
which has historically prohibited 
water transfer;; from agricultural user;; 
to uilmii and lndn:,l rlul u:;r;.. and re 
quires Central Valley project, nr.ilcitl- 
tural users to use water more efficient 

Last year, the Senate Energy Sub 
committee on Water and Power held 
four hearings on CVP legislation; In 
Los Angeles. Washington. DC. Sacra 
mento, and San Francisco. I attended 
all /our. Approximately 75 witnesses 
testified during these proceedings, 
many followed up with written re 
marks to supplement their testimony. 

I and my staff have met with virtual 
ly every interest In this debate; Includ 

ing representatives of environmental. 
agricultural, urban, fishery, conserva 
tion, and power Interests. We also met 
with representatives of the CVP and 
State water districts, the State of Cali 
fornia, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the Department of the Interi 
or, and the Department of Agricul 
ture. My office has met with everyone 
who has requested a meeting on this 

In early March, Chairman JOHNSTON 
requested that several Senators meet 
In an effort to negotiate a compromise 
CVP bill. UurliiK the ncBoUallons. It 
became apparent that resolving the 
central Issues In CVP ICRlslatlon was 
much more complicated and costly 
than anyone had Initially Imagined. 
Possibly the most difficult Issue to re 
solve was the question of water for the 
environment. Everyone acknowledges 
during dry periods, fish and wildlife 
need firm water supplies that will 
ensure survival of the species. But how 
much water is required to ensure that 
survival of various species now threat 
ened? Where will It come from? How 
much will it cost cither to develop this 
new water, or to purchase it? And. who 
will pay for It? 

As we painfully discovered, there arc 
no simple solutions. During drought 
and we're In our sixth year now there 
Is precious little water for anyone. 
Just look at the cutbacks that urban. 
Industrial nnd agricultural users have 
endured for the past few years. How 
much water do we provide for fish and 
wildlife needs during drought? In the 
absence of credible data. It Is difficult 
and possibly Irresponsible to make 
such a determination. When there Is 
credible data, as In the case of wildlife 
refiiKCN, we rnn Identify ways to deliv 
er the water.. In repaid to the need: of 
the fisheries. It Is clear more water Is 
needed during dry periods. But we 
should not delay adopting solutions to 
already Identified fishery problems.. 

Unfortunately, various special Inter 
est groups have become fixated upon a 
slncle amount of water exclusively for 
fish and wildlife needs. They believe 
1.5 million acre-feet of water for fish 
and wildlife Is the minimum amount 
of additional water supplies necessary 
for fish and wildlife In the Central 
Valley. Frankly, their utter lack of 


willingness to find a reasonable bal 
ance Is one of the mnjor stumbling 
blocks to developing compromise CVP 
legislation that would address urban, 
agricultural anJ environmental water 

'J'ln: effect of roallor.-iiliiK 1.5 million 
acre-feet away from urban und agricul 
tural users solely to fish and wildlife 
would be disastrous to California. Ac 
cording to the California Department, 
of Food and Agriculture, a rcallocatlon 
of this water would cost the State 
rotiKhly $0 billion In lost economic ac 
tivity. It would nlso result In the loss 
of over 10,000 Jobs over $210 million 
In lost wages. CDF A also projects that 
It would result In the Idling of over 1 
million acres statewide a loss of over 
$1.0 billion In gross farm receipts. 

'Another matter Is how wo;:!cl this 
water be acquired each year? Should It 
be developed through new storage fa 
cilities, through the idllni; of cropland, 
or should It be purchased annually or 
permanently? Is It even possible to 
build nil of the facilities remiliod to 
develop 1.5 million acre-feet, or would 
It require a combination of new stor 
age facilities and annual purchases? 
Finally, what would it cost to acquire 
that much water? 

The Department of the Interior esti 
mated that raising Clalr EniUe Dam 
w'llh a pump-through stornpc to 
Shasta Dam. construction estimates 
only, not including annual operation 
and maintenance, would cost approxi 
mately $3 billion. If built, this facility 
would yield approximately TOO.OOO 
acre-feel annually. If you accept the 
approach that you need an additional 
1.5 million acre-feet. In this Instance, 
only half of the annual delivery to fbh 
and wildlife has been developed, at a 
cost of $3 billion. And you would still 
need to obtain an additional 000,000 

Another option we explored was to 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
buy 1.5 million acre-feet annually. 
This option was also financially unrea 
sonable. Consider, the State of Califor 
nia's 1991 wat-T bank. Last year, the 
State of California purchased approxi 
mately 750,000 acre-feet at a cost of 
roughly $125 million. This was a one 
time purchase. The costs associated 
with purchasing 1.5 million acre-feet 
annually would easily exceed $2M) mil- 
Hun, rrcardUi.s.'i of whether tin: .Secre 
tary purchased water rights associated 
with poor drainage lands In the San 
Joaqulli Valley, or bought storage 
rights from existing storage facilities. 

Then there Is the question of who 
will pay for thlr, water for fish and 
wildlife. Initially, there was specula 
tion that a transfer fee could be placed 
on water transferred from agricultural 
use to urban use. It became apparent, 
however, that any charge on water 
transfers would not generate sufficient 
funds, because once 1.5 million acrc- 
fcct was devoted exclusively to fish 

and wildlife, there would be no water 
left In the Central Valley project to 
transfer to other parched urban areas. 

There was general agreement that 
the structural Improvements for fish 
and wildlife such as those In S. 2016, 
based on rough estimates would cost 
approximately $238 million. Acquiring 
1.5 million acre-feet annually for fish 
and wildlife on a permanent basis was 
estimated at $2 billion, using $1.300 an 
ncre-foot as the assumed cost. 

Alternatively, to acquire temporary 
water for fish and wildlife In cuhnlna- 
tlve 150.000 acre-feet annual Incre 
ments for 10 years based on $100 acre- 
feet was estimated to cost roughly $1 
billion. Two things became clear a.s a 
result of this discovery. First, the costs 
were much higher than anticipated, 
and would cause serious economic con 
sequences If Imposed over a 10-yen.r 
period. Second, the goal of achieving 
1.5 million acre-feet of water dedicated 
solely for fish and wildlife was una 
chievable In 10 years In all but very 
wet years without the same economic 

Senators ' JOHNSTON. BHAaury. 
WALJ.OP. DUIINS, and myself then ex 
plored the option to stretch out the 
costs of these structural measures and 
water purchases by examining the use- 
of bonding authority. In each In 
stance, the numbers told the story. It 
appeared that Increases In power 
charges might exceed 20 percent, agri 
cultural rate Increases of 100 percent, 
and municipal and Industrial rate in 
creases of 200-300 percent. We even 
reviewed the option to apply a charge 
to prior rights and exchange rights 
water users. There was also a recogni 
tion among the negotiators that agrl 
cultural and urban water contracts can 
not simply be unilaterally amended to 
Include a rate Increase. Ultimately. 
none of the options we explored were 
acceptable to me or the constituents I 
represent. .It's easy to promise nil 
thine* to all people, but the reality Is 
that reallocating 1.5 million acrc-feot 
of water exclusively for fish and wild 
life simply would not work. And thai 
reality became clear to all members of 
the committee, before It reported S. 
2010 as part of the measure now 
before us. 

Let me emphasize that the decision 
to mipport my bill docs not abandon 
California'* fish and wildlife, or any 
particular group such as California's 
commercial and sport fishermen. I be 
lieve that the provisions of S. 2010 will 
make It possible to begin the restora 
tion of California's precious fish and 
wildlife habitat. 

Nonetheless, during dry years there 
must be minimum amounts of water 
available for fish and wildlife needs. I 
strongly support providing a minimum 
amount of water for fisheries during 
times of drought. In fact, S. 2010 pro 
vldcs for establishing Increased flows 
on both the American and Sacramento 


S. 2010 would stabilize and augment 
river flows to restore and enhance the 
natural production of anndromous 
fish. The economic Importance of 
saunon and stcelhcad runs, ctrlpcd 
bass, and other fisheries arc impera 
tive to California's sport and commer 
cial fishing Industries. 

In March oi last year. I Introduced 
S. 720. the Upper Sacramento River 
Fishery Resources Restoration Act, 
which Incorporated the recommenda 
tions of the Upper Sacramento River 
Advisory Council. Established by an 
act of the California Legislature, the 
council devoted a considerable amount 
of time through open public hearings 
and meetings to develop a manage 
ment plan to restore Sacramento River 
ll-jh habitat. Many of the require 
ments contained In that bill, Including 
mandated instream flow requirements, 
have been embodied In this bill. S. 
2010 directs thr Secretary of the Inte 
rior to eslabllsl increased flows In the 
rivers and streams below project dams. 
Once established, these flows will 
become a firm requirement of the Cen 
tral Valley project S. 2010 requires 
the initiation of fishery losses result 
ing from the Tracy and Contra Costa 
pumping plants; It provides authoriza 
tion for the construction of a tempera- 
lure control device at Shasta Dam for 
cooler water releases for spawning and 
oulmigratlnu salmon; It the 
rehabilitation and expansion of the 
Colt-man National Fish Hatchery by 
1995; It requires the Secretary to enter 
into an agreement with the State of 
California to eliminate losses of 
salmon and steelhead trout caused by 
flow fluctuations at Kcswink. Nimbus 
r\nd Lewlston Regulating Dams; it au 
thorizes the construction of a new fish 
hatchery at tho Tchama Colusa Fish 
Facility, as well as authorl/.atlon for 
the construction of a .salmon and stecl- 
hcad trout hatchery on the Yuba 
River; It authorizes the Secretary to 
minimize fish passage problems for 
salmon at the Red Hluff Diversion 
Dam; It directs the Secretary to pro 
vide flows to allow sufficient spawning 
and out migration conditions for 
salmon and steelhead trout from 
Whlsketown Dam. Finally, the Secre 
tary Is authorl/.ed to construct a bar 
rier nt the heat! of Old Itlver In Hie 
KaciiilniMlto-iStill J<m<i\ilu Dcllu, liy De 
cember 31. 1995. to jwrtliilly mitigate 
the Impacts of the CVP on the surviv 
al of young outmigratlne salmon. 

In addition, my bill provides for the 
Immediate delivery of 300,000 acre-feet 
of firm water supplies to the 15 na 
tional wildlife refuges and wildlife 
management areas In the Central 
Valley. The wetlands and associated 
habitat are Important to several 
threatened and endangered species 
such as the American pcrcRrine falcon, 
bald eagle. Aleutian Canada goose, and 
San Joaquln kit fox, and support a 

winter population of nearly million 
waterfowl. Sixty percent of the ducks, 
geese, swans, and millions of shore 
birds of the Pacific flyway crowd the 
existing acres. By the year 2000. It di 
rects the Secretary of the Interior to 
increase the water supply to over 
525.000 acre-feet annually. This lias 
been Identified by the Secretary of the 
Interior as the amount needed to fully 
manage all lands within the existing 
refuge boundaries. 

Willie I've focused upon the fish and 
wildlife components of my bill. It Is Im 
perative that any comprehensive 
water bill for California address the 
growing water needs of our cities. 
That's why S. 2010 Includes a water 
transfer provision that's the product 
of negotiations by the metropolitan 
water district. representing over 
1C million water users, and CVP 
water users. This historic agreement 
would allow, for the first time. Central 
Valley water users to transfer water to 
cities such as Los Angeles, San Diego, 
and other urban areas. This provision 
provides for the protection of both 
ground water supplies and safeguards 
against third party Impacts. Given 
California's explosive growth, volun 
tary water transfers are an essential 
component In any successful lone-term 
water policy. This provision will help 
ensure California's cities access to a 
safe water supply In years to come. I 
will continue to insist upon the water 
transfer language as agreed upon In 
California, In any final CVP legisla 
tion. This week, the Slate of Cnllfor- 
nla has announced a comprehensive 
water plan, and I'm pleased to say 
Governor Wilson's plan Includes water 
transfer guidelines Identical to those 
In my bill. 

I would also note for the Rrrono that 
some have stated that my bill will not 
resolve the dredging issues in the San 
Francisco and Oakland Ports. I urn, 
however, committed to keeping these 
ports open and vital. 

For almost a year now. 1 have 
worked aggressively to ensure tlmt bay 
area ports remain open to large ve:;:;el 
traffic. When I Ilrst became Involved 
In this Issue, It appeared that most 
maintenance dredging would be halted 
at the Oakland and San Francisco 
Ports. The holdup seemed to stem 
from a hurcnwrniUe. wrl> that Involved 
tin: Army Cor|>:i. the Knvli oilmen! ul 
Protection Agency, and the Natlumil 
Marine Fisheries Service. 

At that time, each of these agencies 
was working diligently, but Independ 
ent of the other agencies. The result 
was stalemate; no solution, no permits, 
no dredging. And sadly, the potential 
loss of up to a 100.000 Jobs and a $4.5 
billion industry for the bay area. 

I found it unconscionable that a 
multlbllllon dollar Industry In Califor 
nia would be at risk because Federal 
bureaucracies could not seem to com 
municate with one another. I vowed 


not to let that happen. Since last July, 
we have been meeting regularly with 
all the pertinent Federal agencies. A3 
a result, these agencies are placing 
greater emphasis on keeping the ports 
open and vital. 

This new emphasis has yielded re 
sults. In the Port of San Frnnclsco. the 
dredging of pier 27. pier 29, pier 94. 
pier OG. pier 00 (approach), pier 80 
(Islals Creek), and Berkeley Marina 
has been permitted. The Port of Oak 
land, the Chevron oil transfer facility, 
and the Guadalupc Slough have nlso 
gotten permission to go forward with 
needed maintenance dredging projects. 
Since I Introduced, my bill last year, 
It has become apparent that the State 
of California would like to take over 
the CVP. Although there ore numer 
ous issues to resolve before this could 
occur, I strongly support State owner 
ship of the CVP. No other reclama 
tion project Is as Integrated to a 
State's water project as the CVP Is the 
California's State water project. I 
Intend to do everything I can to assist 
California In this regard. In fact. Sena 
tors, JOHNSTON and DUDLEY Indicated 
that they would not object to Califor 
nia's decision to take over the CVP. 

I will not support legislation that 
benefits one group at the expense of 
another, or does not fairly address the 
needs of legitimate California Inter 
ests. Recently, various special Interests 
have attempted to character l/.c Cali 
fornia's water struggle as one of farm 
ers versus fishermen. Let me say. 
there is no place for this sort of 
wedge-forming politics in this Issue. 
Tills Is not a struggle between farmers 
and fishermen. The Endangered Spe 
cies Act will not go away simply be 
cause we pass CVP legislation. Nor for 
that matter will the bay-delta proceed 
ings. Ultimately, there Is enough water 

for fanners, fishermen, and for cities. 
The challenge In for all Californlans to 
work together. 

The objective In balance. California 
Is growing at a rate of 700.000 people a 
year, and the demands upon our natu 
ral resources will only continue to In 
crease a." our population grows.- If Cali 
fornia will ever clear this hurdle which 
threatens our economy and the qual 
ity of life for our cltl/.cns. we must bal 
ance the often competing needs of our 
cities and rural communities with our 
limited natural resources. I do not be 
lieve that commerce and conservation 
arc incompatible. There will be sacri 
fice, difficult decisions lie ahead of us; 
but working together, we will resolve 
the water dilemma which lias polar 
ized our Stale for so long. 

I'm committed to the resolution of 
fish and wildlife problems In Califor 
nia. I am equally committed to the res 
olution of the water shortage prob 
lems facing urban areas. For any legis 
lation to achieve those objectives. It 
must reflect the concerns of those Im 
mediately affected. My bill Is a prod 
uct of California, representing conser 
vation, agricultural, and urban Inter 

Critics of my bill have Indicated that 
passage of S. 2016 would represent a 
severe setback for the State of Califor 
nia. Despite these .shrill predictions of 
doom nnd gloom for the State of Cali 
fornia, the Senate chose to support my 
bill. The Senate has done so. Mr. 
President, because may bill balances 
the needs of urban, agricultural, and 
environmental Interests. The ap 
proach by special Interest groups docs 
not truly reflect the broad Interests or 
legitimate needs of my State, and It 
will only result In endless litigation at 
the expense of California's environ 
ment and economy. 


Golb: What was happening was political education. In March of '92, the 

chairman of the committee, Chairman [Bennett] Johnston, assembled a 
number of the members of the energy committee- -Chairman Johnston, 
Senator Bradley, Senator Wallop, Senator [Conrad] Burns, and 
Senator Seymour. This was in early March of '92, and they all got 
together for about three of four days in the energy committee 
library, which is a small library that's just off the committee 
room in the Dirksen Building. And they all brought one staff 
member, so Senator Seymour brought myself. And they negotiated 
intensely over a period of about a week and a half or so how to 
come up with CVP legislation. 

There were extensive discussions on financial issues, on water 
supply, on economic concerns, and on environmental provisions. 
There are a lot of documents that came out of that where water 
costs and deliveries were examined and where the committee looked 
at bonding authority and how to pay for these provisions, where 
they looked at historic water deliveries and how you could develop 
a financing plan. These documents and these discussions a lot of 
people don't know about; I don't know if the environmental 
community knows about it. 

Here's one document that's pretty interesting. This was a 
document that asks the question: if you're trying to get a certain 
amount of revenue--30 million, 50 million, 100 millionhow would 
you come up with that revenue? We looked at, in these scenarios, 
how those costs would be charged. On power customers, it would be 
charged on millsyou know, kilowatts --whereas on water rights 
holders and agricultural contractors and M and I [municipal and 
industrial], there would be a certain charge per acre-foot 
depending on how much money you were willing to come up with. They 
looked at bonding authority, a thirty-year period at a certain 
percentage and what the bonding debts would be. These discussions 
were very intense. 

Chall: Who provided, do you know, all that information? 

Golb: This information was put together by committee economists, 
primarily energy committee staff as well as input from the 
Department of Interior staff. Those folks didn't participate in 
the meeting, but they did help out with background information. 

So there was a lot of discussion at the time in terms of what 
could you do? How do you take the Miller bill, the Bradley bill, 
and the Seymour bill, and accommodate or resolve all the 
differences? And the discussions were productive in that it became 
clear that these issues were a lot more difficult than it was being 
characterized in the newspaperseither by the agricultural 
community or the environmental community. 

Senator Seymour Offers Revisions; Fundamental Disagreements Remain 

Golb: Ultimately, Senator Seymour made a number of proposals and offered 
a lot of things that most people don't know about. This document, 
which is a March 4, 1992, document, provided options and really was 
the negotiation document that Senator Seymour used. You can see 
that he madethis is actually the document he used--his marks in 
the margins are his marks [shows document]. 

Chall: And he made specific changes in 2016? 

Golb: He made offers to increase the amount of water that was provided 
for the environment, above and beyond what was in his bill. He 
offered, as you can see here, on "project purpose"--authorizing the 
secretary to undertake a number of measures to mitigate the impact 
of the project which wasn't really in 2016. He made offers on 
water transfers. When it comes to upfront water, he committed 
600,000 acre-feet upfront with additional water over a period of 
time in installments. He made offers on new facilities, on 
contract limitation-- 

Chall: What did he do there? 

Golb: He insisted on a forty-year contract but allowed for flexibility in 
future negotiations. As you can see here, he also offered to go 
down to twenty-five years. He made specific offers in terms of 
fish mitigation measures, in terms of refuge water supply, and a 
whole host of other issues. 

He knew by that point that there were major problems with all 
three of the bills. He was trying to go a little bit closer to our 
opponents, and they did the same. This document reflects the 
nature of the discussions and Seymour's efforts to compromise. 

Chall: Is it a markup? Did he offer them as amendments to 2016? 

Golb: What the senators were doing was they were negotiating among 
themselves to see if they can conceptually come up with an 
agreement. And if they could conceptually do it, then what they 
would do is direct staff to go put it together. But Seymour and 
this was actually something I was going to show you- -these are two 
documents from staff regarding discussions on CVP legislation that 
had gone on for a long time. You can see that members of the 
energy committee, as well as members of the governor's office and 
Senator Cranston's office, and from the environmental community had 
all been involved. These discussions were going on for a long 
time. When the senators got together, they were attempting to 
negotiate a solution- -to come up with a deal. If they would have 


had a deal, then that would have been incorporated into some 

Ultimately what happened is that at that point, they could not 
reach agreement, and there was a fundamental disagreement, and 
Senator Johnston, who was struggling to get the energy bill out of 
the Senate at that timewhich was his prioritydidn't want to 
focus the time on CVP legislation. He had put a lot of time into 
it, and his staff director, Ben Cooper, who is an excellent Senate 
staff person, was working really hard trying to manage two 
difficult issues. 

On the one hand, he had this energy bill that he was 
overseeing and trying to get out of the Senate for the chairman of 
the committee. Alternatively, he had now this major fight brewing 
among committee members on this water legislation that had all 
these projects in it a third of the Senate basically had a project 
in there that they wanted out. So they were trying to find a 
solution as quickly as they could that would maximize politically 
their options and minimize disturbances to the energy bill. 

The option that Senator Johnston proposed was to pass the 
Seymour bill out of the committee unamended and to support it on 
the floor of the Senate. And Bradley went along with it. Senator 
Bradley, at the hearing, made a bunch of statements about how 
terrible it was, but Bradley supported the chairman's plan to move 
Seymour's bill, S. 2016, out of the committee unamended. 

Golb: The evidence that he agreed with it is the fact that he voted for 
the bill to be sent out of the committee, did not offer any 
amendments in the committee, did not offer any amendments on the 
Senate floor. 

Chall: And that meant that I understood that Senator Seymour was told 
either to amend his bill or negotiate in the conference. 

Golb: No. The chairman's deal denied Seymour the ability to amend his 
bill, but Seymour continued to negotiate in the remainder of the 
debate. The chairman's deal also, besides preventing the Seymour 
bill from being amended, tied all of the western projects together. 

Senator Bradley was attempting to negotiate with Seymour, and 
they were attempting to do it one on one and in the committee. 
Senator Bradley came by Senator Seymour's office a number of times. 
They would speak on the Senate floor; they would take the 
elevators; they would take the small train over to vote; they would 


see each other in hallways, eventsthey spent a lot of time 
together talking and trying to come up with a solution. 

Ultimately the biology, law, politics it just didn't mix. So 
the deal they agreed to at that time was to pass 2016, the Seymour 
bill, out of the committee unamended, off the Senate floor, and 
attempt to engage in negotiations in a conference between the House 
and the Senate. Senator Seymour's statement at the committee was 
pretty clear where he said he recognized that they were passing his 
bill out but yet there needed to be amendments, there needed to be 
changes to it, and we've got the statements here. 

Senator Seymour's View of the Committee's Maneuver 

Chall: I know the environmental community was shocked when this came out, 
but I was wondering whether Senator Seymour was equally surprised 
or unsure of what the ultimate end would be. I gather from you 
that he knew what was going on. 

Golb: Well, we were there when Senator Johnston said, "Okay, I've got a 
deal you guys can't refuse. How about we pass out 2016?" 

Chall: What did it mean to you? Did it mean that you might ultimately get 
those amendments through? 

Golb: We knew that getting the Seymour bill through Congress was a long 
shot. But the 2016 bill was never intended to do that. What it 
was intended to do was to put some ideas and some concepts into the 
debate that focused on the problems of fixing fish and wildlife 
problems in the Central Valley. His bill wasn't-- You know, it's 
been mischaracterized by some people that never worked in Congress. 
The Seymour bill was an attempt to get some legitimate ideas and 
constructive ideas into the debate. And it succeeded because a lot 
of the provisions from his bill were ultimately included in the 
final legislation. 

So in one sense it was a success; on the other hand, when it 
was passed out of the committee, we did wonder if we could get it 
through the conference. I don't think we ever deluded ourselves 
that we would get it unamended through Congress, but we thought it 
might be a vehicle from which to build on. Again, the political 
nature of the debate was such that they didn't want to give Seymour 
any credit in an election year, so they refused to even negotiate 
from his bill as the basic point of legislation. 

The Agriculture Community 

Chall: Those revisions that he was willing to make, were they acceptable 
to the agriculture community? 

Golb: The agriculture community didn't know about many of those 

provisions. There just wasn't time to talk with all of the members 
of the farm community about the debate. The political process in 
Washington, is such that sometimes you have to move fast, and 
there's just not time in a state with thirty million people to 
communicate with all of your constituents. 

We had met with so many people and were in close communication 
with so many members of the urban community, the environmental 
community. I talked to Carl Boronkay probably twice a week. I 
talked to the farm interests daily. I talked to some of the 
environmental groups on a regular basis, sometimes daily. We met 
with Dave Weiman, who was the environmental groups' representative 
repeatedly throughout; anytime he called, we met with him. We met 
with the state of California, with the White House. We had been in 
such close contact with all of the interest groups that we felt 
that we had a pretty good idea of how far they could go, and 
Seymour pushed it right up to the edge. 

Senator Bradley, in those discussions, agreed with Seymour on 
probably more points than he disagreed. But on some of the points 
that he disagreed, they were so fundamental to him that he couldn't 
accept it. Senator Johnston actually disagreed with Bradley on 
some of those points as well. 1 

Senator Bennett Johnston's Mark 

Chall: I see. Senator Johnston did have a mark out. He had a bill- 
Go Ib: That's right. Which was worse than all the other bills combined. 
Senator Wallop wrote Senator Johnston a letter where he stated his 
concern, and was really perplexed as to why would a chairman of a 
committee whose job it is to move things along and build consensus 
with committee members, why would he put out a committee mark--a 
chairman's mark that was so divisive, so one-sided, that it didn't 
further the debate; it polarized it. 

'More on the issue of the passage of the Seymour bill and the concern 
of agriculture on pages 42-43. 


I'll give you this letter to put in the archives. This is a 
February 24, 1992, letter from Malcolm Wallop to Bennett Johnston, 
the chairman of the committee. One of the provisions in it says, 
"The chairman's mark incorporates the most onerous provisions of 
both the Bradley legislation and a staff draft which was circulated 
in November. It would undercut the agreements which have been 
achieved in California between the urban and the agricultural 
interests. In addition, it frustrates the considerable progress 
which has been made with the conservation community." 

That's a pretty tough letter, and Senator Wallop says he's 
perplexed as to what the objective is in putting forth the 
proposal. Then he says, "Frankly, several members of our committee 
do not see the mark as a step forward but rather as a severe 
reversal. We do not see how it forms any basis for discussion and 
hope you do not propose it." 

Chall: It was one-sided in terms of environmental--? 

Golb: Yes. 

Chall: Did any of you have any idea why he would have done it? 

Golb: To this day I don't know. We knew it was going to happen; his 
staff told us. I don't want to mischaracterize; they were very 
professional about how they conducted themselves. Senator Johnston 
is a fine senator, and was a good chairman of the committee. His 
staff worked very hard, and they were very upfront with us. Our 
offices were right across from one another in the Dirksen Building 
so I would see many of his staff throughout the day. You're 
walking down to get lunch or you're leaving at the end of the day, 
so we would see these folks all the time, and we talked on a 
professional level. And they told us the chairman felt that there 
needed to be some further direction, and he was going to put out 
onto the streethe never introduced it as a bill, but he was going 
to put this draft out that he felt would move things along. Again, 
Senator Wallop wrote the chairman a really tough letter because the 
chairman's mark didn't further the debate; it polarized it. 

Again, there were attempts by a number of people to make this 
thing work, including Senator Johnston's staff. [shows document] 
This was a memo that went from the chief counselthe chief staff 
person on the committee, Ben Cooperto the senator regarding how 
to make these negotiations move ahead. You can see in this 
document that it includes some revenue concepts, authority on how 
to spend some of the funds, how water would be provided for fish 
and wildlife purposes, and how other issues would be worked out 
contracts, transfers of water. You can see that some of this was 


n ! r 



t*m o. NAitma. c 




i coorm. rr* MMLIUR 
. Rvtr 




/ jpij-iin i 
' Twoua. 

i*iw 1 1 es un 

WASNNMTON. OC 20B1 0- 180 

February 24, 1992 

The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston 


Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Washington, O.C. 20510 

Dear Bennett: 

I am writing concerning the "Chairman's Mark" on the Central 
Valley Project which you circulated last Thursday. I reviewed a 
copy over the weekend and am perplexed as to what your objective 
is in putting forth this proposal. 

I understood from our earlier conversation that you had 
intended to try to bridge the differences between the legislation 
introduced by Senator Bradley and that introduced by Senator 
Seymour. Unfortunately, this "Mark" incorporates the most 
onerous provisions of both the original Bradley legislation and 
the staff draft which was circulated in November. It will 
undercut the agreements which had been achieved in California 
between the urban and agricultural interests. In addition, it 
frustrates the considerable progress which had been made with the 
conservation community. 

In your tiered pricing structure, you will subject farmers 
to full cost water on their last increment no matter what the 
size of their farm and even if they are in full compliance with 
all provisions of Reclamation Law. Even President Carter with 
his "hit list" never tried to penalize farmers in that fashion. 

In the past, you had been supportive of this Committee's and 
the Senate's hostility to the Gejdenson amendment on surplus 
crops, which would have required farmers to elect between paying 
full cost for their water and participating in a commodity 
program. In this legislation, you require full cost for anyone 
growing a commodity crop even if thev do not participate in the 
program . That provision is destructive of the Agriculture 
programs, contrary to Reclamation law, and will have serious 
consequences on the environment, especially where certain crops, 
such as rice, have produced artificial wetlands, habitat, and 
forage for migratory water fowl. Whether intended or not, this 
provision will destroy any hopes for a peaceful resolution in 


The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston 
February 24, 1992 
Pa'ge Two 

This legislation would also be impossible to implement. 
Rather than contributing to a solution to the fish and wildlife 
concerns in the Central Valley/ it would frustrate any ability of 
the State of California to make decisions. Since the Central 
Valley Project controls slightly less than half the developed 
yield of the Central Valley, it can not resolve all the problems. 
This year, the Bureau has announced that it will deliver only 2 
million acre feet of water, yet your legislation would commit 
almost 3 million acre feet to fish and wildlife. Even in a wet 
year, the effect of your measure would be to eliminate any 
deliveries to agriculture contractors. That conclusion is 
reinforced by the other provisions in the legislation, especially 
the reformulation of the Project purposes. 

I cannot support punitive legislation which, I believe, 
would cripple the Project and have severe repercussions on both 
the environment and the economy of California. Frankly, several 
members of our Committee do not see your "Mark" as a step forward 
but rather as a severe reversal. They do not see how it forms 
any basis for discussion and hope that you do not propose it. 

I remain willing to work with you, Senator Seymour, Senator 
Bradley and Senator Burns to develop a responsible approach to 
California's problems. I regret that this "Mark" is not the 
basis on which to begin those good faith negotiations. 

ilcolm Wallop 
Ranking Republican Member 

MW: jb/als 


provisions that Seymour authored. Senator Johnston agreed with 
Seymour's language. On contract renewals, they agreed on a forty- 
year contract. They agreed the transfer of the project to the 
state was a good thing. There needed to be a lot of provisions 
worked out, but they believed the transfer of the project to the 
state was good. 

Chall: Does this say '95? 

Golb: That's correct. 

Chall: And when was this written? Oh, I see, that was until '95. 

Golb: What they were going to do was make the Seymour language law for 

three years and then state law would preside over water transfers. 
You can see here that the amount of water to fish and wildlife is 
600,000 acre- feet, which is the same number Senator Seymour offered 
during negotiations , in the document that I showed you a minute 

I hope what these documents show you, and what you've read in 
my journal, is that Senator Seymour made a number of offers on 
substantive matters above and beyond what was included in this 
bill, and was attempting to negotiate in good faith to solve the 

Governor Pete Wilson and the CVPIA Debate 

Chall: Some environmentalists assume that Senator Seymour was more 

interested in negotiating and making changes than was Governor 
Wilson, that Governor Wilson was so tied to the Fresno farm 
interests--! guess that's how it's put--water/ag peoplethat he 
even didn't like 2016--but that may not be correct. They believe 
that Governor Wilson was unwilling to make the kind of compromises 
that Senator Seymour was willing to make. Was that a problem or is 
that just a rumor that I picked up somewhere along the way? 

Golb: Part of the problem is--and this isn't their faultbut a lot of 

the farmers and the environmentalists that had some kind of a role 
in this debate were so far removed from Washington that they're 
just unfamiliar with politics, and they're unfamiliar with 
policymaking . That's not to say that a lot of them don't have a 
lot of experience in these particular issues they work on, but most 
of them are really unfamiliar with the workings of a legislative 
process, particularly in a debate this big. 


What happened is that, you know, the rumor millwhether it's 
a coffee shop or whatever- -was substantial. From what I saw, 
Governor Wilson was actively engaged. He spent a tremendous amount 
of time on this issue at a time where he was in the midst of 
getting a budget with the state legislature which was extremely 
divisive. He flew back to Washington on a number of occasions and 
sat in meetings with Senator Bradley, Senator Johnston, Senator 
Wallop, Senator Burns. I personally participated in some of those 
meetings with the governor. He spoke with Senator Seymour on a 
regular basis. His administration was actively involved in this 
debate- -particularly Dave Kennedy and Doug Wheeler. 

Chall: But what was their take on this? Were they adamantly opposed to 
even the kinds of amendments that you just showed me: going to 
twenty- five-year contracts and 600,000 acre-feet? My feeling is 
that had they known, they wouldn't have accepted it. That may not 
be true; you say they didn't know. But ultimately they did know, 
and toward the lastwhich we'll go into in September and October, 
there seems to be a considerable amount of uncertainty about what 
the agriculture people will accept. 

Golb: Governor Wilson, in meetings that I sat in, personally told other 
senators in the debate that he was supportive of John Seymour's 
position, that he was supportive of the direction that the Seymour 
bill took. He opposed the Bradley bill, he opposed the Miller 
bill. And Wilson felt that the best way to proceed ultimately was 
to have the state of California operate the Central Valley Project, 
and that's where he began to focus most of his effort. His 
administration supported that position. 

Transferring the Central Valley Project to the State 

Chall: Now tell me about the idea to take over either buy or manage the 
Central Valley Project. I noticed somewhere in here [journal] that 
you had discussed within the staff, whether it was the right thing 
to do. Apparently the staff did discuss this. 

Golb: Oh, yes, the staff discussed it extensively. 
Chall: What did you conclude? 

Golb: A lot of staff felt it was appropriate. On a public policy 

standpoint, it made sense. The project's here, the land's here, 
the water's here, the constituents are all here, and even though 
these federal decisions can be taken in Washington three thousand 
miles away, it affects their lives here. So it made sense from a 








lot of perspectives. If the state owned the project, they could 
manage it, and they could solve these problems a lot easier than 
the federal government could. So there was a natural sympathy or 
affinity toward the state owning the project, but politically there 
were some concerns with that. 

I think a lot of the environmentalists felt that politically 
the state takeover effort was just a ploy to stop the legislative 
effort. I think some of the farmers felt that the state, if they 
took it over, would have to increase the costs so much that farmers 
wouldn't be able to pay for water. I think George Miller felt that 
if the state took over the Central Valley Project he would lose one 
of his favorite projects to oversee. So he was opposed to it. 
Senator Bradley repeatedly said that he supported the idea of the 
state taking over the project. He said that in meetings with John 
Seymour which I attended as well as in the negotiating session with 
the other senators. 

I think that philosophically there was a lot of support for 
it. Procedurally it was kind of difficult, and the timing wasn't 
so great. 1 

So there was a lot of effort hereagain, we talk about how 
political the debate was--we kept getting away from the policy 
issues and what's the best way to increase salmon population and 
other fish in the Sacramento River or more water for refuges . 

Or transfers. 

Or transfers. What's the best way to transfer water? Right. 

Those were the three primary issues: fish, refuges, and water to 

With some people. With others, there were other major objectives. 
But those were clear. The ultimate legislationthere were two 
major provisions of it essentially: moving more water from 
agricultural to urban users and resolving fishery problems. 

One objective had to do with contract renewals and things of that 
sort. But that's an age-old problem. 

Contract renewals, if you think about it-- 
They tied it to conservation. 

'See also pages 66-67. 


Golb: Yes, it's tied to conservation, it's tied to water pricing. I 

mean, these are things that are legitimate issues to be resolved, 
but again, those issues aren't directly related to the salmon 
problems or the water transfer problems directly. So they 
detracted a little bit from what we felt should have been the 
focus. And that was part of the problem. The political debate 
overrode some of the policy issues. The policy got ambushed by the 
politics at just about every corner of the debate. 

The Continuous Round of Phone Calls, Conferences. Meetings Prior to 
the Energy Committee's Decision to Move the Seymour Bill 

Chall: Let's see, I noticed in your journal something to do with 

insurance, which is probably not too related to the bill. 1 didn't 
understand the meaning of the entry. 

Golb: We met with the Prudential Life Insurance Company based in New 

Jersey, which is where Senator Bradley 's from. At the time they 
had a tremendous amount of loans outstanding in the Central Valley. 
Prudential had a portfolio exposure of over a billion dollars. 
That paper isn't worth a whole lot if the paper you're holding is 
going to farms that can't get any water. So they were extremely 
concerned, as were some of the other insurance companies and banks 
that had made loans over the years to farm interests in the Central 
Valley. They were very concerned because they had huge financial 
exposure. So when you start taking water away from those farms, it 
has an impact on their lending rates, it has an impact on how their 
loan structures are set up. So all of a sudden what becomes a 
pretty simple idea, which is what a lot of people had--"Hey, let's 
just reallocate a little bit of water from these farmers "--becomes 
a pretty complicated process in that the banks that they have 
mortgages with for their homes and their equipment and their land- 
suddenly these loans become more difficult to pay back. It gets 

Chall: So that's really what that entry was related to? 

I wanted to go into some of the meetings that you had in March 
1992. This was before, of course, the bill [S. 2016] came out of 
committee. But you were having quite a number of meetings, as 
you've already said. In one of your notes, March 12, Seymour 
apparently is uncertain about what is going on, and he asked, "Tell 
me what to do." What did that mean? 

Golb: During the business meeting? 


Chall: It's March 12 in the journal. 

Golb: That was during the business meeting. It's also reflected in the 
committee hearing notes . There were a series of amendments that 
were being offered, and we were going to offer an amendment 
unrelated to the CVP legislation. Ultimately Seymour and Bradley 
were able to work out an agreement, and so we didn't need the 
amendment. Bradley was going to offer the amendment, but it worked 
out for us well. 

So the committee staff thought there was a Seymour amendment 
when there really wasn't. There was really a Bradley amendment and 
so when the issue came up, and the chairman is saying "Seymour 
amendment", and Seymour didn't know he had an amendment, so he's 
saying, "What?" and I'm trying to tell him you don't have an 
amendment; Bradley 's got it. Seymour's listening to the committee 
staff saying, "Well, I don't have a Seymour amendment." 

Chall: Oh, I see. Terribly confusing. 

Golb: Yes, it was just a confusing situation, and it's just one of those 
things that happens when you're moving so many bills through in a 
short time period. 

Chall: On the 17th you indicate that you were conferring with [David] 
Kennedy and [Larry] Goldzband. He was a deputy of Wilson? 

Golb: Larry Goldzband was a deputy cabinet secretary to Governor Wilson; 
he was one of the governor's senior staff. 

Chall: And then you referred to the Kennedy-Wheeler rift. What was that 
and what did it mean to the movement of the CVPIA? 

Golb: In the grand scheme of things? Not much. There was just a 

difference of opinion on how to proceed. I think Dave Kennedy 
looked at this from one perspective, and Doug Wheeler looked at it 
from another. They are both strong personalities; each had very 
good points. I think Doug misread the political nature of the 
debate a little bit, and I think Dave understood that a little bit 
better. Dave has the benefit of having been through a lot of 
issues like this, and while I respect both of them, I think Doug 
just misread the debate a little bit and thought that we would be 
able to work a little bit closer with Senator Bradley and 
Congressman Miller. 

I think by the end of the debate Doug realized that their 
objectives were not the same as ours. Againand this gets back to 
the political /policy angle. Doug is a very thoughtful guy who had 
put together a lot of ideas on how you could fix some of the 


fishery problems in the Central Valley, and those ideas weren't 
really being considered and when he would try to broach those ideas 
in Washington, they really didn't go that far. And the reason they 
didn't is because people I think weren't really interested in 
solving a lot of the problems. 

There was some disagreements between Doug Wheeler and Dave 
Kennedy as to how the governor should proceed. It did not affect 
John Seymour's position, and I believe that they were able to 
resolve their differences. And what I saw was Governor Wilson 
proceed in a manner that I thought was appropriate. 

Chall: Was Governor Wilson less willing to compromise than Wheeler on some 

Golb: Well, Doug Wheeler is an appointee of the governor, serves at the 
pleasure of the governor, takes his direction from the governor. 
Anything that Doug is going to do is going to be at the behest of 
the governor. 

Chall: Mr. Peltier said that the state was not involved, and that there 
was a heavy denial that the bill would pass. That's in his oral 
history. Do you have that same feeling? 

Golb: No, I don't. Maybe Jason and I just view this in a different 
perspective, but I think the state recognized that there was 
tremendous risk from what Miller and Bradley were proposing. But 
they had just taken office here in California, the governor had 
just gotten in office, he was embroiled in a tremendous debate over 
the budget in the state. We have the hindsight now of saying that 
that worked out well given that California now has a budget 
surplus. So he was heavily involved. He had his own fight on his 
hands . 

But he had his top staff people involved in this debate on a 
personal level: Dave Kennedy, Doug Wheeler, Larry Goldzband. I was 
in constant communication with those folks. Senator Seymour spoke 
with Governor Wilson on a regular basis, sometimes daily. We 
exchanged a lot of information through fax and federal express, and 
the governor was personally involved. Again, I sat in a number of 
meetings with Governor Wilson and Senator Seymour here in 
Sacramento and in Washington, D.C. The governor was up to speed, 
he knew what was happening, and he acted appropriately. 

Chall: In the same March 17 entry of your journal, it says "Push the 
Bradley bill." You met with Senator Burns, Senator Bradley, 
Senator Johnston, and Senator Seymour. They all met. If I'm 
correct, this is March 17, 1992. What do you mean by "Push the 
Bradley bill"? 


Golb: You know, I need to look at that entry to tell you. 

Chall: When I took notes, sometimes things would sort of leap out at me. 
Eventually they didn't mean anything, but sometimes they did. 

Golb: This was the meeting from the previous Tuesday where all the 

senators were meeting in the library in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee and talking about what the options were. In 
this particular section, Senator Johnston was getting frustrated 
because the financing didn't work out. Senator Johnston thought 
that if the environmentalists want all this water for fish- -which 
no one ever quantified in terms of how would it be provided to the 
fish, at what times of the year, on what river systemsthe Feather 
River, the American River, the Sacramento River. Is it going to be 
in January that we're going to make this water available? Is it 
going to be in March? None of that information was ever available, 
but Johnston said, "Well, the heck with all that. Let's just build 
some more projects, by God." Build more storage. "Let's provide 
the water from the storage facilities for the environment . " Which 
made sense to a senator from Louisiana. 

That idea- -I think that philosophically we thought that was a 
good idea, but we also realized that that probably wouldn't work. 
And so in this particular entry Senator Johnston got pretty 
frustrated and said, and I quoted this: "We either try to work 
something out here or we'll just push Senator Bradley 's bill." But 
I think what happened is that Senator Johnston realized that the 
Bradley bill had as many shortcomings as any of the other bills, 
and the Seymour bill was the only one that had any consensus 
whatsoever in California. 

The Bradley bill was supported by the environmental 
communities. Strongly supported. The Miller bill wasn't really 
supported by very many people; I think the environmentalists 
supported the Bradley bill more. But the Seymour bill at that time 
did have the support of MWD and some other urban entities: San 
Diego County Water Authority, some other groups, and some business 
ventures . I have some letters here that I can make available to 
the record. So there was-- 


Chall: Oh, I see. That's a good explanation for that entry. 

Golb: So Johnston, in a very shrewd move, ultimately got the committee to 
support the Seymour bill. It also did some other things; it also 
had the effect of tying CVP legislation to 429. 


Chall: Yes, right. 

Golb: It was a very shrewd move. 

Chall: It was an important milestone. 

The Agriculture and Environmental Communities Try to Understand the 
Committee's Decision 

Golb: And that was mischaracterized by a lot of people in the media and 
some of the constituency groups in that they all said, "Oh, my 
gosh, this is doom and gloom. This is terrible." I don't think 
many of them listened to what was being said by the principals, by 
what the senators were saying. What the senators all saidSenator 
Johnston, Senator Bradley, and Senator Seymourat the following 
committee hearing was, "We're doing this to move the process along 
and to continue negotiations and discussions on the legislation." 
Which we did. We didn't reach agreement ultimately, but it did 
continue on, and Seymour did continue to negotiate, did continue to 
make offers on how his bill could be amended. 

Again, Seymour was unable to amend his bill because the 
committee and the legislative process didn't allow it. And the 
agreement with Bradley and Johnston was no amendments. 

Chall: Did that in a way almost mean a no-win situation for him? 
Golb: For Seymour? 
Chall: Yes. 

Golb: We felt it wasn't a great situation. Some of the newspapers 

portrayed it as a victory for Seymour and for the agribusiness 
interests. We didn't view it that way; we viewed it as a mixed 
bag. We thought it was good that 2016 was included in the package 
because it raised the level of awareness about all of the other 
features besides just providing water for the environment, which 
was really an important part of the debate. People needed to know 
that the salmon problem we had on the Sacramento River wasn't 
simply because there wasn't enough water in the river; it was 
because we had projects like the Red Bluff Diversion Dam that were 
taking huge numbers of salmon, and that there were other aspects of 
the state and federal water projects that needed to be fixed. 

Those concepts were good, and they needed to reach a wider 
audience by including 2016 in H.R. 429at that time, it did 


accomplish that. But we also recognized the limitations of being 
unable to amend the bill, which we looked at as very serious. And 
I've showed you how we had tried to understand the issues. You've 
seen Seymour's handwritten marks on the documents, and there are 
others. Here is another Seymour document thatthis is all his 
writing- -lays out 2016 on the right side of the page and on the 
left side is his new proposal in terms of what he was thinking of 
at the time. You can see that there is tiered pricing provisions 
in it, there are water transfer provisions in it, there's a 
transfer provision here, there's upfront water, there's a 
restoration fund, contract links to twenty-five years from forty in 
his original bill. 

So there was a tremendous amount of movement by John Seymour 
in those negotiations. It's just that that's not the thing you put 
in a press release or you tell the L.A. Times. But as a 
legislator, he did everything he could at that time, at that point, 
to negotiate with Bradley and Johnston. He made further proposals 
and further negotiations later on, and when we get to that point 
I ' 11 show you those documents . 

The Business Community and the CVPIA 

Chall: All right. Then we'll move on. 

During this period in the spring of 1992, there was some 
correspondence to and from [Richard] Rosenberg--! guess, the head 
of the Bank of Americaand also from Mike Harvey-- 

Golb: Jim Harvey. The chairman of Transamerica. 

Chall: Yes, Jim Harvey of the California Business Roundtable. Also who 
comes into the picture from time to time is the Bay Area Economic 
Forum's Mike McGill. Can you tell me something just in general 
about the relationships you had with these business people? 
Occasionally you indicated in your journals that there was some 
correspondence, and you wanted John Seymour to answer this 
correspondence with the business people. What was their 
communication with him? I think they were more in favor of Miller- 
Bradley than they were of 2016, but what was going on? 

Golb: I can't speak for Jim Harvey or Dick Rosenberg other than their 
correspondence, which I saw because I was directed by Senator 
Seymour to draft a response to them which he ended up rewriting. 
That happens a lot. 


Chall: Of course. It happens to all of us. 

Golb: So I saw these letters, and I thought that at the time the letters 
from Jim Harvey, from Transamerica, and even Dick Rosenberg, were a 
little bit off the mark in that they were focusing primarily on the 
water transfer provisions; they didn't understand that better 
transfer provisions in John Seymour's bill would have resulted in 
more market-based transfers than what was in Miller or Bradley. 
Based on their letters, I can assure you that Jim Harvey, the 
chairman of Transamerica, and Dick Rosenberg of BofA, didn't read 
Seymour's water transfer provisions. I don't think men at that 
level have the time to probably do so, and I understand that. But 
if they would have, they would have seen that his transfer 
provisions actually embodied many of the concepts that they 

They put out four principles on water transfers, that came out 
of basically Bank of America and the Business Roundtable. Those 
principles were primarily addressed in Seymour's water transfer 

Chall: Do you have that information about their four principles? 

Golb: Somewhere amidst these piles, yes. The very first one is that 

existing water rights should be respected. And then another one is 
that all water rights should be made as freely transferable as 
possible, which conflicts with the first one in a sense. And there 
were two others, but I don't recall what they are. 

Chall: If you can't put your hand on it now, you may be able to when 
you're editing the transcript. 

Golb: Anyway, Senator Seymour wrote back to them on May 18, 1992, and I 
would be happy to make a copy of that letter available. 

Chall: Yes, very good. They continued, I guess, right up to the end to be 
concerned about the bills. 

Golb: Yes, they were concerned about the water transfer provisions in the 
bill, and at the time Michael McGill was spending a lot of time 
with them at the Bay Area Economic Forum encouraging them to be in 
the debate. And you know now that Michael McGill is the chief of 
staff for Senator Feinstein in Washington, D.C. 

Chall: Right. I also know that McGill had something to do with Mr. 

Fazio's suggestion at the end about the commitment of water and 


money that went into the debate in the final conference. We'll 
talk about that. 1 

George Miller Introduces H.R. 5099; Revises it to Accommodate 
Central Valley Congressmen 

Chall: With respect to House bill 5099--I notice you have a pile of them 
on a chair over therethat was Mr. Miller's bill, and it was 
somewhat similar to the Johnston mark. After that bill came out, 
Miller made a deal with Vic Fazio and Congressman [Richard] Lehman 
and some others which the environmental community considered 
weakened the bill from their standpoint. But the constituents of 
Fazio and Lehman were quite upset with them. Can you talk a little 
bit about that? [Dan] Beard claims that anything they would do 
would anger their constituents even though, apparently, they were 
hoping that they were working for something on their side. 

Golb: There was a lot of uncertainty about what was happening. This 

legislation that was being debated and discussed was unprecedented 
in terms of the effect that it would have on people's lives, on the 
water projects, and there was a tremendous amount of apprehension 
about what would happen and how these things would take place. Any 
time there was discussion among congressmen or senators about 
something that might happen, a document would come out, there would 
be a flurry of activity over what's in the document --what does it 
do, what does it mean? Analysis would be written and drafted, and 
all this action would take place. And so it was difficult for any 
of the congressmen that represent the Central Valley to put 
something forward that didn't immediately attract a lot of 
attention. Fazio's proposals probably had more support from 
Sacramento Valley ag interests than many realized. But 
alternatively Lehman's constituents were much less enthusiastic 
about his discussion with Miller. 

Chall: Why? 

Golb: Just because people felt that Congressman Miller was not acting in 
their best interests. I think if you were a farmer in the Central 
Valley, and you knew about Congressman Miller or you had seen him 
give a speech on TV or you had read something that he said in the 
newspaper, most of the time it was negative about who you were and 
what you did. So why would you want your congressman negotiating 
with him? 

'Thomas Graff and David Yardas interview, p. 81. 


Chall: I see. General distrust of Congressman Miller in the Central 

Golb: That's right. They distrusted him because of his previous actions, 
And he did nothing in that debate to change their perception of 


The Conference Committee 

Chall: During this period in May, they were making plans for the House- 
Senate conference committee. In your May 7 entry in your journal, 
you write, "Tell Wallop that Seymour wants to be a conferee." 
Later, you indicate he changes his mind. The agriculture people 
want him in the conference and Seymour doesn't want to be in the 
conference. Can you explain that? 

Golb: At the time, we were trying to figure out what was the best way to 
proceedshould he be a conferee, should he not? He always felt 
that he should be a conferee. In fact, there's a June 2 letter I 
have here that I'll put in the record from Malcolm Wallop. It 
says, "Dear John, thank you for your recent letter requesting to be 
a conferee to the conference on H.R. 429." Seymour wanted to be a 
conferee; he always did. Except at this point we were feeling that 
the conference was going to be a slam dunk, that it wasn't going to 
be a true House-Senate conference; it was a political setup. 
Seymour was talking to me at meetings saying out loud, "Why the 
heck should I be a conferee and try to put some more time into this 
if all they're going to do is [snaps fingers] take the Bradley bill 
or the Miller bill and just try to ram that down our throat?" 

Remember, the way conference committees are structured is that 
it's the house of originin the Senate and the House of 
Representatives as well as relevant committees. I've got a list 
here of the conferees on 429 from the Senate and the various 
committees. In the House of Representatives, there were 
representatives from the Committee on Interior, the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Agriculture Committee, Public 
Works and Transportation- -there were a lot of people on it. But 
there were always moreat that point Democrats than Republicans, 
more non-Calif ornians than Calif ornians. So we always felt we 
didn't even get a fair shake at this. Didn't think that we would. 

Ultimately, Seymour realized that he had to be a conferee, 
there was no other choice. He wanted to be a conferee, and he felt 
that was the way he should proceed. It was funny because the first 
day of the conference, George Miller came out right off the bat 



Water proposal protects our farms 

One of your recent guest edi 
torials criticized me for au 
thoring a bill on the Central 
Valley Project that is backed by 
many of California's farmers. The 
premise of the editorial appears to 

be that if farmers support some 
thing, it must be detrimental to the 
larger interests of the state. 

Nothing could be further from 

- the truth. Over the years, Califor 
nia's agricultural interests have been 
repeatedly and unfairly maligned by 
environmental groups, politicians 
and even some media organizations. 
These critics can challenge federal 
water policy and agriculture's use of 
water all they want, but they have 
no business making personal attacks 
on California fanners. These farm 
ers, after all, are the folks who put 
food on everyone's table. 

The farmers have gotten a bad 
rap, and so has my bill, the Central 
Valley Project Fish and Wildlife Act 
(S. 2016). It is designed to solve the 
overriding problem of California's 
water policy namely, rinding le 
gal ways to transfer CVP water to 
non-CVP users, such as our big 
cities, while apportioning more wa 
ter resources to fish and wildlife 

Stripped of all the legal language, 
that's what my bill does. It enables 
CVP farmers to sell water through 
out the state, and dedicates new wa 
ter for environmental purposes 
such as saving our salmon fisheries. 
It does this, moreover, without 
wrecking the farm industry or dev 
astating the economies of rural com- 
munides in the Central Valley. 

The United States Senate ap 
proved my bill last spring. More re 
cently, the House approved a com 
peting measure sponsored by Con- 

Other Voices 

Sen. John 

gressman George Miller despite 
the objections of all our democratic 
Central Valley Congressmen. 

A House-Senate conference 
/\ committee may take up the 
A. JLtwo reform bills in attempts 
to develop a compromise measure. 
The timing of the conference is to 
tally up to George Miller, because 
he chairs the House committee that 
has jurisdiction over water issues. I 
am ready to go to work on this com 
promise. But George Miller is silent; 
he's delaying action on compromise. 

I think I know why George 
hasn't acted. His bill, backed by the 
most vocal environmental extrem 
ists in the state, would have devas 
tating consequences for California's 
environment and economy. Miller 
claims that his bill, like mine, will 
enable farmers to sell water to urban 
consumers. But his bill is so laden 
with unachievable environmental 
mandates and confiscatory water re 
quirements that no meaningful water 
transfers could ever take place. His 
bill would take so much water from 
Central Valley farms and cities 
up* to 2.0 million acre-feet annually 
that there would belittle if any 
water left to sell to urban- and. indus 
trial users. 

Miller's bill also claims, erro 
neously, to benefit the environment, 
particularly by restoring commercial 

fisheries. But Miller's effort to save 
our salmon could only be accom 
plished through massive "water real- 
locations" taking water away 
from farm communities. 

The real culprit in all of this is 
not solely the Central Valley Project. 
California fishery biologists say that 
the real villain is six years of 
drought, particularly in Northern 
California's Klamath River basin. 
State biologists also cite another cul 
prit* salmon are being eaten by sea 
lions, a species protected by the Ma 
rine Mammals Act. Would the 
groups so concerned about the fish 
eries advocate we take sea lions off 
the protected list so that endangered 
salmon can live? 

More importantly, Miller's bill 
would hurt California's economy. 
State economists estimate that 
Miller's bill could cost up to S8 bil 
lion in lost economic activity, and 
thousands of jobs in the first year 

Enally and Miller doesn't 
ike to admit this his bill is 
i trial lawyer's dream. Why? 
Because water lawyers will send his 
bill, if it becomes law, straight into 
the courts. And it won't just be 
agribusiness hiring the lawyers. An 
army of attorneys for special-inter 
est groups and environmental orga 
nizations are poised to litigate, hop 
ing to make an end-run and achieve 
in the courts what they cannot ob 
tain from Congress. In addition to 
providing work for these highly paid 
hired guns. Miller's bill includes a 
"dozen's suit" provision that would 
allow anyone with a typewriter and 
a postage stamp to challenge any 
water transfer in court 
So much for reform. 

While trial lawyers make a wind- 
rail, Califomians and their jobs will 
suffer under Miller's bill. Cities 
won't get a drop of new water while 
the issue is tied up in the courts. 
Family farmers, unable to borrow 
money without a firm supply of wa 
ter, will go broke. And fish and 
wildlife will continue to suffer, get 
ting no more water than they get to 

T I The House-passed bill is noth- 
\ ing less than a gilt-edged invi- 
JL tation to years of litigation. 
It's not reform, and it's certainly not 
balanced. The only thing it will do, 
for sure, is continue the gridlock and 
stalemate over California water poli 

If the House and Senate confer 
ees want to enact a balanced long- 
term water policy for California, 
they should support the water trans 
fer policies in my bill. It provides 
our best hope for restoring fish and 
wildlife habitats, and our only hope 
for transferring water from farms to 
our thirsty cities. The major water 
districts in the state already know 
this. That's why my bill is supported 
by the Metropolitan Water District, 
the San Diego County Water Au 
thority, the Kern County Water Dis 
trict, and all of the Central Valley 
water districts. 

If George Miller is willing to do 
the right thing, we can enact an his 
toric water policy bill for all Califor- 
nians this year. If he's not, Califor 
nia's fisheries and cities will pay the 
price for his intransigence. 


Sen. John Seymour represents 
California in the US. Senate. 

[snaps fingers] and said as soon as the conference started, "Well, 
we've got a deal. Here it is, I've got this package that I've 
worked with all my colleagues on--" And Seymour says, "Who did you 
work with on it?" Miller said, "Well, I worked with all the 
members of the delegation." Seymour said, "I haven't seen it." 
And Rick Lehman said, "I haven't seen it." And other members of 
the California delegation that were on the committee Cal Dooley 
said, "I haven't seen it." That precipitated a sharp exchange 
between Seymour and Miller over the fact that actually Miller had 
drafted a document, hadn't shown it to anybody except Vic Fazio 
five minutes prior to the conference, but yet told everybody he had 
a consensus package. 

So Seymour's fears were realized in that they tried to ram 
something down his throat. 

Senator Seymour's Stamina; Dealing With the CVPIA and His Election 


Chall: I would guess that about this time- -this is getting into September 
almostwhat with the elections, Seymour might have been having 
real problems with nerves, being tired, being unsure of a lot of 
things. It must have been difficult to keep his mind on this. 

Golb: He worked very hard; he was very committed. He took the commitment 
of being appointed to the seat seriously, and he wanted to win the 
election, and he worked very, very hard. Most of the time he would 
fly out to California on a Thursday afternoon or Friday morning, he 
would return on a red-eye on a Sunday night, and he would get into 
Washington, D.C., about four or five in the morning. Somebody 
would go out and pick him up and take him back to his house, he 
would have a shower, say hello to his wife and kids, get dressed, 
and he would be in the office at seven or eight in the morning. He 
would work a full day and stay there as late as the session 

He did that almost for two years. He couldn't sleep on 
planes, so he didn't sleep muchit wasn't like he was napping. He 
was very engaged. He called me in the morning [chuckle] a number 
of times very early, and he would call me very late. I had dinner 
one night with Dave Kennedy at a place in Washington, D.C.; we had 
just finished dinner, we were looking at the dessert tray, and the 
waitress came out and said, "Is there a Rich Golb at this table?" 
Needless to say, I didn't get dessert. 


So he was very engaged, and he worked very hard, but yes, it 
wore on him. It would wear on anybody. I mean, flights from 
California to Washington and Washington to California are pretty 
rough when you do it once a week. 

Chall: That would be rough enough, but in addition if you're trying to run 
a campaign in an election year-- 

Golb: A statewide campaign in California. 
Chall: Then you're having real difficulties. 

Golb: His work ability was pretty amazing; I haven't seen anyone work 
harder than he did. He worked very, very hard. A lot of people 
don't realize this, but the night that he was actually on the floor 
filibustering against 429, he had flown out to California the 
previous weekend to see his son who was in a treatment program. 
And based on the circumstances, his son could only have visitors on 
certain days, and that Sunday was a day that he could have a 
visitor. So the senator flew out and visited his son and came back 
to Washington on a red-eye, got back into Washington at five or six 
in the morning on Monday. 

At nine or ten o'clock Monday night, Senator [Alfonse] D'Amato 
began his filibuster in which Seymour joined in. We were up all 
night and through the next day, and that wasn't resolved until 
three o'clock the next afternoon. So the guy didn't sleep for over 

two days and was sharp as could be. 
didn't show it. Quite a guy. 

He was probably exhausted, but 

The Somach-Graff Negotiations 

Chall: We're going to back up a bit and talk about the Somach-Graff 

negotiations. Then I would like to ask you also about the meaning 
of a Dooley-Lehman deal or draft which comes up toward the end of 
September and early October. Talk to me about the Somach-Graff 
negotiations . 

Seymour was apparently quite upset after it was all over, and 
I think it's quite interesting when he asked, "What am I? A 
mushroom? Kept in the dark and fed B.S.?"--I guess that's a fairly 
accurate account, from your journal. 

Golb: Yes, he asked me that. He was in California, and I hadn't had a 

chance to brief him on this. So when he got there [Washington], he 
had a memo on his desk that I had written for him. He got the memo 





and said, "Where is this stuff? I want to see it; what's going on? 
What's up? What am I? A mushroom? Kept in the dark, fed B.S.?" 
So we sat down, and I briefed him. 

But the Somach-Graff meetings had been going on for almost a week 
or more. They had been asked to meet by--Mr. Peltier says it was 
his G-4 group who asked Somach. Tom Graff said he was called by 
Joe Raeder of Dooley's staff. But however it was done, I mean, 
each one of them was asked because you were obviously both sides-- 
at an impasse and felt that something must be done. So they asked 
these two people, who were both credible in terms of their sides, 
to get together. 

Tom Graff says that they met on June 8, 9, 10, and 11; most of 
the time just the two of them. When they were ready to present the 
draft on June 16 Somach was called out and told that he couldn't go 
in and brief the sides because Governor Wilson had, at the behest 
of Mark Borba, decided it was the wrong approach. So how did 
Seymour react, once he found out about it 

The Somach-Graff draft came out on June 15. Seymour was out of the 
office and came back in on June 16, the next day, and said, "What's 
going on?" And then you saw in my journal probably why I gave him 
a copy of the whole document. 

And he asked Somach to come in and brief him too, right? 

Right. And he talked to Tom Graff about it, I believe. Seymour 
was supportive; he thought it was great that Tom and Stuart were 
working together. And again, that's why he respected Tom Graff so 
much. He felt Graff was a stand-up guy. Graff knew there was a 
problem and thought there was a way to solve it. They avoided all 
the political games and attempted to do it. They sat down, and he 
and Stuart worked very hard. 

Stuart deserves a lot of credit. He was criticized by some of 
his clients and some folks for attempting to do this, but they were 
trying to solve the problem, and that's the way the issue should 
have been handleda sincere attempt to come up with something. 
And they did; they came up with it on the 15th, and it went out. 
There are a lot of stories about why there wasn't a negotiation, 
and whether or not Stuart was told not to go into the room or asked 
not to go into the room and negotiate or 

Isn't that pretty well understood, that he was told not to go into 
the room? 

Golb: That's the story that goes around. 


Chall: You don't believe it? You think there's another story. Let's have 
another story. 

Golb: Well, has anyone asked what happened inside the room when the 
meeting occurred? When Tom went in by himself? 

Chall: Well, he was pretty well beaten up. 

Golb: Environmentalists beat him up, and George Miller just skewed him up 
one side and down the other. 

Chall: They didn't like his side either. 

Golb: They thought it was terrible. 

Chall: But they did allow him to go in and explain it. 

Golb: Sure, they just wanted to hear how bad it was so they could then 

beat him up. That's a very telling portrait of what was happening 
in the debate. Here is a respected member of the environmental 
community, one of the more senior members, Tom Graff, who goes out 
and comes up with a document, goes back to Washington, and the so- 
called environmental congressman beats him up for negotiating 
something that probably would have done a lot better than anything 
else introduced at that point. That says a lot. 

And as for the other side, there were a lot of farmers that 
thought Stuart had made a mistake, had misstepped. They didn't 
want him negotiating. Some of them didn't want him negotiating 
with Graff, and some of them didn't want to negotiate with Miller. 
But again, I thought Stuart was doing the right thing, and Seymour 
was very supportive of both Somach and Graff, and thought the 
document they produced was a step forward. 

Chall: It worked its way into the final document, too. 
Golb: Some elements. 

The Ongoing Debate Over the CVPIA 

Chall: But taken how they had left it--a lot of it for further study, and 
all that sort of thingit just occurred to me the other day 
thinking about it that maybe you would still be debating it today. 
Not that you're not still debating it. 


Golb: Just because President Bush signed CVPIA, that hasn't ended the 

debate. There are major provisions in the law: the water transfer 
section, the 800,000 acre-feet for the environment, the contract 
renewal provisions, and a lot of the fish and wildlife elements. 
There haven't been any water transfers from ag to urban, so the 
water transfer section needs work. 

The Bureau of Reclamation can't identify what the 800,000 
acre- feet is going for, where it's going, or how it's being 
utilized. The contract renewal provisions have just been a 
disaster in terms of the way the bureau has attempted to 
renegotiate contracts with the water districts. Many of the 
provisions in the bill aren't going forward because the bureau is 
not allocating the $50 million a year that the water and power 
contractors are paying into this fund. 

Chall: They are paying it into the fund? 

Golb: Yes, $50 million a year. And those funds have to be allocated by 
the bureau, and the bureau's not allocating all of the money; only 
small amounts of it. And I think if you talk to a lot of the 
members of the environmental community or Tom, he'll tell you that 
the bureau is using too much of the money for overhead and 

The fish and wildlife problems haven't entirely gone away. 
Some of the major problems that people were legitimately attempting 
to resolve haven't gone away. We have a law that has lots of flaws 
in it; it's only partially working. Again, that is a function of a 
debate that was characterized more by politics than policy. 

Chall: So you really don't think much at all of the bill. Is that right? 

Golb: I think something had to be done. I won't dispute at all the 

tremendous problems with fish and wildlife, and the fact that the 
projects have created most of those problemsor a good portion of 
them. I don't dispute that at all. I think we needed some 
legislation. Senator Seymour offered a bill that he said was a 
first step. He made offers that exceeded the provisions in his 
bill; he attempted to go further than that, and he would have gone 
further had there been more time. 

But again, because it was a political debate and because 
various members of the interest groups were continually making it a 
political debate, there was an urgency to get something done. 
Because there were a lot of individuals that headed large 
organizations that felt that they could cut a better deal and get 
what they wanted and would jump ship from one bill to another in 
order to get that, that played into this whole process of Just 


getting a bill. And what they got was a law that doesn't work very 
well. We needed something. We didn't need that law. 

Chall: Are you as concerned about the twenty- five year contract renewal 
limits as Mr. Peltier? Do successive twenty-five years seem as 
disastrous to you as it did to him at the time? 

Golb: Jason was in a difficult position at the time in terms of where 
things were in California and what was happening. I think that 
from our perspectivewell, more appropriately, it's Senator 
Seymour's view, having been involved in a lot of financing issues 
as a real estate developer- -including some large projectshe knew 
that twenty- five years wasn't as good as forty years, but under the 
circumstances it was sufficient. 

Chall: Why don't we just go into the last month? But in between, is there 
something on the table here that you want 

Correspondence Between Senators Seymour and Bradley 

Chall: I did start to ask you what you might want to talk about that we 
hadn't covered thus far. 

Golb: Following this chronologically, it's pretty clear now based on 
some of the documents that you've seen and that I'll make 
available that Senator Seymour was very much engaged in the issue, 
he spent a tremendous amount of time on it, it was a priority for 
him. He attempted to negotiate extensively with Senator Bradley 
and other members of the Senate. He met with all of the different 
interests at one point or another, and he was doing his best to 
come up with a package that would work. 

There's some additional documents here that I'll make 
available to you. One is a January 3, 1992, letter from Senator 
Seymour to Senator Bradley, expressing again a desire to attempt to 
negotiate more. This was after the hearings had ended by now and 
the beginning of the new year. Then Senator Seymour again 
responded to Senator Bradley later that year in September with a 
letter September 18, 1992outlining some of his major priorities 
in CVP legislation and again reiterating that he wanted to continue 
to negotiate, to try to keep going. 

Here's another letter that's interesting. This is a September 
17 letter from Bill Bradley to John Seymour. It says, "I'm writing 
to follow up on our conversation last night. You asked me whether 
I was open to making changes to the House offer on the CVP title of 
















United States 

September 17, 1992 

Honorable John Seymour 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Jtmn: 

I am waiting to follow up on our conversation last night. 
You asked me whether I was open to making changes to the House 
offer on the CVP title of H.R. 429. As I said last night, and 
have said to you previous ly in hearings on the CVP and during 
other conversations, I welcome your ideas and would be pleased to 
receive your recommendations on CVP reform. I am quite prepared 
to accept constructive amendments . 

You have not offered any written proposals to me, nor, as I 
understand it, has your staff communicated proposals to my staff 
or to the Majority staff of the Energy Committee. 

Given how little time is left in the session, and the 
importance of passing H.R. 429, I certainly hope that you will be 
able to bring your ideas forward soon, within the next day or 
two, so that the Conference Committee has time to consider your 
views . 


Bfcdl Bradley, Chairman 
~ Subcommittee on Water and Power 

ECIVEQ SEP 1 71992 






Bnited 3tates 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0503 

September 18, 1992 

The Honorable Bill Bradley 
United States Senate 
Washington, DC 205 10 

Dear Bill: 

As I have said to you personally and in writing, I am committed to working with 
Chairman Johnston, Senator Wallop, yourself and other members of the Senate Energy 
Committee to develop responsible legislation which addresses legitimate fish and 
wildlife problems in California's Central Valley Project. 

I appreciate your offer to review any ideas I may have on how we should resolve 
the outstanding issues involved in CVP legislation. I am, however, somewhat perplexed 
by your suggestion I have not offered any written proposals to you. I'm sure you 
would agree I was very flexible in offering several proposals as we attempted to craft 
compromise legislation earlier this year in the Energy Committee library with Senators 
Johnston, Wallop, and Burns. While I was willing to continue those discussions, I am 
unaware of any efforts to maintain them. As you recall, after considerable discussion 
we all realized that the "Chairman's Mark" and various versions of it were simply 
unworkable and too costly. The proposal offered by Congressman Miller and yourself 
contains many of the same onerous provisions. 

In an effort to move the other titles in H.R. 429, the Committee and Senate 
passed S. 2016. 1 would hope you would consider this bill which includes twenty-two 
provisions to restore fish and wildlife habitat and allows for the transfer of Central 
Valley water to cities statewide. This bill is supported by California urban and 
agricultural interests alike. 

I am seriously concerned the proposal put forth by Congressman Miller and 
yourself will have severe social, economic and environmental consequences upon 
California. This year, the Central Valley Project will only deliver roughly 4.5 million 
acre feet. Yet, your proposal would commit up to 2 million acre feet to fish and 
wildlife. According to California's Department of Food and Agriculture, this would 
cost California up to $8 billion annually in lost economic activity and thousands of jobs. 

To generate funds for fish and wildlife activities, your proposal mandates a $50 
million annual tax on all CVP water and power sales. I'm sure you are aware this will 
ultimately be passed along to the people of California. 


The Honorable Bill Bradley 
September 18, 1992 
Page Two 

Despite the proposal's inclusion of a water transfer provision, cities and 
municipalities will find it nearly impossible to purchase water from CVP water users. 
The reallocation for fish and wildlife removes much of the available water supply 
farmers could transfer. Additionally, the imposition of a 15% tax on all water 
transfers and authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to arbitrarily revise water 
transfer agreements between willing buyers and willing sellers will simply act as a 
disincentive to any meaningful water transfers. 

I also question the wisdom of including a citizen suit provision so lenient anyone 
with a postage stamp and a typewriter could file suit against the Federal Government. 
At the Sacramento field hearing on May 30, 1991, you indicated to me that a citizen suit 
provision was not helpful, and in fact detrimental to CVP legislation. I think we share 
the goal of legislation which resolves fish and wildlife problems. This provision would 
only encourage litigation at the expense of California's environment and economy. 

These are some of my primary areas of concern. What suggestions might you 
have to mitigate the devastating economic consequences of yours and Congressman 
Miller's proposal? I remain willing to work with you to develop a responsible 
approach that truly reflects the concerns of all of California's needs. 



John Seymour 



H.R. 429." Senator Bradley says, "As I've said last night and have 
said to you previously at hearings--" and on and on and on, "I 
welcome your ideas and am pleased to receive them." And then he 
says, "You have not offered any written proposals to me." I'll 
make that letter available, too. 

You know now that you've seen the original Seymour bill, 
you've seen the document that was in the negotiations, you've seen 
some of the written documents--! can tell you that that's not the 
case, and that's a mischaracterization. Unfortunately, that was 
not infrequent in this debate. Because it was so public, there was 
a need for various individuals to posture about how they said 
things . 

Here again is a September 24 letter, which I'm going to make 
available to you, from John Seymour to all of the members of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee; it's a new proposal that 
lays out specific new provisions. It's basically the Dooley-Lehman 
proposal with some minor changes to it. I'll make that available 
to you. 

Revisions of the Seymour Bill Rejected by Congressman Miller and 
Senator Bradley 

Chall: I did want to talk about what this Dooley-Lehman proposal. That's 
in that letter? 

Golb: Yes. It outlines some of the major provisions, and it goes further 
than what was in the original Seymour bill 2016. That was 
rejected. That proposal was rejected by Miller and Bradley; it 
didn't go far enough. So we had the original Seymour bill, which 
didn't go far enough. Then we had Seymour make additional 
proposals on upfront water, on project purpose, and on a number of 
other areas, in the Senate negotiations in the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee library. That wasn't enough. So then the 
Dooley-Lehman proposal came forth which Seymour embraced; that 
wasn't enough for Miller and Bradley. Then Seymour came out with 
another proposal which is dated October 1, two weeks later, that he 
sent in the form of a letter to all the members of the committee; 
I'll make that available to you. And that wasn't enough for Miller 
and Bradley. 

By then, they had the train moving, and it was all the 
momentum built up by the hostages that were included in H.R. 429. 
All the states so badly wanted their project. They saw that it 
looked like Bush was going to lose the election at that point . 




tefl 3tates 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0503 

September 24, 1992 

The Honorable Malcolm Wallop 
United States Senator 
Washington, DC 20510 


Enclosed is a new proposal regarding California's Central Valley Project 
put forth by Congressmen Cal Dooley and Rick Lehman. 

This proposal goes far beyond the CVP bill (S. 2016) adopted by the Senate 
earlier this year and seems to me to be an honest effort to try and bridge the 
differences between my legislation and the latest proposal made by Congressman 

According to the sponsors, the Dooley/Lehman proposal would: 
Establish fish and wildlife as a project purpose of the Central Valley Project. 

Include new language on wildlife refuges - the proposal modifies the language to 
provide an additional 230,000 acre-feet of water immediately to fifteen National 
wildlife refugees and management areas. Within ten years, die Secretary is 
required to provide 525,000 acre-feet to the same refugees. 

Establish a Central Valley Project Restoration Fund - this fund will collect up to 
$15 million annually from CVP water and power users to fund fish and wildlife 
restoration measures contained in the bill, incorporating language developed by 
the House Appropriations Committee to deal with budget concerns. 

Require the Secretary of Interior to participate in the San Joaquin River 
Management Program - this program under development by the State of 
California is designed to resolve fish and wildlife problems on the San Joaquin 

Modify water transfer provisions - provides for State control of all Central 
Valley Project water transfers by 1997. 

The Honorable Malcolm Wallop 
September 24, 1992 
Page 2 

I am reviewing the proposal, and I would welcome any suggestions or 
concerns which you may have on the draft. It avoids many of the contentious 
and, in my view, irrelevant provisions of the Miller draft such as citizen suits and 
focuses directly on fish and wildlife. Given the limited time left to the Congress, 
I believe we can work out some agreement which will begin to address the 
legitimate fish and wildlife needs of the CVP and enable the project to assist in 
meeting California's water needs. Although I have some reservations over the 
Dooley/Lehman proposal, I believe it is a good offer. 

I realize the time constraints upon you and your staff at this point are 
enormous, however, I would be deeply appreciative of any comments you may 
have. Please contact Rich Golb of my staff at 224-9628. 


tf John Seymwur 


They didn't want to wait for another Congress to begin. They 
wanted their project so badly that they were willing to sell out 
the California provisions in order to get what they wanted. 
Seymour continually made proposals. 

The fact that what we have today in law is a bad bill was 
evidenced by the fact that the majority of California's delegation 
voted against it in Congress. The governor was opposed to it, most 
of California's delegation--! think the number is actually twenty- 
five members to nineteen- -voted against the bill in the House of 
Representatives. In the Senate, it was split. Senator Cranston 
voted for it, and Senator Seymour voted against it. 

I think what you see is that there was a real effort and an 
attempt to engage on the policy issues. In addition, Seymour 
offered another bill-- 

Chall: Yes, I wanted to ask you about that S. 3365. 

Do you have an extra one? [points to document] 
Golb: I think I do. 
Chall: I didn't know about that at all until I read your material. 

Senator Seymour Submits S. 3365 and Filibusters Against H.R. 429 

Golb: Here's what happened on the floor of the Senate; there's a lot of 
confusion about this. Senator Seymour knewand he was very clear 
about it; there wasn't any hidden agenda. He told everyone that if 
the Miller-Bradley bill proceeded forward, and if they rejected his 
proposal, that he would attempt to stop it. He had been urged on 
by many of the members in the House as well as the governor, so he 
attempted to join a filibuster that Senator Alfonse D'Amato from 
New York began over another issue. 

This started about nine- thirty at night on a Monday evening, 
and Senator Seymour went to the floor, and assisted with the 
filibuster. Seymour helped D'Amato, and we continued that. When 
the next day arrived, Senator Seymour requested- -which is a 
parliamentary procedurethat the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act bill be read in its entirety; it's a procedure to 
delay, to take up time, which Seymour was attempting to use as 
negotiation. And they did. They began to read the bill all the 
way through, line by line. It's not an unusual procedure; it's--. 


Chall: Yes, it's done, but what was he expecting? It was practically the 

Golb: It was almost the end of the session, and he felt that that offered 
him some leverage, that he might be able to get further negotiation 
and try to get some provisions that California could live with. 

Chall: But that would mean that it would be most likely done the following 

Golb: Well, it's possible. It was pretty late in the session; there 

wasn't a lot of time left. You know, at the end of the session is 
when many deals are finalized, and you would be amazed at what 
happens in the last day of a legislature. 

Chall: Then why did he think thatthis bill, 3365, is not that much 

different from what he offered in April or March. Yet there seemed 
to be some significant differences or revisions from 2016 that 
might not have been acceptable to the agriculture community. 

Golb: We went out on a limb [laughter]. It's kind of unfortunate in a 
way, because in the debate itself people just didn't know this. 
This wasn't something, again, that you publicize. He felt that 
there was a problem, it needed to be solved, he was in the 
legislature, and the arena in which you solve these problems in the 
legislative process is negotiation. Sometimes that means you have 
to give on some things and take on the other. He was willing to 
give on many of the provisions that some of his constituents had 
the most difficulty with. 

Seymour was willing to provide more water up front in exchange 
for more certainty on contract renewal. He was willing to provide 
some form of elevating fish and wildlife needs from what they were 
in terms of project purpose in exchange for commitments to build 
projects to recover the water that was provided for fish and 
wildlife. So you provide a certain amount of water for fish and 
wildlife, and that would be taken away from agriculture initially, 
but at some point that water would get back to agriculture. Maybe 
you would build some more off -stream reservoirs or something. 

He was willing to make and did make extensive offers that 
some of his constituents would have had a lot of difficulty with. 
Actually some of his constituents asked him to just go for a veto 
of the bill much earlier on. He didn't go for a veto of the bill 
until his filibuster was broken, and the conference report passed 
the Senate. At that point, he then proceeded to attempt to secure 
a veto by the president. But up until that point, he was still 
negotiating, and it was actually in negotiations with Bradley that 
led to this final bill, S. 3365. 


What Seymour did is that in negotiations with Senator [Robert] 
Dole and the former Senate majority leader, George Mitchell, on the 
floor of the Senatewhat they told Seymour is, "Look, you can't 
filibuster forever. You have a limited amount of time, and you're 
going to have to at some point give it up." And Seymour was 
getting a tremendous amount of pressure to stop the filibuster. He 
was also getting a lot of encouragement. Again, something a lot of 
people don't know is that a lot of congressmen came over from the 
House of Representatives--Cal Dooley, Rick Lehman; Vic Fazio even 
called from the Chicago airport. A whole bunch of the members of 
the House- -even some not from California- -came over and personally 
encouraged him and said, "You're doing the right thing. No one's 
going to know about it, but don't let go." A lot of people did. A 
number of senators came over to him and said, "I know you feel 
lonely, you're all alone, but you're doing the right thing." 

But ultimately there wasn't enough support. He was alone and 
didn't get the support he needed. He had to break the filibuster. 
So he agreed that he would stop his filibuster in exchange for a 
certain amount of floor time to discuss the issue and argue against 
Senator Bradley, and if he was allowed to introduce a new bill. 
And he did this because we thoughtwe knew this was unlikely, but 
we thought that if President Bush did veto the bill, H.R. 429, that 
we wanted to have another bill available to start with, to start 
the discussions with. 

So this was really just an attempt that if 429 was vetoed, we 
would have something else to throw into the debate. And this bill 
went a lot further from 2016. 

Chall: Certainly it was. And I just wonder whether it would have been 
also a non-starter in the following session. I guess we don't 

Golb: We'll never know. 

Attempts to Gain Agriculture's Acceptance of the Revisions 

Chall: It had some elements in it that I would think some of the CVP 

growers would not have accepted. And they didn't accept it along 
the way. 

Golb: They had a tough time with it. 

Chall: In your journal here, toward the last, you were meeting a great 

deal with Beirne and Ellsworth on the Dooley-Lehman proposal. And 


with Johnston, with Somach, and with Roger Fontes. Who's Roger 

Golb: He's with the Central Valley--he's with the power contractors. 
Chall: I see. Dave Kennedy, Gray Stapleswho is Gray Staples? 
Golb: He was a legislative assistant to Congressman Rick Lehman. 

Chall: Dan Nelson and Senator [Larry] Craig. I gather, just from reading 
parts of your journal from middle of September to when it was all 
over, that you talked to these people and a host of others almost 

Golb: We were trying pull agriculture, and others, further along. 
Chall: Trying to come up with what you said was a reasonable alternative? 

Golb: At that point, a lot of Central Valley farmers thought they would 
get a veto from President Bush. And Seymour didn't think that was 
a good strategy. He just said, "How the heck do you go ask for a 
veto when we're not even finished with the legislative process? 
Let's not give up." But we were having trouble getting some of the 
farmers to give more in the negotiations. So I spent a tremendous 
amount of time you can see in the journal- -try ing to find a way to 
get them to go a little bit further so that Seymour could make more 
overtures. Ultimately, he made a lot of them anyway. 

Chall: Yes, he ultimately did without even getting their approval. 

Golb: Right, which he felt he had to do. But we were trying as 
desperately as we could to move ahead. 

Chall: At eight-thirty--this was on the night of September 24-- [according 
to the journal] "Kim [Schnoor] and Somach called him at home." Now 
I don't know whether that means they called you at home, or Senator 
Seymour . 

Golb: What's the date? 

Chall: September 24. I imagine it was you. 

Golb : Right . 

Chall: They called to say that the farmers would not approve upfront water 
and wanted to go backwards from the Seymour bill. Right? 

Golb: That's right. 


Chall: And you wrote, "Seymour wants to look reasonable." You were really 
in difficulties here at the very end, trying to deal with this. 



Yeah, it was horrible; it was really bad. At that point in the 
debate it was so political, and most of the people in the debate 
had basically forgotten about the policy. It was either how do you 
get a veto or how are we going to get this bill through the Senate. 
Some of the farmers, not all, but some of the fanners had started 
to go south and said that we went too far on 2016. They had no 
idea that Seymour had gone way beyond 2016 at that point. 

You see, no one saw it in print. Environmentalists didn't 
know that Seymour went much further because Bradley and Miller 
wouldn't tell them. Or didn't tell them. And the farmers didn't 
know, and the urban guys really didn't know. But Seymour had gone 
much further, and so we were under a lot of pressure at that point 
from many of our constituents to not go much further. 

But obviously Seymour did because he felt it was the right 
thing to do. He felt if you were going to be in a negotiation that 
you've got to be reasonable, and the only way you can do that and 
be credible is to continue to try to solve the problem. In this 
case, that meant he had to give on a couple points: he had to give 
on contract length, he had to give on upfront water, he had to give 
on some of the water transfer provisions, some of the restoration 
fund issues. That doesn't mean you have to give it all away, but 
you have to go a little bit further. He did. 

But it just seems that it came so late, 
tried it earlier and didn't succeed. 

Of course, I guess you 

Golb: Again, as we've talked about it and as I've showed you, when 

Seymour introduced the bill in November of '91, he said, "It's just 
a beginning." It wasn't until March that the negotiations began in 
earnest in the Energy Committee library, and at that point, he made 
a number of offers on a whole bunch of issues. Then his bill was 
passed out of committee, and at that point the people that he was 
negotiating with went and put their own package together. By the 
time we got back into it, he made three more proposals, and he went 
much further than what was in 2016. 

Chall: Toward the end, September 30, according to your journals, you faxed 
fifty pages from, or to (I wasn't sure) Somach and [Gary] Sawyers. 
You worked on it all day. Who faxed? This entry seems to 
encompass September 30 through October 1. 

Golb: Actually, at this point, this is where Seymour wanted to introduce 
a new bill. So he wanted to change his bill a little bit. So what 
he did herein the journalis that he wanted to send a new 


proposal to all the senators on the committee and say, "Look, this 
is my final offer." What I write in the journal is that Gary 
Sawyers was in, and so I faxed him the fifty pages-- 

Chall: You faxed him? 

Golb: Yes, on the latest draft; we started making changes to it. Gary 

Sawyers is a good attorney. He represents the Friant water users, 
and he was heavily involved in the debate and has a good feel for 
the CVP. He, along with Stuart Somach, provided a lot of the legal 

Another attorney that was also heavily involved is Mark Atlas, 
who represents the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority. Mark is really 
knowledgeable about the T-C Canal issues and about Sacramento River 
water contractssettlement contracts, and he was actually very 

Chall: So at the last minute there was just a lot of activity. All kinds 
of people. But who, if anyone, actually helped write the revisions 
in 2016 and that final effort 3365? Who worked on these final 

Golb: I wrote many of the revisions at Seymour's direction, along with 
some of the committee staff --Jim Beirne, Gary Ellsworth, and some 
of the California attorneys. Some of the changes were based on 
ideas from the conservation interests such as Dan Chapin of the 
California Water Fowl Association. 

The Conference Committee Produces the Final Draft of the Omnibus 
Water Bill 

Chall: Tell me a little about Vic Fazio and his activities within the 
conference. Now he seemed to have some place in the conference 
although toward the end I gather that Senator Seymour didn't. But 
Fazio brought in according to Tom Graff it probably originated 
with Mike McGill the idea for a $30 million restoration fund and 
800,000 acre-feet of water. That was a Fazio proposal that stayed 

Golb: Right. Congressman Fazio came out in the end and made some 

amendments that were included in the final bill, that are now in 
the final law, and that had a tremendous impact on the debate. He 
did a really good job of identifying some issues where there was 
room to maneuver. He had a pretty good rapport with the 
environmental community as well as the agricultural community and 




Baited States 

WASHINGTON. DC 20510-0503 

October 1, 1992 

The Honorable Malcolm Wallop 

Ranking Minority Member 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC. 20510 

Dear Senator-Wallop: 

Enclosed is yet another counter proposal to try to find an equitable solution on 
the most contentious issue of reform for California's Central Valley Project (CVP). 

My objective from the outset has been to ensure an orderly transfer of CVP 
water from agricultural needs to urban, industrial and environmental needs. My 
priorities from the very beginning have been (1) people and their jobs and (2) fish, 
wildlife and environmental enhancement. 

I am well aware that water projects in other states, important to my colleagues, 
have been included in this bill. It is unfortunate that Senator Bradley and Congressman 
Miller have held these projects "hostage" to CVP reform. 

I am hopeful we can, in the brief time remaining, yet conclude an agreement. 
However, in the event that is unsuccessful, I am fully committed to defeat this 
legislation in every possible way. 

Thank you for all your understanding and support. I would be pleased to meet 
with you, should you have any further ideas on how I might conclude a successful 





S. 3365, the Central Valley Project Fish and Wildlife Act of 1992 

1) 25 year successive water contracts for all CVP water contractors; 

2) $20 million restoration fund for fish and wildlife restoration measures; 

3) Project purpose for fish and wildlife tied to specific mitigation, protection, 
and restoration actions; 

4) Twenty-two specific fish and wildlife restoration and mitigation measures; 

5) Provides for State control of all Central Valley Project water transfers by 
January 1, 1996; 

6) All fish and wildlife mitigation, protection, and restoration measures shall 
be carried out in a manner which facilitates transfer out of the CVP to the 
State of California; 

7) Immediately provides an additional 230,000 acre feet of water to 

California Central Valley wildlife refuges. Within ten years, a total of 
525,000 acre-feet of water shall be provided; 

8) Removes unlimited CVP water contract renewal based upon water transfer 
agreements, and provides 20% from all water transfers for fish and 
wildlife purposes; and 

9) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Governor of 

California, shall identify additional actions to mitigate CVP impacts and 
will protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat. 


was able to make some changes that the other congressmen and 
senators were able to go along with. 

Chall: Is that because his district is a little different? 

Golb: It's because his district was a lot different, it's because he's 
been around a long time, he's a Democrat, and he's very good at 
what he does, and there's a lot of respect for him in Washington. 
Whereas Seymour was a Republican, hadn't been around that long, and 
they felt at that point he was going to lose the election so they 
didn't want to give him anything. They wanted him to lose the 
election, and they felt that one way to get rid of him was to beat 
him bad on CVP and make him look like the loser. And so Fazio was 
able to get some provisions in that had been very helpful, and he 
did a good job. He's a class guy and handled himself very well 
during the debate. Seymour and he actually got along very well. 

The Omnibus Water Bill Passes Through the Congress; Analysis of 
Some of the Factors Involved 

Chall: I guess toward the end the western water people wanted 429. There 
was no way they were going to support Senator Seymour at that 
point. There's a lot of interesting information in the 
Congressional Record and the Congressional Quarterly, but anybody 
can read that . 

How did you all feel when 429 passed? Disappointed? 

Golb: It was tough; it was really tough. We had spent almost two years 
working on that, and for me it was the primary issue that I worked 
on. We had put in a lot of eighty- ninety-hour weeks, a lot of 
trips to California, a lot of frustration. For somebody that was 
twenty-nine years old, that was about as big a debate as you could 
ever be involved in or ever want to be involved in at that level. 
I imagine Seymour felt pretty bad. He felt pretty bad when it was 
over, but I know that he felt confident that he had done everything 
he possibly could have. Everything. I know he did; I've talked to 
him since. I know he feels like what he did was the right thing. 

Again, remember that if it was purely political, and all he 
cared about was his campaign, he wouldn't have advocated the 
agricultural position. He would have advocated the urban position. 
All the votes in this state are in Los Angeles, San Diego, San 
Francisco. That's where all the big fundraising efforts are. If 
you want to make a lot of money fundraising as a candidate or you 
want to get votes, you go to the cities. You don't go to Fresno 
















October 5, 1992 

The Honorable Pete Wilson 
State of California 
Governor's Office 
Sacramento, CA 95814 


Dear Qoyernor Wi 1 son : 

I am writing in response to your letter of October 4, 1992 
regarding the Central Valley Project provisions of H.R. 429, the 
omnibus water package. I understand your pain, but I regretfully 
disagree with your conclusion. 

You have been absolutely correct in your insistence that the 
only real solution to California's long term water situation is 
for the federal government to turn over at least operational 
control of the CVP to the State so that it can be integrated into 
the State Project. While that option would leave California in 
control of its future, that option is not available given the 
political climate in Congress. 

I also agree with you that the issues surrounding the CVP 
have absolutely nothing to do with the other measures involved in 
the omnibus water package. You and I both fought to prevent the 
hostage taking last Congress when projects we both supported were 
linked to amendments to Reclamation Reform. We lost that effort 
to unlink the measures, and I regret that we lost that effort 
again this Congress. There comes a point when we both must 
accept the unpleasant reality that those interested in their own 
social agenda are in control and are willing to inflict as much 
pain as necessary to achieve their objectives, regardless of the 
consequences . 

I made an effort to convince the Majority to counter 
Congressman Miller's proposal with a modified version of the 
proposal made by Congressmen Dooley and Lehman. Had there been 
some goodwill and a willingness to be responsible, I think that 
we could have produced legislation which would be workable and 
which would preserve your options as Governor to chart a course 
for California. I directed my staff to work with Senator Seymour 
and the California delegation to identify what was possible and 
then to submit, on my behalf, a draft based on the proposal by 
Congressmen Dooley and Lehman. They did so, but the offer was 


rejected and I was informed that the Majority would only consider 
changes to Congressman Miller's proposal. 

My judgment was, and remains, that this situation is only 
going to get worse. I directed the staff to obtain as many 
amendments as possible, focusing primarily on the specific issues 
which you, Senator Seymour, and the attorneys for the various 
contractors had raised. We were successful in the following 
areas : 

- elimination of the auctioning of 100,000 af of 
California's water to the highest bidder; 

- permanent protection for the Friant water users against 
releases from Friant without a specific Act of Congress; 

- requirement that the study of the San Joaquin/Stanislaus 
be "prudent, reasonable, and feasible", which in my view 
precludes trying to reestablish flows below Friant; 

- removal of the term "enhancement" from the primary project 
purposes, which is a significant change; 

- grandfathering existing contracts from renewal (delay in 
the penalty provisions) until the EIS is completed; 

limitations on the additional charges imposed on the 
Friant contractors to $4 - $5 - $7 from the House's $4 - $8 - 

- tying the 800,000 af directly to the purposes of this 
title and providing that if the water is not needed for those 
purposes, it will be available for beneficial uses, which 
eliminates the permanent dedication of the water which had been 
in Senator Bradley and Congressman Miller's proposals; 

changing the dry year formula for the 800,000 af and the 
Wildlife Refuge supplies from the House proposal that there be no 
reductions unless the prior right and exchange right holders were 
reduced to a formula tied to the service contracts with an 
overriding requirement that the Secretary can exceed the 
limitations for health and safety, including both Agriculture and 
M&I uses; 

- bringing the iteration of specific fixes into conformity 
with the language used by the State agencies and incorporated 
into Senator Seymour's legislation; 

- extension of the renewal period to 25 years from the 20 in 
the House proposal; 


- protection of all court decrees, including the Barcellos 
decree involving Westlands; 

- modification of the inverse block tiered pricing from the 
House proposal of 60-20-20 to 80-10-10; 

- elimination of the 15% capital gains tax on farmers, which 
both Senator Bradley and Congressman Miller had insisted on for 
all water transfers, although we did agree to imposing an 
additional $25 charge on the M&I user of the transferred water. 

Even with these changes, I do not view this as a good 
measure nor do I take any pleasure in the process. I honestly 
believe that this is the best proposal which California is likely 
to receive in the current political climate which I anticipate 
will last a good long while. Perhaps that too is a dream for one 
realistically has to suppose it will deteriorate markedly. Were 
I the Chairman of this Committee, I can assure you that this 
would not happen, but I am not. 

Senator Seymour has fought courageously for California-, but 
unless he gets help in the Senate next year, I think matters will 
only get worse, not just for California, but for all the Western 
States. There is an unpleasantness and a meanness which both of 
us find distasteful, but it is no use to pretend that it does not 
exist. I am not asking you to endorse this measure as good for 
California, but I would earnestly request that you consider the 
future. I see no hope that reason will prevail or that those not 
affected would refrain from imposing their social agenda on the 
farmers and others who labor for this Nation. The spiral has 
been downward and all we can do is try our best to mitigate the 
impact until the voters in California and elsewhere impose some 
sense of sanity on the Congress . 

I deeply appreciate all your efforts during this Congress 
and I hope that on reflection you will reluctantly agree that we 
have done the best we can and that this measure should be enacted 
to forestall a far grimmer and more desperate future for 

Malcolm Wallop 

Ranking Republican Member 



County or Shasta County. But Seymour fundamentally believed that 
what was being advocated wasn't in the best interest of the state; 
it flew in the face of conventional wisdom, it flew in the face of 
good science, and it was bad policy. 

He felt that the Bradley-Miller bills were political documents 
that weren't designed to solve a problem but designed to go after 
some people. I think Seymour felt that Bradley was sincere in that 
he wanted to solve a problem, but the means with which he was going 
to try to do it were wrong. 

I know Seymour was exhausted, but he had at that point a month 
to focus on the campaign so he went off and focused on the 
campaign. I felt pretty bad; it was a difficult time in my life. 
I just didn't know what more I could have done in the debate. I 
made a lot of mistakes, I realize now. 

Chall: You felt you did? 

Golb: Yes. 

Chall: In what way? 

Golb: Well, I think if we had to do it all over again, we probably would 
have recognized earlier on that there was a way to maneuver that 
probably would have worked a little bit better. We probably would 
have been a little bit more public about the offers that the 
senator made, and we probably would have let more people know about 
these negotiations that were going on. We probably would have 
raised some of the issues sooner. I think there's things that we 
would have done differently, had we to do it all over again. 

Chall: Maybe the two of you were too new in Congress. 

Golb: You know, a lot of people say that. Michael Doyle wrote an 

articleyou may have seen itwhere he addressed that issue. Some 
people have criticized me for being too young or whatever and 
criticized Seymour for not being up to the task. If anything, 
Seymour was more qualified to be a legislator than most of the 
people in that debate. He had been a mayor, he had served on a 
city council, he had served in the state legislature, he had been a 
private businessman. He understood what was happening; he knew 
what was going on, and he knew the state that he represented. So I 
think he was well qualified. 

As to my perspectivecould I have used a few more years 
experience? Yes. It probably would have been helpful. 

Chall: You don't think it would have changed the outcome? 


Golb: I don't think so. That debate was shaped more by the fact that we 
were in such a terrible drought and that all of the hostages in the 
bill just created such immense momentum that regardless of how much 
experience we had or how long we had been there, I don't think that 
would have changed the outcome. 

Chall: You say that had he been more interested in just winning, he would 
have sided with the environmentalists, but I noticed [from your 
journal] that the Los Angeles Times had written, in perhaps an 
editorial, about the fact that he was taking so much money from the 
growers for his campaign that he was obviously in the pocket of the 
growers--! guess Seymour was very upset with that article. 

Golb: We wouldn't have sided with the environmentalists. What I've said 
is that if Seymour was purely political, he would have sided with 
the urban areas and with some of the environmental interests. And 
if he would have done that-- 

Chall: And still have taken money from the contractors? I mean, that was 
the gist of the-- 

Golb: Let's go back to your first premise. The first point is that 
you're correct that-- 


Golb : You were asking if Seymour would have done something different if 
he was purely campaigning, and the answer is yes, of course. He 
would have gone after the urban entities and the business community 
where there's a lot more money and aligned with the environmental 
community . 

In terms of him being criticized for taking money from 
agricultural interests in his campaign, that is something the 
newspapers would have done anyway. If you look at a legislator 
that's doing a lot of work on behalf of a particular industry, 
they're familiar with his work, they're familiar with the issues, 
and they donate. It's a logical occurrence, it happens at every 
level in this country and in every state. 

But that was a charge that was made, and Seymour did get a lot 
of contributions from the agricultural community, but it didn't--. 
Again, we would have been extraordinarily naive to think that we 
would have gotten more votes out of Fresno than we would have out 
of Los Angeles. If that was our campaign strategy, we would have 
done worse than we did. Seymour wasn't motivated in this debate by 
politics alone. There was a lot of principle that he felt strongly 
about that was in place before I started to work for him. All I 
did was refine his position. 


Chall: What was the activity among the people on your side to get 
President Bush to veto? 

Golb: There was a lot of activity. A lot of people met with the 

president's chief of staff. Jim Baker at that time was involved in 
the campaign, and people met with Jim Baker, and people talked with 
the White House, and they urged President Bush to veto the bill. 
But in the election campaign, you know how that goes. They looked 
at all the provisions for the West and felt like there was no way 
that they could veto the bill. Just no way. They had to sign it; 
and they did [October 30, 1992]. 

Chall: So at the end of November you all left, is that it? 

Golb: Pretty much. Since Senator Seymour was an appointed senator and 
not elected, he didn't have the privilege of remaining in office 
for very long. So when he was defeated by Senator Feinstein, he 
was actually out of the off ice- -the election was on a Tuesday, he 
was out of the office by Thursday, and on Friday Senator Feinstein 
had moved in to half of our office space. We were off the Senate 
payroll about two weeks later. Pretty quick. You don't have a lot 
of friends when you lose. 

Chall: I guess that's right, as some of the Democrats have discovered this 
past year. 

Golb: It is a cruel business. 

I actually found the document--! '11 make this available to 
you. The vote on H.R. 429: twenty-five congressmen voted against 
it, nineteen voted for it. 

The Effects of the CVPIA on California Agriculture 

Chall: Is there anything else you want to say? We have a little time, and 
I may not have covered everything. Did you have anything that you 
wanted to say in terms of how other people have looked at this 
issue? I take it you don't feel as bitter about what occurred as 
Jason Peltier. Is that correct? You worked very hard at trying to 
get this bill out, and you were defeated. Do you feel that the 
farmers were treated--or that the effect is as serious as Jason 
felt it to be? 

Golb: This was a painful experience in my life. That law has a real 

effect on a lot of people's lives, and it has hurt a lot of people. 
After the debate there was a number of auctions in the Central 

10-06-92 09:53 PM 



October B, 1992 


Western Water Projects 
(including federal real location of Central Valley Project water) 

Against: 25 

Wally Merger 
Norman Kineta 
Gary Condit 
Bill Thomas 
David Dreier 
Carlos Moorhoad 
Bob Dornan 
Bill Lowery 
Mel Levine 

Vic Fazio 
Leon Panetta 
Richard Lehman 
Robert Lagomarsino 
Jerry Lewis 
Chris Cox 
Dana Rohrabacher 
"Duke" Cunningham 

Tom Campbell 
Cal Dooley 
John Doolittle 
Elton Gallegly 
Al Mccandless 
Bill Dannemeyer 
Ron Packard 
Duncan Hunter 

For: 19 

Frank Riggs 
George Miller 
Don Edwards 
Howard Barman 
George Brown 
Esteban Torres 
Glenn Anderson 

Robert Matsui 
Ron Dellums 
Tom Lantos 
Kervyn Dymally 
Maxine Waters 
Edvard Roybal 

Nancy Pelosi 
Pete stark 
Anthony Beilenson 
Henry Waxman 
Julian Dixon 
Matthew Martinez 

not voting i 1 
Barbara Boxer 


Valley for farm properties and farm equipment. A lot of land 
values have gone way down. Bank loans are a little tighter and 
tougher to get. It's had a tremendous effect on a lot of people 
and a lot of people's lives. There will be effects that go on and 
on from this law; it will continue. It's not just a one-time deal. 

Chall: And you think it's the effects of the law rather than just what 
would be happening economically in general in California. 

Golb: I think you can separate the general economic trends in the state 

from the law because for one you can look at the baseline. Look at 
what was happening to land values over twenty years prior to the 
law, and then look at since the law has been in place. I think 
that you can look at some of the effects of the reallocation of 
800,000 acre- feet to the environment. I think you can look at the 
effects of the contract renewal provisions and how that's affected 

Again, we have the benefit now today of looking at the law and 
what is has accomplished and what it has not. On many accounts, 
the law has failed to achieve what the proponents envisioned. In 
certain areas it's been very helpful, and there are some success 
stories. The Shasta temperature control device is under 
construction, is basically on budget, on schedule, and is 
proceeding. And that will help. There are some other provisions 
in the law that are moving forward, and those will help. 

In terms of being bitter about it, I'm really not. It was a 
tremendous experience for me, and I wish it would have turned out 
differently. I put pretty much two years of my life into that, and 
it was difficult to see the way it turned out. But that's the 
legislative process. When you have a job like that, you have to 
accept that there are going to be times that it's going to go your 
way for your bossSenator Seymour in this caseand there are 
times that it's not. And you do the best you can, and sometimes it 
works out, sometimes it doesn't. 

I'm a lot less naive now about life than I was beforehand. 
But again, I had a great opportunity; I got the opportunity to 
personally work with several U.S. Senators that are dynamic people 
whether you like them or hate them, and I got to see them work. 
I've since had the opportunity to see what they have had to say 
about this debate in writing and in print, and it's been pretty 
fascinating to me the way characterizations have been bent and 
shaped over the years, based on my memory of it all. 

The Effect of the Experience on Richard Golb 

Chall: How do you feel that it has affected how you do your job, and how 
you work on water issues now? You are certainly in a crucial 

Golb: It's helped a lot, it really has. I have a good understanding of 
the legislative process and how it works. I think I probably view 
some of these water issues with a little bit different eye than 
some of my counterparts . Going through that debate taught me a lot 
about how if you don't solve problems that are your own, on your 
own, somebody else ultimately will. And they will much to your 
dissatisfaction. I think that's what really happened here. 

For years the environmental groups had been clamoring for 
reform. I think in the fifties, the sixties, and the seventies, 
they were policy oriented. They wanted protections for salmon, 
they wanted more wetlands for waterfowl. But as time went on and 
as the agricultural interests ignored them, they began calling for 
pricing reforms, and contract renewal reforms, and reallocation of 
water. At some point, you begin to believe your own rhetoric. All 
the stars lined up when the drought hit because there were the 
right people in Congress. All the provisions in H.R. 429 had been 
languishing for years, and there was a sense of urgency in 
California to do something. "We've got to fix the drought. We've 
got to fix the water supply problem. We've got to do something for 
fish and wildlife." It all lined up. 

Some people were able to take advantage and benefit off that 
situation, and othersparticularly those that had been looking the 
other way for so many yearslost. It's unfortunate because it 
really didn't work out. Again, we have the benefit of looking at 
the law to see that we had really a tremendous opportunity in 1992 
to solve some of these problems, but we collectively missed the 

Refining the CVPIA 

Chall: So there will be some refinements. 
Golb: I think there has to be. 

Chall: Earlier you said they might be solved administratively, but will 
Congress also have to resolve some of the problems? 


Golb: The current administration does not seem interested in doing 
anything administratively. So I don't think we'll see any 
substantive administrative resolutions from this administration. I 
think a future administration may be able to do that. Maybe if we 
get a different leadership within the current administration, we 
would see some changes. I believe that even some members of the 
environmental community like Tom Graff and some others would admit 
to you that a lot of this can be done administratively. A lot of 
the provisions of the law could be fixed administratively, but 
they're not doing it. 

There are some provisions that will require legislative 
changes; that will require amendments. There's a bill now that's 
pending that Congressman [John] Doolittle has introduced along with 
some others. I think it reaches a little bit too far and probably 
doesn't have much of a chance. 

Chall: I guess taken from your experience that it would be better not to 
reach too far. Try to amend things so that they'll work. Do you 
think that the Central Valley Project will someday belong to the 

Golb: It should. It definitely should. 

Chall: Can the state afford this in terms of funds? 

Golb: I think so. I think it can. I think water rates might have to go 
up, and water contracts might need to be revised, but I think it 
can. The State Water Project was only built thirty years ago or 
twenty years ago, and it's working fairly well. So I don't see why 
that couldn't be integrated with the CVP in terms of state 
oversight. You wouldn't need as many people to run the Central 
Valley Project. You would be able to tie it into some of the state 
administrative processes. I think it could be done; I think it 
would be to the benefit of the state's economy and environment. 

Chall: And the Delta? Which was not covered at all much by the bill, but 
certainly had to be considered. I don't know how you could deal 
with 800,000 acre-feet without considering what was going on in the 

Golb: That was another part of the problem. You've got all these federal 
laws, including the CVPIA, that basically provide most of the 
jurisdiction and oversight for the federal government to 
participate in all this restoration that leads to the Delta. But 
we know most of the problems in the Delta. We know that most of 
the problems with fish are due to the state and federal projects. 
The CVPIA could have been the initial step in solving a lot of 
those problems upstream and in the Delta. Instead, because there 


were people focused on other things, water conservation, tiered 
pricing, contract renewal, we got a little bit away from solving 
the environmental problems . That ' s really where the debate was and 
should have been. I think that's where the environmental community 
was twenty or thirty years ago. 

Chall: I think that's where George Miller was at the very start. With the 

Golb: Yes, his father was. That's right. 
Chall: We'll see what happens. 

Thank you. I really appreciate all the time you've given to 
lay out all this materialand prior, when you laid out material so 
that I could come and study it. I do appreciate it very much. 

Golb: I hope it has been hopeful. 

Chall: Oh, it has been; you've certainly added a great deal to the story, 
and I appreciate it. 

Golb: I don't know about it, but we'll see. 
Chall: I think so. Thank you. 
Golb: You're welcome. 

Transcribed by Gary Varney 
Final typed by Carolyn Rice 


TAPE GUIDE- -Richard Golb 

Interview Date: May 3, 1996 

Tape 1, Side A 1 

Tape 1, Side B 10 

Tape 2, Side A 20 

Tape 2, Side B 31 

Tape 3, Side A 41 

Tape 3, Side B 52 

Tape 4, Side A 62 

Tape 4, Side B not recorded 

INDEX- -Richard K. Golb 


agriculture community, 21-23, 33, 
35, 36, 45-46, 55, 56-59 

Bay Area Economic Forum, 43-44 
Beard, Daniel, 22, 45 
Beirne, James, 14, 15-16, 56, 59 
Boronkay, Carl, 11, 25, 27, 33 
Bradley, Bill, 9, 10, 11, 31, 33, 

37, 41, 53 
Bradley bill (S. 484), 11-20, 22, 

24, 25, 28 
Bush, George H. W. , 57, 63 

California Business Roundtable, 

Central Valley Project, transfer 

to state, 36-37, 66-67 
Central Valley Project Improvement 

business community, 38, 43- 

evaluation of, 24-26, 50- 

52, 63-64, 65-67 
insurance industry, 38 
water marketing/transfers, 

11, 12, 13, 25-27, 44, 51 
water reallocation, 12-14, 

15, 24, 51, 59 
Chapin, Daniel, 59 
Cooper, Benjamin, 31, 34 

Delta (San Francisco Bay/ 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
Estuary), 21, 66-67 

Democratic party, 21 

Dooley, Calvin, 47 

Dooley-Lehman proposal, 53-56 

Ellsworth, Gary, 16, 56, 59 
environmental community, 17-20, 
21-24, 32, 35, 36, 59 

Graff, Thomas, 18, 19, 49, 50. 
See also Somach-Graff 

Harvey, James, 43-44 

Johnston, J. Bennett /Johnston 
mark, 29, 31, 32, 33-35, 41 

Kennedy, David, 39-40 

Lehman, Richard, 45, 47. See 
also Dooley-Lehman proposal 

McGill, Michael, 43-44, 59 
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) , 

11, 25-27, 41 
Miller bill (H.R. 5099), 24, 25, 

28, 41, 45-46 
Miller, George, 9, 10, 11, 14, 

37, 46-47, 53 

Nelson, Barry, 20, 23 
Northern California Water 
Association, 1-3 

Omnibus Water bill (H.R. 429), 

11, 22, 41, 42, 53-54, 59-60, 63 
Osann, Ed, 17 

Peltier, Jason, 10, 40, 49, 52 

reclamation reform, 8-9, 11, 52 
Red Bluff Diversion Dam, 24, 42 
Republican party, 21 
restoration fund, 51, 59 
Rosenberg, Richard, 43-44 

Sawyers, Gary, 59 

Schuster, David, 7 

Seymour bill (S. 728), 7, 16 

Fazio, Vic, 44, 45, 47, 59-60 


Seymour bill (S. 2016), 28-32, 

attempts at compromise, 24, 
29-32, 43, 51, 52-54, 55, 
57, 58 

conference committee, 46-47 
filibuster, 54-55, 56 
first drafts, 7-8, 11, 22, 


Seymour bill (S. 3365), 54-55, 59 
Seymour, John, 5-7, 17, 47-48, 

60-62, 63 

Somach, Stuart, 7, 49, 50, 59 
Somach-Graff negotiations, 48-50 

United States Bureau of 

Reclamation, 13-14, 51 
United States Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee (1991-1992), 

14-15, 28-32, 41, 42 

Wallop, Malcolm, 15, 33-34, 46 
water marketing/transfers, 11, 

12, 13, 25-27, 44, 51 
water reallocation (acre-feet), 

12-14, 15, 24, 51, 59 
Weiman, David, 23 
Wheeler, Douglas, 39-40 
Wilson, Pete, 35-36, 40, 49 

Malca Chall 

Graduated from Reed College in 1942 with a B.A. degree, 
and from the State University of Iowa in 1943 with an 
M.A. degree in Political Science. 

Wage Rate Analyst with the Twelfth Regional War Labor 
Board, 1943-1945, specializing in agriculture and 
services. Research and writing in the New York public 
relations firm of Edward L. Bernays, 1946-1947, and 
research and statistics for the Oakland Area Community 
Chest and Council of Social Agencies, 1948-1951. 

Active in community affairs as director and past 
president of the League of Women Voters of the Hayward 
area specializing in state and local government; on 
county-wide committees in the field of mental health; on 
election campaign committees for school tax and bond 
measures, and candidates for school board and state 

Employed in 1967 by the Regional Oral History Office 
interviewing in fields of agriculture and water 
resources. Also director, Suffragists Project, 
California Women Political Leaders Project, Land-Use 
Planning Project, and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care 
Program Project.