Water Archives · Brent Graham interview

Title

eng Brent Graham interview

Description

eng Worked for the Kings River Conservation District and Tulare Basin Storage District. Talked about developing early infrastructure and flooding. Talked about working with Sayers and Boswell farming corporations.

Creator

eng Graham, Brent

eng Gray, Glenn

Relation

eng Water Archive Oral Histories

Coverage

eng California State University, Fresno

Date

eng 4/14/2009

Format

eng Microsoft Word 2003 document, 16 pages

Identifier

eng SCMS_waoh_00003

extracted text

>> Glenn Gray: Okay, today is April 14, 2009. I'm Glen Grey from the Madden
Library at Fresno State, and today we're going to be interviewing Brent Graham.
So I'd like to begin by asking you where and when were you born and could you
describe your upbringing and your family background.
>> Brent Graham: I was born in Fresno, born and raised here, went all through
schools, in fact Fresno State is my Alma Mater. 1964. And I moved a whole
distance now to Hanford, when I got out of the service and took a permanent job
with Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.
>> Glenn Gray: And how long had your family been in the area.
>> Brent Graham: My mother was
she went all through school, I
here in Fresno, and her mother
side, both of his parents were

from Oregon. Her folks were from Oregon. And, but
guess, from junior high school through college
was already here in California. On my father's
here in California.

>> Glenn Gray: And what did, what did your parents do?
>> Brent Graham: My father worked for the Coca-Cola bottling company, and my
mother was a housewife for a period of time and then she worked as a clerk in a
grocery store.
>> Glenn Gray: And what did you study when you are at Fresno State?
>> Brent Graham: Business administration.
>> Glenn Gray: Okay.
>> Brent Graham: And some ag courses.
>> Glenn Gray: All right. Well, when did you become aware of water issues that
we have here in the Central Valley. Was that when you were in school or later
when you joined the ->> Brent Graham: Kind of more or less just in my last, last year of college
here, I met a friend and he was from Lemoore, and his folks farmed just north of
Lemoore. So I would go down there periodically with him and visit, was a large
family, they had six, five kids. And got to know some of the farming, I thought
it was pretty neat. And his father was on the Lagoon Irrigation District board
of directors, and was also a board member for the Kings River Water Association.
>> Glenn Gray: And what was your first job, then when you left school, when you
got out of school?
>> Brent Graham: My first job was with the United States Navy.
>> Glenn Gray: Okay.
>> Brent Graham: I was active duty for two years —>> Glenn Gray: Okay.
>> Brent Graham: -- when I got out of the Navy -- out of college ->>Glenn Gray: Uh huh.

Brent Graham: -- in the U.S. Naval Air.
>> Glenn Gray: Okay, and then once you -- once you left the Navy uh ->> Brent Graham: While I was in the Navy I was stationed at Moffett Field. We
were P3 Squadron. But I would come down maybe every third weekend, and when I
came down at that time, the same friend of mine was waiting to go to pilot
training for the Air National Guard. And he was working for the Kings River
Water Association. A hydrographer. So sometimes I would go out with him as he
made his rounds on the river and I got to know the water master and the
assistant water master of the Kings River Water Association. So when I was
getting ready to get out of the Navy I thought well maybe I'd like to try this,
take my -- my business background and combine it in water and see what -- what
would develop in water. Because water is very important in the valley, much more
than what I realized at the time I set foot into the Kings River Water
Association. But they agreed to hire me for a short period of time as a
hydrographer until at that time my friend was coming back from pilot training
with the Air National Guard, and of course in 1967 we had a pretty good water
year. So they kept me on for about a year-and-a-half to do the water counting.
And this is pre-computers, we used a ten key adder, and there was -- there was a
lot of paperwork involved. So I was there for about a year-and-a-half.
>> Glenn Gray: So could you describe a little bit about the work of a
hydrographer, then?
>> Brent Graham: Hydrographer is the one that goes into the field; he's
responsible for collecting the records from the recorders when they have turn
outs from the river. He measures flows in the river to make sure that what's
being released from the dam and what's being requested by the water users and
their canals and ditches that take off from the rivers is accurate. And of
course during flood periods they're also measuring the flows of the river,
because they split the river. Part of it would go to Tulare Lake; the bulk of it
would go out the north fork to hit the San Joaquin River. So they want to be
sure that those flows are within the capacities of the channels.
>> Glenn Gray: Now speaking of floods, I -- there was a big flood out there in
1969, I believe.
>> Brent Graham: Oh yes.
>> Glenn Gray: What was -- what was your experience like with that?
>> Brent Graham: Well, 1969 I was with the district. I was hired by the district
in June of 1968 and I was hired as office manager, and I was to setup the water
accounting because the district had signed a contract with the state of
California for state project water. And of course they were still building the
aqueduct south, and they hadn't quite got everything ready for us to start
taking water at that time. I think the deliveries were scheduled in maybe late
August; they finally started in September 1968. So they had no water accounting
system setup for the users in the district, the farmers in the district. So
that's primarily why I was brought in, is to setup this water accounting, to
account for the state project water on it.
>> Glenn Gray: How challenging was that, to get that set up, then to have the
flood happen when it did.

>> Brent Graham: Well, I set it up primarily under the same setup that the Kings
River had, as far as what they call their dailies, they take a daily release
from the dam and a daily diversion from the river and charge to the different
ditch companies, canal companies, public districts that take the water. So I
tried to set it up about -- on the same basis, and as we got into it, refined it
as we went along. But then of course in 1969 I do remember that, because in
January up to that time they had a part-time manager at the water storage
district. And they were going to release him. He was an older fellow. In fact,
he had been involved with the Core of Engineers on the construction of Pine Flat
Dam. Ralph McDonald. And they decided they wanted to have a full time manager,
so I was called into the chairman's office and he said we are retiring Ralph
McDonald and we'd like to have you step into those shoes. This is like, on, you
know, first, second, third, or whatever it was of January -- well, mid January
they had the first of two storms, two major storms. And the water came tumbling
down and of course all our state water delivery shut off because nobody needed
the water. And then we just kind of got our ducks back in order. What do we need
to repair, where do we need to fill in dirt or whatever, on the canals?
February, mid February came with the other big deluge. And at that time we had
not started deliveries on our southern system. And we were just about ready to
go, and we were ready to take orders down there. In fact, the district – and
here again, the engineer Joe Summers had acquired land down there where I5
crosses our system. So the Cal Trans had us build the siphon to go under the
freeway, and then that was just part of our -- our system. Well, we determined
that the flows that came out of the hills either January or February flows were
so great and they broke into our system which had a capacity of about 300 second
feet, we estimated there's probably 1500 second feet going down there. So it
took out a lot of canal. And the siphon was still intact, but it was just
hanging by -- by the two ends on it. Of course that panicked Cal Trans when we
went in there and back filled it. But it is so much stuff happening at that
time. And I'm 29 years old, I'm green behind the ears, I'm trying to deal with
this. I've got two major players on my board, the J. G. Boswell Company and the
Salyer Land Company. And dealing with the state of California on our water
deliveries, we're not taking water now. How we're going to handle that. It was - it was a challenge. It was a challenge for probably about two -- two-and-ahalf years, until things kind of got back into sync.
>> Glenn Gray: So what was it like, then, as you've kind of got -- you start out
with phasing this major catastrophe -- you have this big, big challenge on your
hands. What is it like, then, after you kind of get into the groove of, of
working there, and then working your way up through that company? Can you kind
of describe what that was like?
>> Brent Graham: Well, there wasn't too much in the way of working your way up
through the company, because I was in all essence general manager of the
district. But you had, like I said, you had two major players on the board. You
also had another two -- two what I call major players, because there was four
major land owners in the district at the time. The other two being West Lake
Farms and South Lake Farms. West Lake Farms being on the west side of the
district, in fact Highway 41 parallels the boundaries of that farming operation.
But I had people on my boards such as Stan Barnes, I know you’ve talked to him - Stan's a very sharp individual, looks at the big picture items. He was a big
help on that. Joe Summers was engineer, as far as the facilities and dealing
with the state. He was a big help on that. So one of the things I learned is
that you -- you learn to work with and rely on these people who have expert
knowledge in it. Because I am not an engineer, I was a bus-ed major. And what -any engineering I have now I got from osmosis, just being with the district that
long. But that was one of the things you have to do is rely on people that have

the knowledge and the people that they deal with on it, so that, that helped me
through that quite a bit.
>> Glenn Gray: Can you comment at all on the dynamic between the Boswell and
Salyer interests from your perspective on being on the board with them?
>> Brent Graham: Well, the Salyer Land Company which now is no longer exists and
the J. G. Boswell Company are excellent farmers, very, very good farmers. I know
the J. G. Boswell Company hires the top -- the best of the best agronomous,
water people, all those people, fertilizers, those -- those at the top -- top
people. So they -- they know farming very well. And they are up on the -- when I
say the cutting edge, edge of marketing, the crops, what crops you plant, et
cetera. Salyers were the same way, Fred Salyer, excellent farmer. Knew equipment
back and forwards and this is proven out during the flood, the flood of '69.
They were building major levies down there to contain the flood waters that were
coming in to protect productive farm land and determine, okay, which lands are
going to go out, which lands are going to have to be flooded, which ones we're
going to have to protect. And to see those levies and the equipment they put
into those and the people who are working on them, that was a major, major
undertaking, program they have. So I -- I worked with both companies, like I
said the Boswell Company the vice chairman at that time, Stan Barnes, and both
Fred and Edward Salyer were on the board. So it was trying to, you know, balance
both -- both sides, and -- and you treat them and work with them just like you
would, with the smaller water users in history. So from that stand point, that's
what I was trying to do, was just make sure that you treated everybody
equitably, even though Boswell was the larger company, which -- treat the
farmers equitably so that nobody would come back and say well, you're favoring
them, you got them, you know, at the timer, start taking water, more water. But
during the flood it was -- it was an interesting time because there was an issue
between the J. G. Boswell Company and the Salyer Land Company of -- the Salyer
Land Company believed that the Buena Vista Lake, which has inflow from the Kern
River, should be flooded and the J. G. Boswell Company farmed Buena Vista Lake.
But they only lease the land. It wasn't owned. So they said that is not our
decision on this board to say flood Buena Vista Lake. That has to be the
decision of the -- of the person or persons that own Buena Vista Lake. Well,
that started big a hoo-haa between the Salyers and the Boswell, and other board
members getting involved in it. So during that time during the '69 flood, the
Salyer Land Company, did not, their representatives did not attend the board
meeting. They had a court reporter there. So there was some issues there also,
to deal with between the -- the two of them. But as far as farming in the lake,
you couldn't see better cooperation between those two farming groups on it. The
politics, and thinking about how things ought to be done. A little bit different
feeling on that.
>> Glenn Gray: And do you feel that in general, the smaller interests that were
represented on the board, do you think that they felt like they were getting
fair treatment overall?
>> Brent Graham: For -- under my direct, yes. I really do. And I think more so
because Boswell had water -- I want to say water director or Glen Jorgensen on
their -- on their staff. Independent know Stan Barnes has talked about him. Glen
worked with everyone. The Salyers, the small users, and it was getting the job
done. And I think everybody respected Glen, and respected Boswell because he
represented Boswell, about hey, he's going to work with us. Some small users
didn't even have access to our state system where they could take water out of
the system. So there's a lot of transfers going around. I've got Kings River
water here, I'll exchange my state water with you here and get the -- Glen was

just a -- he was a master at that. He really was. And so as far as operating the
district and delivering the water around, it was fine. But it was just a
difference in politics on the board. And it was interesting.
>> Glenn Gray: Are there any issues that you can think of back from the 1970s
that you'd like to talk about today? Anything in particular that stands outs
from that time?
>> Brent Graham: From the 1970s?
>> Glenn Gray: Uh huh.
>> Brent Graham: Well, we finally got back into delivering -- delivering water,
probably about in -- in the late '70s, early '71, because up until that time
most of the water -- flood water in the lake was being used for irrigation. So
they'd pump it into the lands where they were in production. And of course as
the lake receded because of the pumping and evaporation that was going on,
demands for water came. Because it wasn't that economical to pump the water up
into the higher lands to irrigate. So we finally got back into the deliveries of
state project water, and of course we were taking Kings River water also,
because we -- the district then had the staff, and we were maintaining the
inlets to the district of the Kings River water. We delivered water to the
boundaries of the district, be it state project water or Kings River water. And
we measured it based on demands of the different users, and we turn loose of it
because Tulare Lake already had a fine canal, ditches, distribution system
within the district. And going way back before the district was formed there was
an instrument called the inter-lake agreement that was signed probably in -- I
imagine the early '20s. And it was that -- that this district at that time they
were talking about being formed, which was the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage
District, was finally formed in September, 1926. That district would not
distribute or convey water within the boundaries of the district. That was left
up to the land owners. And I think there was a little bit of fear there that
setting up an empire and district then coming in there saying how you're going
to deliver water here and there, it was kind of like, look, we've been doing
this for a number of years, we know how to do it, we don't want the district
involved in it. So at that -- on that basis, in the district, just brought water
in from the aqueduct to the boundaries of the district, brought Kings River
water into the boundaries of the district up by Stratford. And then measured it
and turned it into the existing canals and ditches. And it works great. It
really does. It's -- it's been a system that we have a small staff, the district
had a small staff to take care of the measurements, take care or maintain our
state water system coming to the boundaries of the district. And we're still
doing it that way today. And it really does work. But we were kind of feeling
our way through the state water project. I mean, it was brand new. Just
delivering water. And I think they started delivering water to Kern County maybe
in –- oh probably mid 1969. Because they didn't have a big flood problem down
there. Tulare Lake being the sump, Kern River water, everything flowed into us.
So they had the ability to take state project water. So they're coming on line
and then in 19 -- I think it was 1972 water started going over the hill, or the
hatch piece. And then you had water being delivered from northern California
from the aqueducts, South Bay Aqueduct, all the way down to Metropolitan. And
things were changing how the system was going to work. And how you account for
it, when you had to order water and stuff that wasn't in the contract, but is
how you're going to operate the system to make it you know, functional and
efficient for everybody on it. So it was -- it was an interesting time.

>> Glenn Gray: You mentioned having a small staff. About how large was the
staff?
>> Brent Graham: The first staff was -- we added three ditch riders on the
system and now they have I think four with a part-time. We have four in house,
we have an assistant manager, we have a bookkeeper, if you will, and a resource
analyst in there. But yeah, when I started out I had myself, a part-time
secretary, and one ditch tender. And it didn't work. In fact, I remember when we
started taking deliveries on the southern system it comes out aqueduct and it
drops down in a series of stair steps coming down onto the level of the lake.
And at that time it was like a 300 second foot capacity. And one of the
directors went out there that was the head of South Lake Farms, and he saw that
water roaring over those drop structures, and he came to the board meeting and
says my gosh, he says. You guys ought to go out there and see that. We need
somebody to really keep an eye on that. And I said well, we can't do it with one
ditch tender. He goes that's almost 7-24 operation. Then we get some more people
out there. He was very concerned that -- just seeing that water roaring down
there what might occur if we weren't watching it. If you have a break or
something like that. So that's how we kind of stair stepped up, and so of course
you have a rotation of your people out in the field, we know have three with a
part-time that we rotate in during the summer time.
>> Glenn Gray: In 1982 the Reclamation Reform Act was passed. Did that -- can
you comment at all on -- on that act, both leading up to it and the impact that
might have had on your operation.
>> Brent Graham: You know, the Reclamation Reform Act, CVPIA I guess is what
you're talking about, didn't really effect us. Because we were not a Central
Valley Project contractor. It was interesting, until we started taking state
project water, there were some lands in the district that were deemed non-excess
lands that would take CVP water, and that would be for the Friant system where
they would dump it into the Kings River and take it down to the district. I
remember when I got down there in '68 seeing these maps they would do each year
of what lands were qualified to take this CVP water that were deemed on excess
lands. But once we started taking state project water there was a necessity to
take CVP water because we had the -- the aqueduct and right there in our back
door rather than a two day delay rather than trying to get down into our
district. Now the district did later on do some exchanges with -- with the east
side that had contracts or bureau water, where the bureau water be released from
San Louis and taken down the aqueduct, we would take delivery of it to some of
our land owners in the district who then would exchange either their Tule River
water or sometimes Kings River water for the CVP water. So it was kind of like a
bucket for bucket exchange, with the understanding that when the district took
the CVP water off of the aqueduct it took on the color of the water on the east
side. Either Tule River water or Kings River water. So there's no acreage
limitation with it. Whereas when the east side got the water from whatever river
was under exchange, then acreage limitation applied to that. And it worked very
well. We were doing it for a number of years on it. We were -- the exchanges
went on between some land owners in our district that had access to Kings River
water that particular year, and they would take the CVP water off the system. So
it was a good -- using the plumbing that was available to make it more efficient
on the water management, both in our district and the districts on the east
side.
>> Glenn Gray: Let's talk about the peripheral canal. The -- the issue of it
never -- it never happened, but could you talk us -- talk a little bit about

some of the issues about that? And then this is an issue that has kind of come
to the fore, again. So both in its initial conception and then pretty day.
>> Brent Graham: Well, if you want to go quite a ways back when it was first
considered, Fish and Game supported it then, and as far as I know, totally
supports the peripheral canal from a fishery standpoint. You get the pumps out
of the delta and you get it into a separate facility where you don't have the
problems that we're having now, the Court orders and the regulatory stuff that's
really crimping the pumping from the -- into the aqueduct. And the peripheral
canal when I came on board was in a hearing process, and this is like in 1970,
and I remember going up there with Joe Summers the engineer, and they were
having a hearing on an EIR that had been issued for the development of water
resources for the peripheral canal. And you had a change in administration in
1972 when the Brown administration came in, and everything was put on hold. Well
then it came into, you know, we need to build the peripheral canal, the Brown
administration was supporting it, but I remember that time because they had tied
a lot of environmental conditions to building it through propositions that were
on the ballot. So in fact I remember one time that I went down and I debated
Dave Kennedy, who was director of water resources later, but at that time he was
working for Metropolitan Water District. And I knew Dave when I first, you know,
came to the district and started going to the meetings and stuff, and he went to
work for Metropolitan. Great guy. Really was super, super nice person, very
intelligent. And so we went down there and he was supporting the peripheral
canal. I was opposed to it. Not because of the canal, but because of all the
conditions that were going to be imposed on the -- on the ballot measure. But it
was a -- it was a friendly -- I mean, it was the most -- somebody came up to me
and says geez, we thought you guys would kiss and hug up there pretty soon. It
wasn't much of a debate. I said well, I've known Dave, and he had his position
and I had my position on it. But at that time, I know the district took the
position of opposing it, and it was primarily from my point, because all the
environmental conditions that were imposed on it, didn't look like we were going
to get much water out of it if you had to meet all of those. Well, that's all -you want to call it water under the bridge now. We need that facility and we
need it badly because of this fish issue. We're not going to -- we're not going
solve it until we do get some means of taking some water around the periphery of
the delta and get it to the pumps. It's just got to happen. It really does.
>> Glenn Gray: And what's -- what's the likelihood of it? Sounds like Jerry
Brown might be coming back.
>> Brent Graham: That's right.
>> Glenn Gray: So maybe the issue of the peripheral canal will come back too.
But what's the likelihood you think of ->> Brent Graham: Well, you have the support of the governor, and you have a lot
of -- God knows there's got to be a ton of studies sitting up in some closet
with Department of Water Resources on it. But of how to operate it, how much
water you take down. Originally, the peripheral canal, I'm not sure how much
capacity it has, but the idea was you have the releases from the canal as it
conveyed down to Hood, where the -- where it was going to discharge. But these
discharges would sweeten up back water sloughs, and put fresh water into them.
And I understand there's not so much of that on this new proposal now. You won't
have that -- as big a facility to do that. But it will, you know, it will convey
the water down there. It will have the water quality, it won't disturb the fish,
and at least we can get some reliability back into the state water project,
because about five years ago reliability on the project was probably, maybe 75%.

Now I -- I wouldn't doubt it's probably less than 50%. You can't operate that
way. You can't operate that way. And from the farming standpoint, well, from the
urban standpoint also, is that even though we get zero water, which happened to
us in '91, more because of a drought than it was the regulatories and the
courts, but the -- the farmers and the urban people still had to pay 100% of
their water bill because the state sold bonds and those bonds had to be paid
each year. So we got a bill and I think at that time our district is about -was about 3% of the state water project, but we had a bill of about $5 million
that we had to send on to the farmer and say, we know we're not delivering water
but please pay it. Well, you can't do it. And essentially, now, they're getting
20% this year, but they're getting 100% of the bill. So your water is costing
anywhere from 3 to $400 an acre foot. And some -- some permanent crops may be
able to withstand that, but row crops, which is primarily in our district
cotton, tomatoes, alfalfa, et cetera. You can't put that price water on there in
order to make a profit out of it. So there's got to be reliability built back
into the state water project, along with quantity, also.
>> Glenn Gray: Well we've talked about floods and you just mentioned droughts.
So as we -- as we talk about the '80s, '90s, and up to the present day, are
there any particular issues that you think should we should mention. We're kind
of in the midst of another drought cycle right now, and just curious to know
your thoughts about ->> Brent Graham: Well, to back up again on the state water project, I remember
going to a meeting shortly after I was with the district, and we had quite a few
meetings there at Metropolitan's office also. But the department had a chart at
that time as to how many years we could expect to have with the called surplus
water. Surplus water was water the project can develop, but it wasn't in demand
by the contractors as part of their table A water. And it was like every five
years, there will be a surplus water on a project over and above your contracted
amount. Like I said, now we're down to less than 50% of the contracted amount.
But droughts we knew were going to occur, and so the department built into the
contract looking at the drought they had to go on at that time from 1928 to
1932, that -- that these droughts were in there, so ag is going to take the
first hit. Don't want to take them from the urbans, but you can make it back up
on surplus water. Well, that's all changed. It got so that ag was taking these
tremendous hits because the amount of contracted water was dropping down, and
that brought about threat of a law suit, which then culminated in what we call
the Monterey Amendment, which is they made a lot of changes to the contract. But
we saw in 1991, and that was probably the premier for coming out with the
department, and sitting down with the contractors and trying to develop some
changes to the contract and the Monterey Amendment. But like I said, they tell
ag that you're getting a zero supply of water, and by the way here's your bill,
pay it. Because the only thing we didn't pay was the energy charge because
you're not pumping water down to us. But we've got all the – fixed the costs had
to be paid because the department was paying not only the bonds but they're also
paying personnel for owing them on the aqueducts. And 20% isn't much better, I
know. We were 50% here, what, six weeks ago, and all of a sudden we came to 20%
and everybody's yeah, that's really -- you know, think about this, folks. You're
cheering for a 5% increase from 15 to 20%. You've got 80% of your water you're
not going to get. That's not a lot to cheer about. Well, yeah, we know but -This thing is just going in the wrong direction on it. But we're still going to
have hydraulic droughts; it's just part of the cycle of -- of the weather. But
to have the regulatory agencies come out and say, well, we think this is what's
happening, we're not really sure. Which is the same thing on the delta smelt. We
think that the pumps are causing a problem, but we're not really sure. So it's a
lot easier to turn a dial or push a button on the pumps than it is to look back.

It because of invasive species? Is it because of an ammonia problem from
discharges from water treatment plants around Sacramento? You know, we have to
find out. Well, you know, I can do it, at least I'm doing something, because
I'll just dial back your pumps on it. And that's not the way to run a railroad
in my opinion. You've got to get in there and find out what's happening. Well,
like I said the best thing you can do is get that peripheral canal, get us out
of the delta, and -- and keep our interference on fish and dangerous species out
of our -- out of our hats on that now. So yeah, I hope we don't have a '91
drought, I remember that. Or the '76-77 drought. But they are hydraulic droughts
and they are going to occur. And if we have a reliable supply where we can do
some recharge of our ground water bases and have water available then we can
kind of get through those. But every year you have a drought, but you know, with
the court now imposing restrictions on pumping, that's almost a 30% hit on the
water supply. That really cuts it back. I think somebody said without the court
order we would probably be around 50% this year.
>> Glenn Gray: Well, over the years your -- your influence and your working on
these state-wide water issues has grown. Do you want to comment at all about
your -- your consulting work. You're now retired ->> Brent Graham: Yes.
>> Glenn Gray: So -- but you're still involved. So why don't you talk about some
of this, the things you've been involved in.
>> Brent Graham: Mainly right now, I'm consulting for the district. I'm working
on state water matters, and we're working on finances is a big part of it. I'm
involved on what -- they have several contractors through the state water
contractors organization that was setup and this is the audit finance committee
that I sit on. And they're looking at this very thing, about you know, the costs
that are -- that are ever increasing with a decreasing water supply, and what
costs the department is putting the bills to the contractors. One of the things
right now that is a large item we're working on is because there is some
importance in at least getting some support from the peripheral canal on more
than we had before in the years after the referendum is getting the same -maybe trying to say, expedite it. So there is an effort now between both the
federal contractors on the west side and the state water contractors to try and
get the designing and preconstruction and EIR and EIS’s done on this project in
the shortest amount of time. In order to do that, there has to be some front
money put up by the contractors on the west side farmers, federal contractors to
do that. So this whole thing to set up under the existing state water
contractors where the contractors are now paying in extra money to try to get
this expedited. How do you, how do we have some control as to the task the
department is doing so we're not going down the wrong rabbit hole, or rabbit
trail, that we're really making some progress, has been interesting. We started
this over a year-and-a-half ago, and as I understand now most of the contractors
are signed to move ahead on this. The department did start work on this in late
2008. So that's taking up a lot of my time, just trying -- and watch that, look
at that, guide that. I've been president of the state water project contractor's
authority for two years. I go off that job at end of June. And they have set up
a specific project committee under that to deal with it. So my -- my work on
this is kind of dropping back. But it is still something we have to watch, and
we have to make sure that the money is well spent. It's about $140 million we're
going to spend in three years to try and get this thing where we're at an EIS
and EIR to get to the construction. But I don't know what we're going to do if
we don't get that thing built. I just don't think the farmers are going to be

able to survive at the cost and the very, the reliability we have now. It's just
-- it's just not there.
>> Glenn Gray: Well, given the current state of the economy and given -- given
the current legislators and people we have in place at the moment, what -what's your -- what's your sense of -- of where we're going with this?
>> Brent Graham: I think there's a good chance this time, because there's a lot
of outreach that's going on. There's a lot of work being done with the
legislatures as to what's -- what's going on, what's happening. This is not
something we're doing in a closed, smoke-filled room. There's a lot of
transparency, these are all the buzz words everybody uses now. But there is.
There's a lot of -- there's a lot of information that's going out there as to
what -- what we're trying to do. And the environment is, you know, right at the
top. You know, you've got to do this in an environmentally sound manner, and we
know that. And so there's aspects about habitat. You have to have habitat for
the smelt or some of these other endangered species, and to have habitat you
have to buy land to create the habitat. That costs money, and the contractors
realize that. And it's one of the things we're going to have to do. But you've
got to have some boundaries around it so you're not out there just spending
millions of dollars because it looks good to have this much habitat. We need to
have good science that says this is where you would put it, this is how much you
need, and this is how much water it needs on it, rather than saying well, if you
know, if 500 acres sounds really good, why don't we buy 5,000, because that even
sounds better. That's not what we want to do. We want to -- we want to be
environmentally sound on this thing, but not be excessive on it. So I think
those type of things gong on, educating the legislature, educating the public.
Because I think right now in -- I am not involved in urban water, haven’t been
involved in it. But you know, as long as you turn on your tap for filling your
water glass or taking your shower, things are cool. Things are okay. Nothing -Nah, don't have to worry about it. And that's what we have to get over to the
general public. There is a problem up there. I think LA is going have mandatory
rationing some time this year. I just think it's going to come on. So those
things are happening, and there is a solution to it, but it's going to cost
money. And we have to get moving on it.
>> Glenn Gray: Well, when you look back over your now 40-plus year career, how
you've been involved with these water issues, are there any individuals that
have really stood out that you have worked with, that you have worked for, that
used like to mention, as being some -- some people that you really looked up to?
>> Brent Graham: Yeah you know, first of all, say that I was that, 99% of the
people that I worked with , that I dealt with, my staff, staffs of other
organizations, are very dedicated, hard working people. There's always, you
know, a few bad apples on it. But that's one of the things I really enjoyed
working in this industry. I met some great people, I met some great friends, and
most of them are just doing the best job they can. They really are. But if you
want to narrow it down, the person that comes to my mind is Joe Summers.
Unfortunately, Joe Summers passed away about two-and-a-half years ago. But he
was the -- he was the engineer for our district. He was in the consulting
business, so he had other clients. But he was the one that did a lot of work on
getting us into the state water project contract. I know he told me that the
board chairman asked him to start attending meetings when the contractors -someone we're talking about -- forming this audit committee. And he said you
ought to go up there and see if it's worth our while to do it. And it is,
because under our contract we have the right to review the billings of the
state, what they're spending money on, et cetera. But we were like less than 3%.

There's a lot of districts that are probably, you know, 0.0% or something like
that, 0.1% can't afford to send a staff of auditors up there. So they formed a
group of contractors, hired their own auditor, and we were using Arthur Young
and Company, and now they merged into Thurston Young. Who are our auditors that
go up and do that very thing, audit the state's books and report back to us. So
Joe was very, very instrumental in getting our district involved in that, and it
has been a good relationship. I remember when I got the invitation to come down
and interview for the board and the board said yeah, we want to -- we want to
hire you. I remember the water master of the Kings River Water Association said
you ought to talk to Joe Summers. He's the engineer and he can -- he can help
you along. And I went down to Joe's house in Hanford; I was still living in
Fresno at the time, and met with him. And he gave me a lot of good advise. And
like I said, the Boswell, Salyers always had a difference of opinion on
everything, and he said Brent, he said, one thing you need to do when you're
working with the Boswells and the Salyers, walk the white line. And that was
good advise. And I had a good working relationship with both sides of it,
because of that. You know, just treating each one, you know, as an equal water
user in the district. But Joe was -- he was exceptionally smart, very
intelligent, he started his own engineering practice when he came down -- to
work for the district. He also was involved in the formation of the Tulare Lake
Drainage District down there, because of an area that's a sump for all the
rivers, they do have a salt problem down there, and they knew if they didn't
have something to manage the salt down there they were going to have problems.
So they started the district down there, and he was pretty much on the forefront
of different evaporation, different type of plants and stuff you can plant to
uptake the salts out of the water, so very, very forward thinking on it. And
then of course he was hired when Coachella and San Diego and LA were going to
align the Coachella canal and the all American canal to save water from the
seepage, and that water then was going to be delivered to San Diego. And they
hired -- or they used three engineers. One from metropolitan, I believe one from
Coachella, and then the two groups were to hire the third engineer, and they
hired Joe, and he told me because Joe was probably 83 when he passed away, so I
would say he was 79 or 80, and he said you know, I'm pretty old now. We said we
don't care. We want your expertise. That's how much background and respect they
had for him. So he was a really good friend, like I said was a mentor, and when
he passed away, that was -- that was pretty hard. That was pretty hard.
>> Glenn Gray: Is that -- is that salt problem you mentioned, would you say
that's pretty much contained now, or is it an ongoing problem?
>> Brent Graham: It's an ongoing problem, but you have to manage it. You have to
manage it, because you have to keep that salt below the root zones or you're
either going see production decrease or you're just going to kill the plants. So
it's a constant -- it's a constant battle. And they have drainage facilities to
bring the drain water below the root zone from the fields to evaporation basins
and to other areas where they have -- they planted -- I'm speaking way out of my
field, not really because I'm not that familiar with it, but they have plants
that they plant that will up take the salt. So you have a more cleaner water,
and I guess some day you'll get it to where you can reapply it to the fields,
isn’t so salty.
>> Glenn Gray: It’s my understanding that's a huge problem out on the west side.
I just didn't know to what extent –
>> Brent Graham: Tulare Lake, like I said because it is a sump, and there's a
clay under Tulare Lake about 3, 400 feet deep from the old Tulare Lake, and you
have to go through that to get good water. There is no really good well water

within the lake, it's mainly to the eastern and northern part portion of the
lake. But they were very cognizant up there that we have to do something.
Because at that time I think the federal government was talking about the San
Louis drain, and they felt if they did their own thing setting up these
evaporation basins, the federal government finally got into the business of
building the drain, they could tap into it. But of course you know with all the
problems, Kesterson and what have you -- I don't know if that drain -- they have
expanded their research, they've got consultants now that they spent a lot of
time with. So it's an ongoing management problem we have to control the salt
balance down there.
>> Glenn Gray: Do you want to say something more about the JPA?
>> Brent Graham: Yes, the JPA is the state water project contractors’ authority,
which was formed about five years ago now. And it has I believe we’re about 22
of the 29 state water project contractors now that belong to it. And the purpose
was to provide a service to the department that we could help them on some of
their contracting issues, some of their personnel issues, and we in fact did
take on the sanitary survey which is required of the urban industries. Two years
ago it was completed, where the department came to us, the JPA, and said we
don't have the people, the resources to do this right now. Can you help us? So
the JPA took that on, hired the consultants, and we had a manager just for that
project. And we did it on time and within budget. So we've gone to the
department several times to see if we can't help them on issues such as power.
Power has become a major issue on the project from the standpoint of cost,
trying to contain those costs. And they have power dispatchers that buy and sell
energy on an hourly basis. And you want top people in those positions, because
if you don't, one power dispatcher by a wrong move could cost you hundreds of
thousands of dollars in buying it. So we were talking to the department and
still are about if that's a function that the JPA could take on, providing the
dispatchers, power dispatchers, for the department, which we then could pay the
market rate which the department can't do now because they're tied to the
personnel administration, state personnel administration. But if you could pay
competitive rates with PG&E or SMUD or some of those others are, we could get
the top people, best and brightest people, in those positions. Well, we're not
making much head way because the department has a very ingrained philosophy, is
that we are in control, we have the project, you're only duty as contractors is
just send us the checks, pay the bills. So we just aren't making much headway on
it. But we're seeing some real problems on personnel, we're retaining the people
we have or even going out to the colleges and recruiting is becoming extremely
difficult because of the pay issue. And like I said, when you've got SMUD or
PG&E or San Diego Power coming to these people and saying you know, we would
like to hire you, if he's looking -- there's a significant difference in salary.
That's tough. Or going to the colleges and you know, going back to college when
you got your first job, you didn't care about the benefits or the vacation. I
want to know how much is in my paycheck. You've haven’t got a -- most of them
wouldn't have a family, didn't have kids. So I want to know what's in the
paycheck. So you can't go out and recruit them and say, well yeah, but we only
pay this much. But gee, you know, you're going to be in PERS and all this -they could care less on it. So you have to get the salaries so they're
competitive out there on the market. And the department just isn't able to do
that. That's a major problem. And we thought by maybe starting small, i.e. the
dispatchers, that might be a way to go on it. But I really sincerely believe
that some day this is going to have to happen where the department is going to
have to step out as the operator and -- and construction source for the state
water project, because it's so tied up in the bureaucratic mess as to -- not
just personnel, but contracts that we signed for power or something like that,

has to go to general services, and they don't have the expertise on dealing with
power contracts because that's a -- an industry type deal. And it takes a long
time to get those contracts through, which then costs money. So something's got
to give on this, and we're here right now, the legislative lend, the analysis is
now encouraging the legislature to bring the state water project on budget,
which means they will control as to what money is spent and how it's spent.
Well, I have a little feeling about the legislature as to what they did on their
own budget. I don't think we want them involved in the state water project
budget. Because all that money is state water project contractors paying the
department. There is no general fund money involved in the state water project.
And we think even though we don't have control of the purse strings by just
constantly watching the department, kind of being the watch dog, that we're
getting a good bang for our buck now. But I don't see we're going to get that if
the legislature steps in and says this is how you're going to budget, this is
how you're going to spend it, so we're really concerned about that right now
because I don't know why, but the legislative analyst is really pushing for this
right now, and it's the wrong way to go. Really is. So all these things are
still going on. Like somebody said, nothing is -- nothing is stagnant in the
water business.
>> Glenn Gray: Well, you were -- you were given the life time achievement award
from ACWA, the Association of California Water Agencies. How gratifying was
that, and when you look back on your career, are there things that you -- you
wish you might have done differently, or you feel like things pretty much went
the right way all along and to what do you credit that?
>> Brent Graham: Well, I -- you know, I really don't have too much of if I look
back I would do this differently than that differently. Maybe in the small minor
stuff. But I thought the best thing I had to bring as far as working with ACWA
or the state water contractors or the Department of Water Resources, or even the
individual contractors is my creditability. And I know Joe Summers; his
creditability was up there too, working with them. That helped a lot with the
district, because when I was up there talking to the department or talking to
the board of directors and the state water contractors that we were involved in,
we wanted to do a transfer, and transfers are going on all the time between
water contractors. There's no -- there's no questions as to -- well, is this
really what you want to do, is there some other deal. I would lay it out, and I
had the creditability, yeah, that sounds good. So I never had a request that had
good, sound basis behind it being turned down on it. So I really felt that was
what really, really helped the district a lot, was being able to go up there and
speak for the district and tell them what we'd like to do or what to do. Or even
a position on a matter of anything, and get acceptance or get at least, you
know, a friendly nod on it or something like that. I felt very good, that I
could talk to somebody and I'm not trying to do a white lie on the side to cover
it up. I was telling them here's what's really going on.
>> Glenn Gray: What do you think is important for future generations to know
about the struggles that you've seen, that you've experienced, over the course
of your career here in the valley as it pertains to water issues. What -- what
do people need to know?
>> Brent Graham: The first thing they need to know is that your -- you're
lettuce and your tomatoes and stuff doesn't come from the back room of Safeway.
Seriously, there's a program to bring up city students from LA and we exchange
ag going down there. And one student asked that, when the question, well, where
do you think your vegetables come from. Well, they come from the back room of
the grocery store. We see them wheel them out there. So you know, and saying

education is one of the things I think that ag has really fallen down on. This
is going back years, because remember the picture -- I forget what it was -- the
guy with the pitch fork and his wife there -- I think they thought that ag, you
know, at least from our perspective, that ag when we say things, things we do is
all accepted, people have no question, they understand us, and they didn't.
Because we had, you know, we had the change from an agrarian society to an urban
society where you got more people living in cities and they're totally divorced
from the agricultural sector now. And then of course you had our good friends
the environmentalists kind of picked us on different ends on it. And we really
let that gap widen there for a while. Now we're trying to do a lot of catch up
on it. And I really think now as far as you know, educating people on the
importance of water to agriculture, just -- we just got to put more effort into
it. There's a lot being done now. There's the California Farm Water Coalition.
Very small staff. They're in Sacramento, but they do a heck of a bang up job as
far as getting the word out there. But when -- you know, when they say -- when
our opponents say we don't need to put flood irrigation, we call it furrow
irrigation, we do a lot in Tulare Lake, where you take the water, put it on a
field, the field might be a half a mile long, and you run it down that field and
collect it at the end and put it on to another field. Well, you were just
wasting water. You ought to do drip irrigation or strip irrigation. Well, all
those techniques have been tried and are still being experimented with, but
there are some soils that that just doesn't work, and Tulare Lake is a heavy
clay soil, and drip irrigation just doesn't work. They would do it. Because any
time a farmer puts on more water, more pesticide, more fertilizer than the land
really needs, that's cutting into his profit. And the farmer is a businessman
and he don't want to see his profit cut into. So this is -- this is all going on
and this is just education. Just trying to get people to understand, yeah, we're
farmers here, and this is why we do what we do. And I wish there was more of
getting kids from LA up here. I think it's called ag in the classroom,
agriculture in the classroom or something. But that to me was a great program,
to try and get those kids up here and say you know, this is what we do, this is
how we do it, this is why we do it. And the fact that our cost of food in this
country is a lot less than it is in foreign countries is a good piece to try and
get out there to the public. You know, you're Mrs. Housewife, you go in the
grocery store, you're paying less for those tomatoes, can of beans or whatever
it is, because farmers are as efficient as they can be, and they're raising good
quality food at a price lower than what you're seeing in other countries.
>> Glenn Gray: When you look back over your 40-plus years, is there any -- can
you isolate any single development or breakthrough as being perhaps the most
significant thing to happen over the course of your career?
>> Brent Graham: Well, I think one of the things -- of course I couldn't control
it -- was the Endangered Species Act. That was signed in 1972. And we all
thought that that was going to save the bald eagles and the whales, which were
good. But now you're talking a delta smelt, which is a three inch long fish.
Somebody -- I don't know who discovered it, says it smells or tastes like
cucumbers. I didn't -- I never tried to eat one. But -- and beetle or a flower.
Now that's all good, but look what's it's doing to the economy of not just this
state but of this nation. And we never envisioned that when Nixon signed the
Endangered Species Act, that it was for these -- these other mammals and animals
out there to try and preserve. But boy, our -- our environmental friends have
taken this down to the -- to the minutia, where it's going to be can you do
anything, and we were dealing with the delta smelt, we're dealing now with the
sturgeon up there. And it's like we -- I would say the environmental community - has these different fish lined up. As soon as you deal with one and you do the
-- how much water you've got to cut back or whatever you've got to do for the

fish, okay, here's another one that we're going to put on the table now. And
that just went -- I think -- I think I read some place, some Senator who was in
congress at the time that was signed, there was never any conception that -- or
intent -- that Endangered Species Act would go that far. They just -- they
couldn't even perceive that on it. So that was a major one. Because we started
seeing that under the Brown administration, and then the federal group came into
it, the government came into it. That has really been a big impact. Is what
we're facing now with the judges decision on the restriction on pumping for the
delta smelt. That was a major impact.
>> Glenn Gray: Well, I'd like to ask you are -- are there any things that we
have not discussed yet today that used like to mention, that you think are
important for people to know, that something that you've experienced in your
career.?
>> Brent Graham: Well, we haven't talked on the Kings River. And I really like
the Kings River because it was also the local surface supply for our district.
But I went on as chairman of the lower river board. We have a lower river board
of the units, and -- as opposed to the three or four upper district units. And
even though I know Stan had talked, Stan Barnes had talked about the Interlake
agreement -- or not the Interlake agreement , but the association -- association
agreement -- there's still a lot of issues down stream that we deal with, and
one of the things that I'd found out when I came with the district there's a big
distrust on the, river on the Kings River, in Tulare Lake. Tulare Lake was those
big farmers and those guys were out to get us, and on and on and on. And so when
I came on board I wasn't chairman of the lower river board to start with, there
was another fellow but I stepped in, oh, probably in the late '70s, something
like that. And then working with the different districts on the river, here
again because of the creditability I was trying to build up and everything, I
think we overcame a lot of that, as to why this is being done, and of course
Tulare Lake has, the farmers there have a lot of rights on the Kings River, and
when Pine Flat Dam was built, a lot of people don't understand that, but it was
built primarily to prevent flooding in Tulare Lake because of the cropping down
there. And so the question is why isn't Tulare Lake flooded first before any
water goes out the North Fork. And just trying to educate, you know, people as
to why these things were set up, or why we're doing what we're doing. I’ve
enjoyed that. And I still have that position, even though I'm retired, they
didn't boot me out as chairman. They said no, we want you to stay in as
chairman. And we now get together every year as to make a determination with the
amount of water we have in storage and the amount of water that you think you're
going to get from snow melt; when will we start the summer water run down here
for crop irrigation. Will we start it on June 1 or June 10, and then how long
will we run it before we say -- cut it off. And that's to do the equal
percentage delivery adjustment. So everybody -- we try and get everybody the
same amount of water in each section of the river. And that’s worked out pretty
good. And some people say well no, I think there will be some water that even
though everybody's going to shut off, there will still be some water in the
water -- in the channel that will form accretion, so I'm going to stay on for
another two weeks. Well okay, that's your decision, but the group is going to
say at midnight, August 5, then the equal percent delivery goes off. So that's
been fun to kind of work with that, and working with all the people. And then
there's a pretty good relationship on it. So I really liked it, I really have,
I've enjoyed that.
>> Glenn Gray: What's the potential for conflict when you're involved with two
groups like that? Is there -- trying to think of what that could be like. When

you're on the one hand, you're working with Tulare Lake Basin Storage District,
but then you’re also involved with the Kings River.
>> Brent Graham: It hasn't -- it hasn't caused any problems, even when I was
general manager of the district. Like I said, I had the creditability that hey,
I'm going to look out for the district, yes. I'm not going to do anything to
harm the district. But I'm not going to gouge anybody else on the river to make
my point on it. And that's kind of the way I operated over the years on it. So
haven't really had a conflict on it in all the years I've been chairman on it.
Many times I know the definitions come up, I'll be out talking with this general
manager or this board member, just talking with him and trying to get his input,
and have him listen to me. If you get them off on a one to one, then you
separate it from trying to be in a group or -- do a one better for everybody
else. But that's worked good too. So I really enjoyed that, just trying to keep
-- trying to keep my creditability so we can finally come together on some of
these issues.
>> Glenn Gray: Anything else you'd like to mention that we haven't talked about
yet?
>> Brent Graham: No, other than this was 40 years of -- I really enjoyed it,
like I said. I think the most important part of it was the people I met, the
people I got to work with, and still do now, even on it. And to have some
levity, anyhow, while we're doing this so we don't go stark raving bad thinking
about it. It was -- it was -- it was just -- it's just been a good roller
coaster ride on it. And some of the things I don't want to put in this
interview, but I tell people little antidotes that come up. But it is a career,
and I talked with a class, a political science class here about a month or so
ago, and I told them, I said that you people, if you're a bis-ed or anywhere
interested in business, look at the water business in this valley. And if those
of you that are thinking about your leaning toward law, think about water law in
this valley. Because water is -- is so important to this valley and to the
cities as well as to farming. Because most of the cities take their water from
our ground water basin. Most of the farmers belong to districts that bring water
in, be it state project water or Friant or Kings or Kaweah, Tule or whatever,
and that recharges the ground water. But I said there's a lot of issues here.
You will find it one fascinating field, plus you will meet a lot of great people
in it. So that was good.
>> Glenn Gray: All right, well I'd like to thank you very much for taking the
time to speak with us today.
>> Brent Graham: Thank you.
>> Glenn Gray: Thanks.
==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====

Item sets

Water Archives Set