Water Archives · Cal Dooley interview

Title

eng Cal Dooley interview

Description

eng Former member of Congress for Fresno and Tulare counties. Talked about dealing with California water issues in the Congress, as well as giving opinions about current stalemates over water legislation in Washington.

Creator

eng Dooley, Cal

eng Holyoke, Thomas

Relation

eng Water Archive Oral Histories

Coverage

eng California State University, Fresno

Date

eng 10/1/2012

Format

eng Microsoft Word 2003 document, 7 pages

Identifier

eng SCMS_waoh_00032

extracted text

>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, well, actually just start with a little bit of personal
history, an opportunity to give up anybody who happens to be viewing this
information about who you are and your roots in the Central Valley. So where
exactly are you from?
>> Cal Dooley: I'm Cal Dooley, and I'm part of a family, who’s I guess it would
be fourth generation farmers in Central Valley California, between Hanford and
Visalia is where our family resides. And both sides of the family actually. So
where I was raised it was a mile from where my dad was born and raised and about
three miles from where my mom was born and raised. And so our family has a lot
of history in farming and dealing with water issues in the, in the Central
Valley.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Your family still farms there?
>> Cal Dooley: Mm-hmm, I do. I was, after I graduated from college I went back
and became a partner in the farm and continued in that capacity until I got a
little tired of sitting on a tractor when it was 105° in August. And decided
there might be something more interesting in life. And that's when I decided to
run for Congress and spent 14 years in Congress. And maintained my interest in
the farm throughout most that, of my tenure in the House. But then when it
became apparent that I wasn't going to go back to the farm after I retired from
Congress I sold my interest to my cousin who is now currently operating the
family farm.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What kind of crops do they grow down there?
>> Cal Dooley: We grow a lot of cotton, alfalfa, a lot of forage crops, corn,
silage for a lot of the dairies that are in the area. And also a few walnuts. So
a typical diversified operation in that part of the Valley.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Anything particular motivate you to run for Congress?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, our family had deep roots in the Valley, had been involved
in policy issues in local communities whether it's schools or some of the issues
that related to more local government. And so we always had been involved in a
lot of different capacities. No one had ever run for office until I did. But I
think as well as most of my family have always been intrigued by being engaged
in dealing with public policies at the local, state and federal level. In fact,
it really goes back. When you look at it from a water perspective my granddad
was part of a group, I think they called it the King's County Water Protection
League that was a group that started, geez, it would have been probably back in
the 1940s or ’30s. And it was over an issue where you had some of the farmers a
little bit further on the west of us where we were farming that were actually
building canals and then sinking wells and pumping the aquifers around where our
family was farming and trying to move the water further west. And that was one
of the first engagement that my ancestors had in trying to ensure that we would
develop you know water policies that would be balanced and fair and wouldn't
work to the detriment of one party over another.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you remember what year you were elected to the House?
>> Cal Dooley: Yeah, I was elected in 1990. Started service in 1991, so January
of 91.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Apart from Central Valley Project Improvement Act, were
there other water issues that you worked on as a member of the House?

>> Cal Dooley: Well, there's related issues. I mean you could look at issues
even such as the Endangered Species Act you know have pretty significant water
implications you know that I was involved in and seeing if there's a way that
you can modifications of that so that you could strike a better balance between
consideration to a species and how you were trying to develop a strategy for its
recovery as well as balancing that with the economic impacts. We also had issues
related to water storage, some of these East Side dam projects whether it was
Lake Kaweah, Lake Success where we were looking at opportunities to enlarge and
expand upon those. And there always was at that time even a discussion in terms
of were there further opportunities to add storage capacity on the King's River
which is a discussion that is still going on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yes. Did your Congressional District reach into either Fresno
or Bakersfield?
>> Cal Dooley: Yes, I had parts of both Fresno and Bakersfield, so yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did it -- how far into the Western side of the Valley did it
stretch?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, it varied. When I was first elected I didn't get much of
the West Side of the Valley. So that would have been the first two terms I was
representing a district that was more east of the 99. But it did include all of
King's Counties, so that did get me into quite a bit of the West Side, too. But
then that was they had the redistricting that occurs every ten years which
implements or was enacted in ’92. And at that time I encompassed even a larger
part of the West Side of the Valley and Fresno and King's Counties and even
going into Kern County.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. So, Central Valley Project Improvement Act. What was
the Act about?
>> Cal Dooley: You know when I look back on it, it really more than anything
else was a manifestation of demographics. Is that what you saw happening with
the Central Valley Project Act was if you get right down to the fundamentals
it's really, really an issue of population and where is the growth and
population occurring and how does that impact the priorities of societies at
large in terms of how they're balancing and whether it's regional issues or
regional interests, whether it's even societal interests in terms of environment
versus economics. And what you saw happen over the period of time when you had
the Central Valley Project Act which was enacted where you still had a lot of
the political power and base which was occupied in the more agricultural rural
areas of California, that from adoption of that Act until you got into the ’90s
you saw a dramatic shift in that population center, thus the political clout
moving to the more urban and suburban areas. And also a re-balancing of the
economic clout of agriculture versus other manufacturing and urban interests.
And what you saw in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was in some ways
an effort by some constituencies to try to re-balance the allocation of water
that would meet new and emerging needs. And, unfortunately, that worked to the
detriment of some of the traditional and original users, and clearly those folks
were my constituents in the Central Valley.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In what way were things unbalanced that needed to be
rectified?

>> Cal Dooley: Well, I think what happened, again, if you look at the Act when
it was first enacted was capable of supplying adequate water supplies to the
contractors and the constituencies that were in place at that time. But when you
had the dramatic increase in population the demand for water grew significantly
for urban uses and other manufacturing uses in different regions of the state.
And then you also coupled that with an increasing concern in terms of how are
you providing appropriate environmental protections that weren't necessarily
considered contractors to the original allocation of the water supplies. And so
in the end you had an effort there to try to allocate water to a broader set of
constituents. And that would be urban, manufacturing interests as well as
environmental interests. And none of those were nearly as significant concerns
when the Act was first implemented. And so the real impetus behind the CVPIA was
can we re-balance the allocation that would better reflect the current
population and demographic makeup of the state as well as how we provide a
greater focus on some of the environmental impacts of the Act.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In the Central Valley
the Valley draw a lot of their water out
King's. Whereas farmers on the West Side
of the delta. Which side was going to be

generally farmers on the East Side of
of rivers like the San Joaquin, the
tend to draw a lot of their water out
more immediately affected by CVPIA?

>> Cal Dooley: Well, clearly the West Side farmers that were relying more on
waters being imported through the CVPIA as well as the state water project. So
they were much more dependent on water that was flowing from the northern part
of the state to the Central Valley, and obviously some of it going further down
into Southern California. You know the East Side farmers in the Friant unit more
relied on water coming from the Sierras. And our family farm which was just very
close to the 99, we didn't really have any surface water rights. We benefitted
from other regions of the Valley around us having that, but we relied on
aquifers that were primarily being recharged by the snow pack on the Sierras.
Which the West Side because of the geology there really didn't have the luxury
of being able to depend solely on aquifers to meet their needs for water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: It's been said by some that CVPIA, which I believe was
sponsored by Congressman George Miller, was an attempt to some say get farmers
on the West Side he's long been critical of. Is this even a remotely accurate
view?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, I think you know that George Miller clearly had very little
interest in advancing legislation that met the needs of the Central Valley and
farmers on the West Side. Was it exclusively -- I wouldn't say, though, it was
simply motivated by Miller's vendetta against farmers on the West Side. I think
it was also coupled by George's priorities is that he's a very strong
environmentalist and is representing a more urban constituency and felt that
there could be a higher priority for the use of the water that was, that
historically and according to the original Act the contracts were sending it
into the Central Valley and further south. But, I would, clearly George through
a lot of us in the Valley tried to work with was very, very difficult and didn’t
-- has not in the past or during my tenure nor since then has shown a real
interest and sensitivity to try and strike some type of compromise and balance
that would ensure that the Central Valley economy wouldn't be significantly
harmed by this reallocation of water from the federal as well as the state
projects.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When the legislation began to move through the House of
Representatives, did you hear a lot from West Side farmers? Did they come to

Washington to meet with you and try to develop a strategy to basically stop the
bill?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Mm-hmm. This is in my first term actually in Congress when
this legislation was moving. And so clearly this was the highest priority of
mine and my constituents at that time. And also the same could be said of Rick
Lehman who was also serving there and Bill Thomas and others that were
representing the Valley and agricultural interests. And so there was a lot of
engagement by leaders in the agriculture on the West Side in West Lakes
Irrigation District as well as the Friant Unit when you go further down south in
Kern County water interest. So, yeah, there was a very active engagement by
Valley agriculture as well as water interest.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was the hope to modify the bill or stop the bill stone dead?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, I think that that's where there -- I think that you know
just looking back and trying to recall all kind of the developments, trying to
recall the legislative track the bill took, I think initially there was a
commitment and an interest to see if we could strike a balance and see if we
could reach a compromise that would you know meet our needs to have the
certainty of a water supply. And a lot of that effort was focused on the Senate
where you have Senator Bennett Johnston who was the chair of the committee that
had jurisdiction over it. I guess that would been the Environment and Public
Works Committee, viewing that he might be someone that could be a stronger ally
than certainly George Miller was going to be as the chair of the Natural
Resources Committee or Interior Committee I guess it was at that time. And so we
did try to engage and see if we could find that compromise. But there became a
point in time when some of the leaders in the Valley primarily on the West Side
made a determination that the strategy that they were most comfortable with was
to really break off negotiations and really focus more on a strategy that would
result in a veto by at that time President Bush. And so it really was a decision
that then put us in a position of just trying to kill the bill or have the bill
be so extreme that it would be subject to a veto by the President.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you on the Natural Resources Committee at that time?
>> Cal Dooley: Yup, absolutely.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was there support from your fellow Democrats for your
position on the committee or even the Republicans?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, Rick Lehman and I were on the committee, and we also had
all the Republicans who were generally very much aligned with us. Don Young I
think was the Republican ranking member on the committee at that time. And he
actually had some relatives that were in the north part of the Valley and
understood the water issue well. And I think almost without exception all the
Republicans were aligned with Rick and I. I don't know if there was another
Democrat that supported us or not. But it still wasn't enough to overcome the
majority that the Democrats had on the committee. And so they were able to pass
the bill through committee. And then that let it put it subject to floor action.
And it really was just in the final hours of that session due to utilizing where
Miller was successful in getting the Democratic leadership to allow him to use
some what I would say questionable you know procedural maneuvering that allowed
the bill to come up for a vote on the floor at that time, this issue having not
being one that people were very familiar with and turned into pretty much a
party line vote at that point.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Was it a stand alone bill at the time in the House?
>> Cal Dooley: I believe it was a stand alone bill on the House side. And that's
what was the fundamental flaw in the strategy to count on the Presidential veto.
Because the CVPIA bill was packaged with other water bills that had strong
Republican support before it was sent to the President. And at that time it
became pretty clear that the President wasn't going to be in a position to veto
the broader package of bills because of the CVPIA being included in it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the bill passed the House as a stand alone bill?
>> Cal Dooley: I think that's true, but you know it's been a number of years.
I'm not absolutely certain on that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I was wondering if it was in Conference Committee that it
became wrapped up in other things.
>> Cal Dooley: I kind of think it was. But you know they were able to -- I'm not
sure if they packaged it before they had the floor vote or afterwards because if
it was in Conference Committee that's what I -- no, I can't recall that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The Senate sponsor of the bill was Senator Bill Bradley of
New Jersey?
>> Cal Dooley: Mm-hmm.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any particular reason why a Senator from New Jersey cares
about California water?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, this became an issue that was kind of a high profile issue
for some of the environmental organizations. And so you have the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund that made this a very
high priority. And Senator Bradley you know was, I think was more motivated by
an opportunity to be a leader on an issue that was important to these major
influential environmental constituencies. And he got engaged on something that
was on the opposite side of the country as New Jersey. To his credit, though, I
would say that he knew the issue reasonably well. I mean this was something he
gave some time to which was unfortunate being one thing if he was just taking a
relatively obscure issue and just trying to curry political favor with the
constituency without giving -- being knowledgeable on the policy and the
substance of it. But you know he did both in this case. He was a pretty
effective leader in the Senate at that time.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you try to reach out to him and explain your view of
things?
>> Cal Dooley: Yeah, I actually developed a reasonably good relationship with
the Senator. We had some pretty constructive conversations. But that's when the
decision had been made really not to engage in negotiations to try to strike a
compromise that it made it really difficult, what do you talk about at that
point. It's what you're proposing has to be dramatically modified or we're not
going to be able to support it under any circumstances. So the leverage that we
had to try to develop a more balanced approach was significantly undermined when
the decision was made let's adopt a veto strategy.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Since this was to some extent a conflict between members of
Congress from California and interest in California, how did California's
Senators come down on the issue?
>> Cal Dooley: That's where, again, you saw over time this issue -- when I say
this was fundamentally an issue of demographics, when you see what happens with
a series of redistricting that happens every ten years was that you saw a
continued shift of political power and clout within the California congressional
district to the more urban and suburban areas of the state. And so at one time
we had a far greater influence in the California delegation in the agricultural
and rural areas. And so that continued to erode and the -- which we saw in the
’90s was a continuation of that and the late ’80s the same thing. And then you
also saw at the Senate level, which was another complication, was that you had
the late Pete Wilson who had just left the Senate and Senator Seymour I think
had taken his place and was a Junior Senator representing -- had been appointed
I believe to replace Senator Wilson. And so you really had a situation there of
a new Republican Senator who was very much aligned with our interests that
really hadn't had the tenure and the opportunity to develop the relationships
that would allow him to be even more effective. And Senator Seymour to his
credit was you know very, very helpful, was very much a champion for our
interest in this case. But also was hindered just by the lack of tenure in the
Senate, and not to say that as a first term member of the House that I wasn't,
again, in a similar situation as well.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the legislation now is packaged, goes to the White House.
When it still went to the White House did you have significant hopes that
President Bush might veto it?
>> Cal Dooley: I personally did not, no. When it was packaged with a broader set
of bills it became apparent that he would have to harm a lot of Republican
Senators in his own party who had a strong interest in seeing him sign the
legislation.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you and the other Valley lawmakers try to go to the White
House and discuss?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I don't know if we -- I'm sure we had some level of
communication with the White House. I don't recall personally being involved
with a meeting with the President on this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So CVPIA becomes law in 1992. Was you or your office involved
with how the Bureau of Reclamation drafted the regulations enforcing the
legislation?
>> Cal Dooley: Well, yeah, but that -- the whole issue it still hasn't gone
away. [Laughter] It was an issue where we continued to deal with throughout my
seven terms, not only the first term but the six remaining. And so we were very
involved with the Bureau, this issue as well as a host of others in trying to -you had certain years where there might have been a shortage of water that was
going to be delivered that you would try to find ways to pressure the
administration to increase those allocations. So in part CVPIA related in part,
though the Endangered Species Act related, but being this was something we dealt
with you know almost every day. People used to ask me what the three most
important issues were from my district, and I would say they were water, water
and water. Which, there's probably not too many other congressional districts
where that could be said.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Imagine you had a legislative aid whose job was nothing but
dealing with water issues?
>> Cal Dooley: Yeah, and not just I mean in this case when we were dealing with
this it was legislative aid and my chief of staff was very knowledgeable on
water. The whole office we understood that this was appropriately our highest
priority. And we developed a lot of expertise both on my own as well as the
staff that I assembled.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you remember if you were involved at all with other
efforts to manage the problems in the delta, especially I guess something that
became big on the mid ’90s was called Cal-Fed [assumed spelling], and the idea
that you'd have a joint state/federal management of the delta to serve
environmental and agricultural problems?
>> Cal Dooley: Yeah, we were involved in that. I can't recall a lot of the
details. But you had during the Clinton administration there was a regional
director there, Betsy, I can't remember what her name was, that might not be
accurate, but anyway with the Bureau there was a couple folks there. Who was the
guy, it's a blond guy, Pat, I can't remember his name, it's lost to me now, that
we'd worked really closely with that -- because a number of them understood that
this is a really complicated and important issue. And so we found some more
willing than others to try to find a way to strike a balance that would try to
make up some of the shortfalls that the West Side was facing. But there is a lot
of limitations. And in part some of those became almost court ordered. And part
of those were as much a function of the Endangered Species Act as it was the
Central Valley Project Act.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When did you leave Congress?
>> Cal Dooley: 2004.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Since then do you keep up with California water issues
at all?
>> Cal Dooley: No, that was one issue that I have washed my hands of so to
speak. I really have followed some of those. But what to the degree I follow
them today it only results in a little bit of amusement that the issues haven't
changed and that we're still fighting the same fights that we had been fighting
for 30 years. The only thing I can say with some degree of confidence is that
we'll be fighting them 10, 20 and 30 years from now as well.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Anything else you wish to add?
>> Cal Dooley: No, I think that covers it. I apologize if my recollection here
is somewhat limited.
>> Thomas Holyoke: That's okay. Thank you very much.
>> Cal Dooley: Yeah, you bet.

Item sets

Water Archives Set