Water Archives · Maurice Roos interview

Title

eng Maurice Roos interview

Description

eng Former chief hydrologist for the California Department of Water Resources. Talks about building models of weather and water flow in the State Water Project.

Creator

eng Roos, Maurice

eng Holyoke, Thomas

Relation

eng Water Archive Oral Histories

Coverage

eng California State University, Fresno

Date

eng 2/11/2016

Format

eng Microsoft Word document, 17 pages

Identifier

eng SCMS_waoh_00045

extracted text

>> Thomas Holyoke: So let's go ahead and get started. Are you from
California originally?
>> Maurice Roos: Yes, I was born in the San Joaquin Valley actually near
the Town of Griffin in the north end of the valley.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Maurice Roos: Back in 1934, you want the date?
>> Thomas Holyoke: All right and where did you do your university
education?
>> Maurice Roos: I went to school in Ripon, you know, to the Christian
school there through year 12 or grade 12, but I moved over to Modesto
Junior College in the first two years more or less in the science line.
And then after completing that I went over to San Jose State to get an
engineering degree.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When you were getting your engineering degree at San
Jose State were you intending to work on water issues, was water of
interest to you?
>> Maurice Roos: I think it has always been of interest. I grew up on a
farm and irrigation was, you know, one of the very important activities
that was one of the nicer jobs, you know, of farm work that we had
[inaudible] guide the water. So it's in an irrigation district so it was
surface supply with flood irrigated.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So a farm outside Ripon where was it getting its water
with?
>> Maurice Roos: It comes from the south San Joaquin irrigation district,
which comes from the Stanislaw River. At that time they had the old
Maloney Reservoir was the main storage system.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, so that would have been back in the 1940's, in
fact that was even before the big projects we had today were operational?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah it was built -- I believe it was built in the late
20's the [inaudible] dam itself. Yeah, when I was the [inaudible] that was
the yeah, the 40's and the 50's, in the early part of the 50's anyway.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, so when you completed your degree in engineering
at San Jose State where did you go to work?
>> Maurice Roos: I went to work for DWR. Actually we had a senior level
class in hydrology was taught by a professor named George Sicular and he
invited a couple people from the department to one of our class sessions.
One of them was Larry Mullex [assumed spelling], I don't remember the

other name. They were talking about working with the department on this
big real estate water project that the department was [inaudible]. If you
come over you can work on that and get a lot of great experience.
>> Thomas Holyoke: This is a project that ultimately became the state
water project?
>> Maurice Roos: Yes, they were starting to plan it at that time when I
came to work the bulletin 3 -- the old bulletin 3 had just been published.
That would be in 1957.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I'm not familiar with that what is bulletin 3?
>> Maurice Roos: It weighs out a lot of proposed possible dam reservoir
sites and proposed a lot of canal systems. Fundamentally, you know, trying
to use the surface water in the north to feed the dryer areas and good
agricultural land to the south. And they already had the makings of the
Central Valley project with the Delta-Mendota Canal was already built by
then.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What was the rational given for the state in building a
giant water project when the federal government just finished one?
>> Maurice Roos: Well there was far more available land that could be
serviced by the Central Valley project I think. One of the factors was the
needs or at least the forecast feeds were far in excess of what you could
reasonably expect the federal government to find. Also, there's a matter
of control I think that's impacted. Quite a few interest, you know, wanted
to have control closer to Washington the water projects particularly down
the Southern San Joaquin Valley. And then of course, you've had the
burgeoning growth in Southern California they'd already had the Colorado
River. [Inaudible], but they could see that wasn't going to be enough
eventually. So they were supporting, you know, turning to the north any
other place you can get water in the state.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you remember there being a lot of distrust at the
Federal Bureau of Reclamation that sort of led to wanting California to do
the next great project?
>> Maurice Roos: Well part had to do with a 160 acre limitation. I think
there were folks that had bigger land areas than that. Initially, what is
today the San Luis was intended to be part of the state proposal to take
the water to the San Luis Reservoir. [Inaudible] it became divided
between, you know, CVP and state water project. Because it would be
cheaper and I guess for maybe also revenue [inaudible].
>> Thomas Holyoke: So when you came to the Department of Water Resources
as this was all beginning what was your first job at DWR.
>> Maurice Roos: I wound up in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta,

which even though I grew up in the southeastern part of San Joaquin Valley
I really didn't know much about it. And so part of the water transfer of
course involved having a link through the Delta to take the surplus from
the north including reservoir releases and export them to the south. And
so there was a need to figure out some way to get the water from the
Sacramento side to the southwestern side. And earlier there was a fellow
in San Francisco that had proposed creating big fresh water lakes out of
the north and south bay areas or [inaudible] bay particularly, a fellow
named Reber [assumed spelling], John Reber. So the Reber plan was
something that the department was studying at the time because the
legislature asked them to look into this. It was the report and was
feasible what's practical. And by that time they had [inaudible] or
dropped the ideas that barriers, you know, much nearer to the golden gate
and bloomed up to the possibility of still having one at Chips Island
Straits. So that was one of the possible options build a barrier at Chips
Island and the others then became enlarging some of the Delta channels to
the north and south. And then the final one which eventually was the one
that was selected became known as the Peripheral Canal with the bypass
within the [inaudible] south of Sacramento going around the easterly side
and southerly side of the Delta leading into the, what is now, the
[inaudible] pumping plant. And the only part of that Peripheral Canal and
I worked on the preliminary design of the Peripheral Canal. By the mid
60's everybody was for it, it seemed like the answer to take care of most
of the fishery problems. And getting that water transferred without having
it mixed up with salt from the [inaudible] intrusion of the bay. The only
part that was built was [inaudible].
>> Thomas Holyoke: The method that's used today to bring the water out of
Sacramento River through the Delta to the pumping plants for both projects
that's called the Delta Cross Channel if I understand correctly?
>> Maurice Roos: The Delta Cross Channel is an initial link to help the
transfer from the Sacramento side into this case the McKellabee System so
that not quite as much of the water would have to go circulating around
the western side. Because the Delta isn't a static thing, but tides move
the water back and forth, you know, say 8 miles or so, 8 to 10 miles. And
that process itself works saltwater from the bay system [inaudible] unless
you maintain sufficient outflows to push it back.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So that.
>> Maurice Roos: Another factor too was try to have something that would
avoid getting too many fish put into the southern [inaudible] so.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Even back when you were first working for DWR was there
a lot of concern about fish and what was happening to the fish?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah, there was but the bigger concern at that time
seemed to be the strike bass, which is actually not a native fish. I think
the feeling was that we can do a fairly good job of screening the little

salmon, but we don't know how to, you know, handle the strike bass,
especially the eggs when they spawn. Because it's basically, you know,
[inaudible] in the water very little physical difference between the eggs
and the water they're about the same density. And so they on the
Peripheral Canal the plan anyway, we thought that we could monitor the
river for the ones that were spawning on the Sacramento and when the cloud
of eggs arrived it would just be a temporary, you know, stop divergence.
And that's part of the reason for a little after bay some place to store
it for the peaks. And the strike bass don't seem to be that much important
today so.
>> Thomas Holyoke: All the concern for the [inaudible].
>> Maurice Roos: I don't think anybody [inaudible] at that time.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So what specifically was your job early on working on
the Delta?
>> Maurice Roos: Well initially as part of the possible Delta transfer
plans it was realized that the levies were very weak and so I did a lot of
studies on Delta, you know, I'm measuring water we didn't know for sure
how the flow was actually circulating in the Delta, the measurements of
that. And then trying to figure out how much seepage was coming in
underneath these levies was one assignment. And eventually that little
stint with the International Guard when I came back they were working on
possibly designs for building sturdier levies. So there was a Delta test
levy investigation program that I worked on for several years. Peat is
notoriously difficult material to work with for strength.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is that what a lot of those levies are made out of?
>> Maurice Roos: Well they're made out of the material that was there, so
you have fairly large amounts of peat compressed in some of them because
it was there originally and they were just built on the edge of the stream
banks probably with the view of getting as much land as possible. And once
you dry out the soils since this was an enormous swamp by and large the
peat starts shrinking and oxidizing and the land then starts sinking. So
by that time it's well below sea level and it's even further below now.
And that of course, puts more and more pressure on these levy systems
particularly during a flood event. And so they would have to be much more
massive. So it was an early idea that was suggested by a Dutch consultant
that to consolidate a lot of islands into broader ones, which were called
culvers so that you really gun down a great little on the perimeter that
you're trying to defend against the high water right, you know, closing
off any of the smaller channels. But that wasn't acceptable down there.
There were too many fishermen that liked to use the channels as it were
and all the farmers I think were probably very suspicious of the whole
operation.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Was there a lot of resistance from people in the Delta
to building the state project?
>> Maurice Roos: Well I think many people in the northern California felt
this was just a way for those southerners to take our water. And so that
hasn't changed too much I don't think.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well were they right?
>> Maurice Roos: I don't think so not when you look at it. If we were
honest we would just store the water when there was plenty of flow, flood
flow and surplus flow. And there were many studies too on Delta salinity
as to, you know, how does salt work this way and how you can hold it back
further. I don't think at that time we realized that the pulsed flows and
occasional flows of [inaudible] had a lot to do with the fishery.
[Inaudible] fishery even though the salmon went through it on the way
upstream the other ones depended some on the [inaudible] and the temporary
freshening of Suisun Bay as part of their whole food and living cycle.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When you were studying the levies and the Delta what
kind of conditions were you finding? Were they good condition, bad
condition?
>> Maurice Roos: It was like variable well, not very many of them met the
engineering standards we want, you know, be sturdy against high water and
that was simply because it was too costly for local districts to raise the
money I think to do that. So the proposal was called a national levy which
would be a lot thicker that would take more land too first. And they have
a state program, you know, since that time that if subsidized or, you
know, for [inaudible] for local districts to try and maintain the levies.
Another worry is that if they should fail during the time of lower flow
when the salt was already in Suisun Bay that you get big in rush of
saltwater this island's being inundated. Like it happened at [inaudible]
Islands in 1972. This was a summer break.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So what happened in 1972?
>> Maurice Roos: The levy on the San Joaquin River site broke and this
large island Anderson Brannan Island were flooded.
>> Thomas Holyoke: With saltwater?
>> Maurice Roos: Well it wasn't saltwater it was mostly fresh, but it was
the projects kicking out additional water from upstream, you know, kind of
a [inaudible] but it didn't. Yeah the temporarily pulse of saltwater
moving up into it, but you know it was [inaudible]. And the [inaudible]
didn't exist at that time so there was no way to get much more water out
of the San Joaquin it would have to come from the big reservoirs in the
north. And if it was a little floatier you wouldn't have that water
either.

>> Thomas Holyoke: So what jobs do you move onto next when you
[inaudible].
>> Maurice Roos: Okay, well I've actually got a promotion after, you know,
coming up with peripheral canal plan and went to work on a different
division of the department on water quality studies in the [inaudible] for
a year or so. Then there was an opening in the statewide planning group in
the department and this was at the time when the department set up these
district offices, including the one in the Fresno and there was supposed
to be one in the bay area which was set up in [inaudible] in the northern
district just up in [inaudible]. Of course, we've always had an office in
Los Angeles. And so at that time I moved over to the statewide planning so
I could stay in town and began working on looking at, you know, the lining
for water demands and water supplies for the different regions. This is
becoming the bulleting 160 series and the update of the California water
plan. [Inaudible] worked on what they call reservoir operation studies,
simulation of the water project systems and that's all kinds of demands.
And part of it was looking at all the regions of the state, you know,
trying to figure out where is the water coming from, how much can they get
that way and what are the likely demands from the projection state by
economists and others. They became a series of [inaudible] 160 and part of
that was developing monthly operation studies as we call them where you're
simulating the operation of the major river systems of the Central Valley
and Trinity and the water projects and the reservoirs and the exports.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So when you're doing the state planning this is much
bigger than just operating the state project, this is planning?
>> Maurice Roos: This was overall yeah. But the state board of course, had
some hearings, actually several of them, on the operation of the Central
Valley project and the state water project. And so initially one of the
jobs was to try to work out a common estimate of what the flows would be
by month for 33 years, historical years, 1922 through 1954 which was then
introduced into the board hearings to say this is how we plan to operate
the two water projects and this is, you know, what we think will happen.
And this was a very long drawn out process and that eventually after I
left well, actually when I was there become what's now what's called the
Cal Sim program which is used by the department to simulate water project
operations and by many consultants who, George Barnes who came after, you
know, helped develop the computer forms of this. We had computers, but
they were punch cards in those days. And you had to lug them down to the
center and run the program and they would go through this 33 years by
months by all kinds of breakdown of [inaudible]. And just try to show this
is how we think the system would work if there had been an operation in
the historical period. And of course, a very important component of that
was the historical crowd of 1929 to 34, six years continuous, because that
was the test of what the projects did furnish for reliability of supply.
And, you know, that has eventually been extended now so many more years,
but same principle really.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Is it possible then for the State of California to
manage all of its water operation systems from sort of one central kind of
endpoint. I mean the state project, the federal project, and even the
canals run by the various irrigation districts. Can it be run as one
system?
>> Maurice Roos: Well what was built in was the rules that we thought the
local operators would use for their systems. So that was built in, but you
know, it's to simulate the major reservoirs, it should be trying to
[inaudible] and Orville and San Luis. Indirectly the local reservoirs are
all built in as this would have been their impact on the national supply
or the historical supply. And has built into it since these were done for
what we anticipated in the future, what we anticipated the future land use
to be initially for 2015, was the pressure -- was the target [inaudible],
which is now past this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So have your predictions proven accurate?
>> Maurice
still used
fact that,
the bureau

Roos: I think it's probably worked fairly well, I mean it's
by our division of [inaudible] systems and planning. And the
you know, well this might [inaudible] break through if it had
reclamation hydrologist and the DWR hydrologist agree on.

>> Thomas Holyoke: The people, the hydrologists and others at DWR has it
always been a good working relationship with the bureau of reclamation?
>> Maurice Roos: It was probably more competitive back in the early days
because they had their models we had our models and so it was probably
quite a few years working out what is called a giant depletion study. But
there have been common strategies even back as early as 57. You know, one
of them was the Sacramento River water users had consultants involved
because that was a key question is how much water is going to be taken up
in the Sacramento Valley [inaudible] preference under the water rights
system. And so when the projects for exports have to use, you know, what
is left over. In the wintertime of course, those are flood flows so nobody
wants those, that's [inaudible].
>> Thomas Holyoke: Ideally. So I want to go back to something I should
spend more time on it before we got into the planning. I'm going to go
back to Peripheral Canal. The Peripheral Canal was supposed to -- was that
part of the original state plan, state water project plan?
>> Maurice Roos: I think originally, you know, when the [inaudible] was
passed they were looking at through Delta [inaudible] some kind of
enlargement of channels in the [inaudible] plus the option is open. I mean
the barrier on Chips Island was still an option at that time. But you
know, the canal basically just bypasses the Delta, although it does go
through the southern Delta or would have. Yeah, well it's partially dark

because when we know Cal Trans was building I5 at that time and they were
looking for [inaudible] material and so there is a strip over there to the
northeast of Stockton. But they said well we'll dig it for you and they
did. And it was put on hold because of the lack of funds to finish it in
the 70's. It seemed like the opposition just gathered. I still think it
might have been the best solution it was too bad it wasn't though, it
would have helped out the Delta a great deal and even the fishery I think
so. The plan we had proposed for operating it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So planning for the Peripheral Canal was done in the
60's and it was the state started to build it the 70's and then money ran
out which I suppose then led to the need for a bond issue?
>> Maurice Roos: Well that would have been one, but the [inaudible] bond
issue at that time. I don't know about that part of it. It was the plan
and it continued to be the plan, preferred plan and I think may still be.
But when the, you know, Governor Brown during his first term and there was
a referendum on it a water bond that included [inaudible] canal, but it
included an awful lot of other stuff and I think it just got too big for
what the taxpayers felt they could hack. And which is typically what often
happens with the legislature everybody's taxed what they want onto it and
it becomes a Christmas tree and the costs went up and it got to be too
big. I don't know if the southern California folks at that time realized
how important the canal would have been for the firming up their state
water project supply. I mean it was a very close decision, I think it was
55/45 or something like that. But it was a lot more on Peripheral Canal
and that particular proposal, but that's what the opposition focused on
for Northern California they're going to take our water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And had the -- if the canal -- as I understand it, if
the canal had been built that would have made it easier to bring more good
quality freshwater out of the Sacramento down to the project pumps.
>> Maurice Roos: You have a higher quality of water it wouldn't be mixed
with say 500 parts per million San Joaquin River and local drainage. Some
would, I mean the canal wouldn't necessarily -- could have been operated
[inaudible]. But it wasn't proposed that we stop all diversions
[inaudible]. And there would have been times when it still would be more
practical to do that. Our design of the canal we thought would be a
wonderful recreation facility it was only about 600 feet wide with sloping
sides, generally lined with the native vegetation.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Right.
>> Maurice Roos: There was trees and stuff not concrete.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So people could have gone and [inaudible] fishing?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah, yeah fishing game was talking of some kind of
little jackfish homes they could build on the sides of places where

catfish would thrive, as well as the other and that is the other being the
strike bass are found to be in there and plus plenty of other fish. So it
would have been probably a recreation facility we thought.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess we'll never know.
>> Maurice Roos: [Inaudible] just be another channel really compared to
it's, you know, sort of similar to the other Delta channels except the
more regular, you know, alignment. Yeah, I still think it would have been
a good thing and it was also sized quite large so they will be able to
take the most out of the flood flow fresh [inaudible] because unless you
have a pretty large size and you're wondering what you can pump
[inaudible] constraints. It was in the north we had visions at that time
in the planning anyway was an east side canal, which would take water from
the Delta about 5,000 [inaudible] take it up to the foothills and then run
an extension of what was to be the Fulsome South Canal on down to Fresno
way. That is a planned CVP east side unit too. Just realized it was more
demand than we could furnish on the west side down there. So that was
thinking and so those sites had to be pretty big because you got to make
the most of it the two or three months where you got the big surplus flood
flows.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Does that -- for a water engineer was that an enjoyable
time when you were still thinking about building big projects and moving
water around?
>> Maurice Roos: Well for an engineer we like to build things didn't you
know. It was kind of a very satisfying time and there had been proposals
in bulletin 3 and even that time for further supplies from the north
coast. And that was about the time of Dos Frios Controversy on the
proposed [inaudible]. And that seemed to fire up people to oppose, you
know, any construction up there so they cut off the possibility of
importing some of the supplies. The large rivers of the north coast are
really that's where the biggest part of our natural runoff occurs.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And those rivers were designed as scenic and wild or
something like that?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah, they were off limits. The Klamath, Eel and well the
Klamath is probably not a practical option further down to the Trinity,
but the Eel could have been diverted by gravity into the Sacramento
system.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Would that have mitigated a lot of our current water
problems had we been able to capture that water?
>> Maurice Roos: Well if we had been able to bring in another million acre
feet per year it would make a big difference, it wouldn't necessarily take
care of everything but.

>> Thomas Holyoke: When the state water project was?
>> Maurice Roos: I don't know how costly that would have been because the
coast range would be a pretty formidable barrier for a tunnel trying to
[inaudible] there. But that all stopped, you know, when the wild scenic
river passed.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When the state water project was being built and had
this idea or arise to, you know, have some combined facilities with the
Central Valley project mainly San Luis Reservoir. What was the reason for
that or melding this state and federal projects at that point?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah well the initial plan I think was a single state run
project, but I think mainly the cost, you know, at that time the federal
government was investing heavily in water projects and so it would be
better for the California taxpayers probably to [inaudible] and then that
turns into the price per acre foot which was important to the farmers
especially.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And state project originally had intended to provide
water for the western side of the San Joaquin Valley what's the area it's
now Westlands?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah, the [inaudible] canal already
this service area and so this was to bring water for
and also distribute some along the way. But not very
signed up for more state water because of the cost I

existed along with
the south, much of it
many of the districts
think.

>> Thomas Holyoke: State water costs more than federal water?
>> Maurice Roos: Well the federal for agriculture you could get the
interest upon it was you didn't have to pay it back to the treasury, so
the price was a lot less. That's one of the reasons is think why Westlands
worked it out that they could get, you know, the San Luis supply to the
federals with the federal partnerships.
>> Thomas Holyoke: On the other hand.
>> Maurice Roos: That was when Kennedy was president and the senior Brown
the older Brown was governor, you know, and there's a famous picture of
him blessing the [inaudible] at San Luis Reservoir [inaudible] started the
dam construction.
>> Thomas Holyoke: On the other hand if they had gone with the state they
wouldn't have had to deal with the acreage limitation problem that came to
haunt them?
>> Maurice Roos: Right. But that was the choice made then so.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.

>> Maurice Roos: Because there was something called a May 16 1960
agreement which sort of was intended to divide up the water between the
two projects. And in that agreement the federal San Luis part was part of
the state's hunk.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So after -- back to your personal timeline after the
whole Peripheral Canal issue went away you said you went into, you know,
state planning for water management.
>> Maurice Roos: Quite a few years from about 66 through 79 and then I was
happy doing the work with the water system operations and those kind of
studies. But I thought well I think I've got quite a few years left yet
[inaudible] the flood forecasting unit and what was the new division to
flood management at that time. So I went up and applied for the job was
senior engineer level and didn't get it. So okay and but four years later
the same vacancy was there again, so I went up and applied again and was
chosen. To have the state portion of the flood forecasting later on a
couple years later that also included the snow surveys program. It was
some more of the shuffling or changing that happens in organizations. So
then I worked with the forecast -- flood forecast it was a joint program
with the federal national weather service, we were the forecast center.
It's one of 13 such outfits or units in the country and this one was
almost completely overlapped with California. And that was rather a
difficult transition to get into something totally different, you know, an
operating thing where and in some ways it was very satisfying. People were
waiting for your answer when you make the forecast how high the water was
going to be. A much more [inaudible] thing.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So as an engineer what was your involvement, I mean you
weren't forecasting the weather I presume or?
>> Maurice Roos: No, we had the department actually as part of our
operation had their own weatherman, but we also worked with a service
office in which they would furnish their protections called GPF
quantitative precipitation forecast. In other words, the amount of rain we
expect for the next 12 hours, the next day, the next 2 days and so forth
and the soil level. Two primers you need to try make the prediction on how
much runoff would be produced and then the models take care of how wet the
watersheds are. You know, what the routing would be. And that was actually
a fairly difficult assignment for years, so that I can get comfortable
with it but.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was it difficult marking the models and making the
predictions?
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah and working with people from different agencies and
some of them had very strong opinions. But it's the only place in the
country where you have a joint federal state forecasting program like that
and a little bit maybe with the salt river project in Arizona down there,

but they have much less business than we do. And then I'd say the -- oh
and Ron Romie was director, this would be about 1982 or so. The department
managers were complaining that there wasn't enough technical training
available for their employees, so I was asked to try to set up a little
hydrology office to be a source of expertise in training for department
engineers, but at the same time overseeing the other operations. So it's
provided more opportunities. Like I said, eventually I was in charge of
both the flood forecasting and the snow surveys operation until even as we
moved over here which was 1995.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So then did you have to periodically, you know, fly
over into the mountains to measure the snow pack and the?
>> Maurice Roos: No not me, most of the actual measurement is done by
temporary employees who are hired for that purpose or actually much is
done by other agencies. And this [inaudible] Kings River Water
Association. We try to coordinate the program and then use the results to
make the forecast. But it's a popular program, a very successful one
that's been running since 1929. But it just gave me much a more broader
group to work with and actually working with a lot very good partners and
other agencies and histories and.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is that a relatively rare thing in government work for
staff and different agencies to work well together?
>> Maurice Roos: I really can't say I think it probably depends on the
kind of work they're doing we're, you know, really trying to outguess
nature you might say. And I think there's a kind of a comradery because
every fall there's a [inaudible] department snow surveys program and our
cooperating agencies. You know, we got together last fall it was in Senora
spent a couple days talking about how things went this last year, what we
did foresee and special reports and new ideas or efforts. And find out,
you know, how everybody feels [inaudible] and what the problems might have
been.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So does that mean when the state makes predictions
about how much water will be allocated for, you know, agriculture and
states and other purposes. Those allocation forecasts then begin with this
planning office?
>> Maurice Roos: Well yeah, we forecast the amounts expected April, July
or by month even and that's what the others have worked with. We don't
allocate it ourselves no, we just provide the anticipated runoff or
actually some band of the perceived -- expected runoff.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So you were saying you're trying to predict Mother
Nature, is there any?
>> Maurice Roos: Always a surprise, the weather turns out to be different
than we expect right. Last -- this past season's a really a good example

we had a measly 5% snow pack on April 1, we've never seen that. You know,
the worst historically have been 25%.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So last year was the worst year you ever saw?
>> Maurice Roos: Anybody has since it's been measuring -- have been
measuring. There's some information back to about 1900. And so this is a
new field.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So predicting Mother Nature, was there any particular
time when you feel that she surprised you that you well, I guess that you
got it really wrong?
>> Maurice Roos: We've always been wrong to some extent.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yes.
>> Maurice Roos: That's something you have to realize when you're doing,
but sometimes we get very close and we're really happy about that
particularly if on a flood forecast we're -- you make a call how high the
water is expected to be say in Yuma City or Marysville and realizing that
there's been some bad levy breaks there in the past. There's a lot of
vulnerable people that depend on that. You know, these forecasts are
continually updated during the flood, but still the advanced warning we
are going to get high water and we think it's going to go this high is an
important bit of information to the local and the state people.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How long did you stay with this particular office?
>> Maurice Roos: How long I returned in the year 2000.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Oh nice.
>> Maurice Roos: Primarily because 43 years under our pension system
you're really not working for a whole lot more. So they were nice enough
to [inaudible] a little bit [inaudible]. And Cary Guardini who was the
chief at the time says, you know, wouldn't you like to come back and work
on a few things. Yeah, I guess that would be okay [inaudible].
>> Thomas Holyoke: So you actually spent most of your career working in
that area?
>> Maurice Roos: Entirely [inaudible] yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Maurice Roos: And I do enjoy working with the people and hopefully I
can provide something useful from time to time. Even some historical
information, you know, well we used to have this right and we did it this

way.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So I just want to jump back in time again probably
around 1970's into the 80's when a lot of planning, forecasting is being
done. Was there any anticipation at that time that environmental issues
would become so important as they have now?
>> Maurice Roos: No, I don't think so the fishery people were always very
[inaudible] as to what they wanted. But it's much broader now when you
worry about every little thing it seems like. But yeah part of the choice
of the Peripheral Canal was to be we thought it'd be the easiest plan on
the [inaudible] fisheries which would be the strike bass are much more
important in the public's eyes it seemed like at that time, salmon have
always been. But now it's every little thing it seems like, even the
vegetation in the Delta is not the same because we got these introduced
tests it would say [inaudible] the clams and the bass eat the young
salmon. And as the water weaves it now infests the Delta in the
summertime. So there's a lot of things that have happened to change it and
aren't necessarily directly related to water, they all use water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you sort of about remember when this shift in
mindset was occurring when all of a sudden environmental issues were
becoming important for water management?
>> Maurice Roos: Oh that would be mid 80's with the, you know, with the
timing of the wild and scenic rivers that some people started to realize
hey, a lot of things that we used to see aren't here anymore. And I think
if you probably look back, you know, there are only one quarter of them
[inaudible] what they remember was there. And so it can't be the same when
you've got three or four times as many people.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do engineers have any trouble making the adjustment
realizing that maybe we aren't going to build so much anymore because of
environmental issues?
>> Maurice Roos: I think we were disappointed when, you know, projects we
thought would be very useful were blocked often by, you know, what seemed
to be a small pressure group. But they tend to be focused on certain
things we try to look at the bigger picture. You know, there are a lot
more people than there used to be they do have needs, water, food and
[inaudible]. And from the worldwide standpoint this seems like we are
heading for a crunch.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you by any chance involved at all with the -- I
guess the effort was referred to as Cal Fed?
>> Maurice Roos: I think in the early days it was something equivalent to
a -- yeah when we were modeling we'd furnish information to them on
projection, operation and flows.

>> Thomas Holyoke: These efforts to, you know, sort of get agriculture,
urban needs and environmentalists all those sort of work together along
with the state and federal agencies to try to come up with a holistic
solution to California's water problems and sort of seems to be I guess
the kind of holy grail for policymakers.
>> Maurice Roos: I'm not sure that it's totally new, there are a lot more
players now because the original discussions were largely between the
director of the Department of Water Resources and the Regional Bureau
Reclamation Chief because they dealt with the project operation
[inaudible] within the Central Valley. It's true we used to provide water
for southern California that's part of the construction, but there are
very large -- well one very large local agency and a pretty strong
regional agencies there that do a lot of the planning for the area.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So sort of what -- so given where we're at today, I
mean what do we need to do to basically make our water system, you know,
meet the needs of California?
>> Maurice Roos: I think there's a big educational component to consider
that I don't think most people really know where their water or food comes
from.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Pretty [inaudible].
>> Maurice Roos: Outside of the store, you know, the fact that you do
something over here it will probably have an effect over here. And you
know one example now is the smelt situation which I guess has precluded
tapping quite a bit of the fresh [inaudible] we had in the last two
months. And with people that are focused on protecting the smelt that's
all they look at it seems to me. And that's fine they have that, you know,
that right to point out, you know, some of these things. But even thinking
about some of the, you know, the [inaudible] removal things that
[inaudible] change on interior areas the amount of heat that we expect on
a Sunday afternoon and this is carried out into east [inaudible]. Because
those greenery is a cooling influence on summer afternoon temperatures
here in the Central Valley. It doesn't matter much over by the coast
because you've got the sea there to cool you off. And so you got to run
your air conditioner more, you know, is that a game or isn't it? I mean we
also want to cut down energy use so.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We're going to need to return to the time where we're
going to have you build more infrastructure to make it all work for the
state?
>> Maurice Roos: I am not sure, you know, when I was younger we, you know,
when it was hot we suffered. I mean we just tried to get cool, but now you
turn on the air conditioner, so it's -- I think we're less in tune with
nature that way.

>> Thomas Holyoke: But are we going to have to build more physical water
infrastructures like dams to be able to cope with the way things are
changing?
>> Maurice Roos: I don't see any alternative because we're way
overextended and it affects the amount of irrigated land basically because
they don't think the people are going to use a whole lot less and on the
interior basin it's the consumption that matters not with the applied
water what's what used by the household it's the total cycle you have to
look at. So if, you know, currently the gas being picked up by groundwater
[inaudible] that's too expensive or unreachable then you're looking at,
you know, something that takes a couple million of [inaudible]. And that's
a very large water project. I don't know if it's going to happen or not,
but otherwise eventually I think they just reduce acreage. Since much of
the agriculture is enclosed based in the systems it's not the applied
water that people are so focused on now that matters, it's the consumption
that matters.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the idea is.
>> Maurice Roos: I mean generally getting greater yield does require more
improved water consumption. You get better yield that's why they do it.
But it does take a little more water. So I just [inaudible] eventually and
it might be quite a bit west acreage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
>> Maurice Roos: I think if people are, you know, really understand how
everything works or they'd be less inclined to follow people that have
these little simplistic solutions say we pick up one piece of the problem.
So and this were the people like, you know, at your schools and maybe your
[inaudible]. Because you know if the scholars understand the system I
think we're a leg up right. But I'm not sure many of them do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: They may not, I mean even universities we tend to focus
on little bits and pieces of things that we become specialized at and miss
the whole sort of holistic view of the water system.
>> Maurice Roos: Yeah we don't have to grow the food we need here in
California necessarily, but the world's out there competing other places
too. And I've gone to quite a few international meetings where there's a
lot of concern about how we're going to cover things. In a country like
India or China they're much more worried about food production than maybe
we are because we've always had enough in this country.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now have I missed anything really important?
>> Maurice Roos: I don't know I've just been satisfied with my life as a
[inaudible] engineer and glad that they seem to find it useful to have me

still come around. It's nice to be in the midst of things and so it's
[inaudible] a long way to return. I've had, you know, because of the
additional money I've been able to go some foreign meetings that
[inaudible] the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
meetings. Which they have a big conference once a -- generally once a year
in some country in the world. And so it's nice to be able to see some of
these places and they're not always the normal tourist type places. Last
year's was it was in Southern France Montpellier. But the year before was
South Korea, the year before that was in eastern Turkey with a big
emphasis on the huge new project they're building or have pretty much
finished on the Euphrates River. A dam that's bigger than the [inaudible]
for storage. A huge new canal system.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So other countries dealt with their water problems
better than we have you think?
>> Maurice Roos: I think they probably have kind of followed ours. One
time the bureau of reclamation before Clinton's term was involved in
helping a lot of overseas countries with water projects. And then that all
-- they stopped all of that. I guess the [inaudible] environmental
concerns which are less of a concern if you're in some of these other
countries [inaudible]. They like their environment too, I think there's a
[inaudible] paid for when I went to the Turkey Conference. They asked
[inaudible] $5 and they'll plant a tree in your name yeah, reforestation
was back before the Roman times that was forested country and the forest
has pretty well disappeared. Many of them went for the Roman [inaudible]
back in those days.
>> Thomas Holyoke: To heat them?
>> Maurice Roos: You know, to keep the heat for the hot water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah.
>> Maurice Roos: So.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, thank you very much.

Item sets

Water Archives Set

Site pages

Home