Water Archives · Mario Santoyo interview

Title

eng Mario Santoyo interview

Description

eng Water engineer and former assistant general manager of the Friant Water Authority, and now interim executive director of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority. Talks about water cut backs on the east side and the proposed Temperance Flat Dam.

Creator

eng Santoyo, Mario

eng Holyoke, Thomas

Relation

eng Water Archive Oral Histories

Coverage

eng California State University, Fresno

Date

eng 11/23/2015

Format

eng Microsoft Word document, 24 pages

Identifier

eng SCMS_waoh_00046

extracted text

>> Thomas Holyoke: So we are interviewing Mario Santoyo today. Let's just
start off with where are you from?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, I'm originally from Mexico. My parents came to the
United States when I was about four years old, but I've lived here in the
Central Valley near Fresno and this little community called Reedley
practically all my life, even through my professional life. Even though
I've traveled all around California I still try to stay central to this
area.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Your parents came in to do farm work or?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, that's pretty typical for immigration from Mexico
is they came in to do farm labor. My dad, particularly, in the field and
my mom worked in the packing houses, which is at least at that time very,
very typical. I don't think it's changed tremendously. It's the way that
the Mexicans from Mexico built a foundation for the future, you know?
Mexico has not changed a lot in terms of its economy and that's what
drives the migration into California. And agriculture has for the largest
part created the foundation for better economic growth for the Latino
families. So the parents come in, they do farm labor and so forth, and
much like my parents, you know, we had seven brothers and sisters and
we've all have graduated either in engineering or doctors or professors.
And so it's the foundation that has allowed us to do that, and it
continues to do that for a lot of people.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So it sounds like your parents were very supportive of
education?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, there's no question that they were, themselves,
educated in Mexico. And when they came across, even though they worked in
the field, they knew the value of education and they instilled that in us,
and so we all did what we could to get to where we could and, fortunately,
most of us were able to get into sufficient professional positions.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Where did you do your undergraduate college work?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, I went to Reedley College. I don't know that they
call it Reedley College anymore. I think they call it something else.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I think it's still called Reedley College, it was part
of State Center now.
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, I think it's gone through a cycle. It was Reedley
College, then they changed it and I think they renamed it back to Reedley
College, but I think that that's what it is right now. And so that - it's
a Community College right there in Reedley, so I was fortunate to graduate
from high school and have a decent Community College to go to. Which I
did, got lots of my undergrad type work done, which allowed me to transfer
into the University of Pacific in Stockton where I ultimately got my

Bachelors in Civil Engineering.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What attracted you to engineering?
>> Mario Santoyo: Funny story is that I really had no intention of
becoming a civil engineer. I enjoyed architecture, spent a lot of my time
in high school in architectural type classes and that really intrigued me.
And so when I got lined up for my classes in college, not knowing any
better, you know, I thought I was taking the right classes and then found
out that lots of my classes, which were the physics, calculus, you know,
all these very difficult classes, I didn't understand why I was taking
those for architecture, but I figured I'll get it, somebody must know. But
at the end I had the foundation to get my engineering degree and so that's
how I ended up going that direction.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you end up doing graduate work?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, let me put it to you this way, the University of
Pacific is a little different than a number of other colleges. There in
order to get your degree you had to go work in your profession for at
least a year before you would be given your degree, and so in my case I
spent a year working for the Bureau of Reclamation in some of their major
water facility I guess sections. And so I was able to get some
professional work done before I got my degree and then subsequently
entered the world of water afterwards.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How did you end up working then for the Bureau of
Reclamation? I mean even as an internship or whatever it was here?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, you know, again my introduction to the Bureau of
Reclamation was when I was - before I graduated and it's no different than
lots of other colleges, you know, you have employers come to the school
and interview you and so forth. I don't really know that I have the answer
for you in terms of what initially attracted me to it, other than that I
knew that water had something to do with agriculture and so it was a
natural nexus in our Central Valley. And so I started down that road, and
as I did work before I graduated with the Bureau it had caught my interest
more and more. And so subsequently when I graduated I gravitated towards
water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you have an interest in water at all before you did
this early work with the Bureau?
>> Mario Santoyo: You know, the honest truth is no, which I look back and
I think about how as even a Central Valley person you take it for granted,
and that's helpful to be able to look back and understand that because as
one now functions in the world of water and in the efforts to try to get
people to understand the importance of water and how it ties to Ag and all
of that you begin to truly understand that it's not necessarily the top of
the list of most people, even though you're here right at the epic center.

And so it kind of gives us a better insight on how to approach getting
people to understand water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Once you got your degree then from University of the
Pacific did you go back to the Bureau or?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, yes, I was fortunate that the Department of Water
Resources competed against the Bureau of Reclamation in trying to hire me,
and so ...
>> Thomas Holyoke: That's good.
>> Mario Santoyo: I was in a very fortunate situation because when you're
coming out of college you're lucky to get a job, much less have two bodies
kind of competing in terms of trying to get you because that just meant
that wherever I landed I landed at a higher salary and so forth. And so
although I was somewhat interested in the Department of Water Resources
because of my experience with the Bureau of Reclamation, I just thought
the Bureau handled bigger projects and more complex projects that I
decided to go to the Bureau.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And what kind of work were you doing for the Bureau?
And was this at the Sacramento Offices or?
>> Mario Santoyo: I was - well, I was fortunate because I worked in their
Tracy Field Office, which is the office that as responsible for the Delta
bumps and the Delta Mendota Canal. I have worked for the Friant Division,
which handled Friant Dam, and the Friant-Kern Madera Canal. I worked in
their Sacramento Office, which kind of overviewed all the projects, and so
I got a pretty good opportunity to get a little feel for everything,
including the San Luis Canal, which is part of the California aqueduct
because it's partly owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, so we had
responsibility to inspect it and do the necessary things we needed to do.
So I got my fingers on all of the projects.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So about what time are we talking about, is this the
1970s?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, I started working for the Bureau around 1978, and
so but I only worked with them until about the middle of the '80s.
Although I will tell you that the most interesting job that I got, at
least being a young engineer, was I was put responsible for the design
reviews and the construction inspection of the hydro projects that were
incorporated into Friant Dam. Now that may not sound like a big deal, but
it is. It was the Bureau of Reclamation's largest retrofit, hydro retrofit
project in the nation. And I always wondered why as a rookie they kind of
put me in charge when there was certainly much more senior engineers
around me. Although I found out why one day, it was the day that they came
to me and said, okay, you're responsible for the blasting underneath the
dam because it's rock and so we're going to have to blast it in order to

build the penstocks in there. I knew then why I was selected because if
you made the mistake your career was going to be very, very short, and so
I think the senior engineers they figured give it to the new guy.
Fortunately, it worked out very well and those projects have been working
very adequately for years now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I admit I wasn't even aware that there were any
hydropower facilities in Friant Dam. It wasn't originally designed that
way.
>> Mario Santoyo: It was not originally built that way. It was not until
1982, 1983 when they built a hydro project off the Friant-Kern Canal, the
Madera Canal, and the Riverale. So it does have hydro projects there.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Just trying, thinking back, 1970s the Bureau of
Reclamation that would have been possibly, I guess, a time of change in
the way everyone kind of views water. That's sort of the era we’re
shifting from building to more water conservation, more concerned about
endangered species?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, I would say that that occurred towards the latter
part of the '80s. In the latter part of the '70s, early part of the '80s
the world was different. Water was being sold by the Bureau of Reclamation
at $3.50 an acre foot and the class two at $1.50 an acre foot, as compared
to today, you know, people have paid thousands of dollars per acre foot
given the conditions. We had not quite entered into the era of the
challenge between the environment and water supply for farms and cities. I
think my first introduction into that was basically in 1988, 1988 the
Natural Resources Defense Council, who represented 14 other significant
environmental organizations, filed suit against the Department of the
Interior because that was the time that the first of the contract renewals
were going to occur. And so we entered into litigation for 18 years, which
ultimately resulted in a settlement that restored San Joaquin River. So
that was really the first time I was thrusted into what was the
significant challenge between the environment and water supplies. 1991 was
when CVPIA came into play, that was the Central Valley Improvement Act,
and that's when 800,000 acre feet were rededicated to the environment. And
so it was from there on there's been an ongoing, you know, challenge into
how to or an emphasis on how to allocate, reallocate water to meet the
needs of not only the cities, the farms, but the environment, which I
think is certainly understandable to try to create that balance but that's
also where the challenge has come into play in terms of the reliability of
supply for agriculture and the cities. And so times have changed.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So you said you left the Bureau in '86?
>> Mario Santoyo: About in '85, thereabouts.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Anything else really memorable from your time at the
Bureau?

>> Mario Santoyo: Well, there was a lot of things that happened at the
Bureau those days. I don't know if you ever recall the little thing there
in Mendota, the San Luis Drain and Kesterson? Yes, because I was one of
the Bureau inspectors that went out there to kind of review what was going
on and so forth. So there was a number of things that occurred during my
short period with the Bureau of Reclamation.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well, let's hit on Kesterson then, sort of summarize
what happened there?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, on the west side of the Valley drainage is a big
issue, and at one point in time there was an agreement between the
Government and the farmers on the west side to build what's called the San
Luis Drain. The intention was to move the drainage water away from that
area, all the way to the Bay, to dump it back into the Bay, okay? But like
anything else, you know, money always comes into play and so what they did
is that they couldn't build the full thing right away so they built part
of the drain and then they created a place for temporary holding of water,
Kesterson, and that was only supposed to be temporary until they could
finish that last leg. Well, what was temporary ended up being prolonged
and selenium was the issue there, is that there's a natural development of
selenium and so the drainage water was just kind of building up the
concentration of that selenium and eventually what resulted was you had
deformation of birds and other creatures there that basically became a
significant problem, which resulted in shutting it down and shutting down
the drain. And so it ended up creating a situation where farming, which
was high production on the west side, no longer had a place to put its
drainage water. And so, but that was, I guess that was a less than perfect
decision to not complete the drainage when they should have and that would
have precluded having that problem.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And so you said you were one of the onsite inspectors
for the Bureau out there? What do you remember seeing when you went there?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, you know, it was no different than what was
generally reported in the media. I mean it was kind of, it was certainly
from my opinion it's sad to see things that are less than natural and so
forth. And so I remember going through the drain and just it was something
that - it's hard to describe to you, it really is, because you look at it,
you understand its necessity, but also you start realizing what it was
creating and so it was hard to balance that one out. That's why I say it
would have been better had they had built the full thing and it would have
not been a problem, but they didn't.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What did the Bureau end up doing about it?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, as I mentioned, they shut it down, okay? And
there's been ongoing litigation between the west side and the Department
of the Interior in terms of promises made and promises not kept and so

forth and so on. I think there's been some recent decisions in that
regard, but it's one of those never-ending litigation issues. It has
created challenges for the west side and you couple that with their
challenges of not getting water supply, it's like never-ending over there.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any other stories from your time at the Bureau?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, with the Bureau probably not, I mean I will tell
you that it was always interesting working for the Bureau because you got
to do inspections of dams, of large canals and so forth and so you always
see something that you go, whoa. I remember when they had a big
earthquake, actually I think it was Kalinga, I forgot what year that was,
but I was sent out to do the inspection to see whether damage occurred at
the San Luis Canal, which is part of the California aqueduct and then
subsequently some of the other infrastructure around there. And I remember
pretty clearly there was this surge tank, which is a huge tank that's
bolted down by bolts that are maybe six inches plus in diameter, right?
And when I approached the thing it didn't look right at the base, you
know, you had these things that were protruding, and I'm thinking what in
the world is that, you know? Well, what had happened is when the
earthquake was occurring it was creating the swaying and as that tank was
swaying it was yanking up those big stems with the nuts, and so they were
all being yanked out. So you could tell that the force that was occurring
was significant. It was almost unbelievable to see what you saw kind of
deal. So, again, the Bureau provided me a lot of opportunities to see
things that most people don't have that opportunity to do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So just kind of curious about sort of what is your
opinion and feel about the Bureau today? The Bureau, in my opinion, seems
to be one of those agencies that no one is ever happy with.
>> Mario Santoyo: I would agree with that, I would agree with that. I
think their philosophies have changed. I know that at least when I was
there in those earlier years our philosophy was to serve and to the best
that we could, and our emphasis was at that time again is to ensure that
water supplies made it to the cities and to the farms and so forth. And so
we put a lot of priority on that and a lot of priority on making sure the
infrastructure was working right and so forth. So we were more service
oriented, but because of what you mentioned there was a shifting of
priorities. And I'm not saying that was wrong, I'm just saying that there
was a shifting of priorities towards the environment, and in doing so
there seemed to be less concern about serving as it was staying out of the
courtroom. And I think that's kind of the way the Bureau nowadays
functions is they're more concerned about how do they not get in trouble
legally versus how do we provide the best possible service we can, which
again this is one man's opinion but I was there and so I know what it was
and I don't know that that's what exists anymore.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So when you left the Bureau where did you go?

>> Mario Santoyo: Well, actually what happened was is that I had two
individuals come to me. One was James Sorensen, who is probably one of
this Valley's legends in water, and Dennis Geller, who continues to be a
big engineering consultant. They were partners in those days, it was
Sorensen and Geller [Assumed Spelling]. And so Jim came to me and said,
hey, I would like to have you work for me because I'm not only a
Consulting Engineer, I'm also the Secretary, Treasurer running what is
known as the Friant Water Association, so that was the long-term
contractors group that was involved in the issues that related to the
water supply. And then Dennis came to me and says, yes, well, I'd also
like you to come to work for us, but I want to have you work on design
projects for wastewater and water for communities and so forth. So that
fascinated me, those two worlds. Jim's world was that much more intriguing
to me because I was always kind of more of an engineer and so I was used
to what Dennis was talking about, wasn't really sure what Jim was talking
about. But so that was my first entry into basically representing broad
organizations and so forth on issues that dealt with legal, politics and
all of these other things that are involved with water, and so that was my
entry to that world.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How long did you stay with them?
>> Mario Santoyo: Actually, I only stayed with them for about two years
because I got approached by, at that time it was Richard Moss. He was
involved in putting together what was at that time going to be the Friant
Water Users Authority, which was an organization comprised of the Water
Districts taking over the services of the Bureau of Reclamation. Where the
Bureau of Reclamation used to operate and maintain the Friant-Kern Canal
and the Madera Canal and all of that, I think at that time whoever was
President and I forgot if that was Reagan or who, but decided that they
were going to privatize that stuff. And so the contractors got a little
concerned that if the Bureau wasn't going to do it they don't want anybody
else doing it, so they were going to do it themselves. So I got approached
by Richard and he said, hey, I'm trying to put this organization together,
I'd like to have you join us because I had the operational and maintenance
experience and he had the political experience. And so in 1986 that's when
we started up the organization and it went for years.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So what was the rationale for the Bureau essentially
getting out of the management side of these operations?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, again, I'm trying to recall who the President was
at that time, so I don't know if you can think of who it was?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Either Reagan or Bush, it's sort of at that point.
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, it was really that, it was their decision. They
were saying, hey, we're getting out of the business of that and we're
going to privatize it, and so that's the way it came down. There wasn't a
whole lot of discussion, and so they were going to RFP it, and I remember

that one of the people that was interested was Pan Am, as interesting as
that sounds.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The Airline?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, that's the way I reacted, too. And so I'm sure
that's what caused the water users to say, well, wait a minute, ah, we'd
better get somebody that we can have more confidence in and so forth. So
they decided to put the organization together themselves, and so it worked
fine, you know, it worked fine. We were able to do the same services, in
fact, and improved the services and we ran it for less money than the
Bureau. We kind of put more of a private touch to it and it worked out
very well, we saved millions of dollars for the, at the end of the day,
the farmers who have to pay for those type of services.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was this something the farmers had been wanting to get,
sort of get a hold of the facilities from the Bureau?
>> Mario Santoyo: I don't think that they had even thought about it, okay?
The only time they really began to worry is when they started realizing
the Bureau might be handing it off to somebody that they had no confidence
in, but they hadn't really thought about it because I think they were
generally happy with the services that were being provided by the Bureau.
And so but I think that they - once we did take over and they started
realizing we were able to do even a better job at less cost than they
started really grasping onto that, yes, we should have done this a long
time ago kind of deal.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Now this is, the Drake Powers Authority takes over
operation, not ownership, right?
>> Mario Santoyo: Not ownership, not ownership because every water
district has their own contracts for repayment of their facilities on
their district, and although early on there was discussion of taking
ownership to the canals it was decided that they would probably be best
not to because there's a big, big issue with liability when you take on
something. Because we had the same discussions when we were talking about,
well, should we take over Friant Dam, even at just operation and
maintenance, but if you had a dam failure the liability associated it was
pretty huge, you know? It was better that the US Government, they have a
few more bucks than we do, that they continued to have that. So even
though there was early discussions about taking on the ownership for the
main arteries at the end of the day I think it was decided not to.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the Joint Powers Authority, it's limited to
operating Friant-Kern Canal and Madera Canal?
>> Mario Santoyo: Uh-huh.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And that involves what, maintaining the quality of the

canal is it and actually providing the water service through it?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, it's, you know, most people probably don't think
much about what does it take to operate and maintain these big canal
systems, so there can't be that much to it, right? Well, no, there's a lot
to it, you know, there's a lot of these canals are concrete and steel,
they're operated with mechanical gates that are driven by electrical
motors that have electronic sensors, that on and on and on. So in order to
be able to operate these things and maintain them you have to have an
assortment of specialized personnel. And so it's very challenging to do
that and over the years we had to retain people that had even higher
technical skill because with technology getting more and more advanced,
particularly as it relates to what they call SCADA, the Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition, it's a fancy word for basically you have
devices out there in the field that are monitoring what's going on and
it's feeding it back to a central station. And then the central station
then allows you to make operational decisions based on that, so it's kind
of like having motherboards out there with sensors. So if you have that
then you have a different level of personnel that you need in order to
maintain that type of thing. So with time the systems got more and more
complex and so forth, although you still had to have your basics, you
know, in terms of concrete and steel kind of maintenance, the operation
became much more complex.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do the irrigation districts then contract with the JPA
or they still contract with the Government?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, at the end of the day the contract is between the
water district and the Bureau of Reclamation because the Bureau of
Reclamation - it's their water, it's their facilities and so the JPA was
more of an agent. And so, well, what happened is that the JPA would have
an operating budget and then subsequently assess the water districts to
pay for that, but ultimately the actual dollars for the water supply,
which is different, there's O&M and there is the water supply, so the
water supply was the check that was cut to the Bureau of Reclamation,
whereas, the O&M was basically assessed by the JPA to the districts.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the Bureau of Reclamation is still determining how
much water even goes into these canals?
>> Mario Santoyo: Oh, yes, yes, absolutely, absolutely. It's a process,
it's a process of being able to forecast what the water supply is going to
be, it's a forecast of what the demand is going to be. And subsequently
they had control of the dam, which was the input, and so even though we
had a lot to do with trying to provide them the necessary information for
them to make those decisions at the end of the day it's still the Bureau
of Reclamation.
>> Thomas Holyoke: As far as you remember was it a complicated process
putting the Joint Powers Authority together, were the irrigation districts

by and large willing to sign on to it or?
>> Mario Santoyo: You know, actually surprisingly enough, it wasn't that
complicated, it wasn't that complicated because again there was the
Association, as I mentioned before, so that was already there way of
getting together. So it wasn't like going out there and trying to get
people together to talk about it, they already had an Association where it
was an issue for them to make a decision on and so it was fairly
straightforward to do. I think where people were more concerned about is
if we do it can we succeed? And so and I think that's where them asking me
to come onboard gave them a little more confidence because obviously I was
doing this early on in my career. And so what we decided to do is we hired
for the most part most of the existing Government employees who were
already doing those jobs, and so between that and some of our management
experience we were able to do the job. And so if there was concern
initially it kind of dissipated real quickly once we got up and running.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So the Joint Powers Authority or Friant Authority would
have been getting going right about the same time that we had the
litigation on the river, which you mentioned earlier, around the same time
the Natural Resources Defense Counsel is suing the Government for Friant
Dam?
>> Mario Santoyo: Correct.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So that must have been one of the first big challenges
Friant Authority had to cope with?
>> Mario Santoyo: Actually not.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Oh.
>> Mario Santoyo: Because in 1986 we started hitting a draught. So we're
familiar with the draught we're going through right now, but this was not
the first, okay? So ironically as soon as we take over we're in a draught
and people are having the same challenges as they're having today is how
do we move water, where do we get water, you know, and so forth and so on?
And that did actually lead to an interesting project that I got handed,
which was how do we move water from the south to the north on the canal
because as it's structured right now it's all gravity from north to south,
but there was a need to move water from the south because there was what
they call the Cross Valley Canal that ties the California aqueduct down
there in Bakersfield, it doesn't tie but it goes over the Friant-Kern
Canal. So the question was how can you move water from the west side of
the Valley to the east side and put and send it up the Canal, even though
the Canal is kind of like going a different direction? So I remember one
day that Dick came over to the office and said, hey, we need to figure out
how we reverse flow this water on the FKC. And so my question to him was,
well, has the Bureau ever done this before because I don't recall and I
worked for the Bureau? He says, no, they're having challenges trying to

figure out how to do it. Okay. But he said don't worry, you've got two
weeks to do it. [laughter] I started laughing at him, I thought he was
joking, you know? But he was dead serious, he was dead serious. So I
started thinking about it, well, how do we do this? And so, you know, to
me it wasn't too difficult once I established the idea of setting huge
pumps at the control structure, shutting the control structures down,
lifting the waters over from section to section and so forth. It was just
a matter of figuring out what kind of pumps you use, what kind of piping
do you do, how do you handle anti-siphoning, and how do you rig it with
the controls if you need to control it with and so forth. So miraculously,
and I mean that literally, miraculously we were able to put together the
first of the reverse flows on the FKC, never been done on any other canal
system, we were the first and it worked. We were able to move water from
the west side of the Valley to the east side and then spread it uphill.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So you were doing this because there was a draught, so
presumably not enough water was collecting in Millerton Lake [Assumed
Spelling] to disperse?
>> Mario Santoyo: Exactly.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So where were you finding water at?
>> Mario Santoyo: From the delta. The California Aqueduct was moving water
from the delta. Remember, this is before CVPIA, this is before the
biological opinions, so there was water from the delta that we were able
to access and just bring it over to the east side. So obviously things
have changed today, but at that time that was the situation, and so we
created that interesting project. And those reverse stations have
continued to work since the first time we put them together and now the
Government is looking at actually coming in and building some permanent
reverse flow stations. But I was I guess in a way fortunate that I was
given that assignment, which was something pretty unique, even though at
that time initially I was trying to figure out whether I could succeed or
not.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, so that was the first big challenge, taking care
of Friant Authority.
>> Mario Santoyo: So we had a big draught when we started and everybody
wanted to blame us for the draught since we were the new kids on the
block. And then two years later then we have NRDC challenge us legally to
take more water away. And so it just it seemed like once all of that
started occurring it just it was one thing after another, and so that's
where then the Authority started expanding more into the area of legal and
political, you know, again where our initial primary focus was operation
and maintenance we started realizing that we now needed to engage in other
arenas and so that was kind of the beginning of that. I think it wasn't,
though, until the more recent years I would say in the - starting probably
in early 2000 plus or minus that we really started getting our feet into

the political arenas and capital and legal. We really put a lot of our
time into that. I believe I went from occasionally doing O&M to doing no
O&M because I was spending most of my time trying to educate legislators
or legal guys on things and had to try at a minimum protect the water. It
wasn't so much to gain water, it was to protect water kind of deal.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So you've had to go from being an engineer to being an
advocate or even a lobbyist? [laughter]
>> Mario Santoyo: It boiled down to that. It was kind of like survival,
you know, no longer - I wasn't spending any time designing steel and
concrete, it was how do I protect the water that's in that steel and
concrete. And so just and that's the way the world has been for several
years. I don't really see that changing anytime soon.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I suppose many engineers have had to cope with this in
the water world, instead of building new structures what we're doing is
defending what we're trying to keep what's in those structures now?
>> Mario Santoyo: You know, it is, and I've always looked back to when I
went to college and I think I can pretty much say that it was probably
universal is that we were taught how to deal with numbers, that was the
focus, you know? And so as an engineer, well, you understand that. Very
little emphasis was made in terms of our communication skills, all these
other things that relate to the management aspects. I look back and I go
it sure would have been nice had somebody kind of given us a clue that we
would spend our first few years doing engineering and the rest of our
years in managing facilities and dealing with politics and with lawyers
and all of that. But I have found that most engineers, most civil
engineers at least end up being that, they don't stick with the basic
pencil and paper and numbers, it's all now management and dealing with
that. So hopefully the curriculum of civil engineers in the future will
take that into account.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well, the civil engineers can all take political
science courses.
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, definitely, I wish I would have taken that that
would have been so much more helpful for me if I would have understood
that, you know? Its better that you get some of that when you're going to
school so that you don't have to do it the hard way, you know? And so, but
absolutely, that should have been a requirement.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When the NRTC litigation started to hit in 1988 did you
end up having any personal involvement with that? I mean that was
litigation for 18 years or something.
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, I was there all through the whole thing. In fact,
my role basically was I was the lead technical guy when we - before
settlement there was a joint effort between the NRDC and us in putting

together what was a very comprehensive team of fishery biologists,
zemorphologists, and things I can't even pronounce, but we spent millions
and millions and millions of dollars with consultants trying to figure out
how can we restore the San Joaquin River, what's it going to take
physically, what's it going to take in terms of water, and all of these
things. So there was two program managers, I was the one that represented
the water guys, Jared Hoffman, who is now a Congressman in D.C., was the
Senior Attorney for the NRDC. So we spent years and years and years
working together in putting together what was ultimately a report, and
that's the report that identified what physical fixes and how much water
and all that, that ultimately was used by the courts in the settlement.
>> Thomas Holyoke: When the litigation first began and the idea was that
you may have to restore the San Joaquin River what was your reaction to
that idea of restoring the river? Was it just something else that sounded
like a joke, could this really be done? I mean who would do such a thing
or?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, you know, I didn't know how to necessarily react
to it, so I didn't overreact to it because I didn't really know exactly to
what extent this was going to affect the water supply and I didn't really
know to any great extent was it doable or not doable. I mean everybody has
their immediate reactions, which is, well, it hasn't existed for 60 years,
everything has changed, you know, now you have a whole bunch of dams that
are regulating water, you don't have a natural flow. And so, but I didn't
know, I didn't really know, and it wasn't until we got into the studies
and I got educated by the fishery biologists and zemorphologists and
everybody else in terms of what does it take, you know? And as we went
through there I started realizing this was going to take an awful lot of
water and it was going to take an awful lot of work. And because what the
fish requirements are in terms of spawning and temperatures and all these
things I just didn't know how in the world it could succeed, you know?
Because I was, as an engineer you get given a project and usually you can
kind of put some math behind it and some logic behind it and you're going
to be able to produce the product or you're going to determine you can't
produce the product. And so this one wasn't as easy to get there, but I
was more inclined to I just didn't see how we could get there. It was a
difficult one, I still to date don't believe that we can achieve the
ultimate goal of natural reproducing salmon just because there's nothing
natural about it. You don't have the flows anymore, you don't have the
temperatures anymore, you don't even have the gravels anymore. Everything
has to be man manipulated, so if you need the right gradation of the
gravel then you're going to have to import it then because most of the
gravel got used in building the dams. You've got to remember you have not
only Friant Dam, but you have Southern Cal built a bunch of dams, you have
PG&E built a bunch of dams, all that material came out of the beds, okay?
And so they took the materials out and there's no more depositing because
once you established the dams, well, you don't have anything rolling down,
right? And so everything would have to be manipulated. But I think the
biggest thing that I had concern with was that the temperatures, you

didn't have the cold, cold temperatures to traverse the hundreds of miles
it needed to allow the fish to do their thing.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Those salmon need cold water.
>> Mario Santoyo: That was my understanding, I mean, unfortunately, again
me and my counterpart we disagreed on that. You know, I was just a simple
engineer saying, hey, cold water fish means that they need cold water I
think. And so we would get into arguments about that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you have to spend a lot of time working across the
table from NRDC people and?
>> Mario Santoyo: Oh, yes. Oh, no, every day, every day we were spending
most of our time making decisions. Again, that was for that period of time
and it might have been at least six years while we were doing this effort,
every day was on the phone with Jared or in a meeting with Jared or we
were talking to consultants together. Everything had to be joint, we were
like inseparable twins, that's the way it was. I think I got most of my
white hair during that period. [laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did you find that they had an understanding of what the
impact on east Valley farmers was going to be from this?
>> Mario Santoyo: Absolutely, absolutely. Yes, I mean how do you not spend
six years with somebody and not have those kind of conversations? I did, I
would tell him and say, you know, if we end up pulling a lot of this water
that's needed right now for this purpose or that purpose it's going to
have some really heavy-duty consequences on people. And I remember one
conversation in particular, me and Jared were walking down the banks of
the river and so I just literally said, hey, you know if - the people who
are going to lose their jobs first are going to be the farmworkers, what
are they doing to do, Jared? He says, oh, well, they'll get a fishing job.
Really? Well, I said how does that work, you know? And so in his mind
everything was solvable. And I said, well, I mean maybe from my end I knew
that what's going to happen is that during the period that we're trying to
restore the fish there's going to be prohibited from fishing, so you'll be
prohibited from fishing for 30 years, so what do you do? You can't hold on
for a job for 30 years. So me and he had differences in opinion on this. I
saw it as, you know, it's going to have an impact here in the wellbeing of
people in general. He saw it differently and that's understandable, I mean
the environment or environmentalists, I mean it's not like they were doing
the wrong thing, I mean somebody has got to protect the environment,
there's no question about it, we need the environment. It's just sometimes
it's difficult to work through some of this stuff.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How tough was it working with your own members, while
this litigation is going on and the settlement is being worked out?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, there's no question there was lots of stress

that's involved, right? I mean I remember every month because I would be
at the, what they call the Budget Committee, it's when we paid the bills,
okay? And so you have directors and staff, and I remember that during some
of the height of the litigation the bills would come in and we were paying
just under a half a million dollars per month on litigation alone. And so
it wasn't, again, everybody was very concerned, there's no question about
it, but I think they managed stress pretty well. In thinking back about
it, they actually handled the stress pretty well. I mean I think
everything started falling apart once settlement occurred. I think that
even though they came to a settlement things changed quickly, and then
there became - there was more and more differences into why did we do it,
you know, we shouldn't have done it, you know, we can't trust them,
they're falling - they're doing something that's inconsistent with the
deal. And then, so I think honestly I could say that it became more
stressful after settlement than prior to settlement.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was it just a matter of I guess a kind of buyer's
remorse on the part of your membership or that they really think things
are not being implemented correctly or?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, what happened was this, is that part of the
negotiations the concept was that the water would be released all the way
to the delta, but that it could then be turned around and pumped through
the California Aqueduct to the Cross Valley Canal and then back to our
service area. So it's what they call a recirculation of the water, so
that's what created the comfort level in the Authority to enter into the
settlement. And so what happened is that NRDC was leading the effort to
shut down the pumps, so on one hand they were agreeing for recirculation
to let the settlement occur, on the other hand they were ensuring to make
sure that there was not going to be any circulation by shutting down the
pumps because Friant would not have priority pumping capacity, right? They
were the last kids on the block, so if there was going to be, if there
were reduced pumping then that basically sealed the deal, you're going to
get no water coming back this way. So what happened is that, you know,
lots of our Board Members understandably go, well, wait a minute, so this
whole deal and settlement where we were going to get our water back was
never true, they just kind of led us down this path and then they stuck a
knife in our back. And so that's what started creating a real discomfort
and stress.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Anything else on that particular part of your career?
>> Mario Santoyo: No, other than I'm glad that I'm not doing that anymore.
[laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well, it sounds like it's, you know, 2015 it sounds
like it's an unsolvable problem?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, I will tell you that it's interesting because like
it or not me and Jared have had this relationship that we can't ever seem

to get away from each other. Honestly, you know, because when the
settlement occurred I go, finally, I'm breaking loose from this thing, you
know? And but then that was about the time that there was this interest in
wanting to build Temperance Flat, okay? And so that's when my career kind
of took a turn to the Sacramento - and I started spending lots of time in
Sacramento educating the legislators on the need for storage, including
the Governor. And just about that time Jared decided to run for the
Assembly, okay? And so not only did he get into the Assembly, he got to be
the Chairman of the Parks, Water and Parks Committee, which is the one
that handles the water. So, oh, Lord, so here I go again. [laughter] And
so we spent years again dealing on the issue of whether to build
infrastructure or not, and certainly he had one perspective, which you got
to keep in mind, NRSC just does not like the idea of building dams,
period, you know? They had their reasons. And so we once again found
ourselves on two opposite sides. And so now that he's gone to D.C., you
know? My next effort will be spending a lot of time in D.C., and so it
seems like we can't get away from each other, as much as I'd like it.
[laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well, since you've brought it up, Temperance Flat Dam,
now I guess I understand that part of this is because, well, the Friant
Dam is maybe badly placed?
>> Mario Santoyo: It was - well, what happened is that when the Bureau of
Reclamation was trying to make a decision in terms of where to build
Friant Dam, Temperance Flat was one of those sites, but because they were
interested in also not spending a lot of money they decided to build it at
where they built it because it was going to make it easier to hook-up the
canals at that site, okay? And it was not intended to do much more than
regulate some water, it wasn't really intended for flood control or any of
those type of things, including they didn't incorporate hydropower, you
know? So really they didn't really in my mind think it out for the future,
they were so focused on, okay, we're going to bring surface water so that
they don't use ground water and that was our goal, and that's what they
did. But they really didn't think about going down more in terms of the
future, and so when they built it they built it at that location.
Unfortunately, that location was limited to about a half a million acre
feet, which if you compare it to Kings River, which has Pine Flat Dam,
those two runoff basins are like brother and sister, they're almost
exactly the same, about 1.7, 1.8 million acre feet, yet one has - Pine
Flat holds a million and you have Friant which holds a half a million, so
size does matter in this particular case. And so Friant, unfortunately,
would lose millions of acre feet on a regular basis to the ocean, just
couldn't hold it. And so that brought the idea back into fold in terms of,
well, what do you do, how do you increase this capacity? And so Temperance
Flat became the project, after about 20 years' worth of study because it
started in '95, they started looking at different ways of doing it and it
took them almost 20 years to figure out that, yes, Temperance Flat, that
particular site is probably the best place to do it.

>> Thomas Holyoke: Where is Temperance Flat?
>> Mario Santoyo: It's about five miles upstream from Friant Dam. It's
right as you - if you're familiar with the Millerton Lake, there's a place
where you start entering this little canyon, a little area, and that's
kind of where it's at because it's a perfect V-shaped location. And so
that's, it’s again five miles upstream from where Friant Dam is.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What's the projected capacity of a reservoir behind
Temperance Flat?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, yes, Temperance, itself, would hold about 1.3
million acre feet, so when you add that to the balance of Millerton
because obviously you still have a balance in front of it, right, I think
you end up with somewhere around 1.5 million acre feet. So you go from 0.5
to 1.5, and so if it's constructed it should be able to adequately retain
the majority of the years all the runoff that otherwise would have been
lost to the ocean.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And that would be essentially an extra one million acre
feet of water for contractors on the Friant-Kern Canal and the Madera
Canal?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, what it does is this, it firms up their water
supplies because when the San Joaquin River settlement was put into place
they lost on average 200,000 acre feet, okay? That 200,000 acre feet will
come principally from what they call class two water, but it does hit
class one every so often. So by building Temperance it shores up that
class two and that's important because ...
>> Thomas Holyoke: It's important, so could you actually expand the
distinction between class one and class two water?
>> Mario Santoyo: Yes, when the Bureau of Reclamation built Friant Dam it
was going to have to repay for it, well, it was going to have to get
repaid, right, by the water contractors. And so they had to enter into
water supply contracts, and so they had to first figure out what's the
reliable amount of water we can pretty much guarantee on an annual basis.
And so they did these hydrographs, 50-year hydrographs, and so you have
all these spikes and so forth, but where - what they do is they drew a
line where the bulk of water typically would always show up and that was
800,000 acre feet. So 800,000 acre feet was generally pretty much every
year and so that's class one. And so what they did is they dedicated that
water to the cities and to the water districts that they had no
supplemental water supply. In other words, they didn't have another river
or any other source of water, so they got the class ones. Class two, which
was an additional 1.4 was what they call supplemental. It happens, it
doesn't happen every time, but it happens, and so that was going to be
principally for water districts that had supplemental water supplies and
they could use that to recharge the ground because again the objective was

is to stabilize ground water conditions. And so class two was to be the
people that would deposit it for the savings account, class one was for
those that had no other means of meeting their demand.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, so a Temperance Flat Dam would dramatically
increase the class two water availability?
>> Mario Santoyo: It would shore-up the reliability of class two and in
doing so it also helps protect class one, and then there'd be what they
called new yield, a new amount of water. And so there becomes that
opportunity for existing contractors to increase their water contract
amounts or for new contractors that have been needing water but didn't
have a contract. For instance, there at Millerton there's Table Mountain,
they're right at the Lake but they don't have a contract for water. And so
the way that they kind of get their water is they have to truck it in in
big trucks. And so building a Temperance Flat would create an opportunity
for them to contract for their water supply directly out of the Lake,
which only makes sense. So that's just one example. You know, if I was the
City of Fresno I'd be right on that looking for increasing my water
supply, the class one water. Because the one thing is certain, water will
never get cheaper, it's one of those things. And so even though it might
seem expensive right now I guarantee you it's going to be more expensive
in the future. So if I were the City of Fresno or the City of Clovis or
any of these cities I'd be looking at either, one, increasing my contract
or, two, getting a contract for water. Because we've seen what happens
when you don't have water, that's not where you want to be. [laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess some of the recent materials I'd seen from the
Bureau of Reclamation on Temperance Flat Dam they seem to be selling it as
an environmental project.
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, if you were to take a look at their feasibility
report, and this is where it gets confusing for a lot of people, in order
to acquire dollars from either the state or the Federal Government they
can only pay for those things that create what they call public benefits,
okay, something that creates a benefit for society, all right? And so they
focus in on what would those benefits be, and in the case of Temperance
Flat benefitting the ecosystem and the San Joaquin River would be a
societal benefit. So moving water through the river helps the riparian,
helps the fish and it does all these lovely things, and so in their
feasibility report that's how they're moving water, they're moving it
through the San Joaquin River to Mendota Pool. What happens you have
people misunderstand that the water ultimately is not lost, it still
remains, it still will go to water contractors, it's just that in transit
it creates these secondary benefits that are helpful in ultimately
securing dollars from the Federal Government to be able to offset the cost
of building it. And so that's going to be our challenge in building
Temperance Flat is that the state can provide through this water bond
about 50% of the funds only for public benefits, flood control, ecosystem
restoration, water quality and things along those lines. The Feds can also

do the same and that's why the feasibility report did a lot of focus in
that regard, which confused people because they're thinking, oh, well, all
of this water is going to the environments, none of it's coming to us, and
that's not really the case.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Actually, if Temperance Flat Dam is built is it - would
it be a state project or a Bureau project?
>> Mario Santoyo: That's an excellent question, excellent question because
it's one of those things that you have to stop and think about, well, how
would that work? I'll tell you how it would work and that basically is
this, is that it would be built as a unit of the CVP, it would remain in
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, even though state funds
helped build it, it would still stay under their control. It's the best
way because a number of us who have been working on this have assessed
different ways of doing it and there's no clean way of doing it other than
doing it that way. It would just be almost impossible to have a third
party in there making operational decisions. The Bureau of Reclamation
ultimately has the responsibility of delivery to the long-term
contractors, who ultimately will be paying a big proportion of the dam to
begin with. The coordination that currently occurs it really is between
the Bureau of Reclamation, the Southern California Edison, because they
operate the upstream reservoirs, and then the water users. You don't need
anybody else in there trying to figure out how to operate the system. So
the cleanest way is to have the Federal Government as a major partner in
financing the project, and the state will have their role in terms of that
if there's monies that are required through the water bond, state monies,
there are going to be requirements that if you say you're going to operate
it in a certain way to create a benefit, an ecosystem benefit then you're
going to be held to that. so even though they don't have day-to-day
control the operation responsibility still remains with the Bureau of
Reclamation that if you say you're going to create so much CFS in the San
Joaquin River over a certain time they're going to expect you to do it
because that's the money they're giving you to do that. But, yes, it's because we pondered on that, is how does this work, you know? But that's
the way it will work.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So stepping away from this for a moment, something else
that you're closely connected to and that's the Latino Water Coalition,
what is it and how did that come to be?
>> Mario Santoyo: Good question. It really, you know, if you're in the
water industry you quickly look around and you see that very few
minorities are in the water industry. I always found it interesting going
to what they call the Aqua Conventions, that's where all the water
agencies get together about every six months. And there was probably maybe
less than a handful of minority guys, so that's the way the business has
always been. And I'm not necessarily saying that's bad or that there's
something wrong with that, it's just that's the way it's been. But being
from the Central Valley and having grown up here and having a clear

understanding of how the water affects the livelihood of these
communities, and I was one of those, that's when I was a kid, if I hadn't
had a job and my parents hadn't had a job, then who knows? And when
there's a water shortage it hits them first because the farmworker is
going to be the first guy that's going to be unemployed. The farm will
survive, the farmworker may not. And so what I was seeing is being one of
the rare Latinos that are involved in water at the policy level, very
little policy decisions were being made without consideration of the
Latino community, it just wasn't a factor. And so obviously with time one
starts thinking more and more about their community, and I just started
realizing now wait a minute, wait a minute, this is not right, you know?
And so getting together with a few other Latinos that are in the water
industry and then getting together with Latino elected throughout the
Valley and then ultimately throughout the state started recognizing that,
hey, at the end of the day, good, bad or indifferent, Latinos will be the
majority population in California. Water has one of the most significant
effects on its social wellbeing, and at least early on there was just
absolutely no representation anywhere, not at the major policy tables. And
so that's nobody's fault other than our fault and that's the way we
carried this is that unless we put ourselves at that table then it's our
problem, you know? And so we formed what was the California Latino Water
Coalition and we forced our way into the Governor's Office, we forced our
way into the Capitol, the legislators, D.C., everywhere and let them know
that, hey, if you're going to make a decision when it relates to water
we'd better damn well be at the table, you know? And we were fortunate
because in Sacramento you had what's called the Legislative Latino Caucus,
it's a pretty powerful block there, it's one of the most powerful blocks,
they never focused on water. We educated them and, fortunately, they got
it, it wasn't easy but they eventually got it, and once they got it then
the world turned around for the Latinos.

>> Thomas Holyoke: How did you get comedian Paul Rodriguez involved?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, Paul, although he's originally from the Los
Angeles area, his parents moved to the Central Valley and so Paul came
with them, obviously, and spent two, three years here when he was in high
school in one of these communities. And then he went back and I think
joined the Military and then ultimately became a comedian and a movie star
and all that, but he had some connection to the Valley and his parents
continued to live in the Valley, okay? The Valley is not - it's not a huge
place, and so my parents had some relationship with his parents, and Mayor
Victor Lopez had a relationship with his dad. And so one day me and Victor
were talking and we say, you know, it would be good to bring in a high
profile name into our Coalition, which would just make it that much easier
to open certain doors kind of deal. And so we took a trip down and met
with Paul and we started talking to him about engaging on the issue. And
Paul was no different than any other movie star kind of guy, you know? So
I already gave. And so we talked and we talked, but at the end of the day
I think the line that we used was, and again we were talking about again

the issue of being, okay, where should water flow, should it be something
that takes into consideration the impacts to humans or not? And so but the
way we put it was, all right, Paul, you know, you have a kid and you've
got to make a decision, is your kid going to get some water or are the
fish going to get the water, which one is it going to be? And so we
probably said it a little differently, okay? And some kind of valve went
off in his head and he says, you know, he realized, well, somebody is
going to have to step up and we might as well step up. And although he
thought he was going to only spend about two weeks with us, so can we get
it done in two weeks? [laughter] Here we're in the eighth year - we're
almost there, Paul.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So when the Coalition starts, as I recall it, you start
off with a major event, this march from Mendota to the San Luis Dam?
>> Mario Santoyo: Actually, that wasn't our first one. Because, well, in
terms of a march, yes, but in terms of huge crowds we actually started
doing thousands of people in Sacramento. We would have water rallies out
there, okay? They had never seen that before and they had never seen
Latinos do that before, you know? So we really created this environment in
Sacramento which was different, so then we did the march for water in '09.
And then what that did is it kind of unified the entire Valley, okay, so
it was no longer just kind of farmworkers and Latinos. Because if you
looked at the actual march it's you had the farmers, you had the
businessmen, you had everybody in the Valley joining into that. It was
kind of a unification, it was something that was actually needed because
as the water shortages were impacting everybody, it affects Latinos no
question about it, but impacts everybody. And so this was the time that
everybody had an opportunity to participate, and I always looked at it as
that people did that, even though it was hard to do I think they did it
because it created some relief, temporary maybe but it got something off
their shoulders by doing what they did. And maybe it was just, you know,
hope that that march was about, but it was the first time that large
groups of people got together for the common cause. And at least during
that time you didn't have that ongoing conflict between farmworkers and
farmers, you know, it was kind of like they were united in the cause and
which was unique.

>> Thomas Holyoke: That's something interesting that always struck me
about it, prior to that there seemed to be the assumption that building
dams, canals, providing water was just helping big, rich farmers and
further exploit Latino farmworkers, and now you're trying to change that
perception.
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, yes, it's important because I think there's always
that perception that water means dollars and dollars means it's going to
the big, rich white farmers, you know? Once again, the problem there is
you're leaving out a bunch of other people that are impacted, and that's
why I always call the Latinos the acceptable collateral damage is that you

don't add them into the formula. And the fact was is that for us, not that
we weren't concerned about the farmers, we were more concerned about the
communities, the Mendota's, the Fireball's, you know, all of these
communities in this Valley is what was going to happen to those guys? I
look back when my parents were working in the field, you know, so there
was good days and there was bad days. And so the question was is that can
we do something to make days better and not worse? And so our focus ended
up being that way, although we always get criticized, well, you're just
helping the big white farmers. Well, you know, the fact is is that this
Valley is an agricultural area, so you can't separate people, it's all
part of the machine here that makes it work. And so in trying to secure
water, yes, absolutely, because they're providing the jobs for these guys.
At the end of the day it's these guys we want to make sure have a job, you
know? It's just it's always interesting how people think.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So thinking back to something we were talking about
much earlier in this interview about sort of changes in your career,
you've gone from an engineer to political organizer.
>> Mario Santoyo: That has been interesting, that has been interesting.
I've spent a whole lot of time in being more of an advocate for water, but
at the same time I've actually become an advocate for the Latino
community. And, again, these are the things I never thought I would ever
be doing to be perfectly honest with you. I mean when I went to school I
was - it was all about numbers, you know, okay, designing something,
building something, that's what I'm going to do. And so these latter years
of my life have been more about how to improve the life of the people that
live here.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you think the Coalition has been successful so far?
>> Mario Santoyo: I think they've been very successful because what we've
done is when we introduced the idea of Latinos engaging in water there was
zero representation in the assembly of water committees or the Senate
water committees or in major water positions. We now can say is that we've
had Latinos being the chairmen of these things. We have now lots of
influences in a lot of committees. We have some of our own members that
are part of the Water Commission, they're part of the Public Utilities
Commission. We've got them all over the place. We have made a difference
in integrating the Latino input into a lot of arenas that didn't exist
before. Are we where we need to be? Probably not in terms of that there's
probably more work to be done, but I think we've been successful in that
and we've certainly been successful in influencing major decisions.
Surprisingly enough, I mean I will tell you that there was - when
President Obama came to the Valley and he had a very small meeting, there
was three members of the Coalition in there, including myself. You know,
how we got invited, who knows, but we got invited in there, you know? So
they apparently wanted our input. So those are just maybe small measures
of success, but at least we seem to be making a difference, you know?

>> Thomas Holyoke: Did the Coalition actively support Proposition 1, the
water bond, last year?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, absolutely. You've got to remember that was our
baby because very few people understand that we were the guys that got it
going. It was a meeting we had here with Schwarzenegger. It was the
Coalition, before we were the Coalition we were a bunch of Latinos elected
and so forth, and we met with Schwarzenegger and we convinced him that we
needed to build some water infrastructure and we gave him the this is how
water impacts Latinos kind of speech. And at the end of that meeting his
people come to me and they said, you know what, you guys convinced the
Governor, he's going to do it, he just wants to know where the first press
conference needs to be. And so we said, well, great, first press
conference is going to be Friant Dam, and that's what happened. And so
Proposition 1 is the water bond that we started back in 2006, ultimately
helped pass in 2009, and then finally in 2014 got it passed through the
Legislature. We had to force Brown, you know, I'll probably get in
trouble, and I am constantly in trouble with Brown, but we had to force
Brown to want to do that. He's very focused on high-speed rail and
certainly there are those that like the high-speed rail, but for us it was
difficult to get him to focus in on water. But we finally did and so, yes,
it was a great victory for us. It would have been better had we gotten the
full amount that we got passed in 2009, but we were happy that it passed,
you know, and at least it gets us going.
>> Thomas Holyoke: But that money is not necessarily dedicated to building
dams?
>> Mario Santoyo: No, you've got to remember the water bond was intended
to build everything, it's the full toolset. And so that when we went
around California we were - we knew that we needed to have, we had to have
water recycling, we had to have desalinization, we had to have ground
water cleanup, we had to have everything. And so that's what the water
bond is about, even though there is a chapter specifically for storage,
there's chapters for everything else. So we fought for everything. Here in
the Valley obviously the storage chapter is a pretty important one, but
all the chapters were important for everyone because we have membership
throughout the state and everybody had a little different tool they
needed. And so, again, we haven't had a significant water bond in years
and years and years, so this was a major feat.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Then just kind of one last thing I want to just get
into a little bit and that's kind of something you're doing right now,
your time with Friant Authority came to an end and now you're creating
another Joint Powers Authority.
>> Mario Santoyo: There you go, JPA seems to be my life. [laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why is this necessary?

>> Mario Santoyo: Well, this is - it's necessary for several reasons, but
one of the principal reasons is that the success of Proposition 1 created
the opportunity to build the big dam, and but to apply for those dollars
you have to be a Joint Powers Authority representing a broad regional
area. And so to do that we've been putting together a JPA that consists of
Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kings County, and then along with some
cities, some water districts and tribal councils. And we're not too far
away from having that up and running and once it does then we have the
mechanism to apply for the billions of dollars to be able to build the
projects. Another reason to have it is that, at least from the way I look
at it today is that may be our first goal, but I think our ultimate goal
is to have this Authority being the muscle for the Valley to push for all
water projects that are needed in the Valley. It's the first time you've
had this big type of representation for specifically water infrastructure,
and so I see great potential in the JPA.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is it going to be able then to draw support from the
west side of the Valley, which kind of seems to operate in a different
water world to some extent?
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, we will have representation from the west side, on
the Board of Directors there will be a water district that represents the
west side, there'll be a water district that represents the east side
cities, west side cities from the east side. What we try to do is put a
composite balance in it, and so the answer is yes, is that the intent is
to represent everybody's needs and be successful in securing those needs.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, well, I think I've come to the end of my
questions. Am I missing anything major?
>> Mario Santoyo: I don't think so. [laughter]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any last thing you'd like to say?
>> Mario Santoyo: I think you've covered it. I think you've covered it
well.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you very much.
>> Mario Santoyo: Well, thank you.

Item sets

Water Archives Set