mary, please start by telling us your name the positions that you held in
the adaptive management program in the years in which you participated. My
name is mary Orton. I started out being connected with the program by
supervising the am wig and twig member from when I was the southwest
regional director of American rivers. So we were one of two environmental
organizations that was representing the entirety of the environmental
community on the adaptive management program, both on the adaptive
management workgroup and the technical work group, the am wig and the twig.
Yeah. So uh, we, we had one person who served as the and Twig and the
Twig member. So the policy person and the technical person. And I was her
supervisor when I became southwest regional director. So that, that was in
1997.
And so I began then 20 years ago. How about that? And uh mm hmm. Then
eventually that woman pam hide left our employ and I became the am wig
member. And that was probably in Late 1998, early 1999 that I actually
became the family member. And then another one of our employees became the
technical work group, the Twig member. So um by the end of 1999 I had left
American rivers and had been so I had
no technical background when I arrived at american rivers and the adaptive
management program is a highly technical program and I knew Nothing when I
arrived at American rivers, I had been running a homeless shelter for 12
years. So you know I knew how to raise money, I knew how to run an
organization, but I did not know much about how rivers worked. And I love
the Grand Canyon. I hiked and floated and done all kinds of things, but
you know, really didn't know the science side. So there's a huge learning
curve for me. And when I became the am Wig member, I actually be my first
am wig meeting was a river trips through the Grand Canyon
because so if you think back in the early history,
the group had been formed really just a few years before and had done a
big um artificial flood through the Grand Canyon. I think that back then
they called it a beach habitat, building flow and or B H B F. So they had
done that. And remember that on this group, you have all the folks who
have been managing the river and managing the dam traditionally for
decades since the 60s. And then you have the folks who are newly to the
idea of running being part of the policy of running this, this, this dam
and managing this ecosystem. So you have the tribes and the environmental
organizations and the recreational representatives and, and so on. So you
have the states and the hydropower folks who have been around forever
doing it the way they thought best. Right. And then you have these new
people coming in thinking they had some better ideas and under this was
under the clinton administration Bruce babbitt was Secretary of the
Interior. And mm under the Grand Canyon Protection Act, which was a john
McCain bill that became one, uh, the Bureau of Reclamation is to consult
with all these different communities now in the running of the dam. And so
babbitt put together this federal advisory committee. He was interested in
what can all of these different people agree to? You know, is there
anything that what you call, you know, water buffaloes? You know, the
folks who've been around forever really knew their stuff and knew how to
how to run the run the system in the way that was going to benefit their
constituents and then all these new constituents coming in, can they agree
to something? So as a consensus based even back then. And
so by the time I came around, they had had the one big flood. And at that
point it seemed like the folks who have been around a long time that we're
saying, okay, that's enough. We've had this experiment, right? And that's
good. And but other folks were saying, wait a minute, no, we're not done.
We want to do more. And so by the time I got there, there was quite a bit
of conflict in the group and the Bureau of Reclamation put everyone on the
river. This is really quite smart. I thought, um, first of all putting
people on the river, so you can actually see what you're talking about.
And secondly, the goal of this river trip, which is about a week long as I
recall, the goal was to come up with a shared vision, a shared vision.
What are we looking for here? What are we, what can we all agree that we
want as a result of this program? No facilitator. The group had never had
a facilitator.
This was my first meeting. I really couldn't contribute much because
although I had been the supervisor of the anglican twig member for a while
, I didn't know the details so well, so, and the other complication was, I
couldn't make the first part of the trip because I was actually on a
pilgrimage to the holy land. So, so I come in, hike down, meet the group
at phantom uh, and or pipe creek wherever it was and
and get introduced to people. I mean I didn't know anyone, maybe I knew
one person from, you know, just previous life, not from this program. I
mean I'm even shaking hands with the other environmental person because I
just didn't know anyone. And uh, so they had been on the river by that
time for maybe three days and they had spent the first couple of days
getting acclimated, learning about the program, you know, the scientists
were pointing things out and then
uh, that that day.
So there were three big boats, three big motorized boats. One of the boats
was designated the vision boat and the people on that boat that day we're
going to start writing the vision together. And so I hiked down, I get,
you know, midday, I'm not on the vision boat of course because they've,
you know, they've been working all day and I get on the other one, we
trucked down the river a little bit longer and then set up camp. And then
that night the vision boats going to present us with what they've come up
with. So in addition to representatives from most, if not all of the
organizations, the adaptive management program, organizations and the and
the scientists and so on. There's also a,
I think he was an assistant secretary of the Interior at the time, I've
forgotten his name,
but he was the big, the big Kahuna, you know, this is someone who's
appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. And so this is,
this is, he's a big deal. Everyone is deferring to him. And uh, so we sit
around after dinner, got the tiki lamps going. They've got big pieces of
plywood stuck in the sand with flip chart paper taped to them and they've
got their, their language that they're proposing
and they, they, you know, share their language and then they asked for
feedback and everyone's kind of quiet and uh, you know, again, I don't
know anyone, nobody knows me. I raised my hand and I said, you know,
that's really great language. But that's not a vision. That's a mission.
That's a mission statement. So remember I had been running a nonprofit
for over a decade. You know, Vision, mission goals, objectives. This was
all very familiar to me, not so familiar to most of the other people. So
everybody's looking at me very quizzically. And so I explained here, you
know, a vision is what you want to see. Vision, what do you want to see in
the future? What's the result of your work? What what do you want to have
at the end of the day, mission is what you do, it's all about what you do.
And then from that flows goals and objectives. And for me this is like
elementary school that everybody's going, oh, you know, so it just wasn't
part of their experience. But what really made the difference at that
point was the Assistant Secretary turned to me and said she's right. So
all of a sudden here's this person who nobody knows, nobody has any reason
to trust. But the Assistant secretary says she's right. I had instant
credibility. I told him later that if if he hadn't had been there, he
hadn't said that my whole life might have turned out differently. But um
so so they, we talked about that and discussed it because it really was
great mission, it was great mission language, but it wasn't really great
vision language. So by the end of that evening they asked me to facilitate
the vision boat the next day and I knew a little bit about facilitation. I
had one technique that my mentor had taught me and I had used it quite a
bit uh I was chair of the program committee of the board of the homeless
shelter before I became the executive director. So I had led them through
the vision and mission and goals and objectives development process. So I
knew a little bit about how to do that. So I was and I was happy to have
that role because I couldn't really contribute too much on the substantive
side. So it worked out really well. By the end of the trip
there was a consensus combined vision and mission statement on the part of
everyone who was on the river. And however, because this is a federal
advisory committee, the group couldn't take action away from the public.
So all of this had to come back. And so then they asked me to run that
part of the meeting and thanks to Larry stevens who took excellent notes
on every every aspect of that first trip. And he shared which he then
shared with me. I developed a presentation for that meeting that showed
how every single person on that river trip actually contributed to the
consensus language. And they had set aside four hours for the discussion
And they approved it without changing AO in 45 minutes. So that was
amazing. I mean that was probably the, you know, well of course I hadn't
been around so much before, but that was, and for for that group at that
time, which was in conflict, it was, it was a pretty amazing feat to have
that level of congruity and consensus has the vision and mission statement
changed since then? It has not changed.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have changed, just saying it hasn't changed.
This is not a group that really likes process. So, you know, once they're
done with it, they're done with it. And you know, so that's been one of my
challenges over the years. So anyway, to make what's turned into somewhat
a long story, a little bit shorter. Um
the
they asked me after that, which which was viewed as quite a success. They
asked me to chair the Strategic Planning Committee as a member of the am
wig. And so I asked that the other environmental person be on the
committee so that I could really, because I didn't really know again, it
wasn't that familiar with all the details. So it allowed me to be more of
a facilitator over the course of that year. Then I would facilitate parts
of the meeting that would come up with the the am Wig meetings that where
the strategic plan was addressed anyway, so they're beginning to see me as
a facilitator, right? This group never had had one. And then when I left
american rivers at the end of the year, the Secretary's designee at the
time offered me a contract to continue as a facilitator. What year was
that? That was the end of 1999. So my contract, I think started on
November 15 or something. So I went out and got some facilitation training
since I you know, I knew a little bit, but not a whole lot. And then about
six months later I realized that the group really was in conflict and what
I was doing was probably closer to mediation and facilitation. So I went
and got some mediation training and eventually ended up with a master's
degree in in conflict resolution with an emphasis on environmental
Conflict resolution. And ever since the end of 1999, this is what I've
been doing for a living. So, so I knew nothing back then, including how in
some ways it was a little inappropriate for a stakeholder who had a point
of view, presumably to become the neutral facilitator. I mean, that would
be a little hard to take if for folks who didn't agree with whatever that
point of view was at the beginning. Right? So that's been a bit of a
challenge for the group and I can understand that. But I think over the
years, of course, I still disclose to clients, prospective clients that I
that I worked for american rivers for a couple of years, but it was too,
you know, two years. Uh, so it wasn't very long, but it seems to have
worked out pretty well. So that's how I became the facilitator mediator.
And um, I will also say interestingly enough, this was the first river
trip that the group took the first time. This whole group was on the river.
And there are quite a few tribes who participate in this group. And on
the second day I wasn't on the river yet, but apparently on the second day
, the tribes approached the trip leader and said, this is a very sacred
place for us and we really need to be asking permission to be here every
morning and we'd like to be able to pray if we could. And so the trip
leader was the then head of the Grand Canyon monitoring research center
who is a devout jew and uh, he agreed even though this was a government
sponsored trips. So every morning a different tribal member led the full
group as much as they wanted to in a prayer. So it was fascinating to me
because it's always, that place has always been a very spiritual place for
me as well. And remember I had just come from a pilgrimage to the holy
Land. So it was, it was like a continuation of this pilgrimage. Uh, and in
fact part of the uh, the word spiritual actually ended up in the vision
mission statement, which is pretty unusual again for a government group,
Has your position. Um, as facilitator mediator changed over the years
since 1999 when you first got that position?
I'm not sure that it's changed
in terms of expectations
from me.
It has certainly changed in the execution as I learned more about what it
was I was supposed to be doing as a facilitator and mediator and
the name has changed and on my contract originally, I think it was
facilitator slash mediator and now it's facilitator, but I don't think
there's any significance to that. I think it's just the contracting
vehicle.
Can you tell us a little bit about what you do as facilitator? What does
the job entail?
So probably the least interesting part is
that I hope uh create the the the I pulled together the planning team
which involves the twig leadership, the Technical worker leadership, the
am weak leadership, the Bureau of Reclamation. Whoever is in Washington
who cares about this. And
I'm the one who sends out the doodle poll to set a date to start planning
this. Uh we we send out, we make sure that that someone has sent out a
request to the entire group for agenda items. We look at everything that
comes in, we put together an agenda. We make sure the secretary's designee
is okay with the agenda and then I
work with everyone who is on the agenda to develop some kind of paperwork
for each agenda item that gets sent out in advance to everyone so they can
be prepared for the meeting. What are you going to say? You know, what's
the name of the agenda item? What's been, What do you want? Is this just
an information sharing? Do you want feedback? Is there an action item, you
know? Uh and then here's the back, here's what you need to know about this
agenda item. So you're prepared to do whatever you need to do at the
meeting and all that goes out mm a couple of weeks before the meeting.
That's a huge job and it needs to be done well. And and so I think we do
a pretty good job on that. And then uh as issues arise that look like they
might be contentious at the meeting, which happens, then I work with say
someone's let's say someone has proposed a motion that is going to be
difficult for some people to agree to. So this is a consensus based
collaborative program by there. If you look at their operating procedures
, they are expected to try to come to consensus. They do have a voting
mechanism if possible, but the consensus is first. So what so a consensus
process means is that um I may want X. But if other people can't live with
X, could I live with X minus Y? Maybe I could. You know, So there's a
little bit of give and take, what do you need to be able to support this
concept. What's really important to me as the proposal of the motion? Of
course, I would never propose a motion. Obviously I'm not a member, but,
you know, I work with the folks who proposed the motion, I encourage them
to reach out to other people. I even sometimes if they want me to, I will
shop the their language around and see what um what changes might need to
be made in order for it to be a consensus decision. But it's really better
if they do it themselves, because then they really learn how to do that.
Well, we've got that um
coming up actually this week, there's a meeting, someone proposed a motion.
It kind of at the last minute, uh, right near the deadline for proposing
motions. It had some language in it, that wasn't going to be supported by
some of the stakeholders. They shopped it around there, they're going to
make changes to it, and maybe it'll turn out to be something that everyone
can support. So, I do that kind of thing before the meeting. If I know
what's coming, if I know that something's coming, I can also do it during
the meeting. We have a habit now, because these are two day meetings, we
have a habit now of putting all the action items on the first day, so that
if they if there is a problem, then the chair can say, okay, well, the you
made the most you proposed the motion. So you and you and you and you, all
the people who seem to really care you get together over lunch or over
dinner or overnight and come back to us with something that you think
everyone can agree to. So tasking a small group to to work together on
language and then often whether I'm invited or not I will often show up
and say do you need some help? Right because uh those kinds of things are
not always easy to do so um so that is a lot of what I do. I um mhm. I
also over the years have been able to institute certain mm protocols or
norms that make that easier. For example when we first started we didn't
have that packet of information in advance. And in fact I remember one day
the number two person at the Science center finished his presentation,
we're moving on to the next item and he comes up to me and he says I
needed action. I needed them to say yes no or you know or something and I
had I had no idea. So if I didn't have any idea, you know, no one had any
idea. So then I thought wait a minute, that's we need to fix this. So now
that's when I created what we call the agenda item form which includes at
the very top right under the title, what's expected, you know, do you want
do you have isn't an action item? Do you just want feedback? Is it just
you know information and then Q. And A. So so those kinds of things and
then now we have a deadline for submitting a motion if you you can submit
a motion at the meeting but the whole group has to vote to take up that
motion. If you send it in in advance then almost by default it's on the
agenda. Unless there's some real problem with it and you can get talked
out of putting it on the agenda. But so those kinds of things make it
easier to, I would say have less contentiousness at the meeting and more
productivity at the meeting. So those are, so you had asked what do I do?
Those are a couple of the things I do after the meeting. I don't write the
minutes but I review them and make sure that they're written well which
they are. Um So that's not a problem. But that's pretty typical for a
mediator facilitator to have the last word on the on the minutes so that
they're written in a neutral way. Um And then anything that comes up
between meetings, if there's some contentiousness, I've even mediated one
on one between people like you know say to people in the program who just
couldn't stand even to be in the same room together. I've said let's try
and work this out neither of you is going away. You know like what what
can we do about this? You know and just of course mediation is always a
Voluntary process. So it has, they have to agree but that's that's over
the last, what is it now, 17 years. Ah a little bit of everything.
So Mary you've been involved since at least 1999. Um that's about 17 years
and you've probably seen the program evolved through some stages or
significant changes. Can you talk a little bit about which changes that
you think are significant in that period that you've been involved
When I first Got involved deeply in 1999
as I recounted earlier, there were valid policy and management differences
among group members and for some reason and since I wasn't there to see it
evolve and I can't really say why for some reason that had devolved into
some really
negative personal interactions, particularly on the technical work group
on the twig,
almost name calling and ad hominem attacks really unproductive kinds of
communication
and over the years that has really, and and even even there there were
some periods of time on the am wig, the policy group, the adaptive
management work group. There there have been times when there were very,
very difficult interpersonal conflicts there people who seem to sometimes
ah enjoy
um stirring things up or saying things that would be seen as pretty
controversial
for and not not just to say, hey we need to talk about this and work this
through but it seemed to me that sometimes it was just to rile other
people up. So that has really changed over the years. And I think part of
it has been that people, some people moved on. Uh part of it has been a
change in leadership.
I I know that there was a
Bush appointee who really who talked very
ah frankly to the interior agencies about infighting among them. And then
we had a um an Obama appointee and Castle Who was the chair of the Group
for Almost eight years, who had been the managing partner at a law firm,
which has some similarities where you have to, you know, acknowledge
everyone's point of view and also encourage people to move together in in
a direction. And she was, she was masterful and really help people
acknowledge differences, not not gloss over them because that's not the
point but to acknowledge them, bring them out in the open, be able to talk
about them well agree to disagree sometimes, but also find ways to agree.
So I'd say that's one of the big changes over the years to when I first
started, I think probably because the secretary's designee um was often in
the early years, not an assistant Secretary of the Interior, but a senior
person within the Bureau of Reclamation, which almost always meant an
engineer who are not always the best people when it comes to process, it's
just not part of their training, often, not always, of course, But so even
though the operating procedures, as far as I know, always said, this is a
consensus based group. But if you can't reach consensus, then you can go
to a vote and then it's a supermajority vote of some kind of that number.
The percent has changed over the years. But what what would happen in
practice is that the issue would come up? The discussion would start,
there'd be disagreement. They'd go to a vote because they didn't really
know how as a group or as the leadership, they didn't really know how to
help a group move toward consensus. It's not necessarily something any of
us is taught. So, over the years, even though it's very hard when a group
has a history of several years and then somebody new comes in and says,
wait a minute, you're it says consensus here, shall we? Do you want to try
to get Well, that's, wait a minute. That sounds kind of scary. I don't
know what that looks like. So over the years, eventually there was a
secretary's designee. And again, at this point, we are at the secretary's
with the secretary's designee being the assistant secretary. Eventually
there was one who understood the value of consensus because remember back
Bruce babbitt at the very beginning, he wanted to know what everyone could
agree to. Is there something maybe there's nothing on a particular issue
that's okay, that's information for the secretary, right, that's very good
information, They don't agree on this. But if everyone in this incredibly
diverse group, if everyone can agree, then that's really important
information for the secretary to write. So eventually we got a secretary's
designee who I think understood a little bit about the value of consensus
and was willing to to try it. And so now that was Limbaugh. I've forgotten
his first name. This is a Bush appointee.
And uh, if you look back at one point, I was, look, I was going to write a
paper about this for my master's program. But if you look at the number of
votes versus consensus items over the years under his leadership, then you
start seeing many, many, many more consensus. And these days, um, I
wouldn't say it's 100%. Uh, nor should it be, uh, you know, there are
times when it's important not to agree, right? And and I never in any
group, I would never say I would never promise consensus to my client. And
I would never, you know, really push people to consensus when when they
had honest disagreements. But maybe you can you can disagree. You know, if
you have a motion, that's this big, maybe you disagree on that part. So
let's get that out of the motion. And let's say this is it. And then the
minutes can reflect that that piece people didn't agree to. But this piece
they did. So that again, what's useful information for the secretary? The
point of this program is to give recommendations to the secretary on the
management of the dam and other dam operations and non dam operations
suggestions for them purpose of the the green paint protection act. So
what can people agree to? So that's been a that was a major change uh
moving from voting to um to consensus also extremely contentious. Too much
more collegial. And then I would say the third thing that at least from
the process standpoint, obviously there's many more policy and science
changes that happen. But I'm gonna focus on the process since that's my
area. I would say from really disorganized, too much more organized being
organized as one of my superpowers. So when I when I start working with a
group that's that's something that I really work on it. You know, can do
we have consistent protocols. Do we have consistent norms? Do people know
what to expect? Are people always asked in advance what agenda items they
want on the on the agenda? You know, because that's part of your operating
procedure. So you gotta make sure that happens, that kind of thing. So
those would be three main areas I would say of changes. Great.
Were there any external events that happened during your tenure that had a
significant impact
the functioning or the direction
mm width the issues that had addressed. Sure. Every time there's a change
in administration. We have a change in Secretary of the Interior and we
have a change in the assistant secretary and then close to the end of
every administration at least that person leaves. And you can have a kind
of a revolving door over the last six or eight months pretty normal in any
administration. So anytime this from my standpoint on the process side,
you know, I'm working with the chair of the group when the chair of the
group changes, my job can change quite considerably. And of course it has
a huge impact on the rest of the group as well. So that's an external
event that has regular changes. And now we've had a pretty monumental
change. Um in terms of politics, politics, from the Obama administration
to the trump administration just now. So as an example, of course that
happened from clinton to bush and so on. So it happens. And then you have
people with frankly varying levels of interest in the program. There have
been times when this group has had a hard time getting the attention of
the Secretary of the Interior, um various levels. So the interest level
can vary and the certainly the policies would vary what they might agree
to or not agree to do. It's gonna vary. So that's that's huge other
external events when things happen in the ecosystem. So there was a time
when um the humpback chub is a native fish in the system. That is probably
the one native fish that has the best chance of, they're all either
endangered or they're gone. And the humpback chub is the one that most
people believe it has the best chance of recovery. So we focus a lot on
the humpback shop, what are the numbers? And there was a time when the
numbers were really going down and the whole program, just all they would
focus on for a couple of years were what what can we do, what you know,
what should we do? We don't want to do too much, I don't want to do too
little, what can we do to try and help those numbers come back? So that's
certainly an external event. We recently had an external event of a non
native uh dangerous kind of fish. Green sunfish that was found in in the
upper reaches of the river, that precluded a high flow experiment, because
if a whole bunch of water came through then these green sunfish would be
dispersed throughout the system, for example. So yeah, there's always, I
mean we're in the we're in the ecosystem management business which is to
my mind the height of hubris that we think we can do it for the in the
first place. But um you know there's always things happening in the
ecosystem that are going to change what what we're what we're looking at
and what we what what they are looking at and what they think they ought
to be doing.
So you said you're in the ecosystem management business, which is
certainly true uh is also in the damn management business to a certain
extent. Mhm. Your recommendations to the secretary or primarily how the
dam should be managed to help recover ecosystems. Um when you came on
board in 1999, that was the beginning of an extensive 17 year drought.
Essentialments
the Southwest has been in an extended drought the entire time that you've
been um leg and the lake level, you know, behind Glen Canyon dam has been
dropping steadily until the point where now it's it's below half full. And
there's even people talking about whether maybe we should drain it and put
all that water in lake meet, do you think that the drought and the falling
lake levels have had any impact on am Wig and its evolution Over the last
17 years? Sure, it's a huge external event that's had an impact on the
program. And also just what, not only what's happening now, but what do we
anticipate in the future with with the climate apparently changing and
that we can maybe expect more drought rather than less in the Southwest.
Um
the interim guidelines that was that was negotiated between the upper and
lower basin states, for example, there's a, so this is an interesting
program because there's a lot that happens that you you correctly said
that this group's job to a large extent is making a recommendation of the
secretary on how to operate Glen Canyon dam. However,
the amount of leeway that there is to change operations in Glen Canyon Dam
is pretty small because there are lots of other processes outside of the
adaptive management program that prescribe how that dams run. And a lot of
that is through court cases and laws and negotiate compacts among the
states with and of course the secretary is the water master of the
colorado. So um equalization between Lake Mead and Lake Powell for example.
That's part of I believe a compact among the states. Uh so if somebody
wants to film me first, which is a rallying cry that I've heard um that
would have to be a change in that negotiated compact for example. So
there's a lot, so this drought and um has of course generated um a lot of
consternation among the states who rely on the water. Um All of the states
are represented on the am wig primarily because they want to protect their
allocation from the river. And because so much of their state's future is
tied up with that water that they get from the Colorado River. So um they
are there among other reasons to protect those interests. I mean, a lot of
people are at the table to protect their interests of course and to
advance their interests. So yes, anything like a drought uh is gonna have
a huge impact on on all of on the entire program
has representation on the Amway changed Since 1999. Not not individuals,
but the categories of people who are representative. Has that been stable
? No. Yes it has been stable. It has not changed. There was some effort a
couple of years ago because the Grand Canyon Protection Protection Act
names all of the categories that shall be reprieved that that the that
reclamation shall consult with. And there are a couple of, almost all the
categories are represented on the adaptive management workgroup and also
on the technical work group. With the exception of the scientific and
academic communities. And there was some effort to enlarge the am wig to
include not the scientific community because they really, you know, there
there is a a U. S. Geological Survey entity that provides science for the
program. So I think everybody feels that that's adequately represented.
But there was an effort to some folks who thought that the academic world
should be represented with a with a permanent seat on the am wagon. Other
folks disagreed. So the compromise that was made at that point was to make
a make a real effort to bring in different voices to present to the group
that wouldn't be the same old, same old. So we've seen some different
people on the agenda to present as a result of that, but the actual seats
have not changed.
So you've mentioned particular secretary, the Interior's designee who made
a big difference in the program. I'm wondering if you can think back over
the last 17 years about any other individuals who you feel had a
significant impact on the program. And what was it?
Well being a student of group dynamics, every individual around the table
has an impact on the process and everyone who leaves and is replaced by
someone else completely changes that entire system. So I would have to say
that every stakeholder that has sat at the table has had an impact on the
program.
Of course some more than others. Um
I would say the in addition to the stakeholders, the person who has held
the role of the chief of the science center also is a very key role and I
would say maybe the most difficult role in the entire group because here's
a person who needs to be able to lead a science center that's um that
meets the
the criteria of good science of the U. S. Geological Survey which at least
under Secretary babbitt, I don't know how it's changed since then but at
least under Secretary babbitt Usgs was was being was was the science
provider for the Department of the Interior. So this is it's huge. And
they have extremely well thought out protocols for for good science. Right
? So so you have to have someone who's a very good scientist and can lead
scientists and can lead a department of Mhm. five or six very different
but hopefully integrated fields of study um from economics to riparian
vegetation to fish to sediment. You know, all that plus the person has to
be able to talk to and be understood by these policy makers on the
adaptive management program, on the adaptive management work group. I
would say the am wig, they're all policymakers in their own world and in
this instance they're not making policy, they're simply making
recommendations to the secretary. But of course we're dealing with people
who have very different worldviews, very different hopes and wishes about
what's going to happen in a lot of cases with the dam and with the river,
with the ecosystem, there's a lot of conflict sometimes,
sometimes not so obvious, but it's always there and and it should be. I
mean that was the point of this program was to bring together people who
don't agree with each other to see what they could agree to. And I will
say that scientists aren't always
super well trained in group dynamics or in conflict. It's not what they
signed up for. Right? I mean, now I'm certainly there are some who are
very good at that. But to find a person who can run this program that that
who has to be really good on the science side and also has to be pretty
good on the conflict management side just to be able to talk to folks in
in a, in a good way to help them understand. That's a big job that's a
very big job to fill. So I think those folks have also been key people you
admire, who has been able to balance those two different skills. Well, I
think our current uh fellow scott van decoy is doing a really good job at
that. Uh, he of course I, you know, I'm not part of his organization, so I
can't tell what a good job he's doing, managing his program, but he seems
to do a very good job of managing the adaptive management personnel when
he's in the meetings. Sure. So you've touched on this a little bit already
, but I'm I'm wondering what you think you've been able to accomplish and
Sort of summit of way over your 17 years, what do you think has been your
most significant accomplishments? Well, nothing by myself, first of all,
because I am, you know, a facilitator and mediator
can only do what she's allowed to do by the group. Right? I mean, I cannot
go in and say, thou shalt do X, Y, Z can't do it. But certainly
into a world that really, I didn't understand process. And even to this
day probably doesn't care too much about process.
It does benefit a group to have somebody who's paying attention to process
and who every once in a while says, you know, you guys really need to talk
a little bit about how you're working together, not just what you're doing
the substantive stuff, but how are you working together? So I think I
brought a little bit of that as I mentioned earlier,
there are a lot of venues for at least some of the members of the adaptive
management work group to get done what they need to get done outside of
the am wig outside of this group. So like the States and the hydropower
advocates, they have long standing relationships with interior with each
other that did not go away, nor should they when AM wig was formed. So, um
, so there's a lot that gets done outside of the am wig that, but I think
one of the real benefits of the program is that all of those processes
have become a lot less opaque to the other stakeholders around the table,
the environmental folks, the recreational representatives, the tribes and
so on. They now can see at least a little bit behind the curtain as to how
these things work and they can be part of some of that, some of that uh,
discussion and recommendation.
You asked me what I've accomplished? So just maybe a little bit of better
process, better organization, but only because the group allowed me to do
that and more transparency. Hopefully,
how about
is there anything that you wish you could have accomplished and haven't
been able to yet any regrets about.
I don't have any regrets. I think that the um, we are moving toward
maybe getting to know each other better personally, which is good. We have
now a uh deputy or Assistant regional Director of Reclamation who's very
good at at social events. And so we have a social event at every damn wig
meeting now which I think is very important for people to get to know each
other a little bit better. It it helps when if I really disagree with you
, I can I can put you into a little box of bad, you're bad, I'm good. So
why should I even bother right? Because you're so bad and you you just
you're you're you're so wrong. But if I sit down and have a drink with you
or have a meal with you or you know socialize with you a little bit and I
get to know you a little bit better. Then maybe my mind is a little bit
more open to saying, okay, well I still think you're really wrong but let
me try and understand how you got to wear. You are so wrong. If I can
understand that and maybe help you understand where I got where I am, then
maybe down the road we can find a way to agree. Maybe not on everything,
but we can find ways that I can help. I can say, well if we did it this
way then I get what I need and you get what you need. So we're we're
moving towards that now. I don't think we've had a lot of that in the past.
So I think that's very good um
unlike a lot of groups that I work with,
many of the people at the table
are not free
to make any agreement that they think makes sense to them personally,
right? Because they represent an interest group, they are appointed by a
governor of a state. You know, one individual is not going to change state
policy just because they've had an aha moment at the table. Right? Same
with maybe an environmental group. Maybe they've maybe they've got strict
orders that, you know, you don't go beyond here. Um Same the tribe to
tribal members, you know, many of the tribes um
are have a very collaborative decision making process and there may be
someone who is sitting at the table from a tribe, but in order to really
talk to make a decision, they have to go back and check with tribal
council, for example. So it makes it really hard. I know when I do two
person mediations, which I sometimes do for pro bono for, you know, small
claims court or something like that. It's very important to have the
decision maker in the room because otherwise you can you can waste hours.
Um So, and so in this instance,
people aren't so free to say, okay, now that I understand, I really
understand where you're coming from, then we can we can we can make a deal
in this way, you know, I can give this up because it's not that important
to me and I can see it's really important to you and we can move forward
together,
That kind of thing now might take years or decades instead of hours just
because people aren't so free there. Now, that's this is not a regret I
have. It's just an understanding of how this program works and how it how
it will work in the future. Almost certainly,
it's kind of the nature of democratic processes, especially if you're
seeking consensus rather than just majority rule, it can be depending on
who's in the room. Now, if you had all the governors in the room
that would might be a different story, um right, right. If you have the
decision or if the or if the decision making authority were delegated. But
when you're talking about the Colorado River, frankly colorado, you know,
there's this, there's this box called the Law of the River that contains
all of the major laws that have been passed by Congress, all of the
Supreme Court ah decisions that impact the river multistate compacts.
You know, there's a lot of what we're dealing with is prescribed. So it's
very hard to be nimble and to change things on the fly, even if maybe an
individual at the table believes it should be changed. That tension
between being collaborative and following the rules and the laws tension
between that and being nimble and adapting quickly and having a kind of a
top down command structure that can make decisions fast. Do you do you
think that the model of decision making for the AM wig is the appropriate
one for the resources and the challenges that we face or is it inadequate
because of its slowness?
Well, I would also throw in the whole adaptive management process which
says that you do experiments and you see what happens and then you change
management based on what you see what happens that's there are people who
say this isn't a true adaptive management program for that reason because
it cannot adopt management actions so easily. Even if even if an
experiment put, you know, seems to say that that's a management action
that should be, that should happen. But you asked whether the whether the
decision making or the management regime of the AM wig is appropriate. And
I would say absolutely it is. But remember
the AM wig is not the only entity that has an impact on how the Colorado
River ecosystem is managed. And also this is only one stretch of that of
that river. Right? So, um, so in some ways it's completely inadequate. I
mean, so but for what it is the Amway remember, and it is a federal
advisory committee designed to advise the Secretary of the Interior on how
to reach the goals of the Grand Canyon Protection Act, protect mitigate
adverse impacts to and and and maintain I'm missing a word, the values for
which the two national parks downstream of the dam were created right? Um
,
and I keep going back to Bruce babbitt's speech where he said, I want to
know what everybody agrees to for those purposes. Yes, I think it's
adequate.
Some of the people that we are interviewing have talked about things that
surprised them during their experience in the program, And I'm wondering
if anything has happened in the last 17 years in your experience that
surprised you? Hmm, I'm sure there has been something
I know, I have said from time to time that things that I didn't think
would be controversial turned out to be controversial and vice versa. I
can't I can't think of anything specifically off the top of my head.
Probably some of the ad hominem attacks at the very beginning really
surprised me just because I wasn't used to seeing that in a, in a
professional setting, but
I can't think of anything else. You have mentioned a few times
controversies that crop up. Now, can you mention a few of the
controversies that you've been through that you thought resulted in some
significant resolution or didn't
one that I that's that's extent. Now is the whole idea of equalization
between the between the two reservoirs and I can't say I even fully
understand equalization, but it's an important concept for the states,
they rely on it. Remember Lake Powell is like the savings account for the
upper basin, if there's a drought, they can still meet their their
obligation to push water downstream toward the lower basin states, that's
part of their part of the deal, part of the law of the river, the upper
basin states has to give water to make sure that the lower basin states
gets a certain amount of water and then also then down to Mexico. And as
you know, the drill with the drought, you know, there's there's not enough
water anyway, so, and and even if from year to year you can have more or
less water. So meade was developed to um be kind of the savings account
for the upper basin states, even if it was a dry year, they could still
give the water that need, they could push through the dam. The water that
needed to go down to the lower basin states so equal. So
then there's this concept of equalization, which as I said, I don't fully
understand what if if there's a problem with equalization then and there's
two, there's and more water than normal needs to be pushed down to the
lower basin to need, then it's called equalization flows. In other words,
there might be some higher flows that go through the dam that that
accomplished that goal of equalization. Those flows are not so good for
the ecosystem in some very specific ways that I'm not the right person to
to explain. So how do you reconcile those two things? You know, they're
both required by law, you know, you know, protecting the ecosystem and you
know, protecting the water supply for for all the states, that's that's a
big one. And you know, I think it's something that needs to be talked
about some more needs to be better understood by everyone. So that's a big
issue. I think when um,
I think the biggest issues that come up come up, when some of the
stakeholders want to see some really significant changes in how the dam
works. And this can be very threatening to folks who um, who rely on
specific dam operations in order to either generate hydropower at a
certain cost that's not too high. And also to make sure that water, water
storage and delivery occurs in the way that they needed to occur. So I
think that's the major attention
big picture. What do you think has been the fundamental value of this
program? Should it be continued?
Should it be continued? I would say as long as the Secretary of the
Interior is getting information that he or she finds valuable from the
program, then Yes, it should be continued. If not then, no, I mean, it's
pretty costly. And certainly the science part of it that is studying how
the dam operations affect the downstream resources and the um, is, you
know, probably should continue because otherwise, how do you make those
decisions, but and with itself, you know, I think it really depends on if
the secretary is finding it useful. And the other question was the
fundamental value of oh well,
so being the processed person, I know there have been a lot of good
science and policy recommendation. Is science discoveries and policy
recommendations made. Um I think also there's value in simply involving
more people who care about that ecosystem in the decision making or at
least in discussions about decision making. Because this group doesn't, as
I say, this group is not a management group, It doesn't manage anything.
It just makes recommendations to the secretary. But to pull the curtain
back a little bit from how those decisions get made for folks who wouldn't
normally see it like the like the tribes, the environmental organizations
, the recreational organizations. I think that's very valuable. Um
being a student of and of public policy and an advocate for good public
policy, I have a bias that the more people who are who are listened to by
the decision makers, by governmental decision makers, the better decision
is going to be made more durable better for all folks and all critters. Um
, and so I think this this really helps with that. It if if listen to it
can be a conduit for better public policy. Are you hopeful about the
future of the program? Do you think it's resilient and adaptable because
we're going into a period of significant change. I think climatic change.
Political change. Economic change. I am always optimistic. It's it's it's
actually you know, part of my job description. So uh yeah I think this
group can survive. I think it'll be really interesting to see who the next
secretary designee is under the trump administration and what kind of what
level of interest here she has. Um I think level of interest is the first
question. How much do they care? You know, and then uh and then what do
they care about and you know, how are they going to guide the program? I
think we we recently had a just a few months ago a new environmental
impact statement signed the long term experimental management plan. L.
Temp E. I. S. And Rod the record of decision was signed. And that will
make that has made significant change. That will have significant impact
on how this program is run. Because certain things that the am wig always
felt that it was in charge of like what are the goals and objectives of
the program that's now laid out in the I. S. And in the rut. Um Certain
things, certain recommendations that have been made every year to the
secretary such as the hydra graph. What what should the hydrographic look
like, what the levels of water in different days, weeks and months and you
know for for a full year coming out of the damn what should that look like
? That's now pretty much um prescribed through the C. I. S. So things are
changing I. And uh I'm not sure anyone quite knows what that's gonna look
like. So we've got the l temp record of decision that will change things.
We've got the new administration that will change things and I don't know
I've worked under um maybe a dozen different secretaries designees so
everyone's different and it's just a question of wait and see and in my
role um Hewing hard to good process on the one hand which means
transparent and um neutral and making sure everyone has the same
opportunity to participate which is a challenge. And so that's my job on
the one hand and then on the other hand serving the chair in the way he or
she wants to be served. So like for example some chairs wanted me to run
the meeting and they just stepped in when they saw a need and other chairs
in recent years they've run the meeting that they've had the skill level
and you know I'm just sitting next to them, you know providing whatever
support I can. So so on the one hand so with the new secretary's designee
hewing hard to good process, making sure that person understands what the
values are that are in my view incontrovertible have to happen at least
for me to be involved. Then on the other hand how can I support you best.
What do you need from me to help this program move forward. It's a
learning process with every new secretary's designate. So
one of the purposes of doing this administrative history is to help the
next generation of participants on I am wig to be as effective as possible
to understand how we got to where we are today, how the process works. Um
can you think of any other ways in which a historical perspective on this
program could help um new members of an wig to uh to be more effective
participants. What advice would you give a new person coming on that you
would like them to hear from from somebody with a deep experience. Like
I'd say due to my experience both as a new am Wig member and also then
from a process standpoint the technical day. If you if you're not coming
from the colorado River water world already, um the level the amount of
data that you're expected to understand and assimilate is huge. So you so
don't worry about understanding everything all at once. That's number one.
But you know, take your time and and use the wiki site, use this
administrative history website, learn as much as you can and number to
start developing relationships with people that you are not normally
aligned with. So if you're on the environmental side, you might know the
other environmental person but reach out to the States and the hydropower
people and develop personal relationships, asked them what they want and
why, you know, I had the great joy of doing an assessment about a year ago
of this program in which I called up every and with member plus half a
dozen of other people and said, you know, how do you think the program is
going and what do you want out of the program? And why do you want that?
And it was a marvelous opportunity to learn about each individual
stakeholder. And I think um a new stakeholder would do well by doing that
, trying not to come in with preconceived ideas and simply developing
those relationships where you can say well, so, so that sounds like a
really important point for you. Can you help me understand what's behind
that a little bit more because I don't really get it, that will go far.
Who else do you think we should interview for this Administrative history
prize? Who are you interviewing? Well, we have a list right now of about
12 people. I can't have it in front. Well, if you want to show it to me,
I'm really happy to happy to add to it. But and Castle, how about Jack
Schmitt? I don't,
Jack is the immediate past chief of the G. C. M. R. C. Grant came
monitoring and research center and but he's also been a researcher in the
canyon for many, many, many years. So he has a good perspective.
And then, you know, of course you'll definitely want to talk to
stakeholders
and maybe some of the previous secretaries designees, I don't know if you
want, If you want to show me the list, I'd be happy to add to it.
Maybe somebody from the wash from the Washington world to besides an like
Lori cara main Ian who was ants counsel and then deputy for awhile C a R A
M A N I A N
and maybe reaching back to maybe a prior administration before the Obama
administration.
All right, mary. You've been very patient and generous with us. We greatly
appreciate your time. My pleasure.