172 



re^rvoir-induced) in the vicinity of the state-constructed Oroville Dam on the Feather River, they did 

 contribute to the suspension of construction of the Aubum-Folsom South project 



One interesting and perhaps unexpected aspect of our role in these controversies was that EDF became 

 a strong advocate of a states' rights position vis-a-vis the issue of state authority to regulate water 

 rights in cormection with these Congressionally-authorized projects. Indeed, in two cases which 

 reached the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. California (1978) and Environmental Defense Fund 

 v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (1978), we were on the prevailing side of litigation which 

 established that the state of California's laws control the operations of federal water facilities, subject 

 to Congress' authority to override state law, pnly when it explicitly decides to do so. Among the 

 Justices ruling in favor of EDF's position were Chief Justice Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court and 

 Justice Clark of the California Supreme Court (later appointed Secretary of the Interior by President 

 ReaganX who wrote two opinions in EDF v. EBMUD for the state court 



Tbwards the end of the 1970s, however, it became clear to EDF and to me personally that a litigation- 

 dominated strategy to reform federal water policy was at best insufficient and indeed in some 

 significant respects counter-productive. It was in this period that the California water scene 

 came to be dominated by the great Peripheral Canal conuoversy, culminating in a statewide 

 referendum in June of 1982. Hie debate over the Canal split regions, constituencies, and political 

 parties in California in a manner probably never seen before or since. For me, personally, however, it 

 was a defining moment in my career as an environmental advocate. I found myself an active 

 participant in a campaign managed by the political consulting firm of Russo and Watts (whose 

 principals later became best known for their participation in campaigns to elect Governor Deukmejian 

 and President Reagan). I also participated on a steering committee that oversaw the campaign which 

 included representatives of two large agribusiness firms, the J.G. Boswell Co. and the Salyer Land Co., 

 who also provided substantial financing for the anti-Canal position in the referendum. Ultimately, by 

 a vote of more than 3 to 2 statewide, our position in the referendum prevailed, and the Peripheral 

 Canal was blocked. 



That campaign effectively lasted 5 years, from the date the first bill authorizing the Canal was 

 introduced in the State Legislature and supported by then-Governor Jerry Brown. During that period, 

 it became apparent to EDF that, although we might be partially successful in blocking large water 

 projects by litigation and by joining many others in a political campaign, it was at least as essential to 

 the accomplishment of our environmental objectives that we put forward affirmative alternatives. The 

 key to our success was going to be that we not limit ourselves to promoting environmentally positive 

 outcomes, but that we also meet the principal goals of the water development community, who had 

 been our frequent adversaries over the prior decade. 



This led us in the early 1980s to the publication of a major report entitled Trading Conservation 

 Investments for Water: A Proposal for the Metrotwlitan Water District of Southern California to 



