The Journal of San Diego History
Fall 1993, Volume 39, Number 4
Richard W. Crawford, Editor

by Kyle Emily Ciani

Images from this article

Water issues dominate the history of California. From regulatory strife to entitlement judgments, Californians have struggled to understand the numerous water control mechanisms that manage their converted desert oasis. Amidst the complicated law, bitter politics and hazy policy directives, key individuals have emerged among California’s water personalities. Often controversial, sometimes eccentric and always entertaining, water entrepreneurs like Charles Hatfield, the turn-of-the-century “Rainmaker,” have captured the interest of California historians and offer intriguing insight to the lengths Californians have gone in their search for water.1 Other scholars have directed their attention to land-hungry industrialists and presented them as elitist conspirators bent on the conquest of the West.2 While both subjects have their place in the history of water in California, neither fully represents the complex and diverse world of the California water industry. Most water policy decisions have originated at the local level with lobbyists positioning their community for favored status and then turning the neighborhood outcome into state-wide maneuvering.3 Yet, studies that analyze the water industry at the local level tend to examine the organizational structures while ignoring the personal drive and earnest passion for water that drives people in the water industry.4

Ironically, the water industry sees itself as motivated by the determination of expert water enthusiasts who evolve into local personalities. Often obscured in the broad analysis, these water advocates play vital roles in the control and delivery of California’s life-blood as they learn to use the political system to effect change for the community. Although this paper agrees with the thesis set forth by Robert Gottlieb and Margaret FitzSimmons that “local agencies rise out of local initiatives rather than from a generic logic of water development in arid environments,”5 it focuses on the motivations and rationale of one local water personality. Hans H. Doe illustrates how one man’s personal ambitions and concerns influenced the delivery of water in his Southern California community. His career exemplifies how local politics and media unite to create positions of power for active members of the water industry that ultimately link local concerns to state and national resources. By analyzing accounts in North County newspapers, using a series of interviews with water officials and staff, and contacting relatives of the Doe family, this author looks beyond the surface politics of major water agencies in Southern California and seeks to understand why a retired engineer and part-time grower would devote his life to water development.6

Vista rancher Hans Doe charged into the competitive world of Southern California water politics in 1951 and stayed intensively active until his retirement in 1986. Affectionately known to friends as “Mr. Water,” Doe fought for development of water storage and transport systems throughout California, yet maintained his ties to the Vista community during his thirty-five years of service. An avocado and macadamia nut grower, Doe understood agriculture’s dependency on water, particularly in semi-arid Southern California, and consistently argued the farmers’ case. But he also remained true to his political base with powerful water officials and maintained a conservative stance toward regulatory action. This go-between style earned him a reputation for conscientious diplomacy and proved increasingly useful in relations between agricultural and municipal groups as well as in negotiations between Northern and Southern interest groups. Ultimately, Doe believed that the business of delivering water should be treated with a state-wide perspective. Harry Griffen, former president of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and equally as active as Doe in water development, attested to Doe’s negotiating skills which impressed both foe and advocate. A long-time Director of the Helix Water District, Griffen served with Doe on the boards of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) from 1956-1988. In a memorial tribute to Doe, he wrote:

Many of you may wonder why I should be paying a tribute to Hans Doe when it was a general opinion that we were not the closest of friends. To the contrary, we shared an unusual amount of respect for each other. We shared the same philosophical objectives, but we attempted to achieve those objectives in a vastly different manner. I was aggressive and pushed the objectives relentlessly. Hans was a diplomatic statesman offering compromise and appeasement to make everyone happy. Actually, we worked as a team. I shot the enemy down, and Hans would come along and heal the wounded.7

When Hans Doe died on April 4, 1988 at the age of 85, many water officials realized the industry had lost one of its most dedicated leaders. Doe’s rise to membership on the most influential boards and committees in the California water industry began at the local level in San Diego’s North County and led to his service on the board of the SDCWA from 1956 to 1987 and his representation on the board of the MWD from 1959 to 1986. A life member of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) board, Doe has been the only person to serve two terms (four years) as president of ACWA. His many statewide accomplishments include appointment to two terms on the State Soil Conservation Commission under Governor Goodwin J. Knight, leading the Resource Conservation Districts Association as their president, and chairing the Southern California Water Conference for ten years. As one of the organizers of the Agua Buena Soil Conservation District, Doe helped promote and build the flood control channel system that protects Vista against periodic flooding.

Doe’s water career exemplifies the insular track to director status as described by Gottlieb and FitzSimmons in their examination of power relationships in Southern California water agencies.8 Along with a critique of the near-absent reporting mechanisms that have enabled directors to sustain their positions, the authors also point out the dominance of engineers in water systems management:

With the widespread introduction of chlorination and filtration in most metropolitan water systems by World War I (and the expanding interest in irrigation in California and the West), water issues came to be defined as supply issues. These were perceived as political in nature but as requiring technical capabilities for effective implementation. While the lack of technological expertise caused some non-engineer directors to keep quiet about issues on which they disagreed for fear of ridicule, Doe believed his engineering background offered him sound credentials in which to promote himself as an expert on water management and water transport.9

Doe’s single-minded focus toward water issues differs from the career movements of some California directors in that Doe devoted his full attention to the water industry. Others, although dedicated, maintained active participation in their businesses. Margaret Beery Doe, Hans’ wife of fifty-three years, also figured prominently into his ability to concentrate wholeheartedly on water issues. A constant companion, Margaret decided early in their marriage to make assisting Hans her career.10 As a sole proprietor, he lacked access to the staff and administrative resources that most other water directors could tap into, and Margaret took on the duties of administrative assistant for him. Hans often commented on his success in relationship to his wife, and noted in his personal papers that “Margaret made it all possible. She kept the home fires burning, did the entertaining, and worked as a staff member. Absent Margaret, the story would be quite different.”11

Although his career in the water industry culminated with the power and perks typical of what has been named the “water fraternity,”12 Doe began as a long-shot winner in a Vista Irrigation District (VID) board election in 1951. A relative newcomer to the North County, Doe ran for the VID seat with the understanding that he would be replaced after his four-year term. Instead, his election to the VID was only the beginning of a succession of involvements — local and statewide — with the water delivery industry. To understand how local leaders like Hans Doe develop into water personalities, it is important to understand how Doe learned to use the media, partisan politics, and regionalism to influence the outcome of water policy in California. Doe discovered that he needed to reach the local media before his opposition, and he began to rely on editorial publicity for his lobbying attempts. In California, the success or failure of water activities depends on politics, and Doe became an active leader for the Republican party and used these connections to gain headway for his pet projects. Moreover, Doe reconciled his local interests with the power centered at the regional level by seeking involvement with ACWA, MWD, and SDCWA.


Born on January 7, 1903, in Bergen, Norway, Hans Henrik Holck Dooe was the firstborn child of Sigurd and Magdalena Poulsson Dooe.13 His only sibling, brother Poul [Paul] Holst Dooe, was also born in Bergen in November 1905.14 Little is known about the Dooe’s life in Norway, although Hans’ father decided to emigrate with his family to Victoria, British Columbia in 1910 because of uncertain political changes occurring in Norway.15 Sigurd, a mechanical engineer, worked on the waterfront where he helped build most of the docks and piers on the island and for the Trans-Canada Railroad. He provided a professional role model for his son, Hans.16 Personal mementos indicate that Hans took an early interest in engineering, and when he moved to the United States in 1921 at the age of eighteen, he followed his father’s footsteps by studying mechanical engineering at the University of California in Berkeley with the class of 1925.17 He became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1927 but never graduated from the University.

From 1930 to 1946, Hans managed Hans H. Doe and Co., in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which operated sawmills, manufactured and distributed building materials, and designed and constructed barges. The United States and British military forces generated a good deal of business for the company, particularly during the war years. Business brought Hans to Phoenix, Arizona, in the mid-1930s where he met and soon married Margaret Beery.18 The newly-married couple made their home in Milwaukee until 1946, when they joined Margaret’s parents residing in Vista, California.19 Hans, then forty-three and ready for a career change, switched from engineering to owning and operating an avocado and macadamia nut ranch.

The drought of 1950-51 heightened concern among Southern California growers and served as the impetus for Doe’s venture into water politics.20 Ranchers in the Vista area discovered that the MWD consortium could provide water to them and they became convinced that the VID should join the “Mighty Met” as a member agency. The MWD — the largest water agency in the country — was created by a number of communities in 1928 as a wholesaler of water. Its twenty-seven member public agencies and 130 subagencies serve 127 cities in six counties (Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and San Diego).21 As the election for vacancies on the VID drew nearer, a group of Vistans who promoted the MWD/VID connection devised a plan where Doe and two other Vista men would run on a ticket to fill the board positions. That way, if they won the election they would enter the VID board with a solid three to two vote edge. In a 1984 article, Doe rationalized that he ran for the board position out of self-defense:


There were a half dozen of us or more out our way who had more money wrapped up in land and avocados than we should have had and it was obvious that our water supply was kind of iffy. So in self-defense, we took an interest in the VID and wanted to annex onto the MWD and be entitled to buy imported water. By 1949 to 1950 the lake [Lake Henshaw] was pretty near empty. It got down to less than a day’s supply of water. We drilled about 50 wells near the lake with the idea that we could get maybe 100 to 300 acre feet of recoverable water in the ground water basin, and we thought that Henshaw would be able to supply us with about half the water we needed. We had to look to the Metropolitan Water District for the balance.22

Vista voters elected Hans Doe to the VID, but unfortunately his running mates failed to get elected and he found himself new to water politics and outnumbered among the other VID directors. “Mr Water’s” initiation into the water business was a term plagued with drought, threat of resignation, and community anxiety. Clearly, Doe struggled during his early days on the VID board. The Vista Press coined him a “little tin god” and in 1953 his disagreements with fellow board members only unsettled the agency.23 According to civil engineer Linden Burzell, former general manager of the VID (1951-1963) and of the SDCWA (1964-1984), two newspapers serviced the Vista community: The Vista Press , presenting a conservative view, and The Vista News, providing a liberal alternative. Edited by Carey Stephenson during the 1950s and 1960s, The Vista News offered harsh criticisms on projects that involved Doe. On a personal level, Stephenson made it clear through his editorials that he did not care for Hans Doe or the positions he took on water issues. The Vista Press originally took a negative view toward Doe’s work, but it soon evolved into an instrument for Hans to showcase the work he produced for the VID.

Drought continued to affect the area, and in December 1953, the San Diego Union reported that an “increasingly serious” water shortage faced North County growers and ranchers and that water districts, irrigation districts, cities and mutual water companies had all measured water use at “far in excess” of normal December levels.24 The story took many North County residents by surprise since a report by VID manager-engineer, Linden Burzell, issued that previous April, had assured them that:

There will be no water shortage this year, even though the water usage promises to be much greater than last year and probably any recent previous year.25

Doe chose to join this political hot-bed by surfacing his initial reasons for getting involved in the VID — membership in the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) — as a viable alternative source of water. In an attempt to make the public aware of the pressing need for solutions, Doe had proposed plans to the VID board outlining a public meeting in which Vistans would be apprised of the benefits of joining the MWD.26 By creating a municipal water district, the community would be eligible for Colorado River water through membership in the MWD. Some VID directors like chairman, V. J. Becherer, believed that Vista could not afford to take on the debt required in joining the MWD and maintained that local ground water supplies would continue to meet the needs of the Vista population.27 Outraged at Doe’s proposal, Becherer declared he would resign if the VID held a public meeting. In the drought-ridden area, tempers flared and local editorials reflected the varying sides of the issue. Calling for an explanation of Burzell’s earlier statement that the area possessed enough water to meet the needs “even if no rain fell,” The Vista News wrote:


Our community was badly shocked last week at the brazen blackmail aspect of the VID as reported in The Vista Press that unless we vote “Yes” on February 16 on formation of a new, over-riding municipal water district to get Colorado river water we will be rationed on water beginning March 1.28

The paper’s “shock” was in reference to a clarification made by Burzell that the necessity for irrigation in November and December had changed his earlier calculations.

At a special election on February 16, 1954, Vistans voted to form a new municipal water agency called the Bueno Colorado Municipal Water District (BCMWD), thereby voting to take on the necessary indebtedness to pay for membership in MWD. The successful vote encouraged all of the VID directors except Becherer, who followed through on his threat to resign. Charging collusion by members of the board, Becherer resigned March 4, 1954.29 In reference to the unanimous vote by the directors to hold a public meeting, Becherer accused “that at the December 17, 1953 meeting it was quite evident that a predetermined conclusion had been reached by the majority of the board on what to me was a very debatable subject. Yet, according to reports by The Vista Press , Becherer’s resignation came as no surprise to the board since it had already been functioning without its president since the middle of December 1953.

Even while the district was expanding its ability to provide water service, the VID directors decided by a divided vote (three to two) to reduce rates “across the board.”30 Originated by Doe, the resolution fulfilled his campaign promise to study the budget and try to reduce water rates by a half-cent per 100 cubic feet. But the reductions lasted only two years and in April 1956, the VID raised rates effective in June. Still a proponent of reduction, Doe opposed the decision and urged the board to wait until a vacationing director had returned but the board over-ruled him. Stinging with defeat, Doe declared that “Raising the water rate at this time will disturb the present relationship between assessments and water charges and I suggest that more study be given to the matter.”31

Doe’s status as a grower — albeit a rather short-lived enterprise — seemed to lend credence to his credentials when running for District positions, as did his experience as an engineer. At the same special election in which Vistans voted to create the Bueno Colorado Municipal Water District, Doe ran and won in the only uncontested race to elect directors for the new water district. The election to decide “Vista’s most important and crucial problem in years,” generated a 50 percent voter turnout.32 The main issue centered around establishing the BCMWD, and voters decided by an overwhelming margin of seven to one to form BCMWD, the municipal district that would join MWD and SDCWA, and thereby make imported Colorado River water available to a large area that embraced the Vista Irrigation District and San Marcos located southeast of Vista.

With this added position with the BCMWD, Doe became known in the North County area as a persevering advocate for agriculture. Possessing a flair for public relations and a healthy ego, Doe soon began to venture out of North County and into state government with marketing stunts that earned him positive points with the local constituency. In 1955, avocado growers faced the largest avocado crop in history as they sent 3,700,000 flats to market. Doe began to lobby the State Assembly for passage of a measure promoting the use of avocados as a staple food and encouraging state agencies to make purchases of the fruit in quantity.33 The measure had originated at the February 27, 1955 Republican State Central Committee convention in Los Angeles, and as a staunch Republican, Doe supported the measure. In his first attempt at statewide lobbying, he arranged for the placement of two avocados on every assemblyman’s desk to emphasize and remind them of the bill. The stunt proved successful as the bill passed the Assembly, and Governor Goodwin Knight recommended to purchasing agents for California state institutions that they give consideration to the bill.34

North County applauded Doe’s efforts and nicknamed him “Mr. Avocado,” yet not all shared the sentiment.35 In its continuing role as watch-dog, The Vista News wrote:

Many Vistans are amused at the torrid love affair between The [Vista] Press and Hans Doe, recalling that only a few years ago absolutely livid editorials in The Press assailed Doe as a “little tin god,” denouncing his autocratic ways. Occasion for the latest adulation is The Press dubbed “Doe Bill” passed by the Legislature to encourage greater use of avocados by California state agencies. Truth is, many people have worked on the same generic idea for years and Doe deserves about as much “credit” for it as you do. The bill isn’t expected to do much for selling avocados, since Californians already eat a lot of them.36

Undaunted by the negative press, Doe charged full force into the water industry and its ever-present link with politics.


A Republican stronghold in the early 1950s, California geared up for its run for the White House with the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket, and Hans Doe proved to be an important supporter for the party in North County. His involvement in party organizing only strengthened his power and prestige in the water industry, since the majority of the water “fraternity” pledged Republican. Appointed to the Executive Committee of the State Central Committee of the Republican Party by chair George Murphy in 1954, Doe maintained this position for three terms through 1958. Many influential legislators wrote recommendation letters on Doe’s behalf including Frank Luckel, State Legislature; Edwin S. Bulen, Assembly 77th District; and Fred H. Kraft, Senator, San Diego County.37

Both Hans and Margaret Doe campaigned for Republican candidates and bolstered voter turnout in the Vista area. Nixon was a particular Doe favorite and the couple organized one successful rally after another as Hans continually perfected his gift for media flair. From the “Nixonette” cheerleaders to use of a “lucky” rostrum, the Does plugged their candidate through every available media tool.38

Soon Doe’s power base began to spread from the support of local newspapers like The Vista Press to the greater San Diego area and the conservative San Diego Union. The paper’s publisher, James S. Copley, wrote Doe in October 1958 to compliment him on his involvement that signaled a welcome into the inner circle of Republican politicians in California.39 Even after Nixon’s presidential defeat to John F. Kennedy in 1961, Doe continued to campaign for Nixon whenever the opportunity arose, and as Nixon’s North County campaign chair in 1962, he organized an Escondido rally that drew an overflow crowd.40

Throughout his involvement in Republican politics, Doe directed his attention to the party as a whole and to water issues in particular. When the ground breaking for the San Luis Reservoir of the controversial State Water Project reflected a Democratic victory, Doe eased the Republican perspective into the media by issuing a statement identifying the project as a “bipartisan effort.” The reservoir was part of the Feather River Project which originated in 1948 and developed into the State Water Project. Great debate ensued between Northern and Southern Californians on damming the Feather River which was the most important tributary of the Sacramento River. Tenacious persuasion by Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown created the environment in which competing counties agreed on the project and voters endorsed the water bond program in 1960.41 Doe used the State Water Project to position Nixon alongside Governor Brown by publicizing a telegram Brown had sent to Nixon in 1960. The telegram reportedly read:


I think the opening baseball game in San Francisco will prove extremely valuable to all citizens of this state. When a Democratic governor and a Republican Vice President, both native sons, join together in any project, it looks like things get done. May we, despite our political differences, find many future opportunities to be of service to the people of our native state and wonderful country.42

By the late 1950s, Doe’s effectiveness in handling water issues and in organizing the Republican Party in Southern California allowed him to move into the tightly-knit group of State decision-makers. Starting with his appointment by Governor Goodwin J. Knight to the State Soil Conservation District board in 1955 to fill an unexpired term, Doe began to earn appointments that increased his visibility in California generally and the North County in particular.43 At the time of his appointment, Doe chaired the Agua Buena Soil Conservation District board and served on the recently created BCMWD, in addition to director positions on the VID and the SDCWA. In a letter to Governor Knight in 1957, Senator Fred H. Kraft recommended Doe to the Board of the 22nd District Agricultural Association by combining Doe’s “outstanding work” in soil conservation with his “effective leadership of our Party.”44 By 1963, local papers regularly referred to Hans Doe as “Mr. Water” and described him as “Southern California’s most eminent authority on water problems.”45 This title gained authenticity as Doe’s activism spread to every major association and institution even remotely involved with water. No longer satisfied to confine himself to the local community, Doe became active in state-wide organizations that held national importance. For instance, in July 1964, Doe received an appointment to the University of California Water Resources Center Advisory Committee for a three- year period.46

Doe’s philosophy evolved into an “if it works, don’t fix it” attitude, which jelled with the attempt by most water agency directors to remain conservative and non-controversial. The industry rewarded his stance by appointing him to the most powerful committees and electing him to lead their associations. Most notable was his election to head the Irrigation Districts Association (IDA), presently known as ACWA (Association of California Water Agencies). Recognized as a “strong conservative force in the field of water legislation,” the IDA consisted of 175 irrigation districts at the close of the 1950s.47 With its focus on giving consideration to legislation affecting water districts, the membership believed that the skills and expertise of Hans Doe fit naturally with their organization, and they elected him vice president during the annual convention in 1959.48 His election represented the first time a San Diego County resident had been named to such a high post in the association, and when the IDA elected him president in March 1961, Doe became only the second president in the 52-year history of the IDA from Southern California.49 As IDA president, Doe evoked popular sentiment by remarking that “irrigation and water districts provide a good system. It is the best we know of. It works well. We should not tamper with it unnecessarily.”50

Conservatism continued to reign throughout the industry as exemplified by the three-point plan for water resource expansion presented by the IDA under Doe’s presidency and their resistance to any kind of internal change. The plan called to 1) import water from places outside California; 2) for desalination of sea water; and 3) for conservation of water already available in the Colorado River Basin.51 IDA membership had expanded to 212 water districts in only two years and by the time Doe stepped down in 1965, IDA’s demographic make-up had experienced marked change. In a 1965 speech to members, Doe commented: “While originally composed almost entirely of irrigation districts, the IDA now has only one-third of its membership from that type of group, the remainder being county or city water districts or other such districts.”52

But the IDA membership nearly turned inside out when in 1967 some members proposed changing the organization’s name, believing it no longer represented the makeup of the membership. Originally the IDA had been formed to represent irrigation districts that provided water mainly for agricultural uses in the state but as it evolved, membership included many water agencies that mainly served urban water-users. Always looking for an amiable and non-controversial solution, Doe hit upon a compromise: keep the initials IDA but change what they stood for to “Industrial Domestic Agricultural.”53 This solution made sense and worked for a few years, but eventually with the urging of executive director and general counsel John Fraser, the organization in 1972 changed its name to ACWA (Association of California Water Agencies).54 Fraser had sound reasons for wanting a complete change. His position as a lobbyist for the IDA required that he constantly explain his role as including the interests of both agricultural and urban water users. Many believed that the IDA worked only for farm groups, which historically were quite powerful, possessing either riparian or prior appropriative rights, and often seen as selfish water users. Fraser suggested the name California Water Agencies, but met strong opposition from some of the older members, including Doe. Eventually, Fraser ushered in the name ACWA by changing the organization’s newsletter name Western Water News to the ACWA News. The acronym caught on and the organization became incorporated as ACWA in 1972.

Southern California districts recognized Doe’s representation as a valuable asset and his notoriety as an authority on water grew. The water industry rewarded him by bestowing such tributes as “Man of the Year” from the Imperial Irrigation District and a Certificate of Honor from the IDA for “devoted service to IDA and to water users in general throughout California and the West.”55


San Diego County, by mid-century, received approximately 83 percent of all water used in the SDCWA from the MWD. Consequently, because of its high dependency, concerns between water usage and rates occurred periodically between the MWD and the SDCWA. During the 1960s, three issues in particular caused heated debate and division among the directors on the MWD board: 1) the east/west branches of transporting Feather River water through the State Water Project; 2) preferential rights to purchase water from MWD; and 3) the Peripheral Canal. All of these issues allowed Hans Doe to become further entrenched in water issues and to develop his negotiating skills.

The State Water Project had probably served as Doe’s initiation into the water fraternity. In 1956, the VID had voted unanimously to back the project in an attempt to generate future water sources, and Doe served on a state-wide group organized through the Chamber of Commerce to promote the project.

During the same period, MWD desired to increase its ability to divert water from the Colorado River. As patriarch of the SDCWA, chairman Fred Heilbron, impressed by Doe’s political savvy and ability to connect with important figures such as Governor Knight, appointed Doe to an area-wide committee to direct the campaign for approval of MWD’s Prop W. The proposition was a no-tax increase measure which authorized MWD — of which the SDCWA was the third largest member — to issue short term notes totaling $50 million to finance expansion of MWD’s pumping facilities on the Colorado River Aqueduct.56

In May 1963, Doe accompanied Heilbron and Harry Griffen to an MWD meeting about how to distribute the Feather River water in Southern California. The trio hoped to persuade the MWD directors of the necessity for an eastern branch to connect San Diego County. The board, however, overruled their proposal and adopted a program to carry state project water to Southern California without construction of an eastern branch. Furious with the decision, Heilbron argued:


The MWD program would leave the San Diego area with only one supply line for Feather River water. If anything happened to that line, which passes through the Los Angeles metropolitan area, or if we lose a portion of our Colorado River water, we would be without any reserve supply of water.57

Surprisingly, Doe responded to his local constituents in the Daily Blade-Tribune by explaining:


It didn’t concern me very much. Too much importance should not be attached to the proposal because San Diego County had the promises of two agencies, the MWD and the state Department of Water Resources, that Northern California water would be delivered to the County by 1972. The MWD has said, however, that it would through its own facilities, take water from the western branch and deliver it to San Diego by 1972.58

Perhaps Doe’s optimism toward the MWD promises resulted from his lack of seniority on the MWD board. Clearly, the well-established director Heilbron risked little by his criticisms, whereas as a relative newcomer Doe needed to choose his critical targets far more carefully in order to stay politically solvent. But by September 1963, the Blade-Tribune reported that Doe “lashed out at contentions that delay in building the East Branch of the Feather River Aqueduct would save money for Southern California,” and believed that an east branch at Perris Reservoir needed to be a cornerstone of the San Diego County policy.59

The change of heart suggests the complicated political games that occurred between the “Mighty Met” and SDCWA and the choices directors made in choosing their allies — should Doe side with the MWD and support the dominant vote or should he maintain tight loyalties to the local body. Doe’s flip-flop came in response to long-time MWD chair Joseph Jensen’s denial of threats that San Diego would be hurt from delay of the east branch. Jensen explained that both branches — east and west — would have its terminus at Perris Reservoir and declared, “What difference does it make how the water gets to Perris Reservoir — you people don’t realize that however the water gets there, it will come through the Perris Reservoir.”60

Immediately following Jensen’s comments, an eight-district committee moved into action to lobby for an eastern branch opening. It took the group five years, but in 1968, the MWD reversed its earlier decision and authorized preliminary work on a distribution project which would satisfy the San Diego contingency.61 Dubbed the Rialto Reach, the new project was a 30-mile-long segment of MWD’s Foothill Feeder System that would eventually connect the east and west branches of the State Water Project in Los Angeles County. To ensure funding for expansion of its distribution facilities to receive water from the project, originally approved by its voters in June 1966, the SDCWA board voted unanimously on October 15, 1968 to sell $30 million in bonds.

The second issue that divided the southern California region was preferential rights. Since 1946, when SDCWA joined MWD, it had been MWD’s largest purchaser of water and, in terms of dependency on MWD, has always used more water than Los Angeles. It has therefore paid more in water revenues. The concept of preferential rights as originally established was tied to historic payment of taxes by property owners within each member agency. This archaic provision has never been changed. MWD’s tax rates were always the same for all property owners, but since assessed property values were higher in Los Angeles, under this provision, Los Angeles has preferential rights unrelated to historic water purchases and needs. San Diegans felt justified in wanting a change in the preferential rights provision of the Metropolitan Water District Act (Section 135), and MWD directors struggled to find some solution. According to MWD director E. Thornton Ibbetson and ACWA director John Fraser, Doe had prided himself on pointing to MWD’s policy, commonly referred to as the Laguna Declaration, as “solving” the issue of preferential rights.62

In December 1952, MWD’s Board adopted the policy known as the Laguna Declaration, which, according to MWD administrative code Section 4201 said, in effect, that the needs of the MWD member agencies would be served equally in times of shortages and it committed MWD to secure sufficient water supplies to meet expanding and increasing needs in the years ahead. According to Doe, the Laguna Declaration basically off-set preferential rights by committing MWD to a mission to serve its customers and directors had to learn to live with the policy.63 In 1984, debate increased over the issue of preferential rights with the Los Angeles contingency working to overturn the Laguna Declaration. According to Ibbetson, Doe successfully “fought extremely hard” to maintain the Laguna policy under which the region continues to operate.64

Finally, the Peripheral Canal, an outgrowth of the State Water Project, developed into one of the most controversial water issues to hit California, and proved to be one of the last intense projects Doe took on in an official water industry capacity. Beginning in the late 1950s, state engineers recognized that a great amount of work would need to be done in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta in order for water to run effectively through the channels. Studies by several departments such as the California Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game concluded that the Peripheral Canal provided the most acceptable alternative to accomplish efficient deliveries of water, protect water rights in the Delta, and preserve environmental resources. By definition, the Peripheral Canal would be a “42-mile-long, unlined ditch running from Hood, a town on the Sacramento River north of the Delta, to the Clifton Court Forebay on the south side of the Delta.”65 It would be 400-500 feet wide and have a capacity to move 18,300 cubic feet of water into the Clifton Court Forebay every second. Three components comprised the proposed project: 1) constitutional protection for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the north coast rivers; 2) an executive order calling for the development of water conservation and desalination plans; and 3) SB200 which authorized the Peripheral Canal, two new reservoir complexes, other water control facilities, and guidelines for the operation of the facilities.66

In 1964, the State government and the California Water Commission identified the Peripheral Canal concept as the preferred “Delta Facility.” Efforts to build the Canal have proceeded since. After numerous studies and reaffirmations, Governor Jerry Brown signed State Senate Bill 200 in July 1980, authorizing the building of the Peripheral Canal. Environmental groups, with backing from politicians hoping for re-election, raised major issues about the project which mushroomed into the most controversial water issue in recent history. Uncharacteristically, after SB 200 was enacted into law, it became subject to a referendum, and in October 1980 dissenters qualified enough signatures to put it on the state-wide ballot. Since Governor Brown did not call a special election, SB 200 became Proposition 9 on the June 1982 state-wide election.

Peripheral Canal advocates used three arguments to state their case: 1) the law binds them to honor the water delivery contracts signed twenty years before; 2) the Peripheral Canal is needed to save the Delta from further degradation; and 3) the San Joaquin Valley needs more water so that farmers can stop relying on overexploited ground water.67 Southern Californian water agencies promoted the building of the Peripheral Canal because it would improve the quality of water and provide a more reliable system to assist in meeting growing water needs. When Earl Blaise became chairman of the MWD Board in 1979, he made the building of the Peripheral Canal MWD’s top priority.68 Currently, Director of California’s Department of Water Resources, David Kennedy, and former SDCWA chair Mike Madigan remembered working with Hans Doe as a senior leader on the campaign to get the project passed.69 Efforts by advocates like Doe and others were successful in the South but concerted opposition proved to be disastrous in Northern California. Voters cast a 60 to 40 win in Southern California, but Northerners overwhelmingly defeated the referendum 90 to 10. San Diego County gave 73.4 percent support, but the bill was rejected statewide by a 62 percent margin.

The Peripheral Canal Campaign represented one of Doe’s last intense fights, yet he continued his interest in water and involved himself as his age and health allowed. When he learned that the Hoover Power Contracts would come up for renewal in the early 1980s, Doe urged the MWD staff to begin working with the Secretary of the Interior and the other power contractors on the Colorado River to renegotiate the contracts.70 Although it was nearly ten years before the contracts were due to expire, Doe emphasized to the staff the importance of laying political ground-work for a successful renegotiation. When asked if Doe’s political reach influenced his ability to effect change, fellow “water politician” Ibbetson declared, “No, Hans was not a politician. He instilled confidence in people. He kept his word and did his best. People respected him.”71 Moreover, Ibbetson believed that Hans never directed his attentions to one constituency: “Hans was for everyone. He wanted water to work for people, it didn’t matter who they were.”


Elected water officials believed that to maintain voter support, conservatism, particularly in regard to tax or rate increases, dictated many of their decisions. As a long-time member of SDCWA’s Water Problems Committee, Doe analyzed a number of difficult issues such as the Feather River Aqueduct controversy, and always leaned toward the safe and non-controversial solution. For instance, Doe questioned a study by the Bureau of Reclamation on a proposed desalination plant at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside since he feared the expense of the technology. At a House Subcommittee on irrigation and reclamation in Washington, D.C. in May 1968, Doe argued that desalination technology was still too experimental and expensive. He outlined instead three typical methods to save water — straightening the river channel to prevent loss of water in swamps, aerating storage reservoirs to reduce evaporation, and preventing plants with long tap roots from growing along the river.72 A strong opponent of desalination, Doe continued to use expense as his justification for disliking the technology. When projected plans to build a nuclear power and water desalting plant on Bolsa Island off the Orange County coast disintegrated, Doe declared the news “perfectly wonderful” and beneficial to taxpayers, water buyers, and power buyers throughout Southern California.73 According to Ibbetson, “Hans thought desalination could work, but it was just too expensive. In fact it would have been ten times more. Hans was very proud of the project. In fact, San Diego was going to be the key player in desalination, but [Doe] discovered that it would just be too expensive.”74

During the 1970s and 1980s, Doe slowed down and focused on solidifying conscientious water delivery to Southern Californians, but part of that effort included educating the public. Both Hans and Margaret led many tour groups to the various water systems scattered throughout the Southern California region. For instance, they regularly guided groups sponsored by the SDCWA to the Colorado River Aqueduct System route from San Diego County to Parker Dam at Lake Havasu, Arizona. Doe always stressed the importance of adequate water supplies for every household, business and farm. As the costs of water continued to escalate, Doe frequently reminded his audiences that water in Southern California was worth whatever it cost to build the necessary dams, aqueducts, pipelines, and pumps to make water available for use by the people in semi-arid Southern California. According to Paul D. Engstrand, former General Counsel for the SDCWA, Doe translated water industry “lingo” into language understandable to the average water user by converting the cost of water per acre foot into cost per gallon or cost per pound.75 Always the negotiator, people in the water industry came to recognize his gentle speech and finesse.

Doe also believed strongly in mentoring young engineers and youths interested in the water industry, taking many enterprising graduates under his tutelage. Mike Madigan, senior vice president for Pardee Construction Company in San Diego and 1990-91 chairman of the SDCWA, commented that his long interest in water could be traced to his student days at San Diego State University when he attended a Hans Doe-hosted tour of the MWD facilities along the Colorado River.76 Apparently, Doe delighted in showing off the facilities and generally took a group at least annually. Although Madigan opted not to pursue geology as a career, he maintained his association and interest in water. Former Mayor Pete Wilson appointed Madigan to the SDCWA board in 1979, and while reminiscing about his time working with Doe, Madigan recognized the talents of his senior board members:


The operational, planning side of things was what Hans specialized in and Harry [Griffen] dealt with the money. And then John Cranston was an attorney. You had these three ol’ guys in there and they were just wizards. It was just great. It was a great training ground for people like Mike Madigan, Francie [Francesca] Krauel and Dale Mason to spend time with the Hans Does and the Harry Griffens and the John Cranstons and to learn the intricacies, and the history and the passion of the water business.77

David Kennedy also benefitted from mentoring by Doe and appreciated the encouragement he and others like him received. He recalled that:


Hans had another unique quality in addition to being constructive. He encouraged the younger people on the staff to become involved and to attend meetings and find out about how policy is made . . . When you’re a young person and trying to get involved in something it’s always helpful to have a very senior person like Hans take a personal interest and encourage you and invite you to meetings.78

As the assistant general manager at MWD, Kennedy worked with Doe from the fall of 1968 to the summer of 1983, and Kennedy pinpointed Doe’s ability to work within a constructive team structure:

I’ve known a lot of people in the water community now and when you think of “statesman” and the big picture and people trying to approach each problem in a constructive manner rather than a parochial manner, Hans should always be listed in the top five.79

Doe’s approach seemed to be appreciated throughout the water industry and according to MWD chair Lois Krieger, Hans recognized how precious water was to the people of San Diego County and he constantly worked to make others in the state as aware. Krieger remembered how during the dedication of the Harry Griffen Park, Doe challenged all San Diegans to wake up each morning and thank the government and water officials who made the delivery of water to San Diego possible. “Hans was a rare bird,” Krieger commented, “such a joy to work with.”80 She also appreciated Doe’s sense of humor and enjoyed the fact that he drew cartoons of all his fellow board members during their meetings!

Although not a household name to the general Southern Californian city dwellers, “Doe” is well known among the state’s decision makers and the region’s agricultural and development communities. Dependent on the constant flow of water, Southern Californians unconsciously depend on members of the water “fraternity” like Hans H. Doe. In a 1978 interview with the Escondido Times-Advocate, Doe reiterated his philosophy: “Nobody owns water, nobody wants to steal anybody’s water — just stop it from wasting and going to the ocean. God has given us resources, and it’s up to us to develop them.”81 Doe used every opportunity he could muster to engage the local media in promoting a water industry story. He learned to master the skill of promotion and turned political foes into friends.


The first time you met Hans Doe, you might be a little intimidated. While not a large man, he had presence. You thought he was bigger than hell. He had a deep, sonorous voice which commanded attention. He drove home his points and opinions with wit and verve. And he did it with a twinkle in his eyes. He was important. But Hans was also a lot of fun. Despite the tendency for him to intimidate on first meeting, you soon learned that here was a nice guy who also liked to have a good time.82

Doe begrudgingly began to retire from his various water industry positions at the age of 83 when his health began to fail. The President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, California Governor George Deukmejian, and United States Senator Pete Wilson joined in the massive tribute to Doe upon his retirement in October 1986 from the MWD Board; two years earlier he had retired from the Vista Irrigation District board. Tributory accolades poured in and complimentary gestures honored his involvement, such as the renaming of the annual ACWA Forum Breakfast to the Hans H. Doe Forum Breakfast. While many well-wishers admitted that they had not necessarily agreed with Doe on every issue, they had respected working with him and had appreciated his style.83

Doe told an ACWA audience that he hoped his “efforts in the field of water development would leave some small mark in the history of water in this state.”84 More than just an “industry,” the business of water delivery is driven by a devoted “fraternity” who are passionate about their involvement, and Doe was a well-known member of this fraternity. In the final analysis, the history of water usage in California is as much about its local participants, activists, and taxpayers as its rivers, streams, or canals. Today, the Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust is providing support for numerous projects seeking to educate Californians about the continuing importance of a reliable water supply and the history of its development.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The research and writing of this article and the oral history interview project were made possible through the generous support of the Hans and Margaret Doe Charitable Trust.


1. Thomas W. Patterson, “Hatfield the Rainmaker,” Journal of San Diego History 16 (Winter 1970): 2-27.

2. For a flavor of how some revisionist historians have analyzed the experience of the Western expansion and the attempts to secure water delivery see Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West (New York and London: W. W. Norton & Co., 1988); and Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985).

3. For recent work on the importance of local water districts and communities in California see Harrison C. Dunning, “Dam Fights and Water Policy in California: 1969-1989,” Journal of the West 29 (July 1990): 14-27; M. Catherine Miller, “Who Owns the Water? Law, Property, and the Price of Irrigation,” Journal of the West 29 (October 1990): 35-41 and “Riparian Rights and the Control of Water in California, 1879-1928: The Relationship between an Agricultural Enterprise and Legal Change,” Agricultural History 59 (1) 1985: 1-24; Kay Russell, “The Fallbrook Irrigation District Case,” Journal of San Diego History 21 (Spring 1975): 23-40; Robert A. Sauder, “The Agricultural Colonization of a Great Basin Frontier: Economic Organization and Environmental Alteration in Owens Valley, California, 1860-1925,” Agricultural History 64 (4) 1990: 78-101; and John Walton, Western Times and Water Wars: State, Culture, and Rebellion in California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1991).

For a study of a local water politician see Robert E. Melbourne, “San Diego County’s Water Crusader,” Journal of San Diego History 32:4 (Fall 1986): 254-263.

4. Robert Gottlieb, A Life of Its Own: The Politics and Power of Water (San Diego, New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1988).

5. Robert Gottlieb and Margaret FitzSimmons, Thirst for Growth: Water Agencies as Hidden Government in California (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991), xviii.

6. For this study, the author interviewed James and Annabel Beery, first cousin–James [Jim] to Margaret Beery Doe, 3 July 1991; Linden Burzell, former general manager of the Vista Irrigation District and retired general manager and chief engineer of the San Diego County Water Authority, 12 June 1991; John Fraser, executive director and general counsel for the Association of California Water Agencies (phone interview) 21 June 1991; E. Thornton Ibbetson, member and former chairman of the board of directors at the Metropolitan Water District, 17 June 1991; David Kennedy, director of the Department of Water Resources for California, 15 July 1991; Lois Krieger, member of the board of directors at the Metropolitan Water District (phone interview), 24 July 1991; Mike Madigan, chairman of the board of directors at the San Diego County Water Authority and member of the board of directors at the Metropolitan Water District, 26 June 1991; and Robert E. Melbourne, retired engineer at the San Diego County Water Authority (phone interview) 10 July 1991.

7. Harry Griffen, “ACWA’s Tribute to Hans H. Doe,” ACWA News 11, (May 20, 1988): 6-7. Water industry professionals interviewed for this project verified the quote’s sentiment, and those who worked with Doe and Griffen noted that both men had excelled in negotiating, yet they qualified Doe’s style as “gentler.”

8. Gottlieb and FitzSimmons, Thirst for Growth, pp. 110-122.

9. Ibid., 122.

10. Beery interview. Margaret died shortly after her husband on January 20, 1989. A graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles in the early 1920s, Margaret had difficulty finding a position in her field of study — Political Science and Law — and was forced to settle for a clerical position as a legal secretary. She and Hans met at the law firm and married on January 8, 1936. The Beerys’, as well as all others interviewed, commented that both Hans and Margaret were tireless in their interest for water industry issues. The Does had no children and few relatives which many have speculated allowed them the time to devote to the water community.

11. Hans H. Doe Personal Archives, (hereafter cited as HHD), statement by Hans attached to his resume, San Diego History Center Research Archives, Balboa Park, San Diego, California.

12. Gottlieb and FitzSimmons, Thirst for Growth, p. 110.

13. HHD. Family photographs captioned in Norwegian spell the family name “Dooe” which they likely changed to “Doe” when they immigrated to the United States.

14. Ibid. Date derived from a family photography of Hans, Poul, and their mother.

15. The Blade-Tribune, 29 November 1963.

16. HHD, photographs and application to Who’s Who in the West, 5 May 1959.

17. HHD; and Beery interview. Personal mementos include elementary school papers and numerous childhood photographs that testify to Hans’ seemingly active and happy boyhood. According to the Beerys’, Hans used to reminisce of his father’s achievement by claiming that one could hardly land in Victoria without landing on one of the piers built by his father.

18. HHD; Beery interview; and Joseph H. Wenger, History of the Descendants of Nicholas Beery (South English, Iowa, 1911), p. 123, no. 328.

19. Beery interview. Margaret’s father had died when she was nine years old and she and her mother, Alice, had moved to Texas. In Texas her mother met and married James B. Cooper who was a successful distributor for the farm machinery company, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing, Inc. They soon moved to Phoenix, Arizona and lived in Taliesin West — the famed house that Frank Lloyd Wright had built for himself — and spent their summers in La Jolla, California. When Margaret married Hans in 1936, her step-father retired and the Coopers moved to Vista.

20. Linden Burzell interview, 12 June 1991.

21. Gottlieb and FitzSimmons, Thirst for Growth, p. 5; Norris Hundley, Jr., The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770-1990s (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1992), p. 215; and The Metropolitan Water District, Aqueduct 1 (1991).

22. Vista Morning Press, 13 January 1984.

23. Vista News, 29 March 1955, p. 1; and Burzell interview.

24. San Diego Union, 24 December 1953, p. 1.

25. The Progress, 7 April 1953, p. 1.

26. The Vista Press, 17 December 1953.

27. Burzell interview. An annexation fee, equal to the taxes the annexing land would have paid had it been a part of MWD and SDCWA from the beginning, plus 4 percent interest, was charged and amortized over a thirty-year period. Bueno Colorado’s total obligation was fixed at $1,072,230 for MWD and $122,400 for SDCWA in 1954.

28. The Vista News, 26 January 1954, p. 1.

29. HHD, copy of a letter sent to Doe’s home address, 4 March 1954. Although Becherer clearly resigned in a fit of anger, Doe felt the need to clarify the tone of the resignation letter by noting on his personal copy that “this highly colored letter containing obvious untruths reflects no credit on the writer.”

30. The Vista Press, 6 May 1954, p. 1.

31. The Vista Press, 19 April 1956.

32. Escondido Daily Times-Advocate, 29 January 1954, p. 1; and 17 February 1954, p. 1.

33. San Diego Union, 18 March 1955, A-8 and 19 March 1955; and The Vista Press, 24 March 1955.

34. Escondido Weekly Times-Advocate, 1 April 1955. Senator Fred Kraft introduced the measure to the Senate and Calavo Growers in Vista provided the publicity avocados.

35. Chula Vista Star News, 11 April 1955, p. 6; The Vista Press, 27 March 1955, p. 1.

36. The Vista News, 29 March 1955, p. 1.

37. HHD, letter from George Murphy, 1 April 1954. Murphy wrote, “I have been in receipt of many letters in your behalf requesting that you be appointed . . . I know of all your good work in the Vista area, and will be most happy to make this appointment.”

38. San Diego Union, 1 October 1958. The paper reported that in 1953 when the Doe’s ranch home burned, everything was destroyed except the rostrum that Hans had built for political rallies, so he nick-named it his “lucky” rostrum.

39. HHD, letter from James S. Copley to Hans H. Doe, 16 October 1958.

40. HHD; and The Vista Press, 17 May 1962.

41. The literature on the State Water Project is extensive. For a quick synopsis, see Andrew Rolle, California: A History, 4th ed. (Arlington, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1987), 490-91; and Hundley, The Great Thirst.

42. News Call Bulletin, 17 August 1962.

43. John Fraser interview; and The Vista Press, 19 December 1955. The State Soil Conservation Commission name has been changed to the Resource Conservation Districts. They are federally-sponsored agencies (by the Department of Agriculture) which monitor land usage in regard to issues such as soil erosion, water development, and conservation methods.

For an overview of the important roles that State Soil Conservation Commissions have played in the United States see Sandra S. Batie, “Soil Conservation in the 1980s: A Historical Perspective,” Agricultural History 59 (2) 1985: 107-123.

44. HHD, letter [copy] from Senator Fred H. Kraft to Governor Goodwin J. Knight, 18 December 1957.

45. The Vista Press, 23 September 1963.

46. HHD, letter from Clark Kerr, President of the University of California, to Hans Doe, 22 June 1964; and Western Water News 16 (September 1964): 1.

47. San Diego County Farm Bureau News 47 (April 1961): 1; and HHD, “Official Program of the 42nd Annual Convention,” 7-9 December 1955. The IDA mission, as quoted from the convention program, stated, “An Association of Districts organized under California Laws, its purpose is furthering the mutual interests of the Districts, and thereby the advancement of California through the proper use of and distribution of the waters of the State.” For example, IDA endorsed the Feather River Project Act and the State Water Bond Proposition (Prop 1). Formed in 1910, by 1955 membership included 151 Irrigation Districts in 37 counties of the state. Steady growth continued through the decade.

48. The Vista Press, 2 April 1959; The Southern California Rancher (May 1959); and Western Water News 45 (April 1959): 1.

49. The Vista Press, 27 March 1961.

50. Feather River Project Association Newsletter 6 (July 27, 1961).

51. The Blade-Tribune, 30 April 1964.

52. The Vista Press, 18 April 1965.

53. Fraser interview.

54. Ibid.

55. HHD, thank you letter from Doe to William Stolker of the Imperial Irrigation District, 9 May 1963; and Western Water News 62 (May 1966): 1.

56. The Vista Press, 29 April 1956 and 19 March, 1956; and San Diego Union, 19 May 1955.

57. San Diego Union, 1 May 1963.

58. Daily Blade-Tribune, 28 June 1963.

59. The Blade-Tribune, 5 September 1963.

60. San Diego Union, 27 July 1963.

61. San Diego Evening Tribune 14 June 1968; and San Diego Union 16 August 1968.

62. Fraser and Ibbetson interviews.

63. E. Thornton Ibbetson interview. Ibbetson’s family-owned development company is located in Cerritos, California. He entered the water industry in 1954 through the Central Basin Municipal Water District and has been active since as a member and former chair of the MWD.

64. Ibid.

65. Harry Dennis, Water & Power: The Peripheral Canal and its Alternatives (Friends of the Earth: San Francisco, 1981), p. 45. See also Hundley, The Great Thirst, for an excellent analysis of the intricacies of the State Water Project and Peripheral Canal debates.

66. Ibid.

67. Ibid., p. 13.

68. Kennedy interview.

69. Kennedy and Madigan interviews.

70. Kennedy interview.

71. Ibbetson interview.

72. San Diego Union, 8 May 1968.

73. San Diego Evening Tribune, 25 July 1968.

74. Ibbetson interview.

75. As legal counsel for the SDCWA, Engstrand spent a good deal of time with Hans and Margaret Doe and heard Hans lecture to the public many times.

76. Madigan interview. Madigan studied geology at San Diego State University in the 1960s under Baylor Brooks, chairman of the Geology Department. Professor Brooks was also a director at the SDCWA and arranged for Madigan to attend the tour.

77. Ibid. Francesca Krauel, City of San Diego and Dale Mason, San Marcos were fellow SDCWA board members.

78. Kennedy interview.

79. Ibid.

80. Lois Krieger interview. A resident of Riverside, Krieger has been involved with the water industry on many different levels. Her father, Howard Boylan, was an active member of the MWD board; her husband, Jim Krieger, had been a water attorney before his death; and her son Jim, Jr., worked for MWD.

81. Escondido Times-Advocate, 26 April 1988.

82. The Vista Press, 24 April 1988, p. 4.

83. HHD. Doe’s personal papers revealed many letters and honorary certificates thanking him for his involvement in the water industry.

84. “ACWA’s Tribute to Hans H. Doe,” ACWA News 11 (May 20, 1988): 6-7.

Kyle Emily Ciani received M.A. and B.A. degrees in history from the University of San Diego. She is now a doctoral student at Michigan State University where she is studying the history of women in America and Latin America. Ms. Ciani is currently working on a comparative analysis of child care supports for the working women of Detroit and San Diego prior to World War II.