EP 870-1-63

December 2000

Engineer Memoirs

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN W. MORRIS

U.S.A. Retired

Office of History

Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Alexandria, Virginia
Enaineer Memoirs

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Morris, John W., 1921-

Lieutenant General John W. Morris, U.S.A. retired.

p. cm. - (Engineer memoirs)

Includes index.

1. Morris, John W., 1921- 2. Generals-United

States-Biography. 3. Military engineers-United States-Biography.

I. Baldwin, William C., Il. Title. Ill. Series.

UGl28.M58 A3 2000

623’.092w4,34

dc21

PI 99-057202

EP 870-1-63

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited.

ii
John W. Morris

Foreword

This is the twelfth publication in the Engineer Memoirs series of career oral

history interviews. The series contains the recollections of major figures in recent Corps

of Engineers’ history. These memoirs lend important perspectives to decision-making,

now and in the future. By making these recollections available, the series preserves and

shares the knowledge and experience of retired Corps officers and civiliansJohn W. Morris had a distinguished career in the United States Army, which

culminated with his tenure as Chief of Engineersfrom 1976-1980. He served as an

Engineer battalion commander in Korea and as commander of the 18th Engineer Brigade

during the war in Vietnam. In the Corps of Engineers, which became a major Army

command while he was chief, he was District Engineer in Tulsa, Division Engineer of the

Missouri River Division, and Director of Civil Works and Deputy Chief of Engineers in

Corps headquarters. I recommend this oral history interview to members of the Engineer

family and to those interested in the history of the Corps of Engineers.

ROBERT B.FLOWERS

Lieutenant General

Commanding

. . . 111
Engineer Memoirs

The Interviewer

Dr. William C. Baldwin is a historian in the Office of History, Headquarters, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary and received his

doctorate in military history from the University of Michigan. He began his career in the Corps

of Engineers with the Engineer Studies Center, where he wrote a history of the organization,

The Engineer Studies Center and Army Analysis: A History of the U.S. Army Engineer

Studies Center, 1943-7982. in 1983 he joined the Office of History and taught military history

at the U.S. Army Engineer School. In addition to the history of military construction and oral

history, he has worked extensively in recent years in the history of Army housing and housing

privatization.

Acknowledgments

Appendices C and G reprinted with the permission of The AMitary Engineer and

Appendix H reprinted with the permission of The Waterways Journal Weekly.

Marilyn Hunter, the Office of History’s former editor, edited the interview transcript, and

EEI Communications did additional editing and prepared the manuscript for publication.

Marilyn Hunter died while this interview was in preparation for publication. She was an

excellent editor, a valued colleague, and a cheerful friend. We miss her.

IV
John W. Morris

Contents

Foreword ................................................................ iii

The Interviewer ............................................................ iv

Acknowledgments ......................................................... ..i v

Introduction ............................................................... vii

Career Summary ........................................................... ix

Promotion History .......................................................... x

Education ............................................................... ..x i

Decorations ............................................................. ..x i

Interview eaaeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 1

Childhood and West Point Years ........................................... 3

World War II and Early Post-War Assignments .............................. 13

Germany, Savannah, and Fort Leavenworth ................................. 23

GooseBayandOCE ................................................... 33

TulsaDistrict ......................................................... 46

WestPoint ........................................................... 60

Legislative Liaison ..................................................... 65

Vietnam ............................................................. 71

Missouri River Division ................................................. 79

Director of Civil Works ................................................. 91

Deputy Chief of Engineers .............................................. 114

Chief of Engineers

Internal and External Relationships ................................... 124

International and Military Projects .................................... 166

Civil Works Projects ............................................... 185

Post-Retirement Career ................................................ 204

Conclusion.. ........................................................ 215

Acronyms ............................................................... 221

Index 223

Appendix’~~~~~u~‘~~~~~~~~‘~a~~~~~s’~*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A-1

Appendix B: “A Time for Reflection” ......................................... B-l

Appendix C: “Maintaining Engineer Readiness” ................................ C- 1

Appendix D: “The Corps of Engineers and the American Environment” .............. D-l

Appendix E: “Let’s Get Back to Work” ....................................... E-l

Appendix F: “Reflections: An Interview with the Chief’ .......................... F- 1

Appendix G: “Construction Management Training: An Industry/Academia Challenge” . . G-l

Appendix H: “Changing Role of the Corps of Engineers-l 970-1980” .............. H-l

Photographs

Lieutenant General John W. Morris ............................................ 2

West Point Track Team, 1943 ................................................. 9

Graduation Picture, 1943 .................................................... 12

Geraldine King, 1946 ....................................................... 17

Captain John W. Morris and Gerry Morris in Garmisch ............................ 25
Engineer Memoirs

Promotion to Lieutenant Colonel, 1953 ......................................... 29

President Lyndon Johnson’s Dedication of the Eufaula Reservoir, 1964 ............... 52

Susan Morris Riding a Polo Pony in Tulsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colonel Morris Made an Honorary Chieftain of the Ponca Tribe, 1

Colonel Morris in Tulsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Colonel Morris as a “Tat” at West Point, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Brigadier General John W. Morris in South Vietnam, 1970 . . . . .

.................... 56

962 ................ 57

.................... 58

.................... 61

.................... 73

Reunion of Former 18th Engineer Brigade Commanders, 1972 ...................... 78

General Morris Assumes Command of the Missouri River Division, 1970 ............. 8 1

General and Mrs. Morris, 1972 ............................................... 90

Christmas Card Designed by Missouri River Division Staff, 1971 .................... 91

General Morris at Suez Canal, 1974 .......................................... 103

GeneralMo~isAddressesPIANCinLeningrad,l977~.~~~...~...~....~~....~ .... 104

Corps of Engineers Vessel, sergeant FZoyd, 1975 ............................... 107

General Morris, Director of Civil Works ...................................... 112

MG John W. Morris Sworn in as Deputy Chief of Engineers, 1975 .................. 117

MG John Morris and Son, Lieutenant John Morris, 1976 .......................... 126

Kaw Dam Dedication Parade, Ponca City, OK, 1976 ............................. 127

Corps of Engineers, 205th Anniversary Celebration, 1980 ......................... 13 1

Meeting With President Jimmy Carter to Discuss Water Resource Projects, 1977 ...... 132

LTG John W. Morris and President Jimmy Carter, 1977 .......................... 135

White House Meeting to Discuss Dam Safety, 1977 .............................. 137

Corps of Engineers 204th Anniversary Celebration, 1979 ......................... .145

Engineer Day Celebration, 1979 ............................................. 15 1

Emergency Operations After a Severe Snowstorm in Buffalo, NY, 1977 ............. 152

Groundbreaking Ceremony of Arthur Casagrande Building, 1978 ................... 163

The Dam at the Shimen Power Station. ........................................ 167

The Dam at the Wujiangdu Power Station Under Construction ..................... 167

The Dam at the Panjiakou Power Station Under Construction ...................... 168

Site of Three Gorges Dam in China, 1980 ...................................... 169

Saudi Arabia’s National Guard Headquarters Building ........................... 173

Dedication of the National Guard Headquarters Building in Saudi Arabia ............ 174

General Bernard Rogers Visits the Engineer Topographic Laboratory ................ 186

Portrait of General Morris by Meg Sergeant .................................... 194

General Morris Near His Retirement as Chief of Engineers, 1980 ................... 203

“Construction’s Man of the Year,” New York City, 1977 ......................... 216

General Morris Receiving the Distinguished Graduate Award, 1998 ................. 218

vi
John W. Morris

Introduction

bY

William C. Baldwin

John W. Morris was sworn in as 44th Chief of Engineers on 1 July 1976. He had already served

in the Corps of Engineers’ headquarters, the Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE), for four years,

first as Director of Civil Works and then briefly as Deputy Chief of Engineers. Figuring that he would

be too old to fulfill a term as Chief of Engineers when the present Chief ended his term in 1977, he

and his wife Gerry had already begun discussing retirement from his military career. Unexpectedly,

the Chief, Lieutenant General William C. Gribble, Jr., announced that he was retiring more than a year

early and that General Morris would be his successor. For more than eight years, General Morris

occupied key leadership roles in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during one of the most turbulent

decades in the organization’s existence.

During the 1970s the growing concern about the quality of the country’s natural environment hit

the Corps of Engineers with full force. Not only did the Corps’ large program of water resources

development come under attack, but also Congress and the courts pushed the organization into an

extensive and controversial wetlands regulatory role. Declining budgets and growing environmental

criticism also dampened enthusiasm for construction of water resources projects that had been the

Corps’ forte in the decades after World War II.

The decade of the 1970s also brought profound changes in the nation’s defense posture. Military

expenditures declined markedly as the war in Vietnam ended with a corresponding decline in the

Corps’ construction for the Army and the Air Force. Two massive overseas construction programs,

however, took up the slack. The reimbursable construction for the Saudi Arabian armed forces and

the construction of Israeli airbases in the wake of the Camp David Accords gave

delicate overseas workload. Keeping the demanding overseas and traditional

happy and fulfilling their expectations became major management challenges.

the Corps

domestic

a huge but

customers

General Morris’ military career leading up to his selection as Chief of Engineers was not atypical

of the careers of other post-World War II chiefs. He graduated from West Point in the summer of 1943

after a three-year course shortened because of World War II. For three years he served in the Far East

in Engineer aviation battalions and in staff positions after the war ended. In addition to the standard

Army schooling at the Engineer School, Command and General Staff College, and the War College,

General Morris obtained a master’s degree in civil engineering at the University of Iowa.

His other assignments reflected the post-war Engineer missions of military construction, civil

works, and service in troop units. In the mid-1950s he was area engineer at the Goose Bay Airbase

building a variety of facilities under a cost-plus contract on a tight schedule enduring harsh climatic

conditions. Earlier he began his long association with the Corps’ water resources program by serving

as executive officer in the Savannah Engineer District. In 1960 he returned to Engineer troop units

where he had served as a young officer during World War II by commanding the 8th Engineer

Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division in South Korea.

Within each Engineer mission area, General Morris held both staff and command positions. Early

in his career he was on the staff of the Engineer School in West Germany and later he served in the

military personnel division of the Office of the Chief of Engineers in a period when the Chief had

substantial Engineer personnel responsibilities. His Army staff experience came in the turbulent mid1960s when he was deputy chief of Legislative Liaison.

By 1960 General Morris began to receive the all-important senior command positions. In addition

to commanding troops in the 8th Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, he served as a regimental

vii
Engineer Memoirs

tactical officer at the U.S. Military Academy. In 1969 he returned to Engineer units in the field by

becoming commanding general of the 18th Engineer Brigade in South Vietnam, which in addition to

its combat duties was responsible for a major highway construction program. Command positions in

the Corps of Engineers also were important. In the early 1960s he led the Tulsa Engineer District,

which had one of the largest workloads in the Corps including major water resources and military

construction projects. Five years after leaving Tulsa, General Morris returned to the country’s

heartland in 1970 as commander of the Missouri River Division just as the growing environmental

movement began to have a substantial impact on the Corps.

With this diverse background of assignments, General Morris became Director of Civil Works

under Chief of Engineers, Lieutenant General Frederick J. Clarke, in 1972. For the next eight years

he held key positions in Corps’ headquarters. After he retired from the Army in 1980 to the strains of

the popular song, “Please release me, let me go,” played by the Army band at his retirement parade,

General Morris began an active career as a civilian engineer, first with a Dutch company and then with

his own corporation. He also found time for teaching and philanthropic work, most of it: related to his

chosen profession and to the organization he had served for 37 years. Named Construction Man of the

Year by the Engineering News Record in 1977, the former Chief of Engineers continued to receive

honors in retirement, including most recently the Founder’s Award of the National Academy of

Engineering and recognition as a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Military Academy.

The oral history interview, which forms the bulk of this publication, is General Morris’

reminiscences and reflections on his background and personal life, his long career in the Corps of

Engineers, and his activities after he retired from the Army. Like all oral history interviews, this

transcript contains General Morris’ personal thoughts and perspectives. His views do not necessarily

reflect those of the Department of Defense or the Army Corps of Engineers. The strength of oral

history is that it captures the unique perspectives and interpretations of individuals who witnessed or

participated in historical events. Oral history can supplement and enrich the official record but never

replace it. Interviews are often not objective nor are they expected to be. Their value is contained in

the personal perspective they provide.

General Morris and I taped the bulk of the interview in 13 sessions during 1993.’ We discussed

the subjects of each session prior to taping it and worked from a rough and constantly evolving

outline. After the tapes were transcribed, General Morris edited the transcripts carefully and

conscientiously. I assisted General Morris in his review of the transcripts, prepared the front matter

for this publication, and chose the photographs from General Morris’ personal photograph collection.

The Office of History thanks General Morris for the time and energy he devoted to this project, which

was certainly more time consuming and lengthy than he anticipated.

‘The interview sessions took place in General Morris’ office in Arlington, Virginia, on 5, 11, 19, and

25 January, 8 February, 1 March, 5, 12, and 15 April, 6, 10, 17, and 20 December 1993 and 18 April 1995.

General Morris also recorded one session with Dr. Paul K. Walker, Chief, Office of History, Headquarters, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, on 29 November 1984. The original tapes and unedited transcripts are in the Research

Collections, Office of History, in Alexandria, Virginia.

. . . VIII
John W. Morris

Career Summary

Student, Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia Jun 43

3d Engineer Aviation Unit Training Center, MacDill Field, Florida Ott 43

Platoon Commander, 1895th Engineer Aviation

Battalion, Florida, Hawaii, and Guam Jan 44

Company Commander, 1869th Engineer Aviation

Battalion, Florida and Pacific Ocean Areas Feb 45

Staff Officer, U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, Guam, and

U.S. Army Pacific Air Command, Manila Sep 45

Staff Officer, Engineer Section, Far East Air Force,

Tokyo Mar46

Student, University of Iowa Jun 47

Student, Engineer Officer Advanced Course, Fort Belvoir, Virginia Jul48

Staff Officer, Engineer School, European Command,

Murnau, West Germany

Executive Officer and Assistant District Engineer,

Savannah Engineer District, Georgia

Student, Command and General Staff College,

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Area Engineer, Goose Bay Area Office,

East Ocean District

Branch Chief and Executive Officer,

Military Personnel Division, Office of the Chief of Engineers

Battalion Commander, 8th Engineer Battalion,

1st Cavalry Division, South Korea

Student, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks,

Pennsylvania

District Engineer, Tulsa Engineer District, Oklahoma

Regimental Tactical Officer and Deputy Commandant,

U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York

Sep 49 Ott 52

act 52 Aug 54

Aug 54 Aug 55

Sep 55 Apr 57

Jun 57 Jun 60

Aug 60 Jun 61

Aug 61 Jun 62

Jun 62 Jun 65

Jun 65 Nov 67

act 43

Jan 44

Dee 44

Sep 45

Mar 46

May 47

Jul48

Sep 49

ix
Enaineer Memoirs

Deputy Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the

Secretary of the Army Nov 67 Apr 69

Commanding General, 18th Engineer Brigade,

U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Apr 69 Jun 70

Division Engineer, Missouri River Division,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jun 70 Apr 72

Director of Civil Works,

Office of the Chief of Engineers Apr 72 Aug 75

Deputy Chief of Engineers Aug 75 Ju176

Chief of Engineers Ju176 Sep 80

Promotion History

Promotions Temporary

2d Lieutenant

1st Lieutenant

Captain

Major

Lieutenant Colonel

Colonel

Brigadier General

Major General

Lieutenant General

1 Dee 43

6 Jun 45

13 Jun51

18 Aug 53

5 Sep 61

1 Aug 69

1 Jul71

1 Ju176

Permanent

1 Jun 43

25 Jun 46

lOFeb49

20 Mar 57

2 Jan 64

3 Jun 68

26Aug71

28 Jun 73

X
John W. Morris

Education

U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York 194%Jun 1943

University of Iowa (M.S. in Civil Engineering) 1947-1948

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 1954-1955

U.S. Army War College 1961-1962

University of Pittsburgh 1967

Decorations

Distinguished Service Medal

Legion of Merit with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters

Bronze Star Medal

Air Medals

Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters

Army General Staff Identification Badge

xi
John W. Morris

LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN W. MORRIS

Engineer Memoirs

U.S.A. Retired

1

John W. Morris

Engineer Memoirs

Lieutenant General John W. Morris

Childhood and West Point Years

Q: I would like to start out by asking you a little bit about your early life. You are a native of

Princess Anne, Maryland. Was your family originally from that area?

A: My mother’s family and my father’s family are among the original families over in Tidewater.

Both came there in the mid46OOs. My mother’s family was Tilghman and is well known in

Tidewater. In fact, one of our relatives was Colonel Tenth Tilghman, who was Adjutant General

for George Washington. My mother’s family moved from the lower part-possibly the Eastern

Shore of Virginia-up into Worcester County, Maryland, near Berlin and Snow Hill. My father’s

family was from a similar area, and they migrated northward into Somerset County. Incidentally,

Somerset County at one time included Worcester County. My father’s family settled near the

family home where I was born.

Over the years several in the family were military types. In the Civil War my family was

predominantly Southern; my great grandfather died as the result of being imprisoned by Union

troops. The Eastern shore of Maryland supported the Confederacy. Constants in my background

include the area, the family roots, and a small-town atmosphere. Few people ever left. They all

stayed and lived and died there. They regenerated themselves. There were not that many families

to start. Most of the people there now are probably relatives, so to speak.

The Morris family was mercantile. They were not among the elite by any sense of the word, yet

they were comfortable.

Q.

. How about your father? What was his occupation?

A: His father, my grandfather, owned a clothing store-John W. Morris and Sons. There were three

sons. Before he died one son had moved to California and the other two then opened up their own

separate mercantile businesses. My father later bought a theater and was in the theater and

clothing business when the Depression of 1929 almost wiped him out. He held on, barely. In

1934 he was appointed postmaster in Princess Anne. He was a strong Democrat and a county

leader in the Democratic Party, so Franklin D. Roosevelt made him postmaster. In those days that

was a reward for long and faithful service, I guess. He was qualified to be postmaster, too, I don’t

mean that.

Both my mother and father worked very hard in the theater business. Money for my schooling

was hard to come by. I was not a great student in any sense of the word, but I was able to get a

scholarship to finish high school at the Charlotte Hall Military Academy on the Western shore

of Maryland in Saint Mary’s County. I graduated from that high school in 1937 when I was 15,

and I needed a lot of growing up to do before I went to college. So I stayed for a post-graduate

year in 1938. I worked for my father in 1939.

When the time came to go to college, I received a scholarship to Western Maryland College.

Before that I had taken the entrance exam to West Point, but my poor background in English

showed up, and I didn’t pass. So I went to Western Maryland College and was fortunate enough

to get another appointment as a first alternate. I took the entrance exam again and passed. The

man before me failed, and I entered West Point and ultimately became one of the few members

of my family to get a college education.

3
Engineer Memoirs

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

How long were you actually at Western Maryland? One year?

Yes.

I understand that your mother was interested in your going to West Point. Why was that?

Well, it seemed that way to me. It’s been a long time, of course. I don’t think my father was

against it, but my mother associated more directly with my day-to-day training than my father.

They were good, strong people. You look back over all the things, and you wonder, well, what

was the chemistry that made things work? I’d have to say that I was fortunate to have been born

and raised in a small town with good, solid parents. Some credit must go to the Depression, I

think, because it imposed an appreciation of things-life, people, responsibility, natural things,

et cetera. Princess Anne is in a rather isolated area.

I don’t know when or why West Point became attractive to my parents, but I have a feeling that

it was my mother who fostered my attendance.

Was the Naval Academy ever a consideration since you were a native of the Eastern Shore?

Too close to home! I don’t know the reason, really. Many have asked me the same question: Why

are you going to West Point?

I was only the second person in my area to go. The other man was Bill Quinn. He became a threestar general. General William [Bill] Quinn is well known and greatly liked in Army circles and

filled an important role in World War II. His father and uncle and my father were very close

friends. Maybe that had something to do with why I went to West Point.

Were you enthusiastic about going?

Yes, when I failed the exam the first time, it became a challenge. I was delighted to go. We were

just getting out of the Depression, the war clouds still didn’t seem too dark, and the education

was most attractive.

The attitude in those days was rather patriotic. My going to West Point was a well-publicized

local event. Everybody in the town seemed involved and behind it. A community effort, you

might say.

How about brothers and sisters?

I have no brothers and sisters. I did have a very close extended family, however. My father’s

brother had four children, and my mother and father helped raise them because of some family

problems. We were all very close.

What kind of interests did you have in high school? Sports? Were you an outdoors man? Maybe

your father was-1 don’t know.

My father was an avid baseball fan, and he very much enjoyed horse racing. He was also a

baseball manager. The day I was born, he was managing the Princess Anne semi-professional

baseball team which was playing for the state championship against Frederick. Frederick won

1 0- .

You know, you hear these stories from your parents all your life. That was his thing. He was not

an athlete. He was a very smart man, though. Good head on him, good businessman, very

compassionate, well liked-extremely well liked-and a generous person.

My mother’s family, though, was more of a hands-on kind of a family-farming, well drilling,

pump business, mechanical kinds of things. My father’s family was strictly a business family,

4
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

believing you can do better thinking than you can manually. My mother’s family was just the

opposite.

In growing up I was very much immersed in horses, Boy Scouts, church, and athletics. I did well

in athletics. I was captain of the basketball team in high school and was recognized in high school

for athletics.

Being from that part of the world, you’re bound to be interested in natural things-outdoor

things. That’s the way it was. Even during the darkest days of the Depression, people could live

fairly well. They didn’t need much money because they lived off the land. Your neighbors looked

out for you. As long as you had your health, you could probably survive with a minimum amount

of money. So I was very much into, I would say, anything to do with outdoors, athletics, that kind

of thing.

When you went to West Point, did you have any idea of where you wanted to go in the Army?

We knew when we went in that we would be there for four years and have a three-year service

obligation afterwards. I didn’t go there with the idea of being an engineer. I knew I was going to

be in the Army, and that was okay, but I had no idea about a branch.

Did you have any knowledge of the Corps of Engineers from your home area?

Yes, a little bit because, being in the Tidewater area, there was quite a bit of drainage activity.

I used to see these cars go by with “USED” on them all the time. I couldn’t figure out what that

was. It was “United States Engineering Department.”

Then the other side of the military-well, it wasn’t directly military-was the CCC [Civilian

Conservation Corps]. I remember that quite well.

The closest I ever came to anything military before Charlotte Hall was playing in the firemen’s

band. We used to march occasionally.

What courses did you pursue at Western Maryland during that one year?

Because I graduated from high school so young, I had taken a high school post-graduate course.

Based on placement tests on entering college, I ended up taking mostly all sophomore subjects

at Western Maryland. After the sophomore year, I intended making a final decision, but I was

leaning towards business because of my family background.

What were some of the things about growing up on the Eastern Shore that you see influencing

your life?

You know, there are a lot of things you remember. In those very tough days of the early 193Os,

people there were quite vigilante-minded. Our little town was quite volatile. Our home wasn’t

too far from the jail. One night an angry crowd broke into the jail and removed and lynched a

prisoner accused of rape. I was 12 and observed parts of the rampage. Things like that do have

an impact.

Even now, I think of the Eastern Shore people as being very independent. They’re not big on

government. They’re big on independence. I think it gives you a broader view of humanity and

maybe a little more understanding. You grow up making up your own mind, living with your

decisions, I guess.

One thing that it helped me with is the ability to get along with people. I think I did learn from

growing up over there-how to deal with everyday, average income people, and how to

communicate with people. I think that’s been a positive thing.

5
Enaineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

The Morrises were Episcopalians, so I was raised in that church. In our home, Sunday was truly

a day of rest-I was not allowed to play any games, certainly no movies or shopping. Weather

permitting, we drove every Sunday after church to my mother’s family in Berlin, Maryland, for

Sunday dinner. My mother always did the driving.

Even though people are quite independent and self-sufficient, when help was needed everybody

helped. As a small-towner, everybody knew what was going on. So you were always responsible

for what you did. You couldn’t get away with anything. Or, if you did, you had the idea you’d

pay for it sooner or later.

So, you know, that may be something you don’t get in a large city where, because there are so

many people, you’re not noticed so much, or most people don’t pay attention to you. That wasn’t

my case. I think that was the background I took to West Point. I was probably a little more mature

than most cadets-not because I was older, but because of my experiences. I didn’t have any

trouble, for example, with the plebe year or “beast barracks.” That was all fairly easy for me.

Were you aware of beast barracks before you went?

I had heard all the bad things, but they weren’t always true. Then when you get in the middle of

it, it’s a day-by-day operation, and you find you can survive rather comfortably.

You begin to analyze, become conscious of your circumstances, and you adjust to them. I think

the most successful cadets-not necessarily academically, but in terms of getting the most from

the West Point experience-are those who see West Point for what it is and realize not to take

life too seriously in spite of all the pressures.

You need to find some vocation as a vent to your emotions-some athletic or extracurricular

activity. Don’t get too uptight about anything because you can drive yourself nuts at that place

once you begin to worry.

Did you start in the summer of 1940?

Yes. I entered the first of July. My father accompanied me to West Point with another man who

drove. Dad let me out of the car, and I went in, and that was that. I didn’t get home for 18 months.

In those days, cadets didn’t go home until the second Christmas, which in our case happened to

be 194 1 -Pearl Harbor.

That’s right.

So they cut Christmas leave in half, to seven days. Then the following summer, which was

supposed to be a 60-day vacation, we stayed all but about two weeks, as I recall, at school. We

graduated in three years. So our class was under constant pressure, you might say.

How about that December? Do you remember 1941?

Oh, very clearly.

What impact did that have on you as a West Point cadet?

It made all the difference in the world. Seven December 1941, of course, was a Sunday. It was

an event which causes you to remember exactly where you were when it occurred. I had a date

that weekend, and we were standing in line outside of the cadet theater when the news of Pearl

Harbor reached us. I turned to the young lady who was with me and said, “Well, that’s going to

change everything up here for a while.” Within a week, our Christmas vacation had been

curtailed. After the new year [ 19421 we were told that our class would graduate in June 1943, or

one year early.

I didn’t realize that you knew that so soon.

6
John W. Morris

A.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

Yes, and that changed our whole academic curriculum immediately. Major changes were made

in the voluntary or the optional portions. We concentrated on the hard-core portions of the

educational program.

It became a very tough course. The fact is, I think it had some significant advantages. It wasn’t

just three years of the same old thing. We learned in three years what normally you’d get in four

years-that is, the substantive courses. It put us into a different esprit. We were in a more

enthusiastic culture. We couldn’t ,resign, so everybody’s purpose in life became a lot more

focused. We knew that upon graduation it was off to war, unless the war had ended. So in

addition to the program changes, it had a big impact philosophically.

How about some of the specific changes in the program?

You mean, because of this?

Yes.

Well, the main thing was academics. Many of the officers up there were sent off to war-a lot

of the instructors. That meant more civilian instructors, and even the smartest of the class yet to

graduate were made instructors. I had several instructors who were first classmen, and they were

excellent instructors.

As our academic work program intensified, the athletic program was curtailed to some extent.

Not eliminated, just curtailed.

What about training?

Military training?

Yes. What kind of training was there?

It was modified somewhat. Your branch training became more significant-branch training

meaning that training related to the branch you thought you were going to choose. That didn’t

always mean the one you went into. I took branch training in coast artillery. I ended up going into

the engineers-which is another day, another story. Actually, the whole attitude, the whole

atmosphere was quite changed. The things that we talked about changed. On the other hand, those

items in the military education curriculum which were applicable were retained-like the major

campaigns of Napoleon, the Civil War, et cetera. We continued to study those for their value in

military history and tactics and to some extent military engineering, but we didn’t spend as much

time on those things which could be learned elsewhere later.

What about weapons?

There was not great change in the weapons. There may have been some effort to modernize a few

items. I don’t recall anything there.

You said that some of the upperclassmen became instructors and were quite good. Do you

remember who any of them were?

Yes. John Schremp, later an engineer colonel, retired. Henry J. Halsell was an instructor. Gosh,

I don’t know. There are a whole bunch of them I can think of that did teach. Many became

engineer officers later on. The two I mentioned-Halsell and Schremp-were both engineer

officers. My only problem now is it’s been so long ago, I can’t remember all of their names. Sy

Coker was another.

Was Jewett one of them?

7
Enaineer Memoirs

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A .

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Jewett. Well, he had graduated earlier, in 1940 I believe, and was gone by the time I got to West

Point.

He wasn’t there as an instructor, as you remember, at that point? He wouldn’t have been an

upperclass instructor?

No, but I knew him later. Colonel Richard L. Jewett became my boss when we were in Germany

in the 1950s.

I was just going to ask you about some of your classmates. Who in your class did you become

closest with at the time that you were there?

Well, let’s see. My company classmates as a group, then there was my roommate, Frank [Francis]

Dirkes. He was an engineer. He became deputy engineer in Hawaii. While transferring to

Savannah he had a heart attack and died. Dutch [Glenn] Ingwersen was an engineer who retired

as a deputy division engineer, South Atlantic Division. He was from Iowa and captain of the

wrestling team and later my best man and closest friend. Jim Phillips, an artilleryman, wa.s

another roommate of mine and remains a close, respected friend.

Then there were those who were killed, and whom I knew well as a cadet. Ned Almond, whose

father was a general, Bill Wickham, Johnny Hummell -they were company mates of mine. Over

the years Bob Mathe, whom you’ve probably heard of, and I have become friends.

I knew many classmates as athletes. General [Bernard] Rogers and I were very close throughout

our cadet career. We were on the track team together. He was our first captain. Lee Hogan, class

president, was also on the track team.

I knew most of the class, but the ones I was closest to would certainly be my roommates and my

company mates. Howard Coffman, now in Dallas, later became my deputy in Vietnam.

How about Glasgow?

Bill Glasgow was in another company, so I only came to know him well later.

Parfitt?

Hal Parfitt, very close friend. Hal was on the track team. Hal and I had almost similar careers, up

until the time I became Chief and he went to Panama. He was the first member of our class to

make colonel.

Bob Mathe was the first member of our class to make general, regardless of branch. Parfitt got

a battlefield promotion in Korea, and he made colonel in 1955 or 1956, 1957 at the latest. He did

very well. As it turned out, the class of June 1943 produced many engineer generals-Mathe,

Parfitt, Glasgow, [Kenneth] Sawyer, [Charles] Reed to name several.

So the track team was your basic athletic activity?

Basketball was high on the list at first. I was doing very well with basketball until in the gym one

day, I hit the back end of a long-horse and busted my knee.

8
Members of the track team at West Point in the spring of 1943. John W. Morris is on the right and

Bernard Rogers, later Chief of Staff of the Army, is on the left.

Q:

A:

Q:

A:

So they sent me down to the track to work it off. By the beginning of the basketball season, I was

about well when a young child stepped out in the track directly in front of me, and I stopped

quickly and pulled a muscle in the other leg. So I missed the basketball season.

Later in the spring of 1941 I told the trainer that I thought I was okay, and I would like to leave

track. He said, “Well, there’s a plebe track meet coming up, and I want you to run the 100-yard

dash in this meet to see if you are okay. The coach will put you out on the side all by yourself.”

I won the race, and I set a new plebe record for the 100-yard dash. From then on, I never left the

track team. That’s how I got on the track squad and had a very successful career in track.

Did you keep up with the basketball?

No. You see, outdoor track was in the spring, and basketball season conflicted with winter indoor

track. I was doing so well, I just stayed there. I had the fastest quarter mile in the United States

in 1943 and won the intercollegiate championships.

That was something you had just started to do?

As a kid back home, when I was young, I used to run all the time. I didn’t know I could run fast.

I would have stayed with the 100 at West Point, but General Rogers was a good sprinter. They

9
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

also had a couple of other loo-yard dash people, but they didn’t have any quarter-milers. So I

ended up running the 220 and the quarter mile. In the 1943 Navy meet, I ran the 100, the 220, the

quarter mile and the mile relay. The fellow who won the 100-1 ran second-still has the record

for the Army-Navy game. I beat him in the 220, set an Academy record. We also set records in

the mile relay and the 440 run.

Later, Glen Davis of football fame, after playing nine innings of baseball, joined the track meet

and broke the 220 record that I set several years before.

I imagine the people back home were pleased to see the results?

Oh, yes, sure. We ran Navy at Annapolis one year, and many came over there to see that.

Fortunately I did well, but that was just part of it. I was involved at West Point. I guess I didn’t

put as much time in academics as maybe I should have. For example, I was a Sunday school

teacher and later became superintendent of Sunday schools. Cadets teach Sunday school to

dependents-children of the officers and enlisted people. So after two years, I ended up in charge

of all the Sunday school teachers. That was a very good experience and a diversion.

I joined other activities which are listed in the yearbook. My idea was, you could kill yourself

studying. I had one roommate who was brilliant, Frank Dirkes. He was a star man. I had another

roommate who had some troubles-Philips. I was sort of in the middle. I never had many worries

about not passing.

I enjoyed cadet life because of diversified activities. That was one of the learning points after I’d

gotten up there, trying to figure out how to make life at West Point enjoyable.

In line with what you were saying earlier about what makes the successful cadet, as far as coping

with beast barracks and all that, it sounds like that was one way of doing it.

Well, it was. Without being smart enough to figure it all out, it was a rather successful

arrangement. I ended up getting in the Corps of Engineers-albeit from way down on the list. I

was a senior cadet officer on the military side and did well in athletics. I wasn’t outstanding in

anything except maybe the quarter mile, but I did a lot of other things and seemed to get along

pretty well with them.

As the war went on, how did you at the Academy react to it?

We were anxious to get out and get in it. We did, incidentally. I managed to make the activities

on Guam. Our class had the largest number killed in combat of any class in West Point history,

and we were second historically in percentage killed. Our class graduated and went right off to

war.

I think my company alone lost 8 out of 32. Practically everybody got into the war. Our class

graduated in June of 1943. There were two years of war left, and you could be in combat in six

months. Ours was one of the few classes which was provided flight training for those wanting

the air corps. About 40 percent of our class entered the air corps on graduation day as qualified

pilots. Three had been killed in training exercises while still cadets.

On the other hand, I don’t know how much of wanting to get to war was a real and honest

emotion or how much of it was invigorated by our environment. You know, it’s just hard to

envision until it happens. I didn’t go to one of the most exotic, hotly contested areas; but it was

hot enough for me once I found out what it was all about.

What about your getting into the engineers? You started out, you said, with not much idea what

you wanted to do. Then you were interested in the coast artillery.

10
John W. Morris

A: I really never thought I’d make the Corps of Engineers until the last weeks of my first-class

[senior] program. Following an average first year, each following year got significantly better

academically.

At the end of the third academic year [January 19431 I was somewhere around 200th in my class

of over 500--much too low for the Corps.

I was a fairly good student in sciences, and in the last year they loaded up on the technical stuff.

Well, as fate would have it, I improved my position a great deal in the last six months.

Q: Were you really trying for an engineer commission?

A: No, I really was not. I wanted to be a good cadet and officer. I would have been satisfied with the

artillery or armor. As you recall, I chose artillery branch training.

A couple of days before the branch selection, a professor came to see me and told me my class

standing would be quite a bit better than I might have thought and I would probably have a

chance to choose engineers. The professor was an engineer and indicated he would like me to go

into the engineers.

My roommate, Dirkes, who was so smart, knew all along he was going to be an engineer. He

knew from the beginning what he wanted. Phillips thought he would not have a choice. He’d have

to take what was left by the time they got to him, but he would have liked artillery. It tun

that Frank got the engineers and Jim got the artillery because his grades had improved also

was working on my situation, and he told me I should probably take the engineers.

Q: Who was the professor?

A: I don’t remember his name. I could probably find out. He was a major. Nevertheless, I taJ

ed out

Frank

ked to

quite a few people and thought I’d rather be a smart artilleryman than a dumb engineer among

my peer group. That was the big problem. Finally, I thought, “Okay, I like science. I like math.

I’ve always been interested in building things. So I’m going to do it.” When my time came to

choose, there were five or six engineers slots left, so I took engineers.

I became a dumb engineer, relatively speaking. Years later, General [Ernie] Graves made a study

of the class standing of the West Point engineers who became three-star generals. They were

pretty high, except for me-I was an exception to the rule. Graves, of course, is a brilliant man.

He had one of the highest academic averages ever achieved at West Point.

I never forgot my weakness in English. I worked hard after I graduated, learning how to write,

how to talk, how to read quickly. I think the fact that I was poor in language caused me over the

years to become better. I have always been a little bit self-conscious about it, so I have probably

worked on it more than most people.

Anyhow, I really was down in the pile. There’s no question about that. I think I was 140 in my

class of about 5 16 graduates. Most of the graduates who get to be engineer generals-well, you

can go back and look-they’re probably all in the top 20 or 30. You probably cannot find another

Chief of Engineers as far down the list as I was.

Q: After you left West Point, did you keep thinking about your standing?

A.

. I never thought about it the rest of my life, except on an occasion like this interview.

The other thing, though, after our graduation there were so many people in the Army that a West

Pointer was seldom seen. At first I went to a training center at MacDill Field, Florida, the 3d

11
Engineer Memoirs

Engineer Aviation Unit Training Center, and there were several West Pointers there. However,

later I was the only regular Army officer, much less West Pointer, in my battalion.

Well, wait a minute. I take that back. We had one regular Army captain who had been promoted

after some 20 years of enlisted service. He was a regular officer, so there were two of us, but I

was the only West Pointer.

My next battalion did have a West Pointer as exec, a Major Jim Hottenroth.

So, to answer your question, once you leave West Point, class standing is not a factor unless you

look at a USMA [U.S. Military Academy] roster. The standing serves a useful purpose at West

Point, but it’s not a factor in daily life of the Army. We don’t ask whether a man is smart or not.

You deal with him as you find him. A lot of that has to do with how good you are at listening to

people and how good you are at talking to them.

Q: I guess one of the things that led me to ask that was your comment about the other Chiefs of

Engineers and where they have stood in their class. What you seem to be saying is that if you

choose to look at that, you find that other people don’t really think about it much.

Graduation Picture of Cadet Captain

John W. Morris in 1943.

A:

A:

Q:

A:

A:

As a matter of fact, I will say this. I don’t

believe I ever demonstrated at West Point

my actual academic capability. The

things I wanted to do well, I did very

well, if I worked on it-like electricity, I

was eighth or ninth in my class. Law, I

was fourth or fifth. I don’t know what to

make of that, except I think it always

gave me a little extra initiative once

commissioned to do well because I

thought I had to prove something.

You said you were the senior cadet on

the military side?

No, not the senior cadet. I meant to say I

was a senior cadet.

Oh, okay.

I think out of my class, I was about 12 or

better in cadet rank. Rogers was number

one, always.

Now, you’ve said some things that

indicate why that was true. Do you have

any more comments about yourself as a

leader?

It was probably because I realized at the

end of my plebe year that I wasn’t going

to go far unless I was recognized for

something. When you hid your light

under a bushel at West Point, it’s going

to stay there. There’s no question about

it.
John W. Morris

So when that third-class list to corporal did not include me, and I saw the people that were on it,

I realized they were well known as athletes and other noticeable activities. So I’d say the thing

to do is to get to be known.

I guess I left West Point pretty satisfied with life-but not ready to get married, however.

Q: You mean at graduation time, and that many did?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: Even though they were going off to war?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: That was the last chance?

A: It didn’t seem to make a whole lot of difference. I guess the pluses and minuses probably

averaged out.

World War II and Early Post-War Assignments

Q

.

.

A.

.

You went into an engineer aviation battalion, is that correct?

Yes. I went to a battalion that was segregated. All the soldiers were black; all the officers were

white. The second battalion, we had one black officer who was the chaplain.

Q: They were listed on your record as the 1895th and 1869th.

A: The ‘95th was the first one. It was a good battalion, incidentally-a high-performance

battalion-well disciplined, no major problems. Our people came out of the construction

industry, and the equipment operators were just splendid in spite of the fact that it was

segregated-which in those days was not in spite of anything. That’s the way it was. I would have

put ours with any battalion, any engineering battalion, really, looking back on it. The operators

were versatile-older. I don’t know how we would have done on some kind of sophisticated IQ

test or something. They were good at their business.

I come back to a little story. I left West Point, and I was sent to [Fort] Belvoir, of course.

Everybody went to Belvoir. We won the championship in softball, I remember that. The things

you remember and don’t remember! Four others and I were all sent to MacDill Field, Florida, to

join the 3d Engineer Aviation Unit Training Center. Earlier, while I was at West Point, I had

dislocated my shoulder as an instructor in bayonet training. At MacDill Field I was alerted for

overseas but was told I couldn’t go because of the shoulder. So I went to the hospital and had it

fixed. It cost me about a month’s time.

I ended up leaving MacDill Field for Dale Mabry Field in Tallahassee where I finished out my

battalion training and then moved overseas. We took a troop train across the United States to Fort

Lawton, sailed to Hawaii, and moved north up to Kahuka, Oahu. We worked on an existing

airfield and built a theater.

Unfortunately the theater burned down just as it was being completed. Since I was in charge of

the electrical work, I was sure everybody was going to blame me for it. So I went down the next

day and took a picture of the master switch box to prove it was “off.”

13
Enaineer Memoirs

Finally, they sent us off to Yap on LSTs [landing ships, tanks]. I was then troop quartermaster

charged to load five ships-LSTs-one for each line company plus two for headquarters

company.

The Yap battle was deferred, so we went into Guam instead. It took us 16 days-turtles swam

faster than those LSTs. It was a long trip. At any rate, we got there.

We dropped our front ramp, unloaded all our stuff, went ashore, passed by the 3d Marine

Battalion-which had just fought the Battle of Santa Rosa, Mount Santa Rosa-went into our

area and started to set up our camp. After a week or so, I was sent out by the battalion commander

with a bulldozer, a photographer, and one rifleman to start building North Field-now Anderson

Air Force Base, Guam.

We broke the trail into the construction site, unloaded the tractor, knocked down a few gum trees

and some other stuff, made a few pictures, loaded the tractor back up, and went back to camp. We

didn’t return to the airfield for another three weeks or so.

That picture was to show we had started on time. Nevertheless, 

airfield and have it finished in six months by the first of February.

I was responsible for quite a few

Then I had the job of putting in

things. Of course, everybody had cl

the electrical work for the runway 1

our mission was to build this

earing. I worked the quarry.

ighting system.

In mid-December, I came from work about 5:00 A.M. after I’d been up all night, in a disgusted

mood for some reason or another. I remember that Lieutenant Ken West was in the mess and

asked me, “What’re you so unhappy about? You’re going home today.” I said, “Don’t kid me,

today’s not the day to play games.” It turned out I was going home. There was another Morris on

the island who was a battalion commander, but I was the one tapped to rotate.

Q: That would have been 1944?

A: 1944, Christmas, the Battle of the Bulge in Europe. I took all the patches off my shirts-those old

Third Air Force patches from MacDill Field. I was sure I wouldn’t go again, but I was sent back

to MacDill Field. Had to sew all the patches back on. I was also sent right back to Dale Mabry,

the same place I’d been before. Lived in the same barracks. We were shipped out and went right

back to Guam! That’s unbelievable, but that’s what happened.

We landed in Guam, and the old battalion was out to meet us. They knew we were coming, and

somehow or other, they knew I was with the new battalion. The second battalion was not very

good. We had some pretty good officers, but many of the soldiers were poor.

Q: So that was the 1869th?

A: Yes, the night before we left Florida there was a riot in Tallahassee, and one local girl raped. I

was troop train commander and had to take two or three of the accused overseas under guard. It

was just a bad deal. As soon as we got to Guam, the prisoners had to go home to be tried.

Also, this battalion was not nearly as proficient as the 1895th. This time they didn’t have the

trained people to call on. Attitudes were bad. It was a tough battalion. The war ended shortly after

I got to Guam the second time. I was ordered to the United States Army Strategic Air Force,

USASTAF. That was the forerunner of the Strategic Air Command, and I was a charter member.

I was in USASTAF when it was set up in Guam. Another engineer, Colonel [Bob] Tarbox, was

out there along with many other engineer friends on the island-Ingwersen, [Jim] Betts, [Bill]

Roos.

14
John W. Morris

I stayed with the USASTAF staff several months. Brigadier General Curtis LeMay was

commander when I was sent to the Philippines to join the Pacific Air Command, United States

Army, headquartered at Fort McKinley under Lieutenant General Ennis Whitehead.

I was in the engineer section. Colonel Walker Milner was the engineer. As a captain, I had the

job of inventorying the airfields in the Pacific and making a recommendation on which ones

should be kept operational and which ones should be put on standby or abandoned-this was an

interesting job. We flew in a B-25, the old Mitchell bomber, twin-tailed, two-engine type used

on the raid in Tokyo.

We lost an engine on one recon and had to land in the jungle-stayed up there several days until

we were able to get out. We were not in any big trouble, but I’ve been in more pleasant places.

We inventoried a lot of airfields, made up a list, and recommended those to keep. I was a captain.

Today it would take 50 or 60 people to do a staff study and all that. I guess even then it was

reviewed pretty carefully.

We weren’t in the Philippines very long, but I met my wife-to-be there. She was a flight

nurse-and a very lovely nurse, too!

Q: Where?

A: In the Philippines. Fort McKinley, Manila. Then we went up to Tokyo. I had been to Tokyo on

temporary duty earlier, right after the war ended. I came back to the Philippines and then to

Tokyo again in March of 1945. I stayed in Tokyo about two years. During this time they

separated the Air Force, and my command was then called Far East Air Forces.

General [Hugh] Casey was the engineer for [Douglas] MacArthur. David Parker worked for him.

I was still with Colonel Milner and the Air Force.

In Tokyo, I was put in charge of repairs and utilities. I had to write the R and U [repairs and

utilities] program for the Pacific theater. That was a fairly heady job in those days, including fire

protection regulations and so on. I had one civilian, a fellow named Peterson, who was just

outstanding-Pete Peterson; and a civilian lady-Marie Hubbard. I had two lieutenants working

for me-Fayette L.Worthington and [William V.] McGuinnes [Jr.] I think that was it-two

lieutenants, Marie Hubbard, Peterson, myself, and a Japanese girl. We wrote the regulations, put

the budget together, did the whole thing. I couldn’t believe it, and I was still a captain. General

Casey gave me a commendation medal, my first award.

Those were the days when the theater commander could promote to major. Jim Hottenroth was

the exec. Somehow or other, my recommendation didn’t get in until about the 25th or 26th of

February. On the 28th, the rule was changed to where all field grade promotions had to be

approved by the Department of the Army. My promotion for major didn’t go in on time. I finally

made major about three years later, but I had dropped behind my peers in that little deal.

The Japanese, even though we had just defeated them in the war, were excellent people to deal

with. Neat, clean, and they seemed to respect the Army, the Americans. General MacArthur was

doing a magnificent job with the local situation. The American Army lived fairly well in

Japan-much better than in the Philippines. I had good quarters; not luxurious, but a private room

in a nice building. I traveled quite a bit around the islands because of the fire regulations and

maintenance requirements. We had a couple of earthquakes, got caught in the elevator once. I

never could get used to the women coming in to clean the toilets while I was in there.

15
Enaineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

You know, life in Japan was really quite pleasant, and besides, I made contacts with many people

who showed up later in my life-Dave Parker, as I mentioned, and Colonel [George] Bixby.

Colonel Milner, Hottenroth, of course, and Colonel Vandenberg and Don Eister were there.

Can you tell me a little more about the construction on Guam?

We had a Seabee battalion at the time with us. Two battalions built that B-29 airfield, now

Anderson Air Force Base. That took the whole battalion, practically. We did a few odds and ends.

I put a road in up Mount Santa Rosa, which was quite an expedient engineering feat.

In what sense?

There was a signal corps unit on top of this mountain. Because there was only a very circuitous

trail to get there, they wanted a new, straight road. I was given the job to build it. The problem

was how to get there. There were no maps of the trail, and adequate survey equipment could not

be taken from the airfield. So we devised a little system for drawing a map, which turned out

quite well. I used a plane table, a straight edge, a compass, and a soldier with a couple of

coconuts.

I would orient the plane table with the compass. This enlisted man would count the paces along

the line of sight until he had to turn. Then he would put down a coconut and yell out the number

of paces. I would then convert the paces to a distance and draw a line from the last point to his

new position. I would then realign the plane table over the next coconut and send him off again.

Finally, we got to the camp some 12 miles away. Then we connected point A where we started

and point B where we stopped with a straight line and took a final compass reading. I said, “Okay,

that’s the line we’re going to build this road on. Hope it comes out at the camp on the other end!”

And it did.

Later, the 1869th, my second battalion, started another field called Northwest Field. It was never

finished.

I was still in Guam when the war ended. All the B-29s and P-38s and everything else were

dancing around up in the sky, buzzing the airstrip, and other celebration antics.

What was the climate like on Guam?

It was nice weather, except when the typhoons came through, and the frogs. There were frogs all

over. Of course, the jungle was just full of frogs and rats. You knock down the jungle and all

these things run out. Lizards also.

I never saw so many rats in my life as in that jungle. Deer also. The frogs would come out at night

onto the warm asphalt roads. You couldn’t miss them because there were so many. Guam was a

pretty decent place once the war ended. You know, Guam is where Japanese soldiers kept turning

up in the jungle years and years later.

What would you say was the greatest engineering challenge in constructing North Field?

Well, of course, we built on coral, and I recall excavation by blasting as the toughest on

equipment and men. The coral made a good, solid base. We also had problems acquiring grade

and aggregates for asphalt plants.

Was Northwest Field-which the second battalion built-very close by?

It wasn’t far away. I’d say five to ten miles from North Field.

That commendation from Casey, about when was that?

I don’t want to make too much out of it.

16
John W. Morris

Q: I was just trying to pin down the time.

A: It had to have been in 1945, 1946, 1947. Early 1947 maybe. Yes. I left in 1947 to come home and

get married and go to school.

Q: How would you assess General Casey from your experiences there?

A: We were all very impressed with General Casey. I didn’t see that much of him, incidentally,

except at meetings. I would go to all the meetings as the Air Force engineer liaison with the

Army. I was always the junior officer. Most of the

others were colonels and generals.

Q: Are there any other aspects of the Tokyo

assignment that you would like to cover?

A: There are a couple of other points and events

in Tokyo which might be of interest before

leaving that assignment.

First, I mentioned meeting my wife in the

Philippines. Gerry had come to Tokyo several

months before I did. When I arrived we

renewed our acquaintance, and from the

spring of 1946 to her departure for the United

States on the 23d of November 1946, we saw 2333

a lot of each other and decided we would be

married back in the States. We thought about

being married in Japan and staying there

because it was an excellent time and place to

have a family and to be together. The living

conditions would have been very attractive,

and we had learned the lifestyle and found

ourselves very happy in Japan-Tokyo

particularly.

However, I had been notified that I could

attend graduate school at the University of

Iowa in pursuit of a master’s degree. That, to

me, was important, and so, after discussing it,

we decided that the best arrangement would

be to be married on my return in the spring of

1947.

Geraldine King, from Wilmington, North

Carolina, as an Army nurse in Tokyo, Japan,

in 1946, a year before her marriage to

Captain John W. Morris.

The wedding date was set for 12 May, which

happened to be the date on which my parents

had been married, at Saint John’s Church in

Wilmington, North Carolina. My departure

from Japan was planned for early April, and

that would allow me ample time to attend to

the preliminary arrangements necessary for

the wedding.

Unfortunately, the Texas City disaster

occurred, and the servicemen in Japan with

17
Enaineer Memoirs

families in Texas City were given priority. My return to the States was delayed indefinitely until

those evacuations had been completed. As it happened, I left Japan in late April and began the

trip home. In Hawaii we changed aircraft for the last leg into San Francisco. As soon as we landed

in San Francisco, our whole crew and passengers were put in quarantine because there had been

evidence that a rat had gotten into the baggage on the leg from Tokyo to Hawaii. That took two

more days.

So time was getting very short, and transportation from the West Coast to the East Coast was

spotty, so I ended up hitchhiking by air from Travis Field near San Francisco to Craig Field in

Alabama in a twin-engine C-45 aircraft, unpressurized. Having arrived in Craig, I had to get to

Washington, which took an extra day. Finally, I was able to get my feet on the ground in my home

in Princess Anne, Maryland, and begin to make the arrangements to get to North Carolina, which

I did immediately, around the 3d or 4th of May. So, thanks to Gerry’s hard work and good

planning, the wedding came off on schedule. However, there was a period of some concern when

our invitations, having already been sent out, might have to be changed.

Shortly after our marriage we headed west in a 1947 Ford sedan, which my father had won in a

raffle. My orders said I’d report to Fifth Army Headquarters. Being as naive as I was in the

peacetime Army, we drove

unnecessary, but we were

which turned out to ‘be

and best man, Dutch

Ingwersen, had already arranged an apartment for us to rent, and I do remember that the rent took

$100 out of a base pay of $193 a month. We started our married life and an academic

to the Fifth Army I

soon on our way

headquarters in Chicago,

to Iowa. Our classmate

career in

Iowa City. Also, we soon found out we were going to become parents.

I also was asked if I would be interested in competing in the 1948 Olympics in London, based on

my track successes at the Military Academy. Having not participated seriously since graduation,

or five years approximately, and also the burdens of trying to acquire a master’s degree at the

University of Iowa, combined with prospective parenthood, I decided to pass up this opportunity.

I’ve reflected on it from time to time and have never been concerned that I made the wrong

decision.

The year was successful in several ways. Our daughter Susan arrived in February, and we

graduated in June. Having gone through West Point in three years instead of four because of the

war, the University of Iowa powers-that-be decided that those of us in our class of 15 Army

personnel who had only had three years of undergraduate studies were not qualified to get a

master’s degree, even though we had completed the course in good order and competed quite

successfully with our peers, both in and out of the Army.

It was a very competitive group. The Army people included Colonels J.C.H. Lee, Jr., Bill Van

Allen, Ed Jennings, nine classmates from the Military Academy, and Art Grace [January 19431.

We were all quite high in the order of graduates of the course in civil engineering. The University

of Iowa ultimately decided to award master’s degrees to those of us who had only three years of

undergraduate work after eval.uating the courses of instruction that we had taken during our three

years at the Military Academy.

Q: Why did you choose Iowa?

A.. I didn’t choose Iowa.

Q: You didn’t choose Iowa?

18
John W. Morris

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

I had applied for an electrical engineering degree at Rensselaer and two other universities. Iowa

was not one of them; however, in its wisdom, the Army selected Iowa, which turned out to be

precisely the right place to send me.

While the master’s degree was in civil engineering, the course was oriented towards water

resources-sewage, water supply, hydraulics, hydrology, and similar courses which involved the

work in the Corps’ civil works program. We had a very good structural course that evaluated the

design of dams, but to do that we had to know how to determine the reservoir capacity, runoff,

and all those things. So Iowa turned out to be-from my standpoint-an excellent choice. I would

use my studies at Iowa over and over again in the years ahead.

Did most of your classmates and most of the engineers

for a master’s degree? Was that pretty common?

of your level, if not all ofthem, go back

Yes. The policy in the Corps of Engineers then was for those regular officers who would remain

in the Army after World War II to have graduate-level education. That policy became quite clear

to me later when General [Emerson] Itschner was Chief of Engineers and I was assigned to the

personnel assignment business. His idea was that every regular Army officer would have a

graduate-level degree. It would be in a basic engineering field unless he had a strong bachelor’s

degree in engineering, and then he could take another subject, such as industrial engineering, but

he would get a graduate degree, master’s degree.

That’s a policy that begins to change a little bit by the 196Os?

Yes, we can get into this later because, as mentioned, one of my later assignments I served in the

Career Management Division. In those days the officers belonged to the Chief of Engineers.

Right.

When that changed, the Army policy was considerably softer than thatwhich

Engineers had managed under its own assignment centers, but we’ll get to that.

the corps of

You talked about the fact that you’d had a short course at West Point. Looking at your classmates

or civilians there, how well prepared do you think West Point had made you for this advanced

degree?

Well, that’s interesting-first off, you must keep in mind that our class and other classes who

went into the war out of West Point had a unique maturation period, which does not occur in

peacetime. We all came back from the war having decided not to leave the Army, having decided

to make it a career, having gone through the war. Even though it’d only been five years since

we’d graduated, we as a group, I think, had had experiences that made us appreciate the

importance of preparing ourselves for a peacetime military life. I believe our attitude was a little

different than that of someone who had not had those experiences.

Our 15 were all in the top 20 of the entire graduate college of engineering. Even if we weren’t

necessarily the smartest 15 or 20, our conscientiousness to do well was stronger.

So Iowa was a pretty busy year-lots of studying and the new family.

Yes, it was a very busy year. It was a nice year, though, because our fellow students and families

remain today as our dearest friends. The engineers, of course, are a fairly close family anyhow,

and certainly our classmates were close. I mentioned a few earlier. Besides Gerry and me, the

class of June 1943 at Iowa included my roommate at West Point, Frank Dirkes, and wife June,

our best man and bachelor Dutch Ingwersen, and Jim Betts, who married Bonnie and named our

daughter Susan. In addition, Dwayne and Harriet Terry, Trev and Helen Sawyer, Howard and

19
Enaineer Memoirs

Carolyn Coffman, John and Wanda Bell, and Bill and Miriam Roos made a fine class. Many were

newly married. The Roos, Bells, and Morrises started their families at Iowa. We were all kind of

strapped financially, but we enjoyed each other. Our friends were our recreation, and the

Universi ty of Iowa was a very decent place to be. There was no crime, and the student body was

friendly and open, you know, and it was a good, Big Ten school with good athletic programs. So

1947-48 stands out as one of the best years that we had.

Of course, all the circumstances for making a good year were present. We did work hard-we

didn’t have a whole lot else to do except work I suppose-but it was productive, and all of us

recognized that our effort would be rewarded by knowledge.

Iowa had an ROTC [Reserve Officer Training Corps] group. Colonel [William W.] Jenna was

the ROTC unit commander. He and Colonel Frank Skidmore, an active-duty engineer colonel

there for advanced work, were helpful to all of the

and the new wives especially, a lot about the Army

engineer students. They taught our families,

and its customs. had a small advantage

simply because she’d been in the herself.

Q: Let me go back for just a second. You were married in North Carolina. Is your wife’s family from

North Carolina?

A.. Yes. That’s my wife’s home. I mentioned earlier the best man at the wedding was Dutch

Ingwersen. We were commissioned from West Point in class standing order. We sat together and

became special 1friends. We were together all during the war, and when I was married he came

to Wilmington, North Carolina, from his home in Clinton, Iowa, to be our best man. A high

school friend had become a priest and helped perform the ceremony. The Morris clan came down

en masse and practically tore up the Cape Fear Hotel during the bachelor party and with the other

festivities. My wife’s home has become our second home. We have property down there.

Q: So she was a nurse?

A: Yes, Gerry graduated from James Walker Memorial Hospital in Wilmington. She married a

lieutenant in the Air Force who went to Italy, earned a Silver Star in that theater, and was killed.

As a result of those events, she decided that she would join the as a nurse and m.anaged to

get into the flight nurse program. She spent most of her time in the States training to fly and take

care of patien

to handle the

ts in the air and so forth. In early 1945 her unit of nurses moved to the Philippines

casualties from the invasion of Tokyo, which didn’t happen, of course, but that’s

why they were sent to Fort McKinley. I was stationedthere. General Whitehead, the command ing

general, had a reception for these young ladies and invited some of the bachelor men who were

available. I was one of those people, and as the evening went on Gerry gravitated to Jim Betts

a friend of mine, and joined our table. That’s how the whole thing began.

So she was a nurse and a very good one. From Tachikawa, 25 miles from Tokyo, she flew to

Kimpo Air Base in Korea to evacuate sick servicemen. While her base was at Tachikawa, on her

off days she would stay at Army Hall, an officers billet in Tokyo. The females lived on the top

and the men on the first three floors. I was on the first floor. The place was very well managed

and proved to me that men and women could live in the same barracks with no problem. In any

event, I found the arrangement very nice since we could be together for meals and free time.

Q: You said you were well received by the civilian students at Iowa. Their experience had probably

been somewhat similar to yours. They were probably veterans going back to school?

A: Some of them were, yes.

There was a real community there?

20
John W. Morris

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

The younger students were not. Among the graduate students, we did have some veterans. Some

of our professors had been involved in the military, not necessarily the war, but the Army students

were a cohesive unit. There was no other group like our group. There may have been individuals

and there certainly were some very fine people, but we became very competitive within ourselves.

They only gave us three A’s per course. Our group was graded on a curve, and if you got a C, you

had to get an A if you wanted a B average. That happened to me in fluid mechanics. It was a

summer make-up course. Well, then I felt that I had to get an A. I had to compete with these smart

guys, like Van Allen and Jennings and Lee, to get my A. Well, I managed-I got a couple.

Pretty stiff competition.

Very stiff, but it was a challenge and brought out the best. Also a lot of fun.

So you finished up your studies there in July, the summer of 1948, at Iowa?

Yes, June, and from there we were sent directly to the Engineer Officers Advanced Course at Fort

Belvoir.

As a captain I couldn’t get quarters at Fort Belvoir when I reported to the advanced course. Gerry

and I could not find a place to rent because the post-World War II housing situation was still very

critical. Finally, as did most of our group, we bought a house in Alexandria, off of Route 1.

It was a real shoe box, about 900 square feet, and we paid $7,500 for it. I borrowed $500 from

my father for the down payment. The thing had no heating system. Whoever had lived in there

had sold the heating system; the house was a mess. Looking back on it, I’m a bit ashamed of

putting my family in it, but we had many friends who would come over on weekends and help

fix up this house. I had an uncle who was in the heating and plumbing business, so he put in the

heating system for me. I sold it in April 1949 once our overseas orders were announced and made

a little money on it.

There were several students in our area so we had car pools, and the girls could get together and

work out their transportation problems. The house we had has been torn down and replaced by

a 7-Eleven.

The advanced course was a required course to prepare captains to become company commanders.

I’d already been a company commander, as had almost everybody else in the class that I know

of. Having just come from graduate school, our study habits were good, so we really had a very

easy and interesting year because it was a different subject.

The most interesting event that particular year was the blizzard of 1949, which created “Operation

Snowbound.” Major General Lewis A. Pick was the Missouri River Division engineer in Omaha,

and President [Harry] Truman asked him if he could help relieve the suffering of both people and

livestock.

General Pick agreed, and I was one of 10 or 15 officers pulled out of the advanced course in

Belvoir and sent to Omaha, Nebraska, to assist in relieving the blizzard problems. We arrived at

General Pick’s office about 3 o’clock in the morning. He came.in, half asleep I think, but very

sure of what he was going to do. He sat us all down around the table, and in front of each of us

was a purchase order book, a set of car keys, and a map.

He said, “Now, the map tells you where you’re going, the car keys will get you there, and that

little coupon book allows you to buy whatever you need to do your job. So, as soon as this

meeting’s over, I want you all to take off, and I don’t want to hear any more from you unless

you’ve got a serious problem that you just can’t handle. I don’t think any of you are going to have

any problems like that”-or words to that effect.

21
Enaineer Memoirs

I went to North Platte. I stayed at the Pawnee Hotel. We spent about ten days, two weeks,

delivering food to cattle. People were okay in general. The cattle, though, were in terrible shape

because the ground was frozen and there was nothing to eat. The stubs of the grass or wheat that

had been harvested were all they could get, and they’d paw into this crusty ice to get to food. It

was actually frozen so hard they’d break their hooves. It was very sad. One family had a prize bull

they’d just paid $3,000 or $4,000 for, and they had to destroy it.

We opened up a lot of roads, took food in to the livestock. The Air Force dropped hay out of the

airplanes. Everybody remembers that. They probably hit more cows-killed more cows with

hay-than they fed, but nevertheless it was a good public relations effort.

I was assigned to a Major “Moon” Mullins. Clyde Ernest, a classmate, was also in the area. While

I was there we got a call that a lady was having a baby out in a remote area. She just couldn’t

drive out, so we sent a helicopter and brought her to the hospital. That was my first real

association with a helicopter, and also my first Medivac. That became a sensational item in the

local paper.

Next, I received orders to Fargo, North Dakota. The problem in North Dakota was the opposite

from Nebraska. The cattle were okay in North Dakota because they’d brought them in instead of

ranging on the prairie. The people had had so much snow and ground blizzards that they couldn’t

get to town to get food. So our job there was to open up roads and let the people out. Arriving in

Fargo, I was told I was going to go to Bowbells, North Dakota. Bowbells is a little community

12 miles south of the Canadian line. It’s the county seat of Divide County, as I recall. The nearest

town to it of any size was Kenmore.

I was sent up there in an Army L-4, a single-engine observation plane with skis. The pilot got as

far as Kenmore, but the wind was blowing so hard he could not go farther and said he could either

let me out or take me back. I said, “Let me out. I’m halfway.” He landed, and when he did, one

ski broke through the snow and flipped the plane over. Didn’t hurt anybody or the plane,

especially. I got out with all my baggage and parka and really had no idea where I was except on

the map.

Finally, some fellow with a Piper Cub, a red Piper Cub, came up, and he said, “Where are you

going, Captain?”

I said, “I’m trying to get to Bowbells.”

He said, “I’ll take you.”

I said, “Are you sure you can get up there? This guy couldn’t get there.”

“Well, my plane’s better; I know the area. I know how to fly in this weather.”

So away we went. We got up to Bowbells, and he landed in a field right outside the county

courthouse. The field was crusted over, and the wind was blowing-it must have been 50, 60

miles an hour. I got out of the plane. Every time I’d put my foot down with my bag on that side,

I’d break through the snow, and I’d go up to over my knees in the snow. I soon learned to shove

this bag across the ice and walk behind it.

When the plane took off it didn’t appear to move ten feet. He just sort of got up off the ground.

The wind was blowing so hard he became airborne, and his problem then was getting turned to

go home. Well, he finally got the plane turned, and that Cub looked like a jet taking off with the

wind behind it.

Finally, I arrived at the courthouse steps. I was totally exhausted and dripping wet. I sat down on

the county courthouse steps to catch my breath, and out came one of the commissioners. He asked

22
John W. Morris

me who I was, and I told him. He said, “You’re in bad shape, Captain,” and seemed to say, “Don’t

tell me you’ve come up here to save us.” But that was true. I stayed there 14 days in Room 4 of

the Bowbells Hotel.

Heavy construction equipment from the Minnesota and North Dakota areas had been told just to

start towards Kenmore and Bowbells. As they traveled they opened the major roads. They arrived

in Bowbells shortly after I did. By that time we had a game plan of what we were going to do, and

using the radio the people were told when we were going to open Route so-and-so and that they

would have 24 hours to get groceries, et cetera. Plowed roads were like double snow fences, and

snow would soon blow into the cavities. Keeping the roads open was a real problem, so we would

only promise 24 hours on any segment.

We ran a recon one day of Route 25, and we had traveled quite some distance to the far end so

we could work back towards Bowbells. As we’d drive along Route 25, little fingers of drifting

snow would get thicker and thicker and thicker until finally our vehicle just couldn’t get through

any more and we were stuck-fortunately right in front of a farmhouse. The people were very

nice, but it was embarrassing, though, because I had to call back to Bowbells to get a crew to

come and get us. The crew came, and a couple of hours later we were back into town, a bit

smarter.

We were so tired at night it didn’t make any difference that there was little activity in Bowbells.

The tractor operators had canvas hood covers over the engines and up around themselves so only

their heads would be in the open. They’d be very warm in there, so they were okay. We never

shut down the tractors if we could avoid it because it was hard to get them started. That was an

interesting job which helped a great deal during later duties, especially in Labrador.

Once Divide County was cleaned up, we were told to go west to Columbus, Burke County, and

so forth. After that we were brought back to Fort Belvoir.

The unfortunate part of this whole event was that nobody told us when we left Fort Belvoir what

was going to happen, and I could not tell my wife anything of significance. I would remember that

later.

Germany, Savannah, and Fort Leavenworth

Q: Where did you go after your Fort Belvoir assignment?

A: We received orders to Germany. On the trip over Gerry and I couldn’t share a stateroom. Majors

could have a stateroom but captains couldn’t. I was still paying a little penalty for my friend’s

going off on holiday back in Tokyo, but nevertheless we had a pleasant trip over. She was

upstairs with Susan in a very nice cabin. I stayed in a sort of ward area with the men. We had no

problem. We could see each other during the day. On our trip was Major “Jug” Young, Crawford

Young, a classmate.

Just the day before we landed, Jug got his orders to Hanau. He was very happy. Then my orders

came and we were going to go to Murnau-the Engineer School. Our old Ford had not arrived

when we landed in Bremerhaven, so we went to Murnau on the train. The track was smooth and

we had a good night on the train.

In 1949 Mumau, Germany, was not a big city. We were met by someone from the Engineer

School and taken to the colonel’s home, Colonel S. A. Armogida, for our first night. He had a

great house. Our second night was in our assigned house at the end of a dark street with no lights,

on the fringes of Mumau. The house was sitting on a hill looking out over the moors towards the

23
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Alps. Right next to us was a tavern, so a few beers and the Alps prompted some gusty yodeling.

That was our first night alone in Germany.

Our commander, Colonel Armogida, made a significant difference in my future. As our officers

often said, “He was the commandingest commander.” He ran the Engineer School based on very

high standards. Just wouldn’t put up with promiscuity or laxity, which were not uncommon in

Germany at that time.

The Engineer School job would be my first three-year fixed assignment. I would be observed over

a long period of time in the same location.

After a few months we moved to an excellent house. We made many friends in Mumau. A few

we’d known before but, by and large, it was a whole new community. I began duties as the supply

officer. I had no idea I’d ever be a supply officer. I thought if I was going to be anything I’d be

one of the training officers, but the commander needed a supply officer and I got the job. In

summer of 1950 I became the S-4 and was responsible for all supply and maintenance. In June

195 1 I was promoted to major.

As the supply officer I learned that there was a tremendous amount of excess property left as the

German families moved out and the problem worsened as American-purchased furniture arrived.

We had it all on inventory and had to keep all these records. Besides, we had numerous real fire

hazards.

When I became S-4 we decided to get rid of this stuff. That was a big program. We had to locate

the owners, explain what we wanted to do, and offer them any furniture they wanted and could

pick up. We set up a day to do all this and actually returned tons of furniture to their owners. Our

program became a good example.

The S-4 had broad duties-too broad probably. He would prepare the budget, get it approved,

and draft the plans and specifications for projects. Next, the S-4 would send the projects to the

contractors, receive the bids, select the low bidder, award the contract, then supervise the

construction. The S-4 oversaw the entire cradle-to-grave process. Colonel Armogida was pleased

because we were putting together things that he’d been trying to get done.

One day just before he was to leave for a new assignment he gave me a nice compliment and

encouraged me to stay in the Army because he thought I had a good future. I never paid much

attention to that at the time, but his thoughts came back to reality later. Anyhow, we finished up

our tour as S-4 and then I was brought back to the States.

How did your family adapt to living in Germany?

In many ways that tour gave us the outstanding three years in our military career as a family. We

developed a good family routine and we had ample time for our family affairs. Wednesday

afternoon was off in those days and we played a lot of golf and skied in Garmisch. We traveled

to Paris and Rome, et cetera. Our son was born in Munich at the hospital, and as with the first

child, I wasn’t present. When Susan was born I was home in Iowa City, the nurse called and

suggested I not come over till 6:30. I did that, but by that time my wife thought I was a little late

coming. In Germany it was even worse. I was in Mumau; she was in Munich at the hospital when

John was delivered by a doctor named C.T. Daniels.

I wanted to name him after my father, but Gerry named our son for me. I am John W. Morris II

after my grandfather John W. Morris. Our family custom was to name sons after grandfathers,

but she changed that summarily.

24
Captain John W. Morris and Gerry Morris

vacationed in Garmisch, West Germany, while

Morris was assigned to the European Command

Engineer School in Murnau.

My associate in S-4, Mr. Willard

Fritzinger, raised Italian greyhounds and

we got a dog; his name was Carlos. We

called him Charles and had him for 15

years. He grew up with our kids. We had

a housekeeper, a Czechoslovakian

refugee, who took care of the children. I

finally got rid of that Ford and my

captain’s bars about the same time. I

ordered a Riley made in England, a nice

automobile. We brought it back to the

States.

We had parties at the Schloss, a threestory officers’ club. A local landowner

had a large estate and this building was

used as our club and transient and

bachelor officers’ billets. We had a

women’s billet which was very

unsatisfactory, so based on my

experience in Tokyo I decided to put the

men on one floor and the women on

another. There was a lot of hullabaloo

about that. Interestingly, the men began

wearing neckties and jackets-it

improved the appearance, at least, of the

officers. We never had any trouble.

Being S-4 turned out to be a substantive

assignment in later years. Working for

Armogida was important. He was

replaced by Colonel Dick Jewett,

Richard L. Jewett, who became a general. Colonel Jewett was a troop commander. He exemplified the military. Armogida was a different

kind of leader-very strong, but he was interested in product, results, and while a strict

disciplinarian, he was not “military.”

Q: The Engineer School at Mumau. That’s unusual for an overseas command to have its own

engineer school, isn’t it?

A: Many of the services had schools in Europe in those days. The Engineer School served a very

useful purpose. Keep in mind, the war had not been over all that long, and Korea had started.

There was quite a bit of tension and keeping the troops in Europe combat-ready was of

substantive value. Our subjects included demolitions, bridging, fortifications, et cetera.

As S-4 I had to support certain clandestine activities. I’d get a call in the middle of the night to

do this or that, and I’d have to take care of it. My wife would ask, “Where are you going?” I’d

say, “Well, I can’t tell you.” The activity trained refugees out of Eastern Europe and dropped

people behind the borders to learn what was going on.

Also, as S-4 I was responsible for the evacuation plan of all the dependents. We stored water,

paper towels, toilet paper, rations-all the things needed if there had to be an evacuation. The

25
Engineer Memoirs

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

evacuees were to pick up a packet in their car and follow preselected routes into France. We had

to practice that. There were a variety of things going on that kept us in some state of readiness,

and the Engineer School was particularly important.

The Engineer School in Europe presented a very nice curriculum patterned after Fort Belvoir I

don’t think it was unusual at that time to have schools. I’m not clear on where all the other

schools were but I know the Intelligence School was at Oberamergau.

Was the school responsible to the theater engineer?

Yes. The school commandant reported to the Engineer, U.S. Army, Europe, in those days. He was

at Heidelberg, and that’s where we’d take the budget. I had to go to Heidelberg frequently on

business.

You were there during a period of pretty dramatic change in Germany in terms of rebuilding after

the war, I guess.

Yes.

From 1949 to 1952, you saw a lot of changes over those three years.

Well, yes, that’s interesting because when we were in Japan, by now five years earlier, Japan had

done more clean up in 1947 when I left there, it looked to me like, than the Germans had done

in 1949 when we got to Germany or even when I left.

That’s interesting.

The Japanese, though, went about their clean-up operations on a national basis. Every individual

picked up pieces of tin, brick, et cetera. They’d stack it all up by the various categories of material

and it would get hauled away on bicycles and coal-burning trucks and everything else. They had

done quite a job of putting things in order in Japan quickly. In Europe I didn’t feel that they’d

been quite as aggressive in that.

We saw a lot of other changes in Germany. For example, when we arrived-they were using the

reichmark, which was the old German money. There was so much black market going on that they

converted that to the deutschmark and gave us scrip, which was at that time pegged about four

to one, $4.20 in DM scrip to $1 in U.S., I think it was.

Of course, the Army was integrated in 1950-5 1. The Engineer School in Murnau had less trouble

integrating students than we would have had integrating in the troop units, I expect. I don’t know.

In Guam I commanded a company of only black soldiers while the officers were white. I thought

integration was the right thing to do and it proved out that it could be done, of course.

Did you have German civilians in the school there?

As students, no, but my civilian staff as S-4 were all Germans except Fritzinger. Later one other

American arrived, a Mr. O’Brien. The Engineer School staff included many Germans. Some of

the professors were German. We had two German doctors at our little dispensary and they were

quite good. I had firsthand experience when our son fell off and cut his head on the coffee table.

They put stitches in him and you can’t even see where, they did such a good job.

The school buildings were in bad shape because of the war and neglect, so we

rehabilitation. The houses were nice, however, and the service facilities were good

Did you have trouble finding German contractors to do the work?

did a lot of

26
John W. Morris

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

No. One in particular was always competitive. His name was Burgmeister, but there were usually

four or five bidders. We went about it in the right way. I’m going to come back to this a little

later.

My tour in Germany was the beginning of our appreciation of the Army-how the Army really

operated, the business of supply and command and stability came for the first time in Europe.

Also it was such a wonderful place to be. My mother came over and my wife and another ftiend

went to England. My mother said she’d never leave the state of Maryland, but when that grandson

was born, she came. We actually met her in Paris and drove home. That was very exciting for us.

Another thing I remember-some things you just remember-the Queen of England’s coronation,

and the song of the year was “Cry,” and then “On Top of Old Smokey.” The big party game was

charades.

Annual Christmas parties were held at the Schloss. We also had a wedding. Joe Cushing, who

lives over here, married the secretary to the commandant. We went one Sunday to visit an old

church, Christ Church, over in the valley. It was one of the oldest churches in Europe. We got

snowbound, couldn’t get out. I walked up to this farmer’s house and he came back with two

horses and just like out in North Dakota, pulled us out, towed the car behind the horses up to his

place. We stayed there until we all got warm and had something to eat and drink. A nice

experience. We enjoyed ourselves in Mumau. Still, we worked hard.

It was during the time that you were there that there was a big build-up of American forces in

Korea?

Yes, I thought I was going to Korea. I didn’t want to leave my family, but I thought I belonged

in Korea. It didn’t work out that way.

Anything else about Mumau?

Yes. Our help. Charlotta Egg-Lotti was our “hausfrau.” She became a real member of our family.

She loved our son John dearly, and I remember the day we left Germany like it was yesterday.

I can still see her standing there, tears running down her face, waving goodbye to John. We tried

to get her to come home with us but she was afraid to come. She was afraid the Indians would get

her. That’s true. She said, “Oh, Mrs. Morris, I’m afraid of the Indians.” That’s what motion

pictures did, I guess.

Our other helper was a refugee named Panec. A baker by trade, but he was hired as a yard man.

He took care of two or three houses. On Saturday he would come to our kitchen and bake cakes

and cookies, and it was awful. Awfully good. His problem was he was used to making quantities,

not small amounts.

Also, a local farmer would come in and cut the grass. He had a couple of cows that pulled this

wagon, and he and the son had the scythes and the daughter would hold the animals till he had

cut our grass. He’d rake it up in piles, and then she’d move these animals to each of these piles

and they’d throw the hay on the wagon and they’d go away. They’d do that about three times

during the summer.

Germany was a nice experience, but we finally received orders to Savannah, Georgia, to be

deputy district engineer. I was beginning to wonder, by this time in Germany, where I was really

going in the Army. I guess everybody goes through such thoughts. I’d gone through World War

II; I had all the education I was to get to that point; I had finished my service obligations; I had

a good tour in Europe. I wondered which track I was going to go down. Was I going to get into

civil works or was I going to go into strictly troop duty? It was really a watershed period.

27
Enaineer Memoirs

Our assignment to Savannah was very favorable. My boss was E. E. [Ellis] Wilhoyt, later General

Wilhoyt. His wife, Dolly, and their four girls had a very nice home in Savannah. We moved into

a lesser house, a nice, new home, not too far away, and started off our service as the deputy to the

district engineer. His boss was originally General “Weary” [Walter K.] Wilson, and then General

Charles Holle. Both generals became very important to me later. Wilson was only there a very

short while; then Holle came along.

Just before our tour ended, Holle left and Brigadier General Pat Strong took his place. General

Strong came in from Japan. I remember two things about him: he was from Savannah, Georgia,

and he had written Jack Armstrong, The All-American Boy.

The tour in Savannah gave me an insight into a whole different world. We wore civilian clothes

much of the time, we lived on the civilian colmmunity, and I got a look at the public works

program. I found my work at Iowa, the graduate work, to be very applicable. I

with the C ivilian staff. They seemed to enjoy being with Gerry and me. It

enjoyed working

just was a very

enlightening experience. We had a big dredging program; the dredge Henry Bacon was there. We

were building Clark Hill Dam.

Some outstanding civilians. Mr. Charlie Trainor, who was a technical adviser to the district

engineer. Wilhoyt, Trainor, and Morris ran the headquarters. I was the least of the three, that’s

for sure. Trainor was an outstanding engineer, and he had Fred Facey, Engineering, and “Shorty”

Gunn, Construction, under him. Savannah was a professional organization, truly. It was an old

district. One of the things I got into was cleaning up the records and other accumulations.

I also became involved in the public hearings. We had to issue permits in those days, too, but we

usually did that on Saturday. If we had a permit hearing, we’d schedule it on Saturday, and I

would go out as the deputy district engineer and run or help run the hearing. Each would take 10

or 15 minutes or maybe half an hour, and we did maybe one of those a month at the most.

We were very much involved with some very powerful political people in those days: Senator

Richard Russell; Strom Thurmond. We were trying to get Hartwell Dam authorized. So the civil

works side of the office was quite busy, from the dredging, the maintenance of the waterway, the

building of Clark Hill Dam, getting Hartwell authorized, public hearings for permits, et cetera.

I mean, it’s sort of a mini-Corps of Engineers with all the functions there.

We had a boat, called the Danora. The Danora had been given to the Army by the Chrysler

Corporation in World War II. It was a luxury yacht, about 106 feet long, sleeping capacity for

four or six people. General Holle would inspect and we’d usually take him on a little spin in the

Danora. Mrs. Holle would come along. She was a great bridge player, so they loved to go out on

the boat and the ladies would play bridge. One of our lieutenants was Andy Pick, and on one

occasion the Chief of Engineers, [Lieutenant] General Lewis A. Pick, came to Savannah. Colonel

Wilhoyt had been in the CBI [China-Burma-India Theater] with General Pick in World War II,

and I had been in “Operation Snowbound,” so there was lots to talk about.

Incidentally, one of the permits we had to hear was a permit for Hilton Head Island. That was

rather routinely handled because we didn’t think anything would ever come of it.

The military area covered all of Georgia and up into North Carolina. We had real estate

responsibility as far north as Wilmington, North Carolina. That was kind of nice because I could

go up there with Gerry to her home. Kings Point was just getting started-an ammunition

terminal on the Cape Fear River. Savannah District acquired all the real estate for that.

Moody Air Force Base, Turner Air Force Base, Fort McPherson, Fort Benning and Warner

Robbins were in our area. I was

I did a lot of traveling around.

responsible for safety and some project progress in general, so

28
John W. Morris

Mr. Goldberg, the personnel officer, and I were driving back from Atlanta to Savannah one

afternoon. When we got to Macon, Georgia, a tornado came through. It was a very serious

tornado, and we could see this thing coming and where it went with a deluge of rain. We just

missed it by minutes, we were that close. In fact, we even slowed down because we could see the

damage that we had to go through.

I remember trying to quit smoking in Savannah, which I didn’t do. Mostly I remember driving

everywhere. We spent hours in an automobile going to these various bases. I can still remember

Rosemary Clooney singing “Hey, There.” They played that song about every 20 minutes on the

radio.

In Savannah the concerns I had had in Europe on what I was going to do were diminished because

I liked the Corps of Engineers’ district work, both military and civil. I then decided I’d like to be

a district engineer some day. In early summer 1953, Frances Hambrick, the district engineer’s

secretary, an outstanding individual, not only in her work but also as a very nice person, read each

Army regulation that came through as part of her job. One day she read a regulation that said

something to the effect that a major if recommended by a general officer could be promoted to

lieutenant colonel. She took that order to Wilhoyt, thinking it applied to Major Morris. He agreed

and recommended me to General Holle who okayed it. His deputy-a colonel whose name I don’t

recall-was not in favor because he felt I was not old enough to become a lieutenant colonel,

hadn’t had enough experience, I suppose. Well, that may have been true, but I had many

classmates who were lieutenant colonels already.

Colonel Ellis E. Wilhoyt, District Engineer of the Savannah District, promoted Major Morris to

lieutenant colonel in August 1953.

29
Engineer Memoirs

Anyhow, General Holle sent the recommendation to Washington. My old commander, Armogida,

was in the Chief’s office. When Frances told me the status, I called Colonel Armogida on the

phone and explained to him that this paper was on the way. Timing was relatively tight. He said,

“Don’t worry, I’ll keep my eye on it for you.” As luck would have it, Armogida personally took

it up to General [Sam] Sturgis, then the Chief. He got the Chief of Engineers to sign off. Well,

that was it. I mean, that fixed it right there. I didn’t need more than the top engineer. I made the

. 11st.

Interesting enough, there was another person on that list of some importance. His name was

Bernard Rogers, my classmate, who later became Chief of Staff of the Army. The effect of that

promotion was significant. I’d only been a major since June 1951 and this list was published in

August 1953. Also, I caught up with my peers who had gotten ahead of me during World War II

and it put me back where I would have been had the promotion from captain to major not been

delayed. So that worked out pretty good.

Of course, an August 1953 date of rank put us behind the 7 July 195 1 promotions to lieutenant

colonel, which include practically all of the classes of 1940, 1941, and 1942. That didn’t bother

me too much in 1953. Gerry and Colonel Wilhoyt pinned the leaves on me; our children were

present. My wife was so enthusiastic about it, she came to Wilmington one weekend and picked

out a car for us to buy that cost $4,500. Now, that may not seem costly today, but in 1953 that was

expensive. So anyway, I made lieutenant colonel, thanks to Frances Hambrick’s reading those

regulations, and I’ll never forget her.

Savannah was really an important time. Again I was lucky to work for great people who desired

to help individuals who worked for them. I learned a lot from all of them-from Armogida, from

Jewett and Wilhoyt-all outstanding men who made it easy to be good, really. You couldn’t do

too badly. They wouldn’t let you.

Savannah clarified some objectives for me and it gave me the opportunity to meet some top

people who later became very important in the Corps of Engineers. At the time I probably didn’t

realize how valuable that assignment was.

From there we were assigned to Fort Leavenworth, to Command and General Staff College

[C&GSC].

Q: Could I go back for a couple of questions there? You were doing a lot of work for the Air Force

during this time period. How was that going?

A: We got along with the Air Force fine. Actually, the Air Force had been a separate service only

about five years, and they were getting their turf established, beginning to want to take over their

own engineering. The effect of that caused the Corps to do a better job for the Air Force than they

might have otherwise.

One of the big issues was housing. We were building Air Force housing every place and the

housing was not as good as it should be. Ultimately, the Air Force got its own housing, and one

of the reasons, I think, was that the Corps design produced a house which was not all that great.

I believe that was the seed that ultimately ended up in the Air Force’s doing its own housing and

the Army using contractor designs.

Q: Well, you had some big construction on the Army posts. You had Fort Benning and Fort Stewart.

In the post-Korean war period, those were big programs.

A.. Stewart was an interesting one, now that you mention it, because the Air Force was at Hunter Air

Force Base and the Army was out at Fort Stewart, and Stewart was in very bad shape.

We were doing quite a bit of work at Benning. I don’t remember the specifics.

30
1

John W. Morris

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A.

.

I wouldn’t want to say that the civil program was any more demanding on the district engineer

than the military program. The district engineer would probably say the military program took

more of his time, which is not unusual because the civil is an internal operation and had its own

management.

I am interested in housing. What about Wherry housing? The Wherry program was in operation

at this time?

Yes.

Were they trying to build housing too cheaply? Was the program just too cheap in terms of each

house?

That is true; cost per unit was the dominant factor. The other had something to do with standards.

Design factors were an area with which I wasn’t intimate at that time so I can only surmise.

Then Wherry. Wherry was a sort ofCracker box.

Well, on the civil side of the house, I think you mentioned Hartwell and Clark Hill. Was

recreation becoming more important?

Yes. It was not a project function at that time, but recreation was provided at Clark Hill. Clark

Hill was not quite finished when I left, but my recollection is that the reservoir area did include

boat ramps, camp sites, et cetera. It was just part of the operational setup. Boating was one of the

most attractive features to the local people. The reservoir itself was available for public use, of

course.

In those days, we had cabin sites. You could buy or lease land on which to build cabins. The

cabins became quite a problem later on. Criteria for these facilities were not very well

established, so many were built that probably shouldn’t have been. These sites were supposedly

far enough from the reservoir area to not affect operations. It turned out some of the surveys were

not well done.

Savannah’s now become a tourist area with a lot of restoration.

Yes. When we were there they started to do the old cotton exchange over, and there were some

very nice restaurants in town.

Did you have much interaction

The answer to your question is

a principal political individual

with the politicians? You mentioned them earlier as strong ones.

yes. A gentleman named Lester Moody in Augusta, Georgia, was

in that part of Georgia. He had the contacts and knew how to do

things. He and Senators [Richard] Russell and [Walter] George were very close associates,

Colonel Wilhoyt and Mr. Moody communicated often about political matters.

The political people were quite active. There was strong support for Hartwell Dam, now named

Richard B. Russell.

As for the local political people, I personally don’t recall doing business with them.

Would you say that was a real training ground for you later?

It was. That’s why I said earlier it was a landmark assignment. By the time I became a district

engineer I’d had several other assignments that were also foundation items, but Savannah was the

first.

31
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Then we went to Leavenworth for the usual C&GSC tour. Had a lot of West Point classmates in

the group. First time I’d gone to school with students who were from other branches. Always

before, I’d gone to school with engineers, but this time we had all branches.

The military schools work you pretty hard, but they are a very good change of pace-recreation,

in a sense. They give you a chance to put aside the pressures of day-to-day business, to think, and

to clear your mind.

It’s hard to single out anything, but again classmates and friends-Bernie Rogers and Bob

Mathe-we must have had maybe 20 classmates at C&GSC.

Were some of the Iowa people there too?

Well, let’s see. I don’t recall any right now. The ones that come to mind were not of the group

that were at Iowa. Miles Wachendorf from Mumau was a student, however. We enjoyed seeing

them again.

I don’t know what to tell you about Leavenworth. It’s just the traditional year. It does give you

a lot of exposure with the rest of the Army, not just the engineers, and that was important to me

because I had been only with engineers in my career to that point.

Well, this is during the Eisenhower massive retaliation era. I guess a lot of the curriculum must

have been devoted to nuclear weapons.

Yes, that’s true and your question reminds me that President [Dwight] Eisenhower’s son John

was a classmate at C&GSC. In those days the Army started a nuclear effects course, and those

who chose to do so could stay nine weeks longer to complete a special weapons course. I was one

of a small group that did. Normally the scenarios were located in Europe using conventional

forces. We had a few in the Pacific. We would then have a final exercise on employing nuclear

weapons-where and what size and things like that-but that was an addendum to the basic

education.

To encapsulate C&GSC, you learn staff work and you learn how to write a five-paragraph staff

paper and order. You learn how to utilize the various elements of the military in various war

situations, combat situations, and integrate the infantry, the armor, artillery, et cetera. Those

exercises stand you in good stead for staff positions. For example, I’ll still follow the five

paragraph concept; you know, the problem, facts bearing on the problem, et cetera, et cetera.

The other thing, which is not in the course outline, is this relationship with the rest of the Army.

You remember your classmates at Leavenworth all your military career. They’re important to you

all along. It’s easier to communicate with people you know, of course. So I think that was a very

valuable opportunity.

Besides the regular nine-month course, there was a three-month associate course.

Most of the students there have probably been in World War II or Korea, or both?

Yes, I think almost without exception. See, we were all majors or lieutenant colonels, and this

was 1954. The war had only been over nine years. You had to have over nine years of service to

go to C&GSC. Again, I tried to quit smoking. Again, I didn’t make it.

32
John W. Morris

Goose Bay and OCE

Q

.

. Where were you assigned after Fort Leavenworth?

A: Goose Bay, Labrador, however, initially, I was slated to go to Korea as a battalion commander.

An engineer officer named Jones was assigned to Goose Bay, Labrador, but he had five or six

children, and it was considered a nondependent tour. Colonel Dick Hennessy had come from the

Chief’s office to give us our assignments. Jones indicated he didn’t see how he could go to

Labrador and leave his family.

I mentioned to Hennessy that if Jones didn’t want to go to Labrador I’d like to go because it was

a construction assignment and I would like to be the resident engineer for building an air base in

the Arctic. Korea was a nondependent tour, too, as I recall, Jones changed with “Snuffy” [Frank]

Rhea, a West Point classmate, on orders to the Philippines. Rhea went to Korea, and Jones went

to the Philippines. That’s how it all shook out.

I took the Goose Bay assignment thinking I was going to be gone one year. My wife wasn’t all

that pleased but it was just as well to be there as in Korea. One day I was looking through the

Army or the Department of Defense regulations to learn about Goose Bay, Labrador, an Air Force

installation. I noticed that Goose Air Base had 40 sets of quarters. So I began to wonder, what

would I have to do to get a set of quarters?

My new headquarters was to be Eastern Ocean District in New York City, of the North Atlantic

Division. The North Atlantic Division was under [Brigadier] General [Clarence] Renshaw, who

had built the Pentagon. His Eastern Ocean District engineer was Colonel Morton Solomon.

Colonel Solomon allowed me to go to Goose Bay, Labrador, on a reconnaissance trip out of Fort

Leavenworth.

I went to Goose Bay. The base commander was Colonel James Knapp, a West Point graduate and

an Air Force pilot. He was well respected and soon to become a general. I went to see him, and

while there I asked about quarters. He indicated they were for Air Force people. I asked about the

one Army colonel in quarters. He mentioned that Goose Air Base needed him a little longer

because he ran the seaport.

I indicated I would be happy to stay two years if I could bring my family. In response, he offered

to ask the Chief of Engineers to agree to let me stay two years.

So he contacted General Sturgis, who was the Chief at that time. Ultimately, the assignments

people agreed to let us stay at Goose Bay for 24 months if they would give the family a set of

quarters. Colonel Knapp gave me quarters as he agreed. I came back to C&GSC and moved the

family to North Carolina for two weeks’ holiday.

After two or three days in the sun, Colonel Solomon called me and said he wanted me at Goose

Bay Monday-this was a Thursday in mid-August. I complained that I just gotten back from

Goose Bay and had not had any holiday after CXGSC. He then announced that the officer in

place was being relieved and he wanted me up there at once.

So I said, “All right, Sir, but can I just have two more days?” He agreed and gave us until the next

Friday. That gave me a week. We packed ourselves and took off for Maguire Air Force Base, the

port of departure. Hurricane Diane arrived at the same time, and we didn’t get to Goose Bay for

two weeks. We stayed at Maguire.

Finally, I flew into Goose Bay with Gerry and the two children. Colonel Charles Duke met us.

Charlie was the deputy district engineer, and Solomon had sent him up there to “hold the fort”

till I arrived. We climbed off the airplane about 1500. Major Jim Guest, deputy area engineer,

33
Enaineer Memoirs

was there also. We went into the coffee shop to wait for the baggage. Guest was to take my family

and me to our house. So I asked Colonel Duke if I could go home with my family and meet

tomorrow morning to be oriented.

He said, “This is

to New York. So

your orientation now. I’m getting on that airplane you got

if you want to ask me some questions, you’ve got about 20

off of and going back

minutes.” [Laughter]

I didn’t know what to ask, so I said, “Well, I’ll see you, Colonel. Thanks for holding the line.

What do you suggest I do?”

He said, “I want you to do one thing: get the damn hospital turned over.” That’s the project which

got this other fellow in trouble. Duke left shortly thereafter. So we all went over to our house and

settled in. Our assignment at Goose Bay, another critical assignment, began. This wasn’t

supposed to be good in a lot of people’s minds, but it proved to be outstanding. Lots of reasons.

One, there was limited communications with the district headquarters in New York. I couldn’t

call on the phone. I could communicate by radio, and that was problematical because of the

weather conditions. If I wrote a letter, it took a couple of weeks. Colonel Morton Solomon’s

philosophy was very simple, “You’re out on the end of the line where I can’t help you. Just do

a good job. I can’t afford to have somebody out there that can’t do the job.”

Turned out that every colonel that survived an assignment to a remote site later became a general.

Carroll Dunn, Bill Stames, Frank Koisch, Dick McConnell, myself. Solomon’s track record in

developing officers to their full potential was great. He gave you every opportunity to succeed,

but he didn’t protect you to the point where you couldn’t fail. He wrote all his efficiency reports

in longhand. Somewhere there’s one on me to the effect that with a little more experience I’d be

a pretty good officer, and that was about the size of it.

Well, anyhow, there I was at the end of the line, so to speak, and we then proceeded to put in 20

months of the most concentrated, 100 percent effort of any time in my life because of the

circumstances. We only had a few months of the year to work outside so we had to spend the

whole winter doing inside work, preparing and planning for the next construction season, and

then executing it efficiently. Safety was a great problem because of ice, snow, and extreme cold.

The Goose Bay program involved placing 18 inches of concrete over the runways, installing a

complete automated refueling system, rather sophisticated, a central heating system for the base,

400 new houses, new electric distribution, and much more.

The new electric power plant included two 2,000-kilowatt generators. They had to be tested in

the wintertime, and we had no way to test them except by using the base load. General Knapp

decided at the last minute it was too big of a risk. He feared that if the new generator broke down,

it would damage the old diesel generators, and the flight line would be shut down.

So we had to come up with another way to do it. Interestingly enough, we used a construction

camp for the base load. We organized everybody so that at a certain time of a fixed day they’d

plug in all their irons, their space heaters, and turn on every piece of electricity they could find.

We generated enough demand out of our construction camp that we could test these generators.

That was the one time I got in dangerous straits with Colonel Solomon. I had sent a requirement

down to the district telling them of my dilemma when the commanding general had changed his

mind on letting us use the base load. The base suggested we build a water rheostat, so I fired

down there a letter asking the district for some help on this thing, especially if they have any

better ideas. I got this long document back, which some staff person sent me. It didn’t say a thing

I didn’t already know. So I fired back another wire, which I’m sure got to Solomon, that said, “I

don’t need all this information. I just want a decision.” That created a little problem, I think, but

it also probably got their attention because I had explained what I was going to do and I wanted

34
John W. Morris

to find out if there was any objection to putting at risk the whole construction program in Goose

Bay. We proceeded on our own, alone.

The first thing after we turned on the generator, it blew out one of the fuse boxes. I thought, “Oh,

Lord, here we go.” Fortunately it was a wiring problem. We hadn’t put the generator on line yet,

but still I felt we were going to be in one hell of a mess before it was all over. However, we tested

them with the construction camp as a load and all worked out just fine.

That was one problem. Trees were another. At Goose Bay you couldn’t drive a tractor near a tree

because the roots were so close to the surface. General Knapp would not stand to have a tree

removed or killed. His point was well taken because the windblown sand up there raised havoc

with jet aircraft and caused big maintenance problems. The trees, the tundra, and the moss that

grows on top of the ground reduced the sand, so we had to be very careful. Every time we’d

knock down a tree I personally had to go see him. I didn’t like to go see him.

We had safety problems. A blizzard overloaded the roof on a big warehouse containing the base

communications supplies. The base engineer was not well equipped to repair the damage so I

suggested to the base commander that he give the Corps the job. We promised to have that

warehouse roof back in a couple of days. Then we would figure out what happened and fix it

permanently. He agreed and we delivered. Then we got into a big deal about why it failed. The

Corps had built these warehouses. It turned out that the maintenance people had not routinely

tightened the wood connectors. In time, they had gotten loose, and the heavy wind caused one of

the trusses to fail, and then the next bay and so forth.

Then building the airfield; you can only pave with the temperature at 40 degrees and rising. Some

days everything was ready, all the trucks and plants working, and it’d be 35 degrees. You’d wait

and look for the sun; it wouldn’t come. When we could pave you can imagine we were very

active because the total annual outside work season was only about 90 days.

Then, in the winter, we had tremendous snows. In 1955-56 220 inches of snow fell from

September until June, and the first flake never melted. So the snow removal problem was

immense as was land movement. Just getting around was a problem. Still, our children never

missed a day of school. They went to the Canadian school. The road-clearing facilities were

outstanding. The minute it started to snow or the wind started to blow, the plows started to work

and the roads were kept open.

When Gerry and I wanted to go to the officers’ club, which was in walking distance, we would

get all bundled up. If it was a formal dance she’d tie up her dress, put on boots, carry her bag, and

as soon as she got in the club, take off her boots and put on her dancing shoes. The weather was

a constant challenge, often 30 or 40 degrees below zero. We had airmen who would try to run

from the NC0 club back to their barracks, and they’d get frostbitten in a few minutes.

We finished the hospital. I should have put that in earlier. I had the hospital turned over within

three weeks. That was done with a lot of cooperation from the base. We had a long punch list of

things yet to be done, but they accepted it because they wanted the hospital working.

Gerry got a job over there. She was the head nurse and ran the dependents’ clinic for over a year,

which was quite nice and made her stay much more enjoyable, especially in the winters. Our little

dog, who had no hair, found Goose Bay unacceptable. He had to go out even in the cold weather.

We felt so sorry for him. He didn’t spend much time doing his business, I can tell you that.

Q: What had been the problem with the hospital construction?

35
Enaineer Memoirs

A: It’s just they couldn’t get the thing finished. The new central heating system for the bases was the

major delay that caused the hospital to be way behind schedule. Also trouble with some of the

equipment and its installation.

What about the contractor and your contract?

A: The contract was with Merritt-Chapman and Scott and Johnson, Drake and Piper-a joint venture

called Drake-Merritt. This contract was like the Atlas contract used in North Africa, a costplus/price-redetermination contract. The contractor would build everything as a cost-plus and,

at the end of the job, auditors determined a final cost and, as I recall, allowed 6 percent profit.

Contract administration was significant. We had 35 people in the Corps office. Our administrative

assistant, Mr. Olsen, knew the procurement and administration regulations of the Corps. Olsen’s

favorite response to any requirement was, “No sweat on the Goose.” The chief engineer was Bob

Coy, a GS-13. His group included an electrical section, a mechanical section, inspectors, et

cetera. I had a deputy who looked after personnel and the internal matters, and I handled dealings

with the post commander and with the contractor. The contractor’s principal man was Clyde

Newcomb and his deputy was Frank DiMatteo. I hired Frank DiMatteo to work for the Corps in

Washington years later when he was the engineer for USAID [U.S. Agency for International

Development]. Any rate, at Goose Bay he was a young engineer for Drake-Merritt.

Executing this contract was a fabulous experience for me. The experience came in very handy

later. It’s strange how these things work out. My good fortune was that every assignment

provided an experience that was needed and important later.

To execute our contract, prepricing changes was critical before work began. Failure to control

prices was also a problem at the hospital. I recall that to regain control we established a price

ceiling for the entire remaining hospital work, rather than trying to work out a price on every nut

and bolt.

Every morning at 8 o’clock we’d meet on the work for the day and how it was going to be

handled. We used a Title 2 contract with Fay, Spofford, and Thomdyke out of Boston for the

inspection work. They were, in effect, part of the Corps’ area office. During the construction

season Fay, Spofford, and Thomdyke had about 20 people. Their top man up there was retired

Corps of Engineers Brigadier General Mason Young. I respected his judgment, of course, and he

respected my position, so we managed to work together.

Fay, Spofford, and Thomdyke had designed the Goose Bay program. So in a sense they were

inspecting themselves. The Corps supervisors feared the Title 2 contractor was overlooking

mistakes in design and therefore letting the contractor do some things that probably shouldn’t be

done. There was no substantive indication that that was true, however. Still, it was a cause for

some tension.

Progress under these arrangements became very good. Our administration was very complicated

because of the type of contract. The team [contractor and Corps] did finally develop the attitude

we wanted: “Let’s get this job done.” We burned a lot of midnight oil on those contract

administration and contract changes. Getting Mr. Newcomb to become a cooperative partner in

this was one of my main challenges.

Internally we were tough on some personnel behavior like drinking, tardiness, et cetera. The

contractors’ employees arrived in the summertime by the hundreds; in the wintertime they were

cut back. They lived in a big bamlike warehouse-type structure with double-decker bunks. It

wasn’t too bad but just a lot of people in one place. They ran a wonderful mess and the food was

outstanding. The contractor also provided good medical facilities which Corps employees used.

36
John W. Morris

The type of contract and the type of contractor we had under the circumstances proved to be of

great value later on in Vietnam, the Israeli airfields, Saudi Arabia, et cetera.

In my recollection, that probably was the first job that put me so clearly in harm’s way and into

rough going. There was a constant opportunity to fail. If you didn’t pay attention to your job you

would get fired-and you’d probably deserve it. I can’t think of many circumstances where the

demands on the area engineer, on a day-to-day basis, carried any higher risk than trying to convert

Goose Bay to a Strategic Air Command base under a boss like Solomon and a client like Knapp.

In conjunction with the Goose Air Base project,we had the “Gap Filler” sites. Gap Filler

included a group of intermediate communicationsstations being builtto fill the gaps in the old

Pine Tree Network sites across northern Canada. Together they were to monitor and intercept

Russian missiles or aircraft. The Gap Filler sites were from Frobisher Bay south to about the

Goose Bay area.

Major John Kelley, a West Point classmate, was in Goose and in charge of the Gap Filler

program. He reported to me. I did go to the sites occasionally by single-engine airplanes

controlled by bush pilots. That was a thrilling experience on occasion.

The only native activity near Goose Air Base was a little village called Happy Valley on the

Hamilton River. We could go there for the Hudson Bay store. Happy Valley was a fishing village.

In the summertime the Eskimos would come and fish; in the wintertime most of them would go

someplace. There’d always be some around, so we got a glimpse at the native life. Happy Valley

was it because Goose Air Base is in the middle of a mass of lakes and tundra. Charles Lindbergh

founded this site while looking for air base sites in the World War II period. As I said, the Corps’

job in 1955 to 1957 was to convert it from a medium- to a heavy-aircraft facility and provide the

base infrastructure to support the new operation.

Then I became the central player in an event which turned out to be important for me in a unique

way. I was pulled out of Goose Bay in April 1957, three or four months earlier than the

commitment to stay 24 months. That upset General Knapp to the extent that he wrote a letter to

the Chief of Engineers, seriously complaining about this. I guess if I had done a poor job he

wouldn’t have had anything to complain about. In any event, he told the Chief what a great job

I was doing and that pulling me out earlier was contrary to the agreement and was a very serious

matter to him.

Frankly, I think he was mostly mad that the Corps went back on its agreement, but in the process

I benefitted. By this time, Colonel Solomon had been replaced by Colonel [Aldo H.] Bagnulo,

just one of the nicest men you’ll ever meet. Solomon had retired and gone to work for Metcalf

and Eddy.

Q: What was your next assignment?

A: I left Goose Air Base and reported to OCE [Office of the Chief of Engineers] to head up the

assignments division for Corps officers in the grade of lieutenant colonel and lower. In those

days, you recall, the officers were assigned by the Chief of Engineers. This was April 1957.

Besides General Knapp’s complaint, the move led to another issue. Colonel Dick Hennessy, who

had agreed to send me to Goose Bay, had promised me that when I came out of Labrador Bay I

would get a battalion. In fact, for a short while I was earmarked for the 10th Engineers, 3d

Infantry Division, in August. The orders were changed to read OCE personnel and Hennessy got

quite upset. So here came this complaint from Hennessy, for whom everybody had great

admiration, raising hell because I wasn’t going to go to a battalion. I would just as soon have

come in quietly, but I wasn’t allowed to do that. I finally arrived at OCE and stayed for three

37
Engineer Memoirs -

years, getting to

That also turned

know most

out to be a

of the officers in the Corps

valuable staff experience.

while handling personnel assignments.

I had had an opportunity in both public works and military construction in dealing with the other

services, and now I was going to get my first taste of staff duty and personnel management, a

completely different field. I’d been in the supply business in Europe, and now the personnel

business.

To be assigned to the personnel division was a compliment. Why? Simply because they had the

choice of all officers available for assignment. They wouldn’t bring in somebody they didn’t

want.

Initially I wasn’t too sure about this type of assignment, but it turned out to be excellent. Once

again I found myself working for people who were excellent managers and supervisors with the

ability to express themselves well. I was to enter a job which would educate me about the Army

and its personnel policies. In time I knew the records of almost all the engineer officers. I knew

what they were doing and what jobs were best for each. Consequently, I had an influence on a

lot of people’s lives. I selected those to attend civilian graduate and military schools and was

responsible for the duty assignments of all lieutenant colonels and lower.

Ed Gibson was a captain working for me at the time. K.T. Sawyer, lieutenant colonel at the time,

was there, and Colonel Bob Ploger, who handled the military program. Steven Hamner, a

brigadier general, ran the total personnel office, military and civilian.

The first Saturday in the job I got called to the Chief’s office. I’d never met General Itschner

before. The Corps was considering sending the dredge Henry Bacon and an engineer company

to the area and he wanted to know a bit about it. I felt fortunate to meet the Chief of Engineers

early on in this assignment. Incidentally, I had known the dredge when I was in Savannah-its

home district.

The tour in OCE, though, was another segment of broadening the base of experience. I

recommend an assignment in the personnel business, but be prepared wherever you go to ask

about your next assignment.

I felt my mission was to do everything I could to give every officer the best chance to become a

general. Every assignment was based on what was the best for the officer within the needs of the

Army. In peacetime I think the approach is crucial to assignments personnel because they are

really training an officer to have the most value during stressful situations. If they capitalize on

individual strengths and assign him to a job that broadens those, he’s going to be better than if

he is just kept doing the same thing over and over again.

In considering a captain’s assignment, we’d start with the idea that we were going to get him to

Leavenworth. Now, if he was in Leavenworth we were going to assign him with the idea to get

into War College. We looked upon the school systems as the stepping stones to growth. Half the

officers make Leavenworth, and a fourth of them make the War College. If an officer gets through

all those, then he has a chance to make stars. We studied everybody’s record when he’d come u p

for assignments. We’d look at what he’d done, what he needed to do, and his preferences.

Actually, the preference card was important. Pretty soon the officers began to realize that their

preference cards should be built around what they thought they needed.

One civilian handled the colonels’ assignments-Percy was his name, but all full colonels’

assignments were approved by then Colonel Ploger.

So that was a three-year hitch. I spent one year doing the assignments, one year in the policy

branch, where we wrote the policies and did studies to foresee the personnel requirements,

38
John W. Morris

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A..

acquisition needs, et cetera. Then the third year I was exec to the head of the military

assignments. By this time Colonel Ploger had been replaced by Kelley, Roy Kelley. Both of those

people made general. The fact is, practically everybody assigned to that position made general.

So anyhow, during those three years I became familiar with the Pentagon and also saw the Chief

of Engineers on occasion. I learned how staffs worked and began to know many people I would

see later.

The assignment team at OCE always went to the military schools and announced assignments,

just like Hennessy at Leavenworth. Well, I did that for the C&GSC and senior service schools

and also West Point. I’d tell the USMA graduates who selected the Corps of Engineers where

they were going to go and discuss the Corps’ opportunities. Frequently we’d go to Belvoir and

talk to the advanced course officers.

The Chief of Engineers commanded all engineer officers, the troop units, and the Engineer

School. I left OCE in 1960. Later, the Chief lost personnel management, and though it may have

been good for the Army, it wasn’t too good for the Corps because the Corps absolutely had the

best career management program in the Army. I left there in 1960. In 1962 or 1963 they did away

with the branches. Every branch soon reached a common level, and in the process the Corps’

branch career management suffered because the career management within the Army as a whole

has never quite equaled the level of personal consideration and quality that the Corps had before.

So the idea-taking personnel functions away from the branch chiefs-often is associated with

part of the McNamara reforms, but the idea was around before that, really, you’re saying?

That’s right. By 1958, the Army was told to get smaller. We had a lot of heart-rending problems.

I recall one colonel at the port ready to go overseas with his family. I had to call him on the phone

and tell him that he was not to move because he had been selected out of the Army. You know,

these were tough personal things. Many people were caught with one foot off the ground.

Did this tend to be a little heavier at the higher ranks, at major and above?

Well, of course; however, it wasn’t quite so painful if the officer was eligible to retire.

Yes.

None of the colonels

. disappointment to those

let go were

affected.

to be generals, and they that. Still, it’s a big

Did this hit a little higher and not so much at the lieutenant-captain level? Or was there a big

reduction there too?

No, we tried to keep the lieutenants and captains because we were short in these grades.

So it’s that World War II bulge that’s some of the problem?

Yes.

I have just one follow-up question. Did the Chief, General Itschner, take a personal interest in

assignments?

Yes, and he took a special interest in the War College list and generals’ assignments.

In the War College?

Yes. In fact, the Chief took an interest in all the assignments. We would have a slating session

every year of personnel to fill battalions, the districts, and other important jobs. Mr. Percy would

take the colonels and we’d take the lieutenant colonels and we’d match them with job needs.

39
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Then the Chief would have a meeting with his principal staff. We would lay out the personnel

division’s recommendations, and 95 percent of those would be probably okay. Everybody around

the table had a crack at them until finally everything would fall into place and produce an

approved list. That’s how the assignments were made. So the Chief definitely took an interest,

and there were certain key assignments he’d approve personally.

Itschner wanted a bachelor for an aide. We looked also for a fellow who was a good student, good

in English, because Itschner was an excellent writer We did, and it turned out to be Don Weiner-t,

but contrary to his file he wasn’t a bachelor any more. He’d gotten married at Christmas. I believe

they let him go. I can’t be sure. General Itschner took a much deeper interest than just that case,

of course.

I think every Chief took a deep interest in these internal assignments: who was going to be

running the personnel business, who was going to be running the operations business, et cetera.

Not the generals, but the next level. Sometimes he’d throw us an assignment and say, “We’re

going to put a colonel in this instead of a general,” or, “We’re going to put a colonel here who’s

going to be a general.” He’d have those kinds of requirements.

Now, at the general officer level, that was Army, is that right?

Yes. The Army’s General Officers Branch existed, and the Chief of Engineers had a lot to say

about engineer general officers’ assignments. I’m sure he had more to say in those days.

Any further thoughts on the personnel assignments?

The one thing about the personnel assignment is that the job gave me the opportunity to meet so

many of the Corps’ officers and their families and also to participate with people who were going

to be future principals in the Corps.

I also learned that probably the worst person to plan a career is the individual himself. His future

is better managed by others. It’s sort of like a lawyer defending himself in court. He’s got a fool

for a client.

How did your next assignment come about? In May 1960.

I think I mentioned the fact that I had nothing to do with developing the senior school list. Even

so, I knew I had been recommended to go when I finished my duties in the military personnel

office. When that list came back from the Chief of Engineers’ office or elsewhere, my name was

off the list with the comment that, “Before he goes to War College, Morris should get a

battalion.”

That was probably right because I hadn’t commanded troops since 1945 in World War II. As

mentioned earlier, Dick Hennessy, who was assigning personnel when I went to Goose Bay,

Labrador, had planned for me to go to a battalion in 1.955. Instead, I went to Labrador for two and

then OCE for three years. So the time lag for my getting back to troops was extensive, and

deciding that I should get a battalion before I went to War College was proper.

I was assigned to the 13th Engineer Battalion of the 7th Division in Korea. While en route

overseas, I learned that my assignment had been changed from the 7th Division to the 1 st Cavalry

Division, 8th Engineer Battalion. That was quite a surprise because the 1st Cav Division was the

first tactical unit south of the DMZ [demilitarized zone].

I hadn’t been with troops for so long that I remember telling somebody I probably wouldn’t know

a soldier if I saw one. Still, I was going to the most active engineer battalion in the Army at that

time. I arrived about the 1st of May and found that my predecessor had been reassigned and the

acting battalion commander was a Major [William] Curry. I had a good opportunity to make

40
John W. Morris

improvements. We were near the village of Tonga-ri, south of Munsan-ni, on the west side of

the peninsula. Our battalion area was supplied water from two large storage tanks at the top of

a hill. Those tanks with the false work looked like a castle, and I noticed when I arrived that it

was a pretty disreputable looking castle. It needed painting, timbers were loose and so forth. It

gave me the idea that maybe our battalion wasn’t in too good a shape. We had an officers call that

first day, and at the end of my introductions to the battalion officers and senior noncommissioned

officers, I said, “Let’s get that castle out there fixed up and painted.”

Everybody cheered. I didn’t really understand what had happened until I found out that my

predecessor had said that they were not to spend time or effort on such things as painting and

superficial caretaking. Well, to me, the castle on the hill was a little more than just superficial.

It symbolized our branch and unit and it either should have been repaired or removed. There’s

nothing worse than bad advertisement. Anyhow, that got me off to a very good start with the

members of the battalion.

I had a fine staff of conscientious, hard-working officers. There were three majors-battalion

executive, S-4, and S-3-and six very good company commanders, all regular officers except

headquarters company commander. The ROCID [Reorganization of Combat Infantry Division]

at that time had five battle groups, each with an engineer company in support. They were spread

from the north of the Imjin River right up against the DMZ, southward a distance of some 10 or

15 miles and across the division front.

In about a week I announced an objective for my term. I wanted to get the battalion back to being

a combat battalion instead of being laden with miscellaneous construction missions, extra

equipment, and numerous higher-echelon maintenance requirements. I went to see the division

commander and proposed that we should stop making asphalt, stop heavy construction, and

concentrate on getting the battalion back to being a combat battalion supportive of the division.

“That’s what I want to do during my year here.”

I didn’t know if he was going to like it or not because the division people wanted engineers doing

various kinds of work, but I pointed out that there were other engineers in the theater for such

missions. His response was, “Fine, go ahead.” So I did. That was what we spent our year doing.

The battalion was trimmed and trained to be a proper divisional combat battalion. It gave good

support to its battle groups and to the division, and the division commander appreciated it. When

my term was over, I was one of two officers to get a commendation medal. Today, it doesn’t seem

like a great reward, but in those days and since there were only two battalion commanders

selected, it was quite a compliment.

So that was the big picture. Let’s take a look at some of the specifics that occurred and the

people.

We had an excellent group of soldiers and officers. One of our first sergeants was Sergeant [Leon

L.] Van Autreve, who later became Command Sergeant Major of the Army. I would run into him

again in Vietnam. All the 8th Engineer first sergeants that made it to Vietnam became command

sergeant majors. One, Command Sergeant Major Bush, became my second command sergeant

major in the 18th Brigade in Vietnam.

The officers included at least four graduates of the Military Academy, all of whom did very well

in the Army later. At least two became general officers. One in particular was John Moellering,

a new second lieutenant. I was his first battalion commander. John later became the commandant

at the Military Academy. He ultimately became the youngest lieutenant general in the Army and

retired from the office of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

41
Enaineer Memoirs

Besides the outstanding people, there were events that made marks in my memory. First, of

course, was the operation of the 1st Cavalry Division. Our commanding general was Ma_jor

General Charles Dodge, an excellent division commander with a lot of esprit and good leadership.

He taught all of us. His deputy commander, [Major] General Frank Britton, succeeded him about

halfway through my tour. The battle group commanders were also quite outstanding.

Bill Blakefield commanded the 7th Cav and later became a general officer. I remember going to

see him one day. He had a picture of Custer’s Last Stand behind his desk. I asked him why he had

that picture up there. He said, “Well, I have to be reminded that the 7th Cav can’t win them all.”

The purpose of my visit to Blakefield was to announce that I was going to put Second Lieutenant

Moellering in charge of preparing a site for a TOW [tube launched, optically tracked, w:ire

guided] missile demonstration for the president of South Korea. The 7th Cavalry had the mission

to arrange the demonstration on a hilltop somewhere in the division area of operation. Blakefield

thought that a second lieutenant was probably not up to this responsible job involving the

president of Korea. I convinced Blakefield that he could depend on Moellering. He conceded, at

least, to let me try, with the promise that I’d keep my eye on it. Of course John did an outstanding

job. I think Moellering was probably the best second lieutenant I saw in my whole career in the

Army, and that particular assignment was his first major challenge.

The company commander of A Company was first Captain [Freeman] Cross followed by Wayne

Hoey, both of whom show up later in my duties. The company commander of C Company was

Bob Tener, a West Point graduate, as was Cross. Tener later became the executive to the

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and district engineer in Nashville. Jim Miller,

the commander of E Company, was also a West .Point graduate whose last tour of duty was also

on the Army staff as executive to the Secretary of the Army. My battalion executive was Major

Hawthorne, an excellent soldier and perfect for his duties.

I finally quit smoking cigarettes 8 August 1960, the day that I woke up to find that I’d smoked

a carton of cigarettes in three days.

In late November I began to feel bad in the evenings. I found out later it was hepatitis, and the

doctor put me in the hospital the 31st of December, New Year’s Eve. I had already arranged a

battalion commanders’ New Year’s Day reception. The officers enjoyed the affair and showed

up at my hospital bed later on New Year’s Day. Each had a plastic cork from a champagne bottle

on his little finger. They wanted to wish me a Happy New Year. I appreciated the gesture but I

doubt it made me feel much better. I was the senior patient so I had a private room even in a

MASH hospital. There was a ward full of hepatitis patients across the corridor. Hepatitis patients

were not allowed to work. They had to stay in bed, eat a lot of high-caloric food, and gain weight

as a result.

I was discharged on the 15th of February 196 1 and on a strict, nonalcoholic and controlled caloric

diet until I could get my weight down. By 15 May I had lost 45 pounds and the doctor told me I

could drink alcohol if I wished. I wasn’t happy with my weight so I decided to wait another

month. I put a notice in the daily bulletin that 15 June would be “M-Day.”

About the 1 st of June I announced an officers call for the 15th of June without any agenda. All

the officers were curious until the officers call when I told them M-Day stood for “Morris’s

Martinis Day.” Martinis were on me; anything else they’d have to pay.

As it turned out, we got to bed quite late that night. That M-Day was the beginning of a tradition.

Henceforth 15 June would be the day the battalion commander of the 8th Engineer Battalion

bought all of his officers martinis. When I got to Vietnam eight years later, it was still going on.

42
John W. Morris

That’s how traditions get started, but it’s really not the end of the story because, as luck would

have it, the division called an alert at 0400 on 16 June. This meant that we had to be combatloaded and moving our vehicles out of the compound within two hours. Well, the 8th Engineers

normally could do that in about 30 or 40 minutes. On this particular morning everybody was slow

to rise and slower to function. About 0500 the division CG [commanding general] called for a

report, and I told him we were going to be ready within the allotted two hours. After a few

minutes General Britton showed up and wanted to know just what was the problem. So I

explained the whole scenario. He thought that was kind of humorous. Fortunately, we did make

it within two hours and got off the hook as far as the division commander was concerned.

At any rate, a small case of hepatitis ended with the initiation of a tradition.

The battalion’s duties need to be discussed further. We did a lot of training, of course, to keep

ourselves sharp. Our engineer companies accompanied their battle groups on

maneuvers-training exercises. The division also had training exercises as did the battalion. I

moved the whole battalion to the field several times, which was an innovation to that group, and

then we had the separate battalion missions, of course, such as airfield and road work and our

equipment readiness program. We removed several active minefields. This was a little hairy since

these Korean War minefields had been in place for years. We had only one accident and that

because a soldier violated the rules for entering and leaving the minefield.

The engineer battalion was issued three combat engineer vehicles [CEVs-Sherman tanks with

a mounted ‘dozer blade. The crews consequently participated in the division armored firing

exercises. Our Sergeant Garcia placed first in the 1st Cav Division firings, much to our glee and

the armored unit’s dismay.

We accomplished our initial goal of bringing the battalion to a solid footing as a divisional

battalion. We gave the division good support, and we steadily improved team performance in

executing a divisional combat battalion’s mission.

One personal lesson learned emphasized that communications are so important, particularly when

non-Americans were working in conjunction with us. Our water supply was taken from a nearby

creek, treated, and pumped up to the tanks that I mentioned earlier, and gravity fed to the camp.

Cold weather presented certain problems. The piping was not insulated, and to avoid freezing the

water in the lines required frequent pumping.

One frigid evening I went to the water point and explained to the soldier on duty that we had to

run water through those lines for ten minutes every hour so the lines wouldn’t freeze. He did

exactly what I told him. The only problem was that ten minutes every hour was not enough to fill

the tanks, so while the lines didn’t freeze, we ran out of water the next midday. The lesson was

communications. He did what I told him, but I thought I was telling him something else.

Nevertheless, that etched in my mind the thought that if somebody misunderstands or doesn’t do

what is asked, the odds are that the problem is with the sender, not with the receiver. So I

couldn’t, in good conscience, blame this soldier for letting the camp run out of water. I really

could only blame myself because my instructions had not been sufficiently clear.

Our battalion didn’t have a chaplain because the division was short of chaplains. We were getting

some help from the divisional chaplain, but it wasn’t very satisfactory. I finally arranged with the

Baptist Mission in Seoul to send us a minister, and he turned out to be truly outstanding. We had

few soldiers and only a very small number of attendees at church until he arrived, but in short

order the chapel was full. The value of religious services and of religion to soldiers when they’re

far away from home became evident.

43
Engineer Memoirs

Q.

.

A.

.

Our battalion supported the Pak-Ai Orphanage of some 60 children of varying ages between 5

and 10 or 12. About 20 children were taught to sing a cappella by their leader, and every Sunday

these children would be our choir for the church services. Their voices were exceptionally

beautiful. So with the fine minister and with this choir, our church services became well known

throughout the 1st Cavalry Division. Our Sundays became special events to the officers and men

of the battalion. A poor situation soon became a real winner.

In the March 1960 time frame, two things happened. One, I was selected to attend the Army War

College and also for promotion to colonel. This early promotion, even after seven years as a

lieutenant colonel, jumped me ahead of the large hump of lieutenant colonels with a 7 July 195 1

date of rank.

Also, I was able to make plans for my family’s next move. I stayed in Korea just 13 months and

was back in the USA by 1 June 1961. The day I left, I was flown to Kimpo Air Base in the

battalion commander’s helicopter, an H-13. On leaving we circled around the deck off the

officers’ club where all the people were standing, waving goodbye.

May I interrupt you with just a couple of follow-up questions. You described how the 8th

Engineer Battalion had gotten much equipment left that wasn’t part of the TO&E [table of

organization and equipment]. Was that, in your experience, fairly common? Does a divisional

battalion, if it’s in a place for a while, does it become a lot like a construction battalion?

I’d say the answer to your question is no, it’s not too typical. When you realize that numerous

wartime units in Korea had been returned to the States, a lot of equipment left behind would be

picked up by the units which remained.

Our situation was one of inheriting the stuff from some other place, and there were many things

the engineers could do for the people in the division. The resulting problem was the battalion

wasn’t doing what it was supposed to be doing. The 44th Engineer Construction Battalion was

there, and we also had the 36th Engineer Group for corps support. The commanding officer of

the 36th Engineer Group was then Colonel Dave Parker, the same Colonel Parker I had met in

Tokyo at the end of World War II.

Dave replaced Bob Mathe, my classmate. The corps engineer was Colonel Roy Dodge. The

Eighth Army engineer was Colonel Duncan Hallock, and one of his assistants was Colonel Don

Eister, who had been with me in Tokyo. I mentioned him earlier. He killed himself in Korea. That

was sad, too, because I liked Don very much.

Did you feel that you had, as division engineer, good access to the division commander?

Yes. The engineer battalion was important to General Dodge and also to General Britton. The

signal battalion was important also. You have to understand we had a unique situation. The fivebattle group pentomic division only lasted a short while, but it aligned an engineer company with

each battle group. The battle groups were relatively small and widely dispersed, so the engineer

companies were important.

I saw the division CG at least once a week at his staff briefings. Also, I had an assistant division

engineer at division headquarters. The assistant division engineer in the 1st Cavalry Division for

part of that time was Captain Miller, earlier commander of Company E. He lived at division

headquarters; I was some miles away from division headquarters with the battalion.

Whenever an important issue came up, Miller would call me, and if appropriate I’d go over and

see the division commander. I tried to see the division commander one-on-one every couple of

weeks, and if he didn’t call me over there, I’d go see him. Yes, it was a good relationship.

Now, you may have mentioned this earlier. This was the pentomic division organization?
John W. Morris

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

That’s what they called it.

Yes, the five battle groups. Your early promotion to colonel-the division commander must have

had a role.

My efficiency reports probably looked pretty good after the three years there in personnel. I

mean, I look upon that personnel job as one where I didn’t really have an opportunity to fail.

You recall I mentioned my exit from Goose Air Base, that the base commander and the Air Force

general wrote a glowing report about me because he wanted to prove a point. So I had a good file

before I arrived at the 8th Engineers. By the time the board met, probably I had at least one

efficiency report from the division commander, and once my record showed battalion command,

the prerequisites of being selected for colonel were met. The rest of it was whether the board

thought my overall record deserved promotion. I’m very happy they did because, you see, by the

time I actually made colonel, full colonel, I’d been a lieutenant colonel eight years. I made

lieutenant colonel in 1953 and full colonel in 1961.

It strikes me that the personnel officer assignment, the down side of that is that it’s a job that

requires diplomatic skills. I mean, it does strike me that you could make enemies.

Well, you’re right. To be good in that job you have to try to understand people and put a lot of

thought into how the other guy feels about things. Diplomatic may not be the best word, but in

any event, you have to be compassionate, not that you have to feel sorry for people. You’ve got

to understand their family situation-to evaluate if the assignment will be adverse or whether it’s

going to make them happy or unhappy. I don’t mean necessarily that you never do things that

make people unhappy. You’d rather not, but sometimes you can’t avoid it, in which case the way

you handle the situation makes a lot of difference in its acceptance. So you’re right. With the

wrong approach you can make enemies in that job, no doubt about that.

Moving back to Korea, where you were-the 1st Cav was up on the border at the DMZ. Were

there incidents when you were there?

Yes, there was always something going on but nothing as serious as happened a few years later.

At Panmunjom, where the North and South met to discuss various treaty matters, we built

blocking positions and fortifications on strong points for the defense of the area. We repaired

bridges and erected floating bridges in the Imjin River.

We could go into the DMZ for various reasons including reconnaissance to look for indications

of any unusual activities.

Being assigned to a battalion on the front lines in 1960 was certainly a good assignment.

It was an excellent experience. It truly was. I’m very proud of having been in the 1st Cavalry

Division. It is a division that makes me proud. I guess all the people feel that way about their

divisions; I do particularly. When I’m in uniform, I always wear the 1st Cav patch on the right

sleeve, and I belong to 1st Cav Association. I think in those days the officers who went to the 1st

Cav Division were well selected. We had quality people.

So you were promoted to colonel then and came back to the Army War College in the summer

of 1961?

Yes. When I went to Korea I left my family in North Carolina. We’d been living in Arlington in

a nice home there, but my tour in Korea provided a good time for Gerry to go home

parents and sister were living. I felt better about it because she wouldn’t be quite so

where her

alone.

45
Engineer Memoirs

We left behind in Virginia two very good friends; one was Dick Connell and his wife Betsy and

Jim and Laura Bunch. Jim was from Oklahoma and had been at Goose Bay with me. He, Laura,

and his two daughters became and still remain among our closest friends. Bunch returned to OCE

some years later to run the personnel program. Connell also returned as a brigadier general to

head military construction while I was Chief of Engineers.

Anyhow, I returned to North Carolina from Korea to gather the family. During the short stay

Susan was hit by an automobile and John broke his foot on his new bicycle, so we limped off to

Carlisle with our dog and two wounded children. Both recovered nicely, fortunately. I was senior

enough to get quarters at Carlisle Barracks and was assigned a nice cottage in College Arms.

Small but satisfactory. Carlisle is truly a very pleasant environment, and you meet not only the

top people from other branches of the Army, but also key individuals from other services and the

State Department.

As I said, life at Carlisle was very nice, particularly for the family following the year’s separation.

Our daughter got into the horse business and our young son was busy finding out what school was

all about. We were in the middle of the antique country, so we got into refinishing furniture.

Of course, I was there to learn what makes our military and U.S. government world go round and

how the Army and the other service departments work together. We had outstanding guest

speakers. The War College is an exceptionally fine educational experience.

The big exercise in my memory was writing a thesis on some broad subject. I chose the

Organization of American States. The crunch came in deciding when to do it. My adviser

convinced me that getting that thing done before Christmas would make for a happier holiday.

Otherwise, I would probably have to spend Christmas writing the paper, which was due in the

middle of January, as I recall.

The Vietnam War was warming up. Our deputy commandant was General [William] Train and

his son was one of the first officers killed in Vietnam. This was still 1961, 1962. That was an

impact event for the students and faculty.

I was actually promoted to colonel in the fall. Gerry and our children helped the commanding

general pin on the “eagles.”

Another highlight was watching John Glenn orbit the earth. That was singular and outstanding

because the space program had quite a bit to do with our educational program. Our State

Department resident was John Liddy. The class of 1962 produced many future leaders in all

services.

Tulsa District

A: Finally, as the year drew down, the question of my next assignment arose. My classmate Bob

Mathe was handling personnel assignments. He called me one day to ask my preferences. I said,

“I’d like to be a district engineer, but I think I’ll ask for a group, an engineer group, troop

assignment.”

He asked, “Why are you going to do that?”

I answered, “I think I’m too junior for a busy district, and the only ones I probably could get

would be Charleston or Wilmington, and I can’t go to Wilmington, my wife’s home. That leaves

Charleston, so maybe I ought to wait a while and go for a group now.”

He indicated that in his opinion I ought to go for a district.

46
John W. Morris

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A..

Well, the next thing I knew, I was going to Tulsa, the largest civil works district in the Corps, and

I would be the junior district engineer. The Chief of Engineers then was General Wilson, and

from my own experience I think this is how the assignment evolved. I don’t know if I mentioned

it or not, but I saw a lot of General Wilson when I was in Goose Bay and also in Savannah earlier.

He was in the North Atlantic Division?

He was in charge of military construction in OCE while I was in the North Atlantic Division.

Military construction?

Yes, I pulled quite a boner with General Wilson in Goose Bay. When he came to Goose, Gerry

and I had him to our house for cocktails. I handed out some of those napkins with humorous

sayings on them. After he went home I went around to help Gerry clean up and I noticed the one

we gave him said, “Killjoy was here.”

That wasn’t such a good idea at the time, but I’m sure he remembered me when he became Chief

of Engineers. Anyhow, my understanding is that when the post-War College assignments came

around to General Wilson, he set my name aside for a bit. Finally, they plugged everybody else

in the holes and two things were left over, Tulsa District and me. So the Chief took a chance and

put us together. That’s sometimes the way it is. Besides, it makes a good story. Some years later,

General [William] Cassidy told me he was sure Tulsa would be a “make or break” test.

In any case, I drew Tulsa. When I came home that day and told Gerry that we were going to

Tulsa, she said, “Well, you can go by yourself. I’m not going.” Being a beach lover, she didn’t

think much of going out to Oklahoma. The kids were excited about it and she, of course, went.

We left Carlisle about the 1st of June and got to Oklahoma a few weeks later. Colonel Howard

Penney [later lieutenant general] was the departing district engineer en route to Vietnam. I had

not met Howard, although I knew of him. He gave me a good briefing and I settled into the job

and we soon bought a house.

The people of Oklahoma were just great and we started off in a very, very fine atmosphere. To

buy the house I needed a loan. I’d met the president of the bank, a retired colonel and very

patriotic. Because the Corps of Engineers in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was an important and respected

military and public service organization, district engineers were well known and respected. As

I was getting ready to go through the necessary loan forms, collateral and everything, the bank

president came by and turned to his employee and said, “Don’t worry about all that; just give him

the loan.” You know, that’s kind of neat when you think about it.

So we bought this new house out at 5219 Joplin Street. Dave Helms, who helped me find the

house, called it 5 1 st and plowed ground. Our neighbor was an American Indian family on their

ranch. Their horses would come up to our fence, and John and Susan would feed them carrots.

Today our place is almost downtown, as Tulsa has grown so much in that direction.

Thus began our first tour in charge of a major civil works program. We’d been in Savannah, but

in Tulsa I was in charge. Senator [Robert S.] Kerr was still living. General Cassidy was Deputy

Chief of Engineers, and sent me off to Tulsa with some good advice. He indicated Tulsa was a

very important district, that Senator Kerr was very much involved in the public works program

as the chairman of the Senate committee. He wanted me to keep him posted on Senator Kerr and

to be responsive to the senator’s needs and so forth.

I asked if that meant anything out of the ordinary, and General Cassidy asked me to just

remember that Senator Kerr was important to the water program, to the Chief, and to the Corps.
Enaineer Memoirs

Senator Kerr’s assistant was Don McBride, a truly outstanding public servant. He worked with

Senator Kerr all the time the senator was in Washington. The senator died, 1 January 1963, and

McBride stayed on with Senator [Mike] Monroney, who became the senior senator from

Oklahoma. Later, McBride was appointed director of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Don and

I quickly became and stayed very close. Later, if I ever had a problem, even as Chief, I could

always go to Don and get good, solid political advice. I have diverted here a little bit, but that was

the beginning of a very important relationship. He was a great teacher of how to do things in the

right way politically.

The Tulsa District boundaries included the drainage of the Arkansas and Red Rivers as far east

as the Arkansas state line. This meant parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, the northern tier

of Texas, and all of Oklahoma were included. The annual workload was $100 million and the

district staff was approximately 1,200. Tulsa had no military construction.

Howard Penney probably was the best staff officer I’ve ever known and an excellent planner.

Howard devoted much of his tour to propelling the projects through the planning into the

authorization stage. In those days there were a lot of projects. I recall being involved with the

construction of 26 dams, mostly Howard Penney’s projects. That’s more than the entire Corps

has built in many recent years.

Howard’s emphasis on planning meant that the construction side of the house had built up a

backlog of disputes. The district engineer as contracting officer had to take care of these disputes,

and that became my first objective. I didn’t want to interfere with the planning process, but I felt

that we had to get rid of some of those disputes. Work was being delayed and we weren’t getting

enough bidders on the jobs. One reason was they couldn’t get their money while changes were

tied up in disputes, et cetera.

I had learned in Goose Bay that the government’s and the public’s interests are best served if the

contractor and the contracting officer adopt a mutual philosophy of getting the work done. We

set up a program to eliminate and also to avoid disputes. Three years later we did not have a

single outstanding claim. In this process I believe that we gave the contractors nothing beyond

what they deserved. On the other hand, I am absolutely certain that we saved the taxpayers money

because we just didn’t have the delays and the hang-ups which delayed needed projects from

becoming productive. Besides that, instead of having one and two bidders on a job, we were

beginning to get 10 and 15, and our prices were much better. Also important, we generated an

enthusiasm to produce. The morale of the construction industry in the Tulsa District area became

very good.

Of course, internally our morale was also high because we had a great program. I mean, it was

not a matter of the district wanting something to do. It was a matter of managing it so we did it

well while accommodating all this work.

A few months into the tour, the Waurika Dam on Beaver Creek became a major event and

challenge. Waurika, Oklahoma, was the site of a Bureau of Reclamation project in the final

preauthorization stage. To show you Senator Kerr’s power-without going into all the political

background-there was a congressman from Texas whose district possessed a dam site on

another stream which came out of the panhandle of Texas into Oklahoma. There was also a dam

site just inside Oklahoma.

As I understand it, the Texas congressman was on the Interior Committee and threatened

pigeonhole Waurika unless Senator Kerr supported the development of his dam site in Tex

to

as.

Kerr refused and had the project taken out of the Bureau of Reclamation’s authorization package

and put into the Corps of Engineers’ program. General Cassidy had forewarned me this might

happen. On 20 November 1962, I was told I had to have a survey report in Washington within 30

4a
John W. Morris

days, and I told General Cassidy, “It’sgoing to be tough.” His

to OCE somehow by 20 December to meet the authorization

reaction was for me

process schedule.

to get a report

So we went to the regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation in Oklahoma City. Fortunately,

Mr. BarkIey, the head of that office, knew what had happened, and when I asked to start with his

survey report, he reached in the file drawer and he gave it to me.

Myron DeGeer was the number two man in the engineering division at that time. The chief of

engineering was Mel Parse, who was preparing to retire. So Myron DeGeer was the real engineer

on Waurika. DeGeer and I took that report back to Tulsa. He ripped the Bureau cover off of it and

began to study it. I mentioned the need of a public hearing. He said, “You’ve got to have a public

hearing.”

So right away we put out a two-week notice for a public hearing in Waurika High School, advised

Senator Kerr’s office and Don McBride, and asked for their help. I remember mentioning to

Senator Kerr one day that we are going to have a problem in Waurika because I didn’t know any

of those people and they didn’t know the Corps; they knew the Bureau.

He said, “Colonel, when I get through with this, they’ll love you like a brother.”

On the day of the hearing, the schoolhouse was full of people. I couldn’t believe it. Senator Kerr

had had the schools let out; all the townspeople had come to see “Democracy in Action.” We

started off about IO o’clock in the morning. I went through the normal presentations and showed

pictures of the floods and the damage the dam would control plus land requirements and other

things. About 12 noon things had gone rather well, so we decided to take a break for lunch.

As I was looking at the maps, thinking through the next session to begin after lunch, somebody

put his arm around my shoulder. I looked up and it was Senator Kerr. He wanted to know if I

wanted to build this dam or let the Bureau of Reclamation build it.

My response was easy. “Sir, after all the trouble I’ve

get this thing authorized, I sure want to build it.”

gone through in the last three weeks, if we

He said, “Okay, it’s yours.”

That’s what happened. It’s unbelievable, but it happened. I was gone from Tulsa when the dam

was finished, but I did go back for the dedication. Congressman Carl Albert was there. He was

the Speaker of the House at the time. He told some of these stories about the Waurika project.

I went to Wichita, Kansas, during the first six months I was the district engineer. Senator Kerr

was to make a speech on the Arkansas River project being built by Tulsa. The river goes on to

Wichita, and the gleam in the eye of people at Wichita was to get navigation extended up there.

Senator [Frank] Carlson, a Republican and the senior senator from Kansas, introduced Senator

Kerr as a great “Republican” from the state of Oklahoma. Democrat Kerr, a 110 percent

Democrat, brushed that off and then made this speech about a third of Kansas, including Wichita,

being in the Tulsa District and the importance of water resource development. He closed by

admonishing the group to, “Be careful what you dream because it might come true.” I thought that

was a great statement. Finally, he had them stand and sing “Shall We Gather by the River.” You

learn about and feel inspiring leadership by being associated with someone of that stature.

Gerry and I were having an open house the 1 st of January 1963 for the district people. We were

stunned when we learned that Robert S. Kerr had died the same day. All at the reception knew

that with Kerr gone, there was to be a different day ahead. In the Tulsa region he was the leader

of a group of the most powerful water resource people of our time: Senator [John] McClellan,

49
Engineer Memoirs

Arkansas; Senator ILyndon] Johnson, Texas; Senator [Allen] Ellender, Louisiana; Senator [J.

William] Fulbright, Arkansas; Senator Carlson, Kansas; and others.

The congressional group included Jim Wright, Texas; Ed Edmonson and Carl Albert, Oklahoma;

Wilbur Mills, Arkansas; plus the remainder of the Oklahoma delegation. Insofar as the public

works program was concerned, that group formed a political powerhouse.

Don McBride saw the problems and the opportunities, and Kerr provided the essential leadership

for solutions and progress. I was able to learn so much about the political arena from them.

Senator Kerr’s funeral was held in Oklahoma City7 and General Wilson, the Chief of Engineers,

came. Ultimately and properly, the Arkansas River project was named the McClellan-Kerr

navigation project.

Because of the major and continuous public involvement as part of our work, an active public

relations program was essential. Locklin L. Mouton, from Albuquerque, came to Tulsa with his

wife, Inez, about the same time as Gerry and I. Locke and I became very close. Donna, his

assistant, a GS-2, helped Locke start a public relations program that had high visibility and was

driven to keep the public fully informed on the Corps’ activities. Donna was outstandingly

capable and in time moved up to the top administrative position in the district.

The Arkansas Basin Development Association [ABDA] was the energetic organizing and

lobbying group that testified in support of the congressional legislation that supported projects

in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The director was Colonel [retired] Francis Wilson. He was a graduate

of the U.S. Military Academy and former Tulsa District engineer. He was called “Babe” Wilson

because he was forever young looking, and he helped me tremendously.

When I first came to Tulsa, he, Early Cass, Glade Kirkpatrick, Charles Gannaway, Versur Hicks,

and some other ABDA leaders had me to the Tulsa Club for lunch and gave their time to bring

me into the picture and get to know them and their concerns. From the first days, the national and

local power structure became quite clear, much to my advantage. We impacted the public so

much that it was crucial that I knew the issues and executed an effective public information

program. The ABDA was invaluable.

On reflection, the two things that we undertook initially were to get our construction program in

high gear and to implement a positive plan to deal with the public based on an understanding of

local and national leadership issues.

To keep everyone in the district aware of what we were to do, I issued district goals and

objectives and had classes to discuss how to go about the business of reaching them. The list

included cost control by project with special attention to overhead costs. I was not the only one

watching the cost data, I soon learned.

General Carroll Dunn, the Southwest Division engineer, called to tell me he was to come see me

in late August or early September. General Dunn came and immediately said, “Morris, you’ve

done some good things in the short while you’ve been here, but you’ve got one real problem that

you’ve got to solve, and I mean right away. Your overhead’s too high!”

I indicated I knew it and explained what we had done and were doing about it. I knew what was

wrong, but I had not made a point of telling General Dunn that this was a problem that we were

going to solve. So an old lesson was relearned. If you’ve got a problem, the best thing to do with

it is put it out in the open and tell the boss what is being done to fix it, rather than waiting for him

to find it.

General Dunn was the division engineer most of my tour. [Brigadier] General [Richard H.] Free

replaced him later.

50
John W. Morris

On 22 November 1963, I was in my car with a couple of people from the district, looking at the

Keystone project area. We went into a little restaurant in Cleveland, Oklahoma, and everybody

was crying. We were laughing and joking, and one of the waitresses said, “Why are you all so

happy? I guess you haven’t heard the news.”

We said, “What news?” They then told us that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas.

The first.appearance of President [Lyndon] Johnson in the Southwest after the assassination was

in Tulsa District to dedicate Eufaula Dam. Earlier, President [John F.] Kennedy had dedicated

Greers Ferry Dam in Arkansas. I attended and observed the arrangements made for that event. We

used the Greers Ferry scenario as a guide to dedicate Eufaula. Security was a big issue, of course.

We arranged a plan, which to me was quite safe, and everything was all set when the advance

team came. Jack Valenti was in charge. He’s now president of the Motion Picture Association.

He said, “We can’t do it this way.” This was only a few days before the event. President Johnson

wanted to meet and shake hands and be close to the people and so forth. So we had to change

everything.

Jack Valenti also asked, “How many people are you going to have?” The Eufaula Dam was really

out in the country. When I indicated 30,000 or 40,000, he said, “Where in the world are they

coming from?”

I said, “They’ll be here from Tulsa, McAllister, and other places.” Valenti couldn’t believe we

could get 30,000 people for the president.

The event started at 9 o’clock in the morning. We had Indian dancing and continuous events, plus

food, refreshments, et cetera. The people started coming. I never saw so many people in

Oklahoma at one place. I’m telling you, it was a lot of people.

Governor Henry Bellman came and started the program at 12:OO noon. The president was coming

from some other event and was behind schedule. So we did everything on the schedule up to

Governor Bellmon’s introduction of the president. Then we stopped, took a break. When the

president came, we picked it up again. I met the president as his motorcade came into the area.

We had it fenced off with only a little avenue to get up to the bleachers. On the left side there was

a full-sized roadside billboard titled, “War on Poverty: The Arkansas River Project.” The map

of the project had all the dams and cities on it for the entire 435 miles.

He got out of the car, and I introduced myself as the district engineer and asked him for a minute

so I could tell him about the project. He indicated he didn’t have much time because all those

people were going to want to say hello. I indicated I wanted him to look at the map of the project,

which is a centerpiece in “your War on Poverty.” That got me two minutes, which is all I wanted.

Then he shook hands all around and he went onto the platform. Fred Harris was running against

Bud Wilkinson for the U.S. Senate. Wilkinson was a great football coach and everybody loved

him in Oklahoma. President Johnson put his arms around Fred Harris, shook his hand, made a big

to-do out of it. He walked by Bud Wilkinson, never even looked at him. Cool as ice, as if he

wasn’t even there.

The president gave his speech, and we prepared for his departure. The last thing I was told by the

Secret Service was, “When you come back, Colonel, don’t get in the wrong car. Don’t get in Mrs.

[Lady Bird] Johnson’s car.” Well, I did. They had to get me out of there. That was a little

embarrassing.

51
President Lyndon B. Johnson dedicated the Eufaula Reservoir on September 25, 1964, while

Colonel John W. Morris was District Engineer of the Tulsa District.

Later, we prepared an SOP [standing operating procedure] on presidential dedications, and the

Chief’s office used it as a guide for quite a while. That may have been the only SOP anybody had

written on how to handle a presidential dedication. Ours was very successful; we had 45,000

people.

That pretty much takes care of the first one and a half years, and the thread through all this,

though, was finishing the Arkansas project. The political consortium, which really was coalesced

by the efforts of Don McBride, was successful in getting President Johnson to increase the budget

on one project in the whole public works program, the Arkansas River project.

There wasn’t a great deal of money added. It was like $11 million or $15 million, but it was

critical to staying on schedule. General Dunn required Charlie-Colonel Maynard, who was the

district engineer in Little Rock-and me to almost swear that we would use the money if we got

it. He was willing to go for the money but had to use it properly. I had the upper half and

Maynard had the lower half of this project. His portion was a couple of years ahead in

construction. Charlie and I had been to War College together so we knew each other well and

we’d taken our jobs at the same time. He was an excellent partner on this major project.

52
John W. Morris

As I have said, Dave Helms was probably the best real estate man in the entire Corps. If we had

money that couldn’t be committed to construction, he could use it to acquire land necessary for

the project. We were going along fairly well when Charlie Maynard called and said he could not

commit all of his money and asked if I could use about $7 million. I said, “Yes.” He offered to

ask General Dunn if he would give Tulsa the $7 million.

After some discussion I suggested that to keep the boss from being too upset, he let me tell Dunn

I had to have $7 million. When the boss asks you for it, you can say okay, but very reluctantly.

That’s what happened. So it worked out just fine. We used the $7 million. Charlie was a great,

generous friend.

While the Arkansas River project was the centerpiece, we had other dams and projects, including

the extension of the project to Wichita and to Oklahoma City. We spent a lot of time on those

two. We figured out how to get to Wichita. Because the top portion of the navigation channel to

Tulsa uses the Verdigris, not the Arkansas, we had to jump back into the Arkansas or use some

other way to Wichita.

Then there was the project to extend navigation to OkIahoma City, the Central OkIahoma project.

It was to be a pump-back facility to conserve water. I came to Washington to present it to the

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Kaskaskia navigation project in Illinois was also

presented by the district engineer of Rock Island, as I recall. The board and the Chief of

Engineers elected to recommend only the Kaskaskia. The Kaskaskia was built. The Central

Oklahoma project never made it, although Arcadia Dam, a feature of the project, is in place today.

Q: Might that have been a project that Senator Kerr’s death was critical to?

A: If he’d lived, I believe he’d have gotten it authorized. The project was totally within the confines

of the state of Oklahoma. Since so much attention had gone to the Arkansas River project, not

many states were willing to give Oklahoma another major project right away. That was a political

fact of life. It was a good project and should have been built.

Concurrent with that was the salt study. Salt beds ran through southern Kansas and into

Oklahoma and Texas. Fresh water would run through them and become polluted. As a result, the

Arkansas River at Tulsa is unusable for many purposes because of its salinity. Great quantities

of good water could have been obtained by diverting the fresh runoff and streams around these

salt beds, and, in some cases, impounding already polluted water to keep it away from fresh

sources.

The Red River had the same type of problem and, as far east as Lake Texhoma, was too saline

to be used for industrial purposes. The region included Dallas. The Red River project and the

Arkansas project were combined into a single program. That was probably a mistake. This was,

and remains, one of the best projects in our country, but we could never get it clearly authorized

and funded. The Red River portion did proceed, in part, primarily because Congressman Carl

Albert was able to have specific sites corrected. I would expect the Red River water now is

probably pretty fresh. I thought we had a real winner and pushed hard within the Corps while

Governor and later Senator Bellmon worked hard outside and in Congress. Even so, the project

did not go, I regret to say. Ironically, if man had created the pollution, correction would have been

mandatory. Since nature created the situation, man was not allowed to fix it.

The Little River system, a tributary to the Red River, included a series of dams which run parallel

to the Red from an east-to-west direction. There was Broken Bow, Gillham, Dierks, Hugo, Pine

Creek, and DeQueen. Of those dams, all were built eventually, but Gillham became a centerpiece

later, several years later, in the environmental program. In fact, it was stopped for a while for

53
Engineer Memoirs

environmental reasons. That was long after I’d left Tulsa. Another major disappointment occurred

when the Pine Creek Dam was lowered to delete hydropower because oil prices had dropped

temporarily. I believed then and remain convinced that the criteria were shortsighted when

hydropower was excluded permanently from sites that had the natural features to support power.

Throughout the district area there were approximately a dozen other individual projects. So the

program included the Arkansas project, the Central Oklahoma project, the salt study, both the Red

and Arkansas, the Little River projects, and a significant group of miscellaneous projects.

While all that planning was going on, we were actually building, as I recall, something like 2S

or 26 dams.

Q: Were any of them particularly problematic projects?

A: I mentioned Central Oklahoma and the salt study. I didn’t mention the Grand River drainage. The

Grand River is an anomaly. The Grand River Dam Authority is a state operation. Fort Gibson was

a Corps project and it was the southernmost dam in the series. All the upstream dams had flood

control and hydropower. The Corps regulated the flood control for the entire system through Fort

Gibson. We worked closely with the Grand River Dam Authority.

One interesting event occurred. Pensacola was a Grand River Dam Authority project being

prepared for construction in 1962. The Corps reviewed the flood control and other aspects of the

plan. As I looked it over, I thought, “This project seems familiar.” I realized shortly that when I

was at the University of Iowa many years earlier, I had been given a problem to design the dam

and spillway for a project. It turned out that the Pensacola was that dam. I compared my spillway

to the one they were building and was happy to learn that their spillway was less than one foot

higher than mine.

Some of the most important activities were the public hearings on these projects. The real estate

hearings were always delicate. I did all hearings personally-at least ten a year. Sometimes we’d

have three or four hearings for the same project, particularly in real estate. I learned early the

value and sometimes the difficulty of communicating with the audience. The public attendees

included farmers and ranchers who didn’t always understand technical data. In many cases we

had to get down to each person and his property. I would always make a reconnaissance

throughout the proposed reservoir area of a new project. I would then be able to speak with

knowledge about individual property and so forth. Public hearings were hard but essential work.

A project called Boswell Dam near Atoka, in Carl Albert’s district, was interesting. Mr. Albert

had said that as long as he was in Congress, we would never build Boswell Dam. It was probably

one of the best dam sites in the United States and was needed for water supply to Oklahoma City,

but his constituents objected, and he never let it get built. However, we did have the public

hearings in Atoka, which I remember well-a very hostile group. During the noon break one

elderly lady in the audience stopped me and said, “I don’t understand why you come out here and

take our land away from us.” She then explained that she had come in a covered wagon with her

family many years ago.

I asked to be excused, and as I began to move away, she started tapping me with her cane. Then

I said, “Ma’am, I’m sorry to tell you this, but I just have to go to the bathroom.”

She said, “Well, that’s one place I won’t follow you.”

During the same hearing one man became very obnoxious. Fortunately on my drive around the

reservoir the day before, I had gone by his place and actually seen this same man sitting on his

porch in a rocking chair with his feet propped up on the porch post. When he gave me a hard time

about the value of property and so forth, I explained I was by his place the day before and he was

54
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

sitting on his front porch in a rocking chair. Well, that did it. Right there the attitude of the

meeting became friendly.

Did you introduce any innovative programs while you were district engineer?

A: Yes, value engineering. I believed it had a place, so we had had a group of people from Harbridge

House put on a seminar on cost reduction for Tulsa District. That was the beginning that led to

the first application of value engineering in the Corps. I became known as the “father of value

engineering” in the Corps of Engineers. That may or may not be true, but I know we were

certainly one of the early ones. I received a nice letter from General Wilson and later a

management award from the president of the United States, President Johnson, for that plus other

things.

Also we inaugurated an environmental program of sorts long before the environmental laws. We

had begun to realize that our new lakes were public places and should be well kept. We started

a beautification program that was very successful. For those project operators who didn’t do too

well, we gave them a hoe and a shovel at the annual picnic. The others were complimented. That

program preceded “Keep America Beautiful.”

I felt also that the public should have a safe and pleasant experience at their projects, so we began

to erect information signs and to build places and special facilities for handicapped people, long

before there was a handicapped program. A study group looked for similar improvements not

only for the people but also for fish, wildlife, et cetera.

We insisted that the chief of the Operations Division, Bob Hunter, a Normandy Invasion veteran,

be present during construction inspections. I wanted him to discuss with the construction and the

engineering people how the building looked in light of his having to operate it. After all, that’s

what counts. Well, it took a little while, but we managed to integrate operational considerations

into engineering and construction planning and execution. This approach was a small example

of today’s “partnering” between the owner and the engineer and the builder.

Along this line, we soon learned we had to be more selective in appointing project operation

managers. The fellow who supervised the construction would often become the project manager

when the product became operational. We soon learned that often did not work too well. The

reason was simple. Some people can do both, but too often the construction manager’s main

occupation and concerns dealt with the engineering and construction mentality. The man that

operates a project, besides keeping everything working and maintained, has a day-to-day need for

meeting and dealing with the public, so he has to have a different philosophy than the builder has.

The growing need to pay considerable attention to the operational phase was not peculiar to Tulsa

District. It was a Corpswide requirement as many projects became operational.

Another lesson learned from a highly visible public works program was the impact of personal

interaction with the public, both officially and as part of your personal family’s lifestyle. Doesn’t

have to be, but should be. My children, both John and Susan, went to school in the public schools

in Oklahoma at Tulsa.

Susan became very much interested in her riding. She worked at a stable with the children of

some of the community leaders. I became chairman of the building committee for a new church

and served on the Indian Nations Council for the Boy Scouts. We became part of the city of

Tulsa, Oklahoma. We were given honorary membership in Southern Hills Country Club, which

meant that, although we paid our expenses, we were allowed to use the facilities.

55
Engineer Memoirs

Politically, as district engineer, I

frequently visited the governors.

Governor Bellmon and I flew a

reconnaissance of the whole district

area. Besides seeing the governor and

the congressmen at least once a year, I

was on television frequently, and district

activities were in the newspaper

constantly.

I don’t know how important this is to the

interview, but to me, public and

community relations are critically

important. As part of the salt study, we

were considering a dam site near

Buffalo, in the panhandle of Oklahoma.

I went there one day with Myron

DeGeer. The rancher we visited was

named Selman, and I have never been so

coldly received. I mean, he was very,

very distant. Come to find out that he

was living out there because the Corps

of Engineers had bought out his father

for a dam in eastern Oklahoma. His

family moved that far to get away from

the “damned Corps of Engineers.”

Susan Morris became interested in riding while the

Morris family lived in Tulsa. She is shown riding

“Stormy,” a polo pony from the TulsaPolo Club

As I put my briefcase down on the ground, his dog came over and sprayed it. Selman said,

“Colonel, that’s what we think of you out here in Buffalo, Oklahoma.” Our visit was brief but

sufficient to explain our purpose before we were on our way to Hutchinson, Kansas. We were

going to go up there to look at another dam site. As we arrived in town there was a big sign in the

middle of the street, “Corps of Engineers meeting at 2 o’clock in the schoolhouse.” Selman had

called ahead. We had not planned a meeting but I was trapped. The schoolhouse was full of

people who kept me there until 5:30, asking questions about this project.

Finally, I said to the people, “We better close this off. I am very thirsty and really feel that I’d like

to get something cold to drink.” Soon thereafter as we’re driving out of town we noticed on the

side of the road, underneath a big cottonwood tree, Selman in his pickup truck and a sixpack of

cold beer on the hood.

Now that’s, I think, an interesting story, but as Paul Harvey says, “Here’s the rest of the story.”

In 1977, twelve years later, I received a phone call in OCE. My secretary said, “There’s a man

named Selman from Oklahoma on the phone.”

I said, “It can’t be.”

Well, it was. It was the same man. He said, “Colonel’‘-by now I’m the Chief of Engineers-he

said, “Colonel, are you still interested in this project?”

I said, “Yes, I think the Corps is still interested.”

He asked if I would come out there and help them. He said, “I’ll support this project, but we’ve

got some problems too.”

56
John W. Morris

Tony Smith was the district engineer. I called him on the phone and told him I had to go out to

Buffalo, Oklahoma, to see Mr. Selman and asked him if he would come along but that he did not

have to come. So we met with Selman and his wife. He and Smith then worked together but, as

mentioned, the salt study and his project never proceeded. Even so, an enemy became a friend.

Maybe the dog had more to do with it than anything else.

I could go on and on about these kinds of tales. One night at a meeting in Guthrie, Oklahoma, on

the Optima project, I was supposed to be in the audience and ended up answering questions for

about three hours.

During the groundbreaking for the state’s Arrowhead Lake Recreation Facility on Lake Eufaula

in the late summer of 1963, Carl Albert was suddenly called to Washington. We soon learned that

he left during the meeting because of the Cuban missile crisis.

On Good Friday, 13 April 1964, I was honored in Oklahoma City at a luncheon by induction into

the Cowboy Hall of Fame. That was Friday, the 13th of April, the date of the Alaskan earthquake.

Colonel K.T. Sawyer was district engineer in Alaska and needed help. Captain Jack Sullivan and

several civilian employees were sent.

The point of these incidents is simply to illustrate the involvement of the district engineers in

various aspects of the public scene.

On 12 October 1962, Dana Knight of the Ponca

Tribe of Oklahoma made Colonel Morris, the

District Engineer of the Tulsa District, an honorary

chieftain of the tribe, with the Ponca name

Sungah-Zhaba, Mighty Beaver, because of the

district’s work on the Arkansas River. “Only a

mighty beaver,” Knight declared “can conquer the

Arkansas River. m

Tulsa was a truly special kind of assignment

for me and my future. As Goose Bay was to

my military construction education, Tulsa

was the singular event in developing

competence in civil programs. Fortunately,

I was able to complete both tours without

serious shortcomings or adverse comments

which would become part of my

performance records.

Let me ask you one question. In the district

history, Mr. William Settle mentions

establishing area offices as an intermediate

layerCorrect.

Could you talk a little bit about that and

your management philosophy?

Basically, we had so many projects that I

just couldn’t centralize in Tulsa all

decisions above project level. So we set up

area offices, both for the construction and

the operations phases. For example, the

Little River project was some distance from

Tulsa, so we had an area office in DeQueen

Arkansas, including a real estate suboffice.

When we had four or five jobs under

construction in the same general area, the

most senior of the project managers would

be designated area engineer. We wouldn’t
Engineer Memoirs

necessarily staff it completely. For example, Bill Borland, who was the outstanding project

manager of the Eufaula project, was assigned extra staff and an assistant, so he was able to go

around his area.

The area engineers were responsible for construction and operations. Field engineering was

limited intentionally. Planning and claims issues were kept in the district office. As mentioned,

I handled claims myself after the staff did the groundwork, such as estimating and evaluating

alternatives. The area engineer was called in as needed, but I often didn’t bother him unless I had

questions. They had already commented during field negotiations and change processing.

Frequently the resident engineer had developed a firm, often hard, position. Otherwise you

probably wouldn’t have a claim, would you? I didn’t see any point in bringing that atmosphere

into the discussions at the higher level unless needed for technical reasons. All it did was dirty

the nest a little, cloud the issue. I always believed the contractor should be paid for what he did

if it was of value and the government used it. The Corps was not in the business of “breaking”

contractors, and, besides, everyone profited if management devoted its talents to project progress

rather than tedious and expensive arguments and claim procedures. The philosophy used in Tulsa

was expounded from 1972 to 1980 for the entire Corps, a philosophy the Corps needs to follow

today and every day.

This leads me to what I fear to be among the most serious problems the Corps faces today: the

new procurement officer arrangement. The

district engineer should keep the

contracting officer responsibility. He knows

the work and has the experience to settle

these things properly. That’s where it

should be settled. There’s no reason to have

a specialist handle construction contracts as

is the case with major weapons systems

procurements. Besides, the district

engineer’s position needs to be clear and

strong to the customer. It will not be so if

he is not the contracting officer.

Tulsa didn’t have dam failures or serious

engineer problems; however, Waco Dam’s

failure, in the Fort Worth District area,

reverberated throughout Tulsa and other

districts having a certain type of soil. Also,

we had very few accidents. As indicated,

real estate was one of the more difficult

management challenges.

First off, just the fact of taking land from

people is tough even though they may

support the project. Those willing to sell

got a good price, but land taking is a touchy

issue which was compounded in Oklahoma

because of the underground oil. You buy

surface rights but rarely mineral rights.

This matter was even further complicated

in Oklahoma because of the Indians.

Dealing with the Indian councils and

Colonel Morris in Western riding gear at an

equestrian facility while he was district engineer in

Tulsa, Oklahoma.
John W. Morris

nations made the real estate problem in Tulsa very complex. The great success of our overall

program has to be credited to Dave Helms because of the way he handled real estate matters.

We also helped change some of the contract provisions. Of course, Manning Seltzer, General

Counsel, OCE, gets principal credit, but it was Tulsa District that recognized early the impact of

changes in cKZ contracts, not only on the work that was changed but, in many cases, items that

were not yet completed. Out of that came a significant modification to the changes clause of civil

contracts which allowed compensation for the impact of a change on work not yet completed.

Q: The Tulsa District history also says that you had a pretty large role to play at locating the head

of navigation for the project.

A: True. Let’s see if I can put that all together. The project was designed for the navigation channel

to leave the Arkansas River at Muskogee, Oklahoma, move up the Verdigris River through three

locks to Catoosa, 12 miles west of Tulsa. Near Catoosa the Verdigris River passes under two I-40

bridges and a railroad bridge, as I recall. The original project had the head of navigation

downstream of all three.

Colonel “Babe” Wilson, the head of the ABDA, came to me one day and indicated we had a

“head-of-navigation” issue. He said, “It’s in the wrong place.”

He was right, for we shouldn’t end the project immediately behind a major obstacle, especially

since operating efficiency would be constrained in that particular location. Also, we still had in

mind going to Wichita someday, and there was no point in starting off a new project with a major

issue and costs of passing these bridges if we could legally and reasonably include a correction

into the ongoing project. Such philosophy, incidentally, would have been beneficial to the

Missouri River project, as I was to learn later.

Our studies indicated we could eliminate one of the three locks and its dam on the Verdigris River

and save enough money to pay for this extension, which we did. Locating the head of navigation

above the bridges was approved. In spite of some troubles which we were able to resolve, the Port

of Catoosa now has a more efficient arrangement.

Another interesting vignette about the Tulsa experience involved the completion and dedication

of Oolagah Dam in 1962. General Wilson and the governor were present, and it was hot, just

terrible. Gerry and our two children attended. The officers wore white uniforms which soon

became completely soaked from perspiration. I wondered why in the world we didn’t have airconditioned cars. The reason was simply that the maximum cost allowed for a car in 1962 was

$1,200. Well, $1,200 would buy you a car, but it wouldn’t buy you an air-conditioned car. I soon

noticed that trucks had air conditioning and then discovered that the $1,200 rule didn’t apply to

trucks-it only applied to automobiles.

So the question was, “What was an automobile and what was a truck?” Come to find out, a fourwheel-drive vehicle was a truck. Well, Jeep had introduced the Wagoneer, a four-wheel-drive

station-wagon type of vehicle, so I ordered ten Wagoneers with air conditioning. My procurement

people didn’t do it right. Instead of buying the vehicles with the air conditioning installed, they

bought the vehicles and the air conditioners as separate items. Would you believe that in all the

work he had to do, General Dunn noted the procurement of the air conditioners. He phoned me

one day and asked why in the world was I buying ten air conditioners for vehicles.

I said, “Well, I’m going to put them in those trucks.”

So he said, “What are you talking about?”

59
Enaineer Memoirs

I went through the whole thing. He said, “Okay.” That’s how the Corps of Engineers obtained its

first air-conditioned office vehicles.

Q.

.

Tulsa was possibly the Morris family’s favorite career place and job. We still have many friends.

I had an opportunity after I retired to spend a lot of time in Tulsa. When our son John was

married, the minister of our church in Tulsa came to St. Louis to perform the service. If John had

a problem when he was stationed in the Middle West, he’d go to Tulsa and see Father Richard

Daniels. Susan communicated for years with some of her Tulsa friends. It was a highlight of our

life, personally as well as professionally.

I interviewed several generals who said that the district engineer’s job is the best job to have.

A: I think so too. When you leave it, you are sure to have the “ex-district engineer syndrome.”

Q: Looking back on your military career as you left Tulsa, how would you characterize it?

A: Leaving Tulsa in the summer of 1965 was the tenth anniversary of my going to Goose Bay,

Labrador. That decade probably was the most critical in my development because of the

assignments and the people with whom I was associated. At Goose Bay, you recall, I was the

resident engineer on a tough military construction job under a very strong-minded boss with

whom I couldn’t communicate easily. The weather didn’t help either. That was the first time I had

been in a responsible position dealing with a very complex construction problem, a cost-plus type

contract and a client, the air base commanding general, who was very demanding of engineers-a

broadening experience and an education in understanding the construction processes and in future

planning of the work to maximize the brief outdoor construction period. Certainly the Goose Bay

job increased my understanding of and self-confidence in executing complex contracts,

The OCE personnel assignment was a complete change of pace-to staff duty from command.

I became associated with the then current and the future leadership of the Corps. Assignment of

Corps officers develops compassion and a willingness to understand the problems of individual

officers and their families while being responsible for their education and development.

Korea, as a commander of the Army’s top divisional combat battalion in an outpost s ituation,

followed by schooling at the Army War College, refreshed my understanding of the military

organization and role of the combat engineer and broadened my knowledge of national strategy.

These two years provided my initial association with personnel from other nations, other services,

and the Department of State. Next came the Tulsa District and total immersion in the civil works

program with all the political, planning, and engineering implications that go with it, particularly

contract management.

So those four or five assignments covering a ten-year period gave me the background to assume

any job within the Corps and many positions within the Department of Defense or even in the

political arena. So that was an important period when looked at collectively because it exposed

me to most of the responsibilities an engineer officer is supposed to understand-troops,

personnel management, military construction, public works, and Department of the Army level

staff.

West Point

A: Upon my departure from Tulsa the “ex-district engineer syndrome” set in immediately as we

reported to the Military Academy at West Point for duty in the Department of Tactics. Until this

time we had never lived on an Army post except while in school. Gerry had reached the point of

believing we never would.

60
John W. Morris

Q: How did you get your assignment at the Military Academy?

AZ Bob Tarbox, Colonel Tarbox, an engineer colonel that I knew well from my days as a cadet and

again in Guam in WW II, was a regimental commander at West Point. While still at Tulsa, I wrote

him a letter and asked him if there were any possibility I could be selected to replace him in the

summer of 1965. The dean was General Johnny Jannarone, whom I knew and who had been in

Tulsa. The superintendent was General James Lampert, an engineer general. Tarbox, said he

didn’t think it was possible because they were not going to have successive engineers as

regimental commanders at West Point. General Mike Davison was the commandant and indicated

he’d prefer someone else.

General Lampert apparently concluded that I should come to West Point even if I didn’t go to the

Tactical Department. As luck would have it, the Military Academy was to be expanded from

2,800 to 4,400 cadets to make it comparable to the Naval Academy in size. That meant the corps

of cadets would expand to four regiments of cadets, and thus two new regimental commanders

were needed. I was then selected to be the first commander of the new Third Regiment. On

arrival, we were given temporary quarters on the post while our more permanent quarters were

being rehabilitated. We then moved into the same lovely quarters occupied by the Tarboxes. In

the meantime, I had commenced my duties at West Point as a "Tac"

Instead of worrying about planning, constructing and operating projects-hundreds of millions

of dollars, and all the frustrations of that type of job, I had a very minor budget at West Point, and

a very small number of people to work with and oversee. There was a brief feeling of letdown,

but I soon realized the importance of dealing with young men in whose hands the future of the

Army would soon be placed. Once that

was put in perspective, we went about the

business of helping America’s finest

young men develop into military leaders.

After the first year, having gotten the

Third Regiment off to a good start-1

hope it was good-1 was moved up to be

deputy commandant. Colonel Gray

Wheelock, the deputy commander, had

been selected for promotion to brigadier

general and transferred. So I moved up to

his position. The commandant by then

was Brigadier General Richard “Dick”

Scott, an armor officer. His military

assistant, Captain [Thomas P.] Carney,

became a lieutenant general and Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel. My

supporting staff included Major Max

Thurman, who later became the Vice

Chief of Staff of the Army, the

commanding general of Forces

Command, the commanding general of

U.S. activities during the Panama

Christmas event, and also the person

primarily responsible for upgrading the

Colonel John W. Morris as a "Tac" at West Point in

August 1965.

61
Engineer Memoirs

to its excellent status at the end of the 1980s.

In addition to Thurman, my replacement as commander of the Third Regiment was Colonel

Alexander Haig. The three colonels heading up the other regiments were also top notch. Of

course, the cadets ran the regiments. The officers were there to provide counsel, guidance,

military training and discipline, so to speak.

As deputy commandant, my responsibilities were basically overseeing the internal operation of

the corps of cadets, scheduling military training, et cetera. I was the point of contact for the

chairman of the Cadet Honor Committee. So it was an interesting job, and being close to the

cadets we became involved in many pleasant extracurricular activities. Cadets frequently came

to our home, and even more frequently their girlfriends stayed with us on weekends. Susan was

in her late teens and a student at the University of Connecticut in Storrs. She was home often and

increased the cadet traffic at our place.

In 1966, I was responsible for the corps of cadets during the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia.

Game day began with rain, which started to clear about 11:00 A.M. The Naval Academy officer

in charge and I agreed that all would wear raincoats during the march-in. The Middies appeared

with no raincoats. Their raincoats were very small, and when rolled could be put in their pocket.

Cadet raincoats were very heavy and you couldn’t do that. The Chief of Staff of the Army, with

whom I happened to be standing when the Navy started to march in, was obviously concerned,

as was I. If the cadets marched in wearing raincoats, it wouldn’t look too good for the Army.

The Secretary of the Army was there also. I hustled back to the cadets who were formed outside

the stadium and told my deputy, who was Lieutenant Colonel Bob Yerks [he also became a threestar general], that I wanted every cadet to take off his raincoat and pass it to the man behind him

and then have the last rank fall out and walk around the stadium and come in the back ramps

while the rest of the corps, less one rank, marched into the stadium. The only problem was I’d

forgotten that the last rank were all first classmen, upperclassmen, and they certainly weren’t

going to carry raincoats with all those plebes around, so there was a lot of shuffling in the rear

of the companies. It soon settled down.

We marched in without raincoats to the relief of the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Army.

It was an exciting and risky event. If we’d have planned it, I’m not sure it would have worked;

however, it was done spontaneo usly and came out okay. *

Interestingly enough, the biggest problem was getting the raincoats back to their owners. For

about half the game, raincoats were flying through the air. I may have forgotten who won the

game, but I shall always remember the raincoat problem and the improbable solution.

Being involved with the cadets in activities such as chapel, athletics, academics, and their

personal, even social life made ours a full-time, seven-days-a-week task, especially for Gerry, but

she thrived on the life at the Academy. Having Susan enrolled in the University of Connecticut

and John in Valley Forge Military Academy, after one year at Highland Falls, helped her schedule

somewhat.

In the fall of 1966, I was selected to go to the University of Pittsburgh for a course in advanced

management which carried with it a two-year service obligation. After finishing the course, I

returned to my duties as deputy commandant. In the spring of 1967, General Scott was replaced

by Brigadier General Bernie Rogers, classmate and close friend. I was delighted to be working

with and for him. In early October 1967, I was very surprised to get the word I was being

transferred to Washington. Our three years would have been up in the summer of 1968.

Because of the early sudden move, I went to see General [Donald] Bennett, the superintendent.

I indicated I thought it was not the right time to move since my term wasn’t up, et cetera. He said

62
John W. Morris

the Chief of Staff of the Army had already approved the move for me to be the deputy chief,

Legislative Liaison. My boss was to be Howard Penney, Major General Penney.

That part was fine because Penney had been my predecessor in Tulsa and was an engineer officer,

but I still had an uneasy feeling about the move, a feeling without substance as time would prove.

General Bennett, superintendent, later claimed credit for my becoming Chief of Engineers, based

on letting me go to Legislative Liaison.

Gerry and I bought a house in Arlington. We left John and Susan in the north and arrived in

Washington from West Point on 27 November in the middle of a blizzard. We managed to get

the furniture into the house the second day. Soon thereafter, I reported to work as the deputy

chief, Legislative Liaison, for the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army.

Q: I wonder if I could interrupt you just briefly on a couple of things about West Point. You were

there just as the Vietnam build-up was beginning, the build-up of troops?

A: Yes.

Q: What kind of impact did that have on the cadets?

A: It had quite a bit. Colonel [Alexander] Haig, for example, had been to Vietnam as had many other

of the tactical officers. Vietnam was a subject of discussion on the military training side and

many of the lecturers that came to West Point talked about Vietnam.

That war would affect me personally as our cadets went off to Vietnam as young officers. Tommy

Hayes [West Point, 19661, an outstanding cadet, was the son of Major General TomHayes, Corps

of Engineers. Thomas Hayes IV, I believe, was deputy cadet brigade commander. Everybody

liked him and he was a very strong young man.

He came to see me before branch drawing and asked if I thought his father’s being a major

general in the Corps should have an effect on his choosing engineers. I told him, “No.” He chose

the Corps of Engineers, went off to Vietnam and was killed. Very sad.

Cadet [William] Booth, a company commander of F Company, 3d Regiment, graduated in the

class of 1966. While in Vietnam, I suggested that [Major] General [John A.B.] Dillard select him

as his aide. He did. They were both killed in a helicopter. There are too many memories of similar

events involving Vietnam and the cadets during our time at West Point.

There were many, many small things at West Point that were interesting-you could write almost

a book. One year a group of cadets stole the Navy goat. Cadet [Thomas] Carhart was the

motivator. There’d been an agreement between the superintendents they wouldn’t do that sort of

thing that year. As deputy commandant, I had to head up the investigation and recommend

appropriate disciplinary steps.

There was no question about the fact that they stole the goat. So punishment had to be meted out

even though everyone was pleased with the achievement. The punishment, while minor, wasn’t

too popular with the corps.

As deputy commandant, I also was chairman of the Uniform Committee of nine members,

including the chairman. The cadet bathrobe in 1965-66 was a long, heavy bathrobe, for which

the Army could no longer get the material. So a short, knee-length bathrobe was selected. A

question arose over the color of the single stripe to put on the sleeve. Well, we voted and got

three votes for black, three for gold, and three for gray-the USMA colors.

63
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

As the committee pondered this problem, a cadet from the parade arrived to put the parade flags

in the storage case in the conference room. As he began to leave I said, “Young man, if you were

going to put a stripe on your new bathrobe, would you put black, gray, or gold?”

He said, “I’d put gold on.”

That’s how we got the gold stripe on the bathrobes.

We had a lot of interesting events. I don’t think they relate to the interview, but the last June week

I was there, one of our officers had some of the cadets’ girlfriends stay at his quarters. The night

before graduation, the ladies had gone to a party of some kind, and one was very upset with her

cadet escort. She came home and she made some comment about her “husband.” It’s against the

rules for cadets to get married. So when reported to me, I called the young cadet in, and he

admitted he was married.

I explained to him, his parents, and his girlfriend that when he signed in the previous night he also

signed that he was not married. He had lied. The matter was turned over to the Honor Committee,

which met quickly. He was found guilty of an honor violation and given a chance to resign as a

cadet, which he did. Since he had successfully finished his academics, he still got his diploma,

but not a commission.

West Point provides a special human as well as academic experience. My aim was to deal with

every cadet as an individual, so we had a policy in my regiment to build on strength-find out

what a young man was good at and build on that. There’s so much negative up there anyhow, you

know, demerits and the plebe system and all. The policy worked.

As a senior colonel I was not going to give any demerits myself. I felt that if I brought a young

man in and talked to him, that would be enough unless it was something very serious. That turned

out to be a pretty good idea, too, because it gave me a chance to talk to a lot of cadets I otherwise

would have just written up on a piece of paper.

My earlier assignment in the career development field was beneficial to this assignment, and also

I learned a lot about how an officer is made. As a cadet going through West Point, you see things

mostly as they affect you personally, but when you’re in an oversight position, you see the whole

picture-a broader perspective. It certainly did increase my love and devotion to the Military

Academy and bring a better understanding of what it does and does very well.

Historically, 25 to 35 percent of an entering class did not graduate. In the early 196Os, a lot of

effort was going into keeping the ones who were leaving. I made a little study and I found out that

the losses generally distributed themselves in the lower half, one way or another. I took the

position that we shouldn’t change the system to keep the lower group when we were going to lose

up to 30 percent historically anyhow. A better idea was to get the entrance criteria more precise

so that when the young man came in, he was more apt to stay. Certainly in the United States there

were 1,100 young men who would stay at West Point if we could find them.

You were in a position to see what cadets chose the Corps of Engineers.

Yes. Well, branch drawing was always important. As deputy commandant, I didn’t want to be

overly pushy about the engineers. Besides, I had learned that whoever came in the Corps would

be qualified. It wasn’t a matter of getting a winner or a loser, they were all winners, so it’s just

a question of helping those who were not sure to make up their minds. There were cadet

counselors established for each branch.

I wanted to get you to talk a little bit more about the advanced management course. I’m not too

familiar with it.

64
John W. Morris

A: Oh, well, there were two or three in the United States at the time. The most prestigious was

Harvard. Harvard had a 13-week advanced management course. The one at Pittsburgh was a little

shorter. I think it was 10 or 11 weeks. Our course included about 35 students, mostly Americans.

These were people who had had a certain amount of senior managerial experience and were on

the threshold of corporate executive positions. One purpose of the course was to make them

qualified.

It turned out that as a district engineer, I had had more leadership and managerial experience than

most individuals in the course. Nevertheless, it was a help to me because I got an insight into the

business world and met some outstanding people.

The one thing I came out of that course with was the fact that you need to know yourself. If you

don’t and you’re not honest with yourself, you can’t communicate very well. I’ll make that

clearer. In one exercise, they gave every student a list of 10 or 15 adjectives. Each person rated

everyone else in the class against each of these adjectives. Also himself. You kept your own and

gave the others to the professor. The professor then passed all the ratings on each person to that

individual. The question was, “How did you rate yourself in relation to how others rated you?”

That was an interesting exercise. The man who had been elected class president came out number

one on that test. There was no correlation between the two events. The four officers selected for

the class officers were in the top four on that test. I’ve been impressed with that all my life. If a

person understands himself, he will be more apt to have people understand or to receive the

message he thinks he is sending.

At the least it helps you to be a better communicator. That’s the important part. If you

communicate with somebody and they don’t understand, it’s probably your fault. The sender is

more at fault than the receiver. People often say, “I told you to do something, why didn’t you do

it?” Well, you might want to think that over a little bit. Maybe they didn’t understand what you

told them to do.

Q

.

. So it was pretty select, only a very small number of officers.

A: Yes. When I was in career development I think we sent maybe four or five a year, something like

that, out of the Corps. There were a couple of other Army officers at Pittsburgh but no other

engineers. Most of the students were nonmilitary.

Legislative Liaison

Q: In November 1967 you came back to Washington as deputy chief, Legislative Liaison.

A: Yes.

Q

.

. How did you feel about that assignment?

A: I liked the assignment. I felt I was fairly well qualified for it because of duty in Savannah and

especially Tulsa. Maybe that’s how I got the job. That plus Howard Penney. The job was a dualhatted job. We worked directly for the Secretary of the Army, and also for the Chief of Staff of

the Army on legislative matters. I think the chief, Legislative Liaison, is among the more

important jobs around the Pentagon. The Legislative Liaison people were seldom out front, but

they’re always there, giving advice and analyzing congressional attitudes. As I mentioned earlier,

I think Howard Penney was the best staff officer I’ve ever known, and a great teacher.

The key issue during that assignment was Vietnam. As you know, President Johnson was into it

deeply. General William Westmoreland was asking for more troops, if you remember. We in

65
Enaineer Memoirs

Legislative Liaison had to get the requirement into the right format for presentations to the

Congress by the president We worked night and day on a plan to send some 200,000 soldiers to

General Westmoreland as he requested; 19,000 were to be in the advance party. On the 31st of

March 1968, President Johnson came on TV, and he announced he was sending in the 19,000.

He also said that night he was not going to run for reelection and never mentioned the remaining

troops. We sent the 19,000, but we never did send the remainder.

There were frequent political bombshells popping up when you didn’t expect them. The Secretary

of the Army had a real situation on his hands with the M-l6 problem. Bob Jordan, General

Counsel for the Army, personally took this project aboard. General Penney and he worked

literally weeks and months on that one problem, to try to get it settled down to whether the Army

would keep the M-l6 rifle. Of course, our rifle manufacturers were all over it because they

wanted to make the weapons.

Then little things often got important. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the

House of Representatives was Mendel Rivers, a dynamic and powerful man from South Carolina.

He had a retired marine general as counsel for the committee. Rivers could and did bring pressure

on the Secretary of the Army through his committee. He’d call the secretary for a hearing, and

if it was a tough subject he’d have the whole committee present.

Roger Courier of our office was a close personal friend of Mr. Rivers and would keep us posted

on matters of importance to the chairman and his staffers.

I got a call one day from a certain staffer who said, “You’d better do something about that bag

boy situation over at Fort Myer.” He said, “The chairman is very interested.” The bag boys had

become impolite and destructive in filling patrons’ bags, but they were part of President

Johnson’s Youth Improvement Program. These were predominantly minorities, so we had to be

careful that we just didn’t summarily get them out. Besides that, we didn’t know who was going

to do the work if they left. Roger Currier checked into it and reported that the chairman was not

interested.

Pretty soon I got another phone call from the staffer saying, “What have you done about the bag

boys?” I told him we were working on it and I’d get back to him. Well, this time it happened that

Currier was going to go to South Carolina with Mr. Rivers. In the meantime, I thought I’d better

do something about this. I’d better have a plan. So we got the Army staffers together with

representatives of the CG at Fort Myer, and we came up with a plan of what we’d do if necessary.

Roger Currier came back

he didn’t say anything.”

from this trip, said, “Don’t wow. I mentioned it to the chairman and

About a week later, a letter came floating in signed by Mr. Rivers to the effect that for over four

weeks or so nothing had happened, so Secretary [Stanley] Resor was to appear before the full

committee on a certain day. Secretary of the Army Resor knew nothing about all this, so I had to

explain the whole thing to him. Fortunately, we had a draft letter telling the chairman that by

Monday morning the problem would be eliminated. Soldiers would do the bagging for a short

period of time while this situation was better resolved.

He sent the letter, but he still had to appear for the hearing. By the time the secretary had arrived,

Mr. Rivers had received the letter. The hearing was warm and friendly with accolades for the

Secretary of the Army for having been so positive and efficient in solving this problem.

General Penney had let me handle this while he was taking care of other issues. Mr. Resor is a

wonderful man. We still get cards from him every year, and I see him occasionally.

66
John W. Morris

Q.

.

A..

Another interesting event occurred before the one I just related. I hadn’t been in Washington

more than a few days and was told that I would escort to West Point a special investigating

committee which was headed up by Congressman [Edward] Hebert. Hebert was number two in

the House Armed Services Committee.

The investigation was to consider why Army had turned down a request to play a post-season

football game in the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans against Louisiana State University. Mr. Hebert

had been instrumental in getting Army invited. When the Chief of Staff of the Army and the

secretary decided to decline, the cadets and Mr. Hebert were really upset. I was still at West Point

when the turndown occurred, but the investigation started after I got to Washington. I remember

the cadets took all the sugar bowls off the table from the dining room in protest for not being able

to go to the game in the Sugar Bowl.

Well, anyway, I’d only been gone about a week and I was back up at West Point with this

investigation. The congressman made his point, but the Army didn’t play in the bowl game,

either.

The Legislative Liaison job has impact on many activities. On one occasion, the Senate Armed

Services Committee was meeting on the authorization bill, and I happened to be outside when the

staffer came out and asked if I could help resolve a problem at West Point.

The East Academic Building, a new building to be built at West Point, was about to be axed to

save money. The discussion favored cutting back on entrants for a couple of years to delay the

need. I drew a little sketch to show that the students who would use that building were already

at West Point, and by the time the building was finished they’d be ready to use it.

So he grabbed the sloppy sketch and took it back in the Senate. In about 15 minutes he reported

the building was in the bill. That’s just how close it was. I’ve seen this gentleman two or three

times since then, and he always remarks on how that East Academic Building at West Point was

saved. Legislative Liaison was an important job. You soon learn that at that level facts and

accuracy are crucial-guesses are dangerous.

You were heavily involved in the funeral arrangements for Robert Kennedy, weren’t you?

Yes. Whenever a senior Executive Branch official is to be buried, one of the services will be

designated to manage the congressional delegation that goes to the funeral. When Robert F.

Kennedy was assassinated, that project was assigned to the Army even though the Kennedys were

Navy people.

Because Mr. Kennedy was running for president, he had a large political campaign staff. Of

course they became involved with everything, and the situation became confused. Besides that,

the funeral services were to be in Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and the interment in

Arlington Cemetery, Virginia.

General Penney decided he would stay in Washington and take care of the situation here,

particularly the event at the Arlington Cemetery, and receive the cortege when it came from New

York on the train. I was to go to New York where my first stop was at the “Kennedy for

President” headquarters. That was a real madhouse, and I was getting nowhere. I wasn’t able to

find anybody to talk to. It may have been orderly to somebody, but it wasn’t to me.

Finally, I saw a familiar face which I recalled from the dedication of the Eufaula Dam in

Oklahoma. He, a Mr. Bruno, also recalled the event, so I explained that I had about 200 members

of the Congress of the United States and their wives coming to the funeral, and my responsibility

was to get them into Saint Patrick’s Cathedral and seated as a group.

- 67
Engineer Memoirs

He suggested I go to the cathedral and rope off a section. Some advice! My big problem became

getting a piece of rope. At Saint Patrick’s Cathedral I met a member of the church staff, and I told

him what I needed. So I roped off a section of enough seats and went on my way.

Well, this had taken pretty much the day. Next, I arranged for five buses to bring the delegation

from the airport and soon realized I had another big problem-where to park them near the

cathedral. Around 10 o’clock at night I called Mayor John Lindsay’s office. He was there, it

turned out, and I was passed to the chief of police. I was told to get a piece of rope and block off

five spaces on 51st Street, which is alongside Saint Patrick’s. So I did the rope trick again.

We finally got the congressmen and their wives into the church and everything went fine. The

members of Congress thought it was well planned! All reserved areas remained intact, and the

members of Congress and their spouses were seated without incident.

Finally, the service was over-a very emotional service, if you recall. Originally, I had planned

to come back on the train, but I decided I would fly back down to Washington to help General

Penney get ready for the interment.

When we were ready to board the airplane, Senator [Howard] Cannon, Nevada, a major general

in the Air Force Reserve, was absent. Senator [Everett] Dirksen, Senator McClellan, and their

wives were hot and perspiring. So we decided to depart and have Senator Cannon follow in the

standby aircraft.

Once we landed at Andrews and the congressional people were on their way to town, I waited

until the second plane arrived with Senator Cannon aboard to explain that I regretted leaving him

but we couldn’t wait any longer in New York. He was satisfied with the decision and indicated

he would have been embarrassed if the group had had to wait for him.

I’m sure you recall that the train bringing the body struck a boy in New Jersey and was delayed

about six hours. Instead of getting to D.C. around 4:30 P.M. or 5:OO P.M., it was about 1l:OO P.M.

In the meantime, we had to change our plans from a daytime to a nighttime interment.

Consequently, we needed hundreds of candles. Well, where do you find so many candles after

6:00 P.M.? Finally, I called the cathedral, and with their help and others we were able to round

up enough candles. The hot, rainy, damp night plus the emotional situation caused several people

to faint. General Penney and I each carried ammonia capsules for those who needed them.

In the summer of 1968, Mr. [Ralph] Abernathy and his Freedom Marchers and also Mr. [Cesar]

Chavez and the lettuce and vegetable people from California were in town. Requests came from

Chavez and from Abernathy to bring their people to the grave site. They were accommodated,.

As it happened, the Penneys weeks earlier had scheduled a party that night. We finally got to his

house at 1 o’clock in the morning. Everybody was gone except Gerry and his wife.

Well, that was the Legislative Liaison, except for one other event. I had been a colonel by then

seven years and, having missed a couple of opportunities to be a general, I figured I wasn’t goin,g

to make it.

I had not been looking for a job, but sometime in February 1968, Bob Kerr, Senator Kerr’s oldest

son, came to see me and asked me if I would like to be the director of the Kerr Foundation out

in Oklahoma. Don McBride, my old friend, had come along, and I told them I was very interested.

I also explained, because I’d gone to the University of Pittsburgh, I had a commitment to remam

in service for two years or until October 1968. Bob said fine.

In March 1968, Howard Penney came to me one day and announced that I had been selected for

brigadier general. When the brigadier general nomination evolved, I had to decide whether to take

68
John W. Morris

this job in Oklahoma or stay in the Army. I knew I was going to go to Vietnam if I stayed in the

Army. Gerry and I discussed the matter, and I told Mr. Kerr I couldn’t accept his offer. I stayed

in the Pentagon another year after the list came out, till the spring of 1969. Meantime, Penney left

and my orders to Vietnam were issued. I told Secretary Resor goodbye. General [Harold K.]

Johnson had been replaced by General Westmoreland [as Chief of Staff of the Army]. I was

assigned to the 18th Engineer Brigade in Vietnam.

I left to go there in late April and arrived in Saigon on 29 April. Before that, my wife and I had

gone to Bermuda for a week holiday. I had told her I’d see her in Hawaii during Christmas 1969,

left from Baltimore, and flew on out there. You want to ask any questions about the Legislative

Liaison?

Q: Yes, a couple of quick ones. Was this assignment important in terms of your getting more

knowledge about Congress, the congressional staffl

A: Yes. It was very important in that regard. I probably should have emphasized that.

In this assignment we dealt with Congress on specific issues, and normally they were adversarial.

Either you informed the Congress in advance or the staff became upset because they didn’t get

the word early. I spent much time with all committees of Congress that had an interest in the

Army*

The Legislative Liaison job was very, very challenging. The responsibilities were rather heavy,

and I think Howard Penney gave me more freedom than most deputies. During the lull between

Penney’s leaving and his replacement’s coming in, General Westmoreland became Chief of Staff.

The following might be a good example of the staff aspects of the office of the chief, Legislative

Liaison, during the weekly staff meetings. The Legislative Liaison people sat along the wall and

the principal staff members sat at the table. During General Westmoreland’s first or second

meeting as the Chief of Staff, he indicated he would like to invite all the newly elected

congressmen over for an orientation. He asked for the Legislative Liaison person. That was me,

so I announced myself. He asked me my thoughts on his plan. I explained that my initial reaction

was that it was not too good of an idea because the new congressmen are not as important as the

old congressmen. If we were going to brief anybody, we should brief the senior people before the

junior, newly elected members.

It turned out that General [Fred] Weyand, who had been director of Legislative Liaison before

Penney, was present. General Westmoreland turned to him and said, “Well, Fred, what do you

think about this? You used to run Legislative Liaison.”

Weyand commented that if we were going to brief somebody, then brief the committee chairmen.

Don’t start off with the least important people.

Well, that was my introduction to General Westmoreland. He appreciated the comment. The point

however is that Legislative Liaison is involved in most routine business of the Army staff. On a

daily basis the job took more of my time than any job I ever had. I had little control over my

destiny because the issues arose without warning, were so varied, and involved the Army’s top

leaders. In hindsight, I capsulize the office of the chief of Legislative Liaison as requiring

thorough, accurate analysis of tough issues and the value of taking a clear, firm stand on your

views. Your seniors need them.

Q

.

. While you were there, the protest movement against the war began to grow, didn’t it?

A: Yes, very much so. In fact, they burned Washington while I was there, but I missed Under

Secretary [David] McGiffert’s going to the steps of the Pentagon and making his speech.

69
Enaineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

Vietnam ran through all of the things we were doing. Events like the Robert Kennedy funeral, the

bag boys, so forth and so on, those were blips because the mainstream of our business dealt with

Vietnam. The Tet Offensive had a major impact on legislative activities.

Did congressmen come to you when there were the riots in Washington after Martin Luther King

was assassinated?

A: Not to my recollection. When Martin Luther King was assassinated, I was in Chief of Staff

General Johnson’s office the moment it came on the TV. It was late in the evening. He was very

upset about that and anticipated troubles.

The city was burning, then. My daughter, I remember, came to Washington by plane. I met her,

and when she landed she mentioned how terrible it was to see from the air that the capital city of

Washington was being torched.

I didn’t personally get involved in any of the demonstrations nor with congressional activities.

Q: Are there more things you’d like to talk about with the Legislative Liaison?

A: It was a jewel and a very interesting assignment. It’s one of those jobs, again, where you have

recurring opportunities to fail. I keep talking about that, but there are a lot of jobs where you

don’t have a chance to screw up, you’re too protected. Not so in Goose Bay, nor in Tulsa, and

certainly not in Legislative Liaison. Legislative Liaison was the least protected and the most

exposed.

I do want to add a comment about the excellent staff. The ladies that worked in that office really

trained the new officers. They were tremendous. Ethel Lamers was just a spectacular person as

far as work and understanding were concerned, and she was better than most people will ever be

in handling tough politicians.

So it was a good assignment and there was nothing pretentious about it. We had some of the

worst offices in the Pentagon. We couldn’t go anywhere without going up and down stairs. That

was probably about the way it should be because you could never find us. If a visitor wanted to

find the chief of Legislative Liaison, he’d need a map or a guide or something. General Penney

spent a lot of time with the Chiefs of Staff and with the Secretary of the Army, and so did I.

Finally, upon leaving the Army staff for Vietnam, I had the clear belief that my career

development was complete and that whatever success I might have henceforth would depend

entirely on how well I had learned the lessons from the assignments I had been given leading to

selection for general officer rank. Frankly, I was satisfied at the time that those assignments

covered whatever might lie ahead in either engineer or branch-immaterial duty. Still, I was to

learn that even 26 years had not fully prepared me for Vietnam, nor for the environmental

experiences yet to come.

Before turning to Vietnam, I need to mention that my father had died in January 1969. My mother

was a semi-invalid and alone. Also my mother-in-law was ill. Susan was about to graduate from

the University of Connecticut. In the summer of 1968 I had sworn in John as a private in the U.S.

Army and he had entered the West Point Prep School shortly thereafter. When I left for Vietnam,

he was waiting to be accepted for the Academy. If he missed, I would have seen him in Vietnam.

Consequently, I had to leave Gerry by herself and also to attempt to settle my father’s estate by

mail from Southeast Asia. It was not a good time for me to be away, but I doubt there ever is

70
John W. Morris

Vietnam

Q: You were assigned next to the 18th Engineer Brigade in South Vietnam.

A: Yes. Returning to the military situation. My service in Korea by now was ten years old when I

arrived in Vietnam. The U.S. Army, Vietnam, engineer was General Dave Parker whom I’ve

mentioned earlier: Tokyo after World War II, Korea in 1960, and now again in Vietnam. His

deputy was Brigadier General Bob Tarbox, whom I’d known in Guam and again at West Point,

plus other places along the way.

The 18th Engineer Brigade served the northern half of Vietnam. Our brigade headquarters, the

aviation section, and a relatively small number of soldiers, most of them involved with the

headquarters operations, were located at Dong Ba Thin near Cam Ranh. The brigade consisted

of 16 engineer battalions-combat and construction battalions-and numerous separate

companies. They were spread throughout the northern half of South Vietnam, all the way from

the DMZ down to the 20th Brigade on a line generally westward from Phan Rang.

Our main missions were to support the combat troops and perform the heavy regional

construction. The construction battalions were committed primarily to lines of communication

[LOCI. The combat battalions supported by a light equipment company also worked on the LOC

unless support of a divisional mission took priority.

In the scheme of things, we had one combat battalion out of the 18th Engineer Brigade in support

of each numbered division. The 1 st Cavalry Division, the 101 st Airborne Division up at Hue, Phu

Bai, the 4th Division near Pleiku, the America1 Division at Chu Lai, and a brigade of the 5th

Division were located in the 18th Brigade area of operation. In addition, we supported numerous

miscellaneous signal and special forces.

Our battalions were self-contained and, generally speaking, were in remote areas. Consequently,

we had frequent incidents with the Vietcong and, in some cases, North Vietnamese soldiers. We

suffered more casualties than you normally would have expected for engineer units. Our men

were very busy, and as a result, we had fewer disciplinary, morale, or drug problems.

As brigade commander, I set goals and then spent much of my time in the helicopter visiting our

work sites and also our troop units to keep up to speed on their activities and finding out what we

could do to help them.

There were several significant construction projects. One was to build a road out to the A Shau

Valley. A reinforced engineer battalion commanded by Colonel Melvin Johnson was in charge

of this very difficult task. He did a fine job. When it was finished, General [Richard] Stillwell,

who was the commanding general of the XXIV Corps, came out and made a special presentation

to our engineers for that excellent work.

The 326th Engineer Battalion [ 101 st Airborne Division] commander was Lieutenant Colonel

Henry J. Hatch. General Stillwell’s chief of staff was my West Point classmate Bud Bolling. I

became fairly close to General Stillwell, a great commander with wonderful leadership qualities.

His farewell address to his troops when he was replaced by General Mel Zais was truly

inspirational.

The LOC program was the highlight of the construction. I don’t recall how many miles we built.

General [Frederick] Clarke, Chief of Engineers, had dedicated his brilliance and thoughts to a

plan to replace the normal military maintenance system for heavy equipment. As a result, the

LOC equipment was the typical yellow U.S. items purchased “off the shelf’ and maintained under

special contract with a firm headquartered or at least managed out of St. Louis. We had a 24-hour

71
Engineer Memoirs

turnaround on parts. Consequently, what would have been otherwise an impossible equipment

maintenance job was effectively executed.

Many of our soldiers, who had no experience building roads, soon learned how to operate asphalt

plants, rock quarries, et cetera. We set up, in our brigade area, a number of industrial sites

consisting of a quarry, rock-crushing capability, an asphalt plant, and materials needed to build

bridges, culverts, et cetera, associated with roads. Usually, these sites were at a construction

battalion headquarters. Colonel George Rebh, deputy brigade commander, helped a great deal in

developing the concept of these well-planned and efficient industrial sites throughout the brigade

area.

The real problem, of course, was keeping the asphalt plants in operation. We improved as we

went along, and we surely tried. Still, I don’t think we ever were fully efficient, although we did

pave a lot of roads. The reasons for paving the roads were multiple. First, better roads allowed

our troops to move more efficiently, and the pavement almost eliminated the use of land mines.

Until the roads were paved, we had to sweep every road each morning with mine detectors to be

sure the Vietcong had placed no mines overnight.

The combat operations consisted mainly of countering night attacks and supporting the combat

divisions. We did have noteworthy tactical incidents, however.

The 299th Engineer Battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Newman Howard, was located

between Dak To and Ben Het, west of Pleiku. Ben Het was so close to the border that the enemy

was always nearby, destroying or at least interfering with transportation. In early 1970, the South

Vietnamese were providing security for a 299th Engineer Battalion convoy en route to Ben Het

when attacked by North Vietnamese. We had a couple of people killed and some equipment

damaged. Colonel Howard personally got his troops out okay but was very upset with the South

Vietnamese security. I remember asking the corps commander to replace the engineer battalion

with an infantry battalion. He decided that if we did that, the South Vietnamese would think we

didn’t have confidence in their ability to protect us.

In a few weeks, the same event recurred and a very tough fight ensued. Again Howard extricated

the troops and received the Silver Star for gallantry. His battalion was so badly beaten up by those

two events that it had to be moved to the rear [east coast area]. Then it was replaced by an

infantry unit.

I do remember the wonderful officers and enlisted personnel. The roster of battalion commanders

and group commanders in my brigade sounds like the leadership of the Corps for the next decade.

Jack Waggoner, commander of the 45th Group, became a major general. He was replaced by

Colonel Carroll LeTellier, later a major general; Harry Griffith was the 35th Group commander,

lieutenant general. The 937th, Bob Marshall, later a major general. Hap Adams, Colonel [Carroll

E.] Adams [Jr.] who was killed, was a brigadier general promotable.

Then the battalion commanders sounded also like a Who’s Who list: Hugh Robinson, Sam Kem,

John Wall, Ernie Edgar, Jim Donovan, and an S-3 named Art Williams-all future generals.

Command Sergeant Major Santecrose was truly a great NCO. He traveled everywhere I did, and

his famous expression to the troops was, “Get with the program.” He was a dynamic influence.

We each spent over 700 hours that year in a helicopter, going from place to place.

Our chaplain, Lieutenant Colonel Stewart Wetherall, was an inspiration to our troops and was

always with our front-line battalions. I remember going with him at Christmastime to every unit

and to every person that we could find. As in Korea, the value of religious leadership to soldiers

was undeniable.

72
John W. Morris

The holidays were probably the most painful part for the troops, being so far from home under

such adverse circumstances. Because General Clarke came to Vietnam near the Christmas

holidays, my trip to Hawaii to be with Gerry never happened. I didn’t get to see my wife during

the tour, but we did communicate by daily letters and frequent tapes.

General Parker was a prime player in my Vietnam experience. He, Carroll Le Tellier, and I were

doing a reconnaissance when we ran into a typhoon just off of Da Nang. We had to land our

helicopter in the “bowling alley,” a flat area where there was continuous enemy activity. We

ended up convincing the pilot that we were sitting ducks in the middle of a shooting range. He

finally got the helicopter off the ground and up to an artillery outpost called “Los Banyos." The

wind was blowing so hard that the pilot said he wouldn’t shut down the chopper for fear the wind

would ruin the rotor. When the chopper ran out of gas that is exactly what happened.

Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor (left) with Engineer officers Colonel Harry Griffith, Major

General David S. Parker, and Brigadier General John W. Morris in South Vietnam in 1970.

We were finally rescued in a half-track by Captain Ronald Bartek [West Point, 1966] to end a wet

and miserable day. General Parker, all his life, felt that we almost did him in on that day.

My most vivid memory relates to an event after I left. Prior to departure, I had laid on an

orientation program for my successor-General [Henry] Shrader. When he arrived, I soon

departed, and after a couple of false starts in Saigon got back to the United States as scheduled

73
Engineer Memoirs

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A.

.

Q.

.

A..

in early May 1970. I’d been in the States about ten days and happened to be in OCE when I wa.s

called to see General Clarke. He told me that there’d been a helicopter accident in Vietnam, and

he knew that one engineer general officer had been killed. He told me where it was and that he

knew it was a major general. It had to be General Jack Dillard, and based on location, I figured

the 937th Group and probably the 20th Engineer Battalion commanders were aboard too. I also

listed all the people I thought would be on the chopper. Unfortunately, I was correct.

As I recall, 11 people were killed. One survived, Sergeant Major [Robert W.] Elkey, who was the

937th command sergeant major at that time. Elkey was thrown out the chopper, badly wounded

and fortunate to survive. Everyone else was killed. A most distressing experience for me because

not only did I know everybody but I’d been involved with many being there. Captain Booth [West

Point, 19661 had become General Dillard’s aide based on my recommendation. I had sent my

pilot to the 937th to improve the efficiency of that aviation section, and the co-pilot, CWO

Adams, was similarly placed. So while that didn’t happen when I was in Vietnam, it was certainly

part of my Vietnam experience.

I went to all the funerals that I could. When I first took over the brigade, I wrote to all the wives

of the battalion and group commanders and told them that I wanted them to know that we were

a close family out there and we were going to look after each other. Further, we didn’t want them

worrying about us any more than necessary, and to take care of themselves so we wouldn’t have

to be concerned about them. When I went to Hap Adams’ funeral up in West Point I saw his wife,

and she said, “Jack, you came home too soon.” That was like a stab.

All in all, Vietnam would have been a great deal more pleasant memory had the whole thing

turned out better. I look back on Vietnam with very mixed emotions. I went into it in a saddened

condition because of my family situation, and I came out of it in a saddened condition because

of the helicopter tragedy, but our accomplishments were noteworthy. Relative to the rest of the

Army, we were blessed and we did good work. Working with Dave Parker was a real pleasure.

I also enjoyed Jack Dillard for the little time I knew him.

My driver, Corporal [William] Comenose, is now a successful businessman in Cleveland and

stays in touch. So, unless you have some questions, I don’t have too much more to add about

Vietnam.

I wanted to ask you about the engineer command structure in Vietnam when you got there. You

talked about the battalions and the groups. What was above the 18th?

We had the engineer command, U.S. Army Engineer Command, Vietnam, a separate element of

the U.S. Army, Vietnam. It was commanded by General David Parker and later General John

[Jack] Dillard. They reported to General Westmoreland and General [Creighton] Abrams and

worked with their staffs. The engineer section within the headquarters of the U.S. Army,

Vietnam, advised the CINC [commander in chiefI on engineer matters in his planning, leaving

the engineer command to execute the program and oversee the troops.

Was there something called the Engineer Construction Agency, Vietnam, when you were there?

Yes. That’s USACAV, U.S. Army Construction Agency, Vietnam.

USACAV.

If I’m not mistaken, that included people like Morrison Knudsen, J. A. Jones, et cetera and

performed major contract construction.

Contractors.

Contractors.

74
John W. Morris

Q: So the 18th Brigade was supporting the LOC program?

A: The LOC program was a factor. First, however, was the support of the combat divisions. This was

an organizational decision. In other words, a specific combat battalion was aligned with a major

troop unit. The 20th Engineer Battalion was designated to support the 4th Infantry Division for

example. It was then up to the battalion commander of the 20th to liaise with the engineer

battalion commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which happened to be Lieutenant Colonel Vald

Heiberg. I would advise the division commander which 18th Brigade battalion was to provide

support and that his needs would take priority over anything else. Once arranged, the divisional

support plan worked well.

The LOC program took more brigade-level leadership, management, and attention. We met at

least weekly to discuss progress, deadlines, equipment needs, supplies, parts, et cetera, and the

weather. The monsoons presented unique problems for the engineers. From October through

January much work would be lost, equipment and campsites drenched, et cetera and, of course,

disruption of LOC completion plans.

Then evening activities occurred. Our headquarters area was secured by a Korean infantry

regiment. The Korean regiment was an excellent unit. One night the Vietcong threw satchel

charges into the wards at Cam Ranh Hospital. You may remember that. [Lieutenant] General

[Charles A.] Cochran was the corps commander, and when I saw him a week or so later, he

seemed upset. I didn’t know why so I asked him. He felt I had allowed the Vietcong to get into

the hospital there.

Although security was a mission of the Korean infantry, I was the senior officer of the area, and

therefore he looked to me to do something about it.

I then took over the job and became responsible for the security. It was never ordered or anything,

but the Korean regimental commander understood he had to respond to me. As it happened, our

brigade camp was hit frequently because we were near the Vietcong trail between the hills and

the coast. They’d lob stuff at us, and every time they’d hit us, this Korean colonel would come

over with a gift. I had a whole roomful of gifts before it was all over.

The Korean regimental commander, although very conscientious about his work, couldn’t keep

the Vietcong from firing a couple of rounds at us every couple of nights.

In 1969, the 18th Brigade headquarters didn’t have an officers’ club or lounge. So the officers got

together and built what would be an officers lounge. Really, it was not much bigger than this

room we’re in now, maybe 20 by 10 or 15.

Anyhow, the night we opened it, we invited some local friends to come over in the afternoon to

christen this club. Well, I guess the Vietcong were upset because they were not invited. We no

sooner got in the club than they whammed one right in on top of us. Fortunately they didn’t have

very good aim, but the club was a very nervous place to be for the next couple of weeks.

Occasionally I would go to Saigon to meetings with General Parker. I’d stay with him in his

hutch, his place. The 20th Brigade was commanded by Hal Parfitt, General Parfitt. His sergeant

major was Van Autreve, whom I mentioned earlier as a first sergeant in the 8th Engineers when

I was the battalion commander in Korea some years earlier. The 20th Brigade was later

commanded by Ed O’Donald, Brigadier General O’Donald, who would replace me in Omaha in

a few years.

The 18th and 20th were competitors to see who could build the most roads. O’Donald’s program

was to build one kilometer of road a day-“A Klick a Day.” The 18th worked on a monthly, not

75
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

6.

a daily basis. Our program was called “Operation Last Chance” because the troop drawdown had

begun. We were soon to lose two battalions [the 70th and the 116th], so this was our last chance

to get the LOC working.

To kick off “Operation Last Chance” we took time to get our plants, supplies, and equipment in

good shape. Then we went to work. I don’t remember the mileage or anything, but the results

were many miles of good roads in record time.

Jim Donovan came up with a plan to use cold mix which could be stockpiled for use as a base

course. When needed it could be spread cold and compacted. It wasn’t bad. In fact, it was quite

good, and we could place a lot more pavement in the same length of time. An innovative idea that

paid off. Cold mix also deterred mining once spread and compacted on the roadway. By the time

we left, I estimate we had finished about 80 percent of the roads that we were to build.

When I left, General Jack Dillard got me to Tan Son Nhut where I boarded the airplane. All

aboard the plane were cheering getting ready to leave. We taxied down the runway when th.e

plane stopped, turned around and went back. We thought, “This can’t be happening to us.” I don’t

remember now why it went back, but it was a minor problem, fixed, and away we went. That was

the end of that. Next stop USA at BWI [Baltimore-Washington International].

On the personal side, everybody was entitled to two weeks off, and it was important to take the

two weeks because of the pressures. As I mentioned, we suffered more casualties than any other

unit in Vietnam for 3 of the 12 months I was there.

My cousin from California wrote a letter saying she and her husband were going to be in Hong

Kong 20 November 1969 and asked if I could come and spend the weekend with them. Well, that

was some idea. I mean, right here in the middle of the war to take off for a weekend to Hong

Kong! I had enough notice and the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a good idea.

So I did that. We spent several nice days together. It was short, but I was there long enough to get

into the oriental rug business. The Star Ferry Terminal, Kowloon, contained many shops, one of

which sold oriental rugs. So I picked out three rugs, and I told him I’d come get those later. A

month or so later I used another four days, returned to Hong Kong, and then I really got into the

rug business.

Another officer in the battalion and I went to Australia and used my last week. The trip was so

nice Gerry and I went back some years later.

I had used my 14 days, and except for one Sunday, there were no other days off. On that Sunday

afternoon General Parker and I and some others went snorkeling in the South China Sea off of

Na Trang. I don’t remember another single day we didn’t work. For recreation we played

volleyball in combat boots in the evenings. One of our players, Captain Joe Ballard, later

commanded the 18th Brigade in Europe and Fort Leonard Wood as a major general and is now

Chief of Engineers.

You said you wanted to go back to Nixon’s beginning to withdraw troops in June 1969.

Thank you. One unit worth noting was the 116th Engineer Combat Battalion from Idaho. I think

it was the only National Guard engineer battalion in Vietnam, and it was an outstanding battalion.

They were located on the far western edge of the brigade area at Bao Lot.

They had their own little group of Vietcong that messed around with them at first. Those

engineers were excellent shots, and during the first couple of attacks they knocked off a bunch

of Vietcong. That cooled down the situation, and they weren’t bothered too much. Also their

equipment deadline rate was fantastic, I mean, like 2 or 4 percent, which was unheard of in

Vietnam. Discipline was good. The battalion commander was sharp. I can only say nice things

76
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

about it. They were the first battalion to stand down. The next was the 70th. Colonel Jim Hays

had that battalion, and he shows up later in the Israeli airfield business.

We replaced the 169th at Bao Lot with the 116th Engineer Battalion, which had been beaten up

very badly over on the east coast north of Qui Nhon. The Vietcong must have watched the 169th

leave because the 116th was in trouble the whole time they were at Bao Lot. They never could

get the enemy straightened out like the 169th did.

At the outset, was the engineer withdrawal taken mostly out of the LOC effort?

These were both combat battalions. The LOC effort survived the drawdown longer.

I know that deadlined equipment and getting parts had been a problem.

It had been a problem, but there are books written on this thing that are much more detailed. The

one thing I know is that the LOC system worked quite well. If we had a piece of equipment go

down, we had an instant replacement. Now, if it had been military-issued equipment, we would

not have had that luxury. General Clarke convinced the Army not to do the LOC work with

ordinary military equipment and he was on target.

Were you involved at all with the Vietnamization program?

Yes. That’s why the 299th got in trouble. Yes, we had a lot to do with the Vietnamization

program. The brigade supported the advisory groups, local mayors, and district leaders. Of

course, the 299th got in trouble because the Vietnamese security left the scene of battle when the

fighting started. The Vietnamization program ultimately fell to the enemy.

Strangely enough, the North Vietnamese Army came the same route more or less that trapped the

French near Dien Bien Phu which was in the 18th Brigade area. The Vietnamization program was

all right in concept, I think. It had a chance, but it didn’t work. Something failed because of poor

leadership at the national senior Army levels.

What was the state of the Vietnamese engineer units?

We tried very hard to integrate them into our work, and I would say they were weak, basically.

The equipment was tough for them. We were training them on the equipment. I don’t recall now

any Vietnamese engineer unit building roads, for example, of the type we were building. I don’t

recall them being involved with the LOC program during my tour-maybe later. We did have

cooperative projects-bridges and things like that-particularly secondary roads.

They had difficulty recruiting good caliber officers, didn’t they?

I don’t remember that. I remember that some of the Vietnam divisions were led by some

outstanding generals. General Stillwell, General Zais after him, were very high on the Vietnamese

First Division commander. The battalion commanders were all right. I don’t have any recollection

of any problems with the Vietnamese engineers. We didn’t work with them as much as you might

have thought. I remember visiting the Vietnamese engineer group’s battalion commanders and

having them to our place for meetings. Coordination was ongoing. It’s possible that there were

missions that I just don’t recall. All of our battalion and group commanders kept close contact

with the Vietnamese units in their areas. My feeling today is there wasn’t enough time to do good

training before transition.

You mentioned one other topic earlier, and I wondered if you might want to expand on it. I find

it very interesting. You said that the engineer units didn’t have the morale problems or the drug

problems that some other units had.

77
Enaineer Memoirs

A: I can remember spotty drug problems, mostly marijuana. I emphasize spotty because our soldiers

were busy and at night went to bed. Nothing like the problems we had in World War II with the

poor attitude in my 2d Battalion. As mentioned, we had very good officers all the way through

the system, and we had conscientious enlisted personnel. As time went on, the noncommissioned

officers became weaker because replacements didn’t have the experience. I just feel that the

secret to the 18th Engineer Brigade’s morale and discipline situation was the fact that we had a

clear mission, were organized to do it, and worked hard at it. The worst thing for a soldier is to

have nothing to do, particularly if he’s in a foxhole.

Q: What about the one-year tour?

A: It created leadership and performance problems. It was hard to retrain our combat efficiency

every year. It was not a good scenario. The whole war was not well structured, as I look back on

it. The one-year tour was part of the problem. I don’t know of anybody that liked the one-year

tour except the individual when his tour was over.

To summarize the Vietnam experience into just a compact thought, some things came to my mind.

One was we really needed to do something about the Army. Regardless of the sentiment about

the Vietnam War or the way it was done, our Army wasn’t as good as it should have been.

Also, I learned again the importance of leadership of the troops and the value of remembering

families, even though remote. I think the letter I wrote to the families was valuable. Another was

A reunion of former commanders of the 18th Engineer Brigade he/d in 1972. Left to right, MG

William Roper, MG John W. Morris, MG John Eider, MG Andrew Rollins, MG Charles Duke (Ret.),

MG Robert R. Ploger and MG Henry Shrader.

78
John W. Morris

the outstanding people with whom I became associated, the officers especially. The 18th Brigade

was blessed not only with a good mission but with good people to achieve it. I have always had

great respect for the enlisted people, but in Vietnam I was particularly saddened that the soldiers

caught so much adverse criticism when they came home after they had survived some terrible

circumstances-the weather, climate, the environment, and, of course, the Vietcong and North

Vietnamese Army.

So Vietnam didn’t add a totally new experience in the same sense that Legislative Liaison, Tulsa,

and Goose Bay had, but it did bring me up to speed on the military side and it restored my

understanding of the Army at an important time. I think it laid the foundation on which to shape

an improved Army and Army engineers.

Of all the things that happened, the one thing that will always be paramount in my memory is that

terrible helicopter event. The only reason General Shrader didn’t go was because he was in the

middle of his orientation when General Abrams directed General Dillard to recon this road. I

assume the decision was to have Shrader continue his orientation. Otherwise, he’d have been on

that chopper too. If I’d been over there, we’d have had a very tough situation because the pilot,

for whom I had the greatest respect, had recommended they not fly it because of heavy fire the

previous day.

I probably would have sided with the pilot. Then General Dillard and I probably would have been

opposing each other. I also understand the pilot asked to go high, and General Dillard indicated

he had to go low to see what was down there. So where I would have fit into that if I’d stayed,

I don’t know. Anyhow, that was a very painful event which has left an indelible mark. Tragically,

the recon was for naught in any case. A real waste.

In hindsight I consider Vietnam basically a utilization experience, which challenged my

leadership capabilities learned and developed over 25 years. I owed the troops and our mission

my best. To a lesser degree it was a learning milestone which would be valuable in follow-on

assignments. Of course, combat experience is important for a soldier’s record. Did it make any

difference in my performance over the next ten years? I am not sure, but I sincerely hope my

presence was of some value to those with whom I served in the 18th Brigade. Certainly, their

value to me was immeasurable and proved irreplaceable from 1970 to 1980.

Missouri River Division

Q: In the summer of 1970 you left Vietnam and came back as division engineer of the Missouri

River Division [MRD]. When did you learn about that assignment?

A: I first heard that I was going to the Missouri River Division while still in Vietnam. General Clarke

made a second visit in the spring of 1970 and indicated he was thinking about sending me to

Missouri River Division when I returned.

I had been promoted to brigadier general in August 1969 after waiting since March 1968. I would

report to MRD as a brigadier general. The Missouri River Division had been a dynamic

leadership-type activity for many, many years, particularly during General Pick’s tour, the

Pick-Sloan plan, and the construction of the Missouri River projects. By 1970, the amount of

work had decreased, and my impression, while still in Vietnam, was that the Missouri River

Division wasn’t very busy. However, to be assigned to a division was my personal ambition at

the time, and I was sure General Clarke had made the decision for good reasons, so I didn’t

question it, even though I felt that I was not going to be as busy as I might have been in a different

division. That proved, incidentally, to be wrong. Thankfully or fortunately. On returning to the

79
Enaineer Memoirs

States, John was a cadet at the Military Academy, having entered in the summer of 1969, shortly

after I went to Vietnam. Our daughter was graduating from the University of Connecticut and

going to work as a teacher in Northern Virginia. So the move to Omaha involved only my wife

and myself, basically. We acquired a new automobile and drove from Arlington to Omaha and

rented a flat on the ninth floor of an apartment building. Susan moved into our home in Arlington

with much of our fumiture, so the move was easy, and wewere able to get to Omahaand be ready

to go to work in short order.

On arriving, I was surprised to find that the morale of the division was quite low and that there

wasn’t much enthusiasm at that time. For many years the Missouri River Division had been a very

popular federal activity in Omaha and throughout the region, particularly because of its public

works program in the Missouri River Basin. In many ways the division had become a nonentity;

it wasn’t very active in civic affairs, et cetera, at that time and rarely received much attention

publicly.

The Corps did have a lot of friends there, however, and the family and I were welcomed to

Omaha warmly. We were beginning to get ourselves well established when the need to

reinvigorate the morale and enthusiasm of the personnel in the division became obvious. That

meant identifying the problem which, as it turned out, was not so much the lack of work but the

general abuse and criticism that was being heaped on the Corps as a result of the National

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] which had been passed only a couple of months before my

assignment in the Missouri River Division began. It did not take very long to realize that the most

important concern during my period at the division was going to be the environment.

Those of us who were in positions of responsibility in the 1970 decade learned that the

environmental movement impacted seriously on every phase of the Corps of Engineers’ activities.

We found ourselves trying to catch up with a law that had been passed with no grandfathering

aspects. Consequently, every project we had under construction or even in operation, for that

matter, was, in some measure, not in compliance with the law.

The Corps and the nation were fortunate that General Clarke was the Chief of Engineers at that

time. One of the first things I had to do as new division engineer was attend a course of

instruction in environmental matters at Aspen, along with General Clarke and others. The course

was titled the Seminar on the Environment and Sciences. The program was run by a lady named

Betty Willard. It was a very good course which gave an insight into the environmental philosophy

and did make a significant impact.

When I got to Aspen, Vietnam was still vivid. Vietnam was a place where survival was really the

name of the game, and the local people were in distress to just find enough food to stay alive. So

naturally I had a difficult time adjusting to some of the impacts of the environmental philosophy

on human needs. However, perhaps the reality of Vietnam made the ultimate understanding and

respect of environmental objectives more meaningful for me.

In any case, a problem facing Army engineers at that time was the national attitude towards the

military in general following the Vietnam situation coupled with the attitude towards engineers

in general, which was not very complimentary because of the environmental program. Together,

in the part of the United States that was probably most sensitive to environmental objectives,

these made for a fairly sporty course for the military engineer.

The real leadership problem, it seemed to me, was how to generate within the Missouri River

Division a strong motivation and belief that the work the Corps was doing was good, in the

national interest, and one in which we should have pride. To understand the scope of this

program, you must realize that the Missouri River Division’s civil

entire drainage of the Missouri River, also a strong center of envi

works boundary included the

ronmental activists

80
John W. Morris

Just back from South Vietnam, General Morris arrived in Omaha, Nebraska, with his wife to

assume command of the Missouri River Division in June 1970.

On the military construction side, the area was even larger. It included 11 states and served more

major commands than any other division. We had the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, the

Military Airlift Command at Scott Air Force Base outside of St. Louis, the North American Air

Defense Command [NORAD] at Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs, the Air Force

Academy of course, plus a large number of air bases and airfields that had considerable MRD

work on them. The Army side included Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Carson, Fort Riley, Fort

Leavenworth, numerous ammunition manufacturing plants, and finally, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,

which stands alone as a separate problem, which we’ll have to discuss. All in all, the Missouri

River Division had a full plate of military clients as well as the environmental program, which

impacted on both the civil works and military missions although, in the early 1970s the former

to a much greater degree.

So my earlier thoughts that the Missouri River Division wasn’t all that busy soon vanished with

the understanding that if we did nothing else except bring the procedures and the policies within

MRD in line with the Chief of Engineers’ environmental objectives, it would be a full

assignment.

We had two districts, Omaha District with Colonel Pat Pendergast as district engineer and the

Kansas City District with Colonel Andy Anderson, both outstanding district engineers. Each was

81
Enaineer Memoirs

placed properly in his job. Also, each was an excellent supporter of the need to adjust the Corps’

approach to problem-solving based upon the new environmental policy act. While different, each

in his own way was a very strong and decisive district engineer.

As before, I set objectives for the division, and through the division to the districts. That was a

procedure I’d adopted years before. In this case, our primary single objective was to implement

NEPA. First, however, we had to restore morale and confidence in the district personnel. Next,

we had to clean up the projects in the public works program which were taking small amounts

of the annual appropriations just to keep them active when prospects of their ever being

accomplished were minimal. With a limited program, we needed to concentrate the small amount

of funds where project approval and construction were reasonable. So we had those three

things-the environment, the internal operation of the division, and the policing up of the civil

works program while attending to our military customers’ needs.

On the environment, I think the true depth of our problem is evidenced by a story concerning my

division and the secretary, Ms. Helen Pierson. Helen had been the secretary to General Pick first

in Omaha and later in Washington. She had returned to Omaha after his term as Chief of

Engineers. She remained on duty in the federal government as the secretary to a succession of

division engineers assigned to MRD. She had seen the Corps from the highest position, and I felt

that if anyone had a reason to be proud of what we were doing, it would be Helen Pierson. She

was an outstanding secretary and an exceptional helper to me.

In discussions with her, I found that she didn’t talk about her job out of the office with her friends

because of the adverse criticism the Corps was getting. Once I asked her what she thought about

the Corps, what was the discussion around town, and she said, “Well, I don’t talk about it.” That

to me was a fairly good clue that we had problems. I don’t think Missouri River was having any

more trouble than anyone else. I just think it was the impact of the public outcry against the kind

of work the Corps was doing, the tremendous workload that came out of the National

Environmental Policy Act, and just a feeling of frustration and uncertainty as to what was going

to happen to the traditional Corps work.

So we started an active program of projecting the positive aspects of the Corps’ past and the work

it was currently doing. A by-product of that was a gimmick which expressed a certain amount of

my philosophy about the Corps. I began to look for a slogan to which everyone could relate and

hang onto. Out of this came the “The Corps Cares” idea.

Interestingly, I had come up with two slogans, “The Corps Gives a Dam” and “The Corps Cares.”

I asked Pat Pendergast one day to take a look at those and tell me what he thought. He said,

“Well, I like ‘The Corps Gives a Damn’ but you can’t use it because now is not a good time to

mention dams even if spelled differently,” and so he said, “Take ‘The Corps Cares.“’ Which we

. did.

The public affairs officer was Harry Dolphin, and I asked him to get some buttons. Harry looked

into the matter and came back with a report that he could get buttons for 10 cents apiece. I boug’ht

250 of them, $25 for 250 buttons. At a meeting of division employees, plus the two district

engineers and their principal staff people, I was wearing one of the “The Corps Cares” buttons.

I reviewed the history of the Corps and the Missouri River Division, how much we’d done for the

economy and the people, and why we should be proud of our work. I

to help me figure out what was expected of us and then how to do it.

then chall.enged everyone

Afterwards, a couple of people asked me where I’d gotten the button and where they could get

one. I said, “You can have one if you promise to wear it.” So I passed out among the division

people a couple of hundred, and I gave Pat Pendergast 25 and Anderson 25 for their folks. Shortly

after that, General Clarke had a division engineers conference in Washington where I wore one

82
John W. Morris

of these buttons. The next thing I knew, Frank Camm, division engineer in San Francisco, wanted

to know where he could get them. I put up a sign-up list and the button took off. For several years

after that, Harry Dolphin was the “The Corps Cares” button procurer. The only thing was

everybody had to pay for them. I do believe we must have distributed 5,000 “The Corps Cares”

buttons in the first six months or so. In fact, the idea became so popular that General Clarke made

it the theme of one of his engineer dinners.

It seemed to make a difference, frankly. I know that was not the only reason, but it was a

contributor to what became a different attitude around the Missouri River Division and perhaps

throughout the Corps. I know we got a lot of.publicity-I knew we’d made it when it became the

subject of cartoons, particularly by our artist friend over in Arkansas, whoever he was. You

remember that guy? All the fat generals and everything?

Q: George Fisher.

A: He put a “The Corps Cares” button on a fat general. I wasn’t so fat in those days so I was sure it

wasn’t me, but nevertheless, that “The Corps Cares” button came early and it stayed long and I

think created an interesting phenomenon. We had a little trouble with the Pentagon, wearing it

on a uniform, but we could adjust to that, of course.

Besides the “The Corps Cares” idea, I thought it’d be a good idea to do some internal decoration,

and we set up in the hallway of the division office an exhibit from each of the two districts.

Kansas City made an excellent piece. So did Omaha, for that matter, with pictures and so forth.

We had a third area with prominent previous division engineers including Generals Pick and

Sturgis-two Chiefs of Engineers. The visits by the U.S. presidents to the Missouri River

Division was displayed because every president beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt had been

there at that time except President [Richard] Nixon, and he came later.

We started publishing news items. As for public civic activities, the Corps of Engineers became

active in the College World Series of baseball played in Omaha each year. I pledged the Corps

would double its previous year’s contribution. That wasn’t too hard because they’d only given

about $100 the year before, but we did well enough to be a community leader and were

recognized in the paper.

In the meantime, I’d asked the newspaper publisher if he would put somebody on our beat. I knew

we were doing a lot of things that deserved some public attention, so Mr. Anderson, of the Omaha

Tribune, gave us an excellent supportive reporter. As a result, we began to get more news in the

paper.

Mayor Leahy was very active. We joined with him to make public areas available for parks and

recreation. So all in all, it was sort of a revitalization of what had been, for many, many years, a

very close relationship between the Corps team in Omaha and the public, and not only in Omaha

but also in Kansas City.

We also visited the governors of the states to discuss their water resource problems, and also we

visited the commanders of major military installations. So there was a resurgence of customer

interest. I think that plus the “The Corps Cares” thing seemed to turn Omaha into a more dynamic

activity. We had some outstanding people in the division and in the district. Omaha District was

a strong district and well directed by Pat Pendergast. Omaha was one of the five districts at that

time that had military construction. In fact, Omaha had the largest military construction program.

Pat Pendergast used to call it the “Super District.” Well, it was in many ways. Yet Baltimore, Fort

Worth and Mobile were also heavy hitters in those days. Omaha may have had the biggest budget.

Kansas City did civil works only.

83
Enaineer Memoirs

So far we have covered the first six months or so, a period of effort to get ourselves in a position

of confidence to take on the issues before us. There were many.

In spite of the National Environmental Policy Act and everything else, the Missouri River

continued to be cantankerous. The controls on it, the reservoirs behind the six dams from Gavins

Point up to Fort Peck, did a magnificent job in flood control, hydroelectric power production, and

water for irrigation. There were constant problems of local flooding, of getting overdue projects

on line, and as mentioned, there was a shortage of funds to do all those things.

Gus Karabatsos was the chief of Planning in Missouri River Division. We discussed how to

handle some 110 planning projects for which there was just piddling amounts of money each

year. Consequently, no project had enough money to do much. So Gus came up with a program

which I called “Put Your Money on the Winners,” or “Get Rid of the Dogs.” When we started

into it, it seemed simple, but we soon realized that these bread-and-butter projects for the

members of Congress were important to be kept alive to satisfy their local constituencies.

We were successful in the long run to clean out many projects with no future. Congress several

years later took care of the problem on a national basis by passing legislation that dropped

inactive projects. I believe our effort in MRD, while painful and tedious, set the pattern.

Fortunately, most of our governors and congressional people were supportive because they could

see that on a statewide basis they’d be better off having a couple of projects sufficiently funded

to produce a needed project as opposed to 15 or 20 so lightly funded that no project planning was

completed. That may not seem like a big program, but it was a ground breaker.

The environmental impact statement problem became quite serious because we needed to have

one for every project. Our priorities were to start with those projects ready to begin construction,

followed by those already under construction, and finally those in operation.

A few projects became landmark-one was Truman Dam. Truman had a potential downstream

problem with the paddlefish, an endangered species. Since we had not had time to finish an

environmental impact statement, the project was about to be stopped. I was in Manning Seltzer’s

office, the general counsel of the Corps, when I learned of the stoppage. Manning said we had

to have an environmental impact statement or the project was going to be enjoined and stopped.

I asked the district engineer to put his best people together in a room and work until they got the

thing done. By today’s standards, the results would be considered a poor job, but in those days,

with the lack of experience and guidance on what made a good EIS [environmental impact

statement], he was able to meet the requirement and keep that project going.

Others were stopped for a time, and some of them ultimately were never built because of an

inability to satisfy the environmental problem or criticism. The operation of the Missouri River

system itself was a complex environmental problem. So the environmental movement, if it did

nothing else, kept our planners and our engineers rather busy, catching up with the requirements

of the law.

At the same time that was happening, we were discovering some environmental situations which

would ultimately require attention in our operations. The bald eagle is an American treasure, of

course, and it was an endangered species. Fort Randall Dam’s area downstream from the spillway

and its stilling basin became an attractive location for the eagles. So we spent a lot of time on the

eagle problem. The black-footed ferret was an endangered species and it existed in the Dakotas.

We had to attend to that problem.

One day I received a call from our resident engineer in the Rocky Mountain office, which was

really under the Omaha District but the district engineer wasn’t available. The resident engineer

said that two ducks had been found dead on the pond that morning at Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

84
John W. Morris

Q.

.

Well, that did not seem to be a sensational item, and at that time I really didn’t appreciate the

importance of it. I hope I didn’t act too dumb, but it turned out that was the beginning of the

Rocky Mountain Arsenal story, which is still going on to some extent. The reason the ducks died

was because of migration of hazardous groundwater.

Public meetings became a real challenge for our district engineers. They would try to explain the

advantages and the disadvantages of certain flood control projects, such as the one at Boulder and

in conjunction with the construction of Chatfield Dam near Omaha. At the same time, we were

putting together the project for Bear Creek Dam near Denver. All of those projects came under

very careful environmental review.

Through all this, the Corps was slowly but surely changing its way of doing business. Probably

the most important thing that happened to the Corps in the environmental program was General

Clarke’s vision in requiring that we integrate environmental considerations at every point, every

step in the decision-making process. That set the Corps apart and later proved to be, I suppose,

the single most important organizational concept that was implemented during the early 1970s.

The alternative was to have an environmental review committee to review the planning or

engineering when finished to see how the effort fit the environmental criteria. General Clarke’s

idea was to have everybody, at each step along the way, take the environment into consideration,

and as a consequence, we put together better projects.

What about the division’s military construction work?

A: Rock Island Arsenal was a military project of course. Also, on the military side, we were

converting all of our oil-fired heating systems to coal. Very shortly thereafter, for environmental

reasons, we put them all back like they were. During my period at Omaha, the oil shortage was

the big item.

Another item of major construction throughout the area was either upgrading or retiring each of

the ammunition plants. There were 11 ammunition plants throughout the Missouri River Division

area. There were serious hazardous materials by-products which had to be attended.

There was also a big program at NORAD: classified work inside the mountain. The Air Force

Academy was still being developed-physically, that is. Besides Rocky Mountain, the military

did not escape the environmental attention, either. At Fort Carson, for example, there were

several environmental protests. Fort Leavenworth and Fort Riley seemed to be relatively quiet.

From the construction standpoint, the big item was housing and barracks. We were trying to

provide better housing for our soldiers, and it was during those days that General Danny

Raymond, who was chief of Military Construction, came up with the idea of buying off-the-shelf

housing rather than designing it ourselves. That was a fine move which led to better housing at

less cost for our troops. So the housing program became rather active throughout this period.

Fort Leonard Wood was emerging from the World War II temporary type of construction into a

permanent post. General George Walker was commanding general at Fort Leonard Wood.

Q: What about the urban studies? Weren’t they part of your time in MRD?

A: One other important civil works event was the birth of the urban studies program in the MRD.

Senator [Roman] Hruska, the senior senator from Nebraska, asked me one day if the Corps could

help the cities manage the money they were getting from various federal agencies and put it into

a sort of a comprehensive development plan.

I thought about it, told Senator Hruska that the Corps could help, but I thought we’d have some

difficulty if funds of another federal agency were diverted to the Corps. On the other hand, I

85
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

thought that we could be very helpful to the cities in coordinating and integrating the planning

of the city from all these various aspects-utilities and flood control, water supply, programs of

interest to the Corps, plus transportation and utilities and items which other federal agencies

might be financing. So with the cooperation of the city fathers, we began a joint planning group

with the other federal agencies and the city. Together, under Corps direction the first “urban

studies” was developed. Over the next five or six years we did the same for many cities

throughout the United States.

That turned out to be a very important program. The decline in the new project planning

workload, as a result of the environmental interest and the lack of interest in pushing for marginal

projects, generated a capability among our planning staff. So this urban studies program not only

provided valuable assistance to our cities but it did allow us to put our best planners to work on

a new mission. The results provided to the communities a product they would not be able to

develop themselves. The amount of money which went into the urban studies program was

significant.

So that was a new Corpswide mission that came out of a question presented to me by Senator

Hruska, one that I think carried with it a great advantage to the Corps.

Let me go back and ask you a couple of follow-up questions here if I could. Did the Rocky

Mountain Arsenal problem become a big one while you were there, or was this one of the first

signs of trouble?

That was the first sign of trouble. Actually, we did have a chemical demil project. We built a

special furnace to bum small chemical munitions. The chemical demil furnace was already in the

works. It wasn’t a result of the ducks, but the best answer to your question is that was really the

forerunner of what later proved to be a major problem.

The environmental activist community was really centered pretty much around the Denver,

Colorado, area. There probably were others, but Denver was, at least, in the forefront. Without

any doubt about it, after we got over the first trauma of the National Environmental Policy Act,

the Missouri River Division became very serious about doing a good job with the environmental

opportunities. We took a lot of heat. I’m sure everyone else did, but we seemed to be the center

of the movement. The public hearings were complicated. I think that those two districts and the

division as a whole really “got with the program” as CSM Santacrose would have said. Fontenella

Park, across the river from Omaha, was a program initiative with environmental phases. The man

who ran it had collected data on the development and history of the Missouri River Basin, the

river itself. I asked to put an exhibit out there, in which we would show the geological structure.

We did it. It was a good public education item and a good public relations item for the Corps,,

At Fort Peck in Montana we had an excellent project engineer-Don Beckman. He was a selfmade archeologist who collected skeletons of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals from the

reservoir area. He developed a little museum in the project visitors gallery.

They’re still finding things out there?

Still finding things out there.

I think while you were there, there was some movement or transition in the Missouri Basin

Association volunteer organizations-state, local, federal officials.

That would refer to the Water Resources Congress [WRC]. In 1970 there was the Mississippi

Valley Association and the River and Harbor Congress. They were combined at a meeting in

February of 1971 at the Hilton Hotel on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. I remember it very well

86
John W. Morris

because the bus from

terribly cold weather.

the airport broke down. I had to walk the last mile or so to the hotel in

Mike Cassidy, WRC executive director, presided over the meeting which voted to combine the

two into the Water Resources Congress.

The local organizations’ effectiveness had

Association, the Missouri Arkansas Basin

others, had all begun to weaken by 197 1.

begun to wane. The Arkansas Basin Development

Association, the Arkansas Basin Association, and

One other event is worth

except President Nixon.

mentioning. I said earlier that we’d had all the presidents out there

Q: Yes.

A: Kansas City District built Rathbum Dam in Centerville, Kansas. The local sponsoring group were

wonderful people with enough political influence to get President Nixon to the dedication.

Kansas City District under Colonel Andy Anderson worked with local support and put on a very

relaxed affair. I remember telling Andy to get President Nixon to wear a “The Corps Cares”

button while he was there. He responded that I should do it.

“No, it’s your show, you’re the district engineer, so you figure out how you’re going to do it.”

I told him I’d given President Johnson the treatment down in Eufaula years ago, and I thought it

was only right that he should take care of President Nixon. He gave President Nixon the button.

So a “The Corps Cares” button got at least as far as the White House. A lot of people at the

ceremony were wearing them. That was a nice affair. The picture of President Nixon went on the

wall with the rest of the presidents.

Q: What about relations with EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] or with the regional offices?

A: Oh, that is a good point. EPA was authorized in the National Environmental Policy Act but it took

time to implement. Mr. [William] Ruckelshaus was the first administrator of EPA. I went to

Kansas City to a meeting that he had called of all of his people. They invited affiliated groups to

witness a video setting out EPA’s goals, et cetera. I was impressed with how well the video and

meeting were put together. That was the real beginning of EPA, to my knowledge.

Now, the man placed in charge of EPA’s Kansas City region was a fellow named Jerry Svore.

Jerry was a public health officer from Texas, and he and I had worked together quite a bit when

I was in Tulsa and also on a few problems in the Missouri Basin.

Nationwide, a coolness existed from the start between the Corps and EPA. I think it was more

EPA than the Corps, although I don’t want to get into that issue too much. The Corps offered its

help, yet there was some hesitancy on both sides early on. As you know, this conversion of the

Corps to support EPA’s environmental program didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t like turning

on a light switch or anything. So there were tensions.

Svore and I prepared and followed a memorandum of agreement on how we would operate. It

worked out fine in the Missouri River area. There were no problems between the Corps and EPA

in our area. We sent our plan back to Washington thinking it was good enough to become sort of

a national guide. I think it got through the Corps okay, but it never saw the light of day elsewhere.

It’s been so long I don’t recall the details, but basically it listed the areas where each of us had

our own responsibilities with no overlap, and then it listed the areas where we would probably

run up against each other and how we were going to go about handling them. It worked out very

well because of the plan and the personalities of the individuals in the MRD area.

87
Enaineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

Were there any problems with recreation while you were there?

Yes. We were building parks along the Missouri River for recreation. Also, all our lakes provided

recreation facilities. People in the area were great outdoors people. We weren’t really building

many new dams. Much of the additional recreation related to new items at old projects or

improving facilities at existing items. I don’t recall it being nearly as big an issue as it had been

in Tulsa. Of course, whenever we fluctuated reservoir levels, we heard about it from

recreationists.

Land use was getting to be a greater problem than recreation. The shoreline at those big reservoirs

up in the Dakotas were difficult to police. Besides, Indian land borders the shore for many miles.

We didn’t have a tight control over it, and we were having trouble with people infringing on the

public part of the project-fencing off segments, building, et cetera.

Did you continue to push value engineering?

Yes. Value engineering was a Corps policy by 1970, so it was not a priority leadership challenge

in the Missouri River Division during 1970 to 1972 in view of the environmental issues and all

that was going on. In many ways, you know, the value engineering concept applies to the

environmental analysis. The value you’re evaluating is the environment, not necessarily costs.

You mentioned project operations. Is this an area where mitigation became a factor?

Mitigation initially became an operating procedure. To explain, as a result of the environmental

program, we re-evaluated every project to see if we should operate it differently. For example,

we were concerned about drawdown and also releasing water downstream during certain

spawning seasons. After we had re-evaluated operations on all projects in the Missouri River

Division, surprisingly little change had to be made. We did make whatever changes were

necessary to mitigate adverse operational impacts.

Just a couple of quick questions. The housing construction you were talking about, this is military

construction public housing?

Military housing. In the civil areas, I wanted to provide in the remote sites a house for the resident

engineer and one other operations person, i.e., two houses. That program fell on bad times. We

were successful on a couple of the projects, but basically I think the program went the other

direction. We had to get rid of them and let the people live in communities and commute. To

answer your question, all the housing that I was speaking of before was military family housing.

Military. Mostly Air Force?

No. Not mostly, but a lot. During that period the Army adopted a standard design for barracks.

We built new barracks on both Army and Air Force facilities.

That’s in anticipation of the all-volunteer Army or is itWell, let’s see, could that be true or not? I don’t think so. I think it was too early. Instead of just

a bare-bones barracks we gave the soldiers two or three to a room, in little clusters with reception

or lounge areas. The barracks were much different and we had problems at first, unique things

such as locks. Every soldier had to have a key. Of course they took the keys with them when they

moved. I remember General Rogers saying some people did nothing but make keys all the time.

I think that’s almost true.

It sounds like quite a bit of the work was for the Air Force.

88
John W. Morris

A: I’d say 60 percent of all types of construction was Air Force. Leonard Wood was a big program,

but most of the Army posts were fairlymature-Leavenworth and Riley. There were projects at

each of those but nothing significant. Mostly housing.

The Army ammunition plant program was big. Also, we were building the only Sentinel site at

Langdon, North Dakota. That complex project was being managed out of Huntsville. General Rip

Young was in charge and George Rebh was his deputy. They had the responsibility for the

technical requirements and MRD had to do some of the contract management. It was a little bit

awkward but we worked it out okay. Similarly with the ammunition plants, rehabilitation.

Q: Just one follow-up. This may have happened more at the district level, but in response to NEPA,

did the internal organization of Corps offices change? Did it bring in more specialists from

different areas?

A.. Yes, we salted them with geologists and environmental people. We changed or supplemented

disciplines. That’s how it was done. That’s the point I was trying to make before.

the

The Missouri River Division job turned out to be a very exciting assignment. A turning point in

many Corps activities might have evolved from the way the Missouri River adjusted its staff and

applied its capabilities to new environmental requirements. I don’t want to overstate it. I guess

any division engineer would have felt the same way, but that’s the way I feel about it. The

assignment proved invaluable in dealing with what lay ahead.

Q: What impact did the MRD assignment have on your career?

A: It served as an excellent method of reshaping my thinking from the combat situation in Vietnam

and all that entailed, into the reality of the environmental program in the United States, which was

an infant when I arrived in Omaha. Much of the entire tour there was consumed, more or less, by

trying to get up to speed on what the National Environmental Policy Act really meant-not only

in the civil works program but also in the military program, which included cleaning up

ammunition plants, converting heating systems at major installations, and the normal

construction.

To digress a moment, Mr. Wendell Johnson had been the chief engineer in the Omaha District

and later the Missouri River Division. Wendell Johnson ultimately came to Washington. He was

a truly outstanding engineer, not only for the Corps but for the country.

As I was heading to Omaha, Wendell said, “Here are a couple of people that you might want to

meet.” One was Chuck Durham of HDR [Henderson, Durham and Richardson]. That was a very

good association. Another was Leo Daly, Sr. Both fit into some later events. For example, a few

years later Durham wanted someone to help with their big project at Jidda Air Base over in Saudi

Arabia, so he wanted to know about Pendergast. I told him if he wanted somebody to put out on

the end of the line that would do what he was told to do but didn’t need a lot of supervision, it’d

be Pendergast. If he wanted to bring him into the office, that’d be another matter. So he hired

Pendergast.

Back to Daly. Later on, Leo Daly had the big job in Saudi Arabia to design the National Guard

headquarters. Mr. Daly nominated me as an honorary member of the American Institute of

Architects. Then there was Peter Kewitt, founder of Kewitt Construction and just an outstanding

person. As in Tulsa, I met a lot of people who were very nice to me and our family and have

remained associates over the years.

I loved the country, the area. There aren’t many things in the Corps any more impressive than the

six dams on the Missouri River. I remember telling Pat Pendergast about Clark Hill Dam in

89
Enaineer Memoirs

Savannah District until he said, “You haven’t seen any dams yet. Wait'l1 you see these.” He was

right. Fort Peck is special. You know, it was a make-work job by President Roosevelt-30,000

people worked out there. A theater ran night and day for like five years. Today, billboards of early

movie actors--Clark Gable and Myrna Loy-remain on display. The small lodge is very

interesting also.

General and Mrs. Morris at a banquet in Omaha in

March 1972.

Gerry was able to travel with me quite a

bit, and she worked at helping me with

the job. She deserves a lot of credit. She

was heavily involved with the engineer

wives activities and we became very close

to the civilian staff.

Soon after arriving I needed a chief of

engineering, so I searched the Corps and

discovered Lloyd Duscha. A graduate of

the University of Minnesota, he had

worked on Garrison Dam earlier. At that

time, he was in Philadelphia District

working for Colonel Jimmy Johnson, who

later became Deputy Chief of Engineers.

I called Duscha and he wasn’t all that

thrilled about moving. Lloyd never did

like to move, I guess, but he came, and

that was good for me.

I had an excellent deputy, Jim Fuller. He

retired from that job later and went to

work for Chuck Durham at HDR. He and

his wife Norma have become an active

part of Omaha and are still there. He was

from Wyoming.

I had to buy the division a new airplane.

We ran a contest to name it. Everybody

was involved and selected the name

“EMARDEE.”

When I went to the Missouri River Division I did not realize that my next assignment would be

director of Civil Works, of course. I think General Clarke may have had that in mind because he

told me early in my tour in MRD that he was thinking that I might fill that job when General

Koisch left it. That’s the way it turned out and may have been the biggest impact of MRD on my

career. While at MRD, I started testifying before the committees of Congress and became

familiar with the members of the committees and the staff people that I’d be dealing with later.

My promotion to major general occurred while I was in the Missouri River Division-a very

simple ceremony in my office attended by Gerry and our son John plus Jim Fuller and a few

others.

So in hindsight, the environmental program, “The Corps Cares” endeavor, urban studies program,

staff changes and training in MRD, hearings, promotion to the proper grade, made moving to

Civil Works a reasonable next step, let’s say.

90
John W. Morris

Christmas card designed by the Missouri River Division staff about the new division airplane,

1971.

Director of Civil Works

Q: So in the spring of 1972 you became director of Civil Works in the Corps headquarters. How did

you feel about getting that assignment?

A There were other well qualified generals, of course, who might have gotten the job, but I was

pleased it was me. I had expected that assignment would be the culmination of my career. I had

a deep interest in the military program and regretted leaving it. Even so, my background suited

me also for the civil public works activities, and we were very happy to get the assignment. Gerry

and I still had the home in Arlington which we’d acquired when we came from the Military

Academy some years earlier, so there was no problem with a place to live. We arrived in the

Washington area in late May 1972. Our arrival was recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, whom

I had known when district engineer in Tulsa. He hosted a small reception for Gerry and me in the

speaker’s office. The entire Oklahoma delegation attended. A real honor and a very nice affair.

I’m not sure of the exact date we reported to OCE, but I am sure I’d only been director of Civil

Works a couple of days when Agnes tore up the Susquehanna Valley and made my introduction

to the civil works program rather quick, abrupt, and impressive. My recollection is that on Friday,

23 June 1972, a very severe storm passed through Washington with forecasts of damage and

flooding farther north. It was raining cats and dogs in D.C. My basement was flooding, and I

received a call from General Clarke saying he wanted me to be at the Andrews Air Base to take

a flight up to the Susquehanna River early Saturday morning. I remember wondering why his
Enaineer Memoirs

plane

becau

wasn

se of

‘t at National Airport, where it belonged, and 

the weather conditions.

 soon realized that it had been moved

So we arrived at the plane early, about 7:30, and immediately took off. The storm had passed.

General Clarke, Major [Walter] Smith, his military assistant, several civilian personnel from

OCE, and I flew to the Chesapeake Bay and up the Susquehanna River till we got to

Conawingo Dam in Maryland, north of Havre de Grace near the headwaters of the

Chesapeake. When we arrived, there were barrels floating down the river. The water was

pouring over the spillway, and obviously upstream flooding was going to be rather serious.

I remember General Clarke saying, “This is pretty bad. We’d better start doing something

about it.” So he had Major Smith contact Colonel Lee Little, who was handling military

personnel in OCE, and had him arrange for 150 officers to be prepared to move up to the

flood area Monday morning. This was Saturday A.M.

We flew farther and came to Harrisburg, and the impact of this flooding was even more severe

than expected. We saw the governor’s house in Harrisburg standing in water up to the second

floor. General Clarke then turned to Smith and said, “Besides those hundred or so officers,

I’d like 500 civilians ready to come up here first thing next week.” I was impressed by his

perception and decisiveness as he went about the business at hand.

Remembering my experience with “Operation Snowbound” back in the late 194Os, when

neither my wife nor I knew where I was going or what I was expected to do, I asked General

Ploger, the commanding general at Fort Belvoir, to assemble the selected officers and their

wives in the theater on Sunday so I could explain the mission.

General Clarke’s decision-making process was so crisp and effective that you have to wonder

why we have had so many major problems with storms like Hugo and Andrew. In the early

1970s we didn’t have FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Office of

Emergency Preparedness headed by General George Lincoln was the responsible federal

agency. Lincoln, a retired Corps of Engineers officer and outstanding political scientist, was

appointed to this position by President Nixon.

General Lincoln and General Clarke had known each other quite well, and Lincoln authorized

General Clarke to do whatever was necessary. General Lincoln asked to be kept apprised and

also, if there were any major decisions, that he be briefed on them in advance. Well, with that

kind of authority, the Chief was able to move briskly to handle the Agnes event.

I do recall that before landing in Wilkes-Barre, we knew we would find trouble. When we

entered the terminal, Congressman Daniel Flood had already set up a field office for his

congressional district, and he was getting people’s names and giving them encouragement.

As soon as he saw General Clarke walk in, he called for a large number of typhoid fever shots.

Of course, we weren’t prepared to get the serum or really what to do with the problem. My

recollection is we said, “Yes, Sir,” and proceeded with trying to get the overall situation

organized. The serum did arrive promptly.

Now, Agnes turned out to be quite a management effort. Baltimore District normally would

be responsible for this, but Colonel Lou Prentiss, district engineer, had so much to do that we

couldn’t ask him to take on this problem as well. It required a lot of attention and a field

office. General [Richard] Groves, the division engineer of North Atlantic Division, suggested

that we set up a provisional district. General Clarke agreed and the Susquehanna District soon

became operative. Colonel John McElhenny became district engineer.

As I recall, officers and civilians arrived as requested. Local retired personnel who were

aware of the problem volunteered to help, and they were used. Contracting arrangements were

- 92
John W. Morris

set up immediately in public buildings around Wilkes-Barre. The district engineer was

announced and became the center for activities, relieving Prentiss. The activation order

indicated that the district would be deactivated when the problem had subsided.

There’s no need to go into all the ramifications of what we did in conjunction with Agnes

except to highlight some lessons learned that are still proving to be quite valuable.

First off, we needed to understand that the flooding problem in Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre, and

in that stretch of the Susquehanna River was aggravated because of subsidence of levees

which had been built over coal mines; therefore, the levees were not as high as when built.

That was point one.

Point two was that the levees were built before the dams that stored the excess water were in

place, therefore the levees, even had they been at the proper design height, would have been

overtopped. So it was pretty clear that the levees gave the people a false sense of security.

A policy review reaffirmed that if you’re going to put in a levee system, you better put the

upstream control structures in at the same time or first. Of course, those dams were built

immediately after Agnes.

We acquired trailers and built trailer communities for the people who’d been displaced. That

was a big project and a lot of money went into it. This priority work began at once while we

were starting to do the cleanup work for which contracts were issued promptly and

expeditiously.

We built several large trailer communities, and they were fine except the residents did not

know each other. Also, the post office didn’t know how to find them. Further, there were no

stores around, so we generated a community with no support structure. The American people

proved rather versatile and were able to cope with these disadvantages.

In time we proposed, as an alternate, to give the people a limited amount of money to fix their

own houses. The Office of Emergency Preparedness had to approve this plan.

A related idea was to erect trailers in people’s back yards when possible so they could live in

these trailers while their homes were repaired, et cetera. Those were relatively important

changes. In some cases we probably couldn’t have put the trailers in the back yard because

the yards were full of mud, trees, junk, and everything, and some of the houses were just

terrible inside.

Another invaluable action was the frequent visits by key personnel to families and to see what

was happening. General Clarke was there several times. I was there even more often, and

General Groves more than me.

I’ll never forget, we went into one house where the first floor was covered with mud, and the

lady came out and threw her arms around General Clarke and said, “I’m so glad to meet you,

we were in such terrible shape, but your people came and moved us upstairs. My husband had

had a heart attack, and he’s now in bed.” It was really a sad story. So nothing would do but

she wanted General Clarke to go up and see her husband so he could thank us for what had

been done.

So Agnes was an abrupt indoctrination into the hazards of the Civil Works Directorate. I know

the Corps received some criticism, but when you think back through the reaction and the

Corps’ response to human problems, you have to be proud. You wonder if the new system is

any better.

93
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

I think FEMA had to happen, simply because there were so many things that needed to be

done that were beyond the authority of the Chief of Engineers. It was a stretch, to take public

works money and use it, even though the law said you could use public funds which had been

appropriated for other purposes to reduce loss of life and hazards-I don’t recall the exact

wording. That was the intent of it, but it’s quite a stretch to get from there to supplying homes

and that sort of thing and the cleanup.

Agnes was a major event. In the years that followed we had several more, major disasters. Our

experience with Agnes provided the needed confidence to make decisions later.

Let me ask a couple of follow-on Agnes questions. Several of the things that you

mentioned-trailers and things like that-have become sort of standard procedures for FEMA

now.

Yes.

I guess the Office of Emergency Preparedness was small enough of an agency without a large

budget so that it really couldn’t do that sort of thing.

The Corps did it. We built these trailer parks. When Agnes was over, the trailers were stored

for future use. The experiences in Agnes laid the groundwork for much of the present

response to hurricanes. Tornadoes, earthquakes generate different circumstances. Where you

have a lot of water, Agnes was a proving ground for much of the current activities, just like

you said.

Were there any other federal agencies that played nearly as large a role as the Corps did, or

was the Corps sort of the lead of the agencies?

No, not federal. At the same time, state agencies, the utility companies, the highway people,

and the state health department were involved. The response and the cleanup, the reestablishment of normal life among the individuals was basically a Corps activity.

Just one quick follow-up while we’re on this. Were there any problems in closing the

Susquehanna District?

No. We closed it as planned. There was some pressure to keep it, but there was no reason to

keep it. There was nothing for it to do. We didn’t give it any mission other than the emergency

work.

That’s sometimes cited as the last Corps district to be closed. That’s a little bit of an anomaly.

Well, it is the last one to be closed, but it was also the last to be opened, and it was always

intended to be closed.

I did wonder if there was some pressure to keep it open.

Some people wanted to keep it open. Closing it down got to be a little tedious because of the

mechanics of closing it. General Groves didn’t want to close it until he got all of the bills paid

and all that cleaned up. At OCE we selected a certain day. I don’t remember what the date , was, but once all the players accepted the date to fold flag, that was the end of it.

Agnes was an unusual event. What about the more routine business of civil works?

Now to the more day-to-day type business of the director of Civil Works. Agnes was a fast

start for a new three-year tour and proved to be good conditioning for the rest of my

assignment because things never seemed to slow down after that.

94
John W. Morris

I hadn’t been in Civil Works very long before I realized that my style of operating would be

somewhat different from my predecessor’s. I prepared a memorandum in some detail outlining

how I thought we should operate. Basically, I sought a team spirit where everybody worked

together to resolve problems quickly and with good judgment. That document was satisfactory

to the need and did serve as a touchstone for the rest of my tour in Civil Works and later.

I came from Omaha with a belief that the people who knew the Corps liked the Corps. I think

we had pretty well proven that if we could just get the word out and say the right things, the

public understanding and acceptance of the Corps could be vastly improved. Well, that was

a belief which I tried to instill during my term as director of Civil Works. We worked hard

getting the word to the public by communicating in various ways and putting a good, solid,

professional face on our work in the public arena. The same requirements had to apply in

dealing with the powers that be in Washington outside the Corps of Engineers where our

problems were as severe as with the public.

Q

.

. Who was on your staff in Civil Works?

A.

. The deputy director of Civil Works initially was General Ken Cooper, but he left soon after

my arrival. He was replaced by General James Kelly, a brand new brigadier. Kelly was very

smart, made a wonderful impression, and was very decisive and courageous. He was an

excellent deputy for me. He saw to the implementation of programs already in place and also

new programs as they came along. I took responsibility for dealing with the Congress and the

Executive Branch of the government, and particularly the new Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works.

We had a third person in the office, Colonel Howard Sergeant, the executive. He was

responsible for the day-to-day operation of the office and was assisted by Lieutenant Colonel

Ernie Edgar and also Tom Hickhn. Jeanine Huffman, who later became the Chief of

Engineers’ secretary, was the director’s secretary. The civilian staff was outstanding.

I soon learned that the best head in the place for dealing with new problems, and particularly

with the legislative problems, was Joe Tofani, whom I had known since Tulsa days. He’s very

strong minded, of good character, and quick to arrive at a good answer to tough problems. He

loved the Corps, he understood the Corps, and I soon learned to talk to Joe on any problem

of a policy nature. That relationship continued for the remainder of his assignment with the

Corps. Few people were as highly respected among their peers and their associates as Joe

Tofani. He was a tremendous asset as an adviser to the director of Civil Works. I’m sure he

was to all directors. He certainly was to me.

I don’t mean to pass by the other excellent people we had. [Irv] Reisler, [Alex] Swaiko,

[Homer] Willis, [Mark] Gurney, [Bory] Steinberg and many, many others were key members

of the Civil Works team. We had some folks from the Secretary of the Army’s office working

with us at the time. Steve Dola still is in the office of the Chief of Engineers as a

representative of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Dr. [Ed] Dickey came

while I was there.

I should mention the training program of young officers. Again, Tofani was the key in

developing them into outstanding public servants, either in the Army or outside. I can think

of several that he trained that went on to be important players elsewhere in the government.

Mike Toohey, Tom Donnelly, and Jim Smith all left the Army for civilian careers and served

the country well as congressional committee staff persons. There are others.

95
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

I could never have been effective as the director of Civil Works without such outstanding

help .

One of the first challenges after Agnes was to replace the chief of engineering. Joe Caldwell,

who had been the head of engineering in the Mississippi River Commission, retired about the

time I arrived in Civil Works. It turned out I had to fill this position twice while I was director

of Civil Works. The first selection was Homer Willis. Homer came also from the Lower

Mississippi Valley Division, LMVD. We were always very pleased, very happy with his

work.

After Homer retired, I was successful in getting Lloyd Duscha, whom you may recall I had

brought to Omaha. I’d been working on Lloyd before, and he said he didn’t want to leave

Omaha. When the job came open again, I went back to him, and he finally took it. I asked why

he didn’t take it the first time. He said, “You didn’t try hard enough,” which I thought was

humorous. I had finally tried enough. I think history will prove that was a good choice.

We always had excellent people in Civil Works. Besides those mentioned already, Ken

Murdock, Gene Lawhun, and Lew Blakey left the Chief’s office to take senior jobs in the field

so that they could return to the top responsible spots in Civil Works. The challenges that the

directorate as a whole faced from 1972 to 1975 probably were as intense as any period. I

should point out that the senior civilian in the Public Affairs Office by this time was Locklin

Mouton, who had been with me in Tulsa. That was fortunate because we understood each

other.

What major problem areas did you encounter as director of Civil Works?

A

.

. The whole period was laced with the environmental matters. The public perceived a lack of

clear policy in the Corps on where to go or how to get there. We were challenged on a lot of

legislation that we’d been using for years, like the modernization of the facilities on the Ohio

River. Out of that came the Lock and Dam 26 issue. Some public works projects were being

stopped, such as the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, as we were trying very hard to understand

and survive the legal implications of the National Environmental Policy Act.

At the same time, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] and others were proposing

to the president of the United States that the function of the Chief of Engineers in the civil

works arena be placed under the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, or

be combined along with the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation, et cetera

into a super cabinet under Secretary Earl Butz. Normally, the director of Civil Works, rather

than the Chief of Engineers, was the spokesperson in dealing with and if necessary, speaking

out against such changes. Of course, the risk there is that somebody might get fired. In that

case it’d be the director of Civil Works.

Another underlying problem was there had been no public works authorization bill, or

omnibus bill, for some years, and many projects which were waiting their turn were standing

in the wings, and probably would not be put into an authorization bill until the National

Environmental Policy Act constraints had been satisfied. Besides, there was not a great deal

of enthusiasm to spend because the country was preoccupied with the oil shortage problem.

We had the Bicentennial, which was kind of fun and we’ll come to that later, but it was

another significant event with which we had to deal. The most significant legislative event

besides NEPA was the Federal Water Pollution Control Acts amendments in 1972, called the

Muskie bill. It was passed in the Senate without a declining vote, 93-0. Included were a

couple of provisions which later became very important-Section 202 and Section 404, et

96
John W. Morris

cetera. All of these attempted to delineate the authorities of the EPA and the Corps. The Corps

was given responsibility for managing the permit program.

Q

.

. The first Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works was appointed while you were

director of Civil Works, wasn’t he?

A.. Yes, a factor which would impact all civil and indirectly military activities was the

announcement of the first Assistant Secretary of Civil Works, former congressman of

California Victor Veysey. He was an engineer and as the first Assistant Secretary of Civil

Works laid the groundwork for future assistant secretaries.

The Corps knew how to execute its mission. What we really needed and anticipated from the

assistant secretary’s office was political help and advice in the legislative process and support

in senior levels of the Executive Branch. Secretary Veysey was valuable in those areas,

however, he did establish certain operational micro-management procedures which

subsequent assistant secretaries expanded upon and I contend became more counterproductive

than helpful.

General Clarke asked me, before Mr. Veysey was appointed, what I thought of the idea of an

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASAKW). I told him that I thought it would

be helpful if the assistant secretary dealt with those elements of the government outside of the

Corps, particularly legislative. General Clarke was not very enthusiastic, and I surmise that

he did not believe that the ASAJCW role as I had enunciated would happen, and further that

the assistant secretary would get into the operation of the Corps. Clarke was right. That, to

me, is the most serious problem that the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

presents to the Corps of Engineers.

I don’t know today, some 20 years later, how realistic my fear is concerning unnecessary

limits on the Chief of Engineers, but my guess also is that the decision-making process in the

civil works arena is less flexible than it used to be.

Q

.

. How did OCE and the new ASAKW work together?

A.. As an officer, I had direct association with two ASAKWs, Victor Veysey and Mike

Blumenfeld. Communications with the ASA/CW were my responsibility as the director of

Civil Works. As Chief, General Clarke dealt with the Secretary of the Army. General

[William] Gribble was emphatically clear that he wanted to continue that arrangement. After

all, the Chief’s first responsibility is to the Army; and civil works activities, while of great

importance, are only one facet of these duties.

Mr. Veysey’s principal assistant was Jack Ford, who had been with the Corps for years. He

came up through the Corps-very understanding and helpful in establishing the start-up

information systems necessary for the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to do

his job. He wrote me, as director of Civil Works, his ideas on how the directorate could

become organizationally and operationally effective in areas of interest to the assistant

secretary. I appreciated his instructions but was well aware that a new voice was beginning

to call shots in the public works arena.

I developed high regard for Mr. Veysey, and he and I worked well together from my

perspective. One of his concerns was that members of the Corps of Engineers were bypassing

him in dealing with the Legislative Branch and perhaps with higher elements of the Executive

Branch.

97
Engineer Memoirs

On one occasion, Mr. Veysey accused me of influencing the Congress on a specific item of

legislation. In that particular case we were innocent, but when I told him so, his reaction was

clearly one of disbelief. Well, to me, that was a serious charge because I didn’t say one thing

when I had done another. I offered to quit.

Mike Blumenfeld replaced Veysey. Mike understood the requirements for the Corps to be a

good public service organization. He was not attracted to operations. He was attracted to

public understanding. He was a good writer and I think a fine secretary. He retained Jack Ford

and the two made a good team.

Blumenfeld handled himself the way we thought his job should be handled, so much so that

successor directors of Civil Works found him to be a good sounding board. Then in-house

business which ordinarily we would not have shared was discussed openly in the assistant

secretary’s office.

That was fine, as long as Mike was there. He was replaced by Mr. William Gianelli, another

engineer from California. He trumped everything Veysey did and, as I learned, really got into

the inner workings of the Corps and slowed down the decision-making process. Mr. Gianelli

was a strong secretary and achieved much. He would often bypass the Chief and the division

engineers and go directly to a district. This brought the Chief more and more into the picture.

As time went on, the Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works dealt more and more

with the Chief of Engineers-a regrettable extension of lines of communication because of

the subtle yet adverse impact on the Chief’s attention to his other responsibilities.

I followed General Gribble’s procedure. Unless major policy implications were involved, I

just didn’t think I should interfere with the director of Civil Works’ business. We worked

pretty hard at keeping things in perspective. If all the Assistant Secretaries of the Army for

Civil Works had followed the Veysey and Blumenfeld leads, the situation today would have

been different, and better.

I don’t know what else to say about that. Veysey was helpful to the Corps for many major

problems under Lock and Dam 26. He required us to do certain things which, from a political

standpoint, were right because they gave him the knowledge and leverage.

I have spent a lot of your time on that subject, probably more than we should have, but as the

first director to have the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, it’s probabl,y

important to set the groundwork.

If General Clarke asked me today whether I’d like to have one or not, I’m not sure what I’d

tell him. I’d like to be able to say, “The intended purpose of the Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Civil Works has been fulfilled perfectly.” Then we’d all be happy. The nature of the

beast is such that if you put an engineer in there, it’s not going to happen. Seems to me they

can’t resist telling the Chief how to do his job, and most unfortunately, each new ASAKW

seems only to add to his predecessor’s domain over the civil works program and weaken the

Chief of Engineers’ ability to attend to his primary role of supporting the Army’s engineering

needs.

Q

.

. The Section 404 program was another new problem confronting the director of Civil Works,

wasn’t it?

A

.

. I mentioned the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments. That, plus NEPA, put us

face-to-face with EPA. Ruckelshaus had been followed by Judge Russell Train, who became

the administrator. He was later followed by Doug Costle, with whom I had considerable

dealings in the late 1970s. The area where we had the most direct interest was implementing

the dredge and fill and the regulatory program for permits. This was truly plowing new

98
John W. Morris

ground. As you may recall, I mentioned when I was in Savannah District as deputy district

engineer, a couple of hours would take care of the permit applications for the month. Well,

we went from a handful of permits to tens of thousands almost instantaneously.

Section 404 referred to “waters of the United States.” It didn’t say, “dredge and fill,” it said,

“dredge or fill.” So the effect of that was to extend in Nebraska alone the miles of streams

requiring permits tenfold. How to manage that program was a real challenge. How to tell the

public what it meant was a problem. Brigadier General Ken McIntyre became the deputy

director of Civil Works and managed these tasks.

He dealt in EPA with Chris Beck and Becky Hamner. Beck until recently was the chairman

of one of the largest environmental companies in the United States. Hamner left EPA in 1992

as administrator of water and went to France with an international group. We worked days to

draft a plan to implement the law. New regulations were published in the FederaZ Register

and public hearings were conducted throughout the country. Ken McIntyre did a tremendous

job in a series of public meetings by explaining what this was all about to the people.

Later, while the Corps’ leadership was having a meeting out at the Kingman Building, Locke

Mouton put out a notice saying every farmer would have to get a permit to plow ground.

Lester Edelman, the chief counsel for the House Public Works, called me up and asked, “Jack,

have you got a death wish over there?” He considered that was such a startling press release.

It may have been startling, but it was sure effective, because soon thereafter the law was

amended to exclude certain woodlands and farms.

This mission was such an expansive addition to the Corps’ effort that we had difficulty

coping. One day-must have been 1974-General Gribble called me and said he just wasn’t

happy with the 404 program, too many problems. He said it was my responsibility to do

something about it. I agreed.

I called Manning Seltzer, the general counsel, and explained that the problem “is not our lack

of ability to do things, it’s our inability to understand better what we’re supposed to do, so

you and I need to address this.”Manning came up with the brilliant idea of having a national

meeting of all the district engineers and to review a series of preplanned case studies over a

three-day conference. We did it in New Orleans, Louisiana.

General Heiberg, then Colonel Heiberg, district engineer, arranged for us to use the new

Marriott Hotel on Canal Street. The meeting basically turned the Corps around. I say “turned

the Corps around.”That’s a bad way to put it. It educated the Corps. I remember the case

studies that came up. We don’t need to take time with all of them here, but each was a

landmark event.

Al Costanza, district engineer, Wilmington, North Carolina, presented the Bald Head Island

issue. An applicant wanted a permit to build a dock to offload some equipment. Costanza

concluded he was not going to issue a permit until he learned the use of the equipment. The

applicant objected on the belief that all Alwas required to do was to permit him to build a

dock. Well, this became the “nose of the camel decision” because it turned out that the district

did have a right to determine if the use of that dock was going to lead to environmental

destruction.

There was the Block M case down in Miami. Years earlier somebody had started a fill on

which to put a high-rise condominium as a retirement home. He’d stopped for some reason

when the top of the land was just below the water. Later, after NEPA, he applied for a permit

to continue the fill so he could erect the retirement home. The permit was denied because a

- 99
Enaineer Memoirs

retirement home didn’t have to be on the water. That decision held also and established the

principle that a nonwater-essential building should be built someplace else.

After that meeting, the Corps did a much better job. I have to give General Gribble credit for

putting on the heat, and I give Manning Seltzer credit for figuring out what to do. Mother

Nature didn’t seem too pleased, for as we finished our conference, a hurricane came in from

off the Gulf and we had to leave quickly.

So this was in 1975?

That was-no, I was still director. I’d say 1974, Gribble was the Chief. We should not

overlook the fact that General Clarke had initiated the Environment Advisory Board years

before, after NEPA was passed. The Environment Advisory Board idea showed superior

foresight. The members were strong advocates of environmental management and were not

necessarily friends of the Corps. The advisory board met with the Chief and the OCE staff.

The director of Civil Works managed this group. Many new and constructive ideas flowed

from these gatherings which worked well.

At the same time the members learned what the Corps was about. Some of the strongest

supporters of the Corps came from members of that Environmental Advisory Board who

began as untrusting, or at least skeptical, people.

The 404 program challenged everybody. The staff requirements were tremendous, as

regulatory sections appeared in every district. We got no additional people although we

complained to OMB.

Not only did the Corps and EPA have to prosecute the regulations, but we began to define the

Corps’ and EPA’s responsibilities. That’s still going on, but in the earlier days, EPA and the

corps

would

people took the broad position that EPA would establish the policy while the corps

execute it.

Another aspect of this program which I doubt is well understood today was the effect of this

law on dredging. Dredging was a dirty word, a four-letter word. Dredging material was always

“spoil,” it wasn’t “material.” It was assumed to be polluted before anybody could prove it was

or wasn’t. General Frank Koisch, more than anyone else, perceived the complexity of this

problem and obtained congressional authorization and directed the Dredge Material Study by

the Waterways Experimental Station. It started about the time I arrived. Dredge disposal was

not just a United States problem. It became an international issue. The studies were able to

demonstrate that most dredged material was not polluted, and that which was polluted could

be managed.

In the meantime, we went into this tremendously expensive and somewhat unnecessary

program of diking off areas into which all the dredged material was placed and not allowed

to escape. It was either that or put it upland where it couldn’t get back into the water. We even

considered such things as filling the strip mines out in Pennsylvania.

We published a little book called Dredging Zs for the Birds. I think we did it in about a week.

We selected pictures of birds having a great time on property that was built out of dredge

material. Hart Mueller Island, a disposal site in the Chesapeake Bay, had been idled a few

years earlier while waiting for the next dredge operation. During that delay this island had

become a beautiful marshland full of birds. Then, when we wanted to go back and use it, we

were not allowed to do so because now, all of a sudden, it was a wildlife and bird sanctuary.

100
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

That caused us to put out this book, Dredging Zs for the Birds. Later, years later, I wrote a

letter and advised the head of the Audubon Society that if he would describe the habitat

needed for certain endangered species, the Corps could build them.

As mentioned, NEPA contained no grandfather clause, and we were in violation of the law

as soon as it was passed. I ultimately set up a group of congressional briefings. Lieutenant

Colonel John Wall, who had been with me in Vietnam, prepared the briefings on where we

stood in implementing NEPA and spoke to various sections of the Congress.

We especially needed to explain why we had not implemented NEPA in the operational field,

particularly in the dredging field. We were getting to it, but the priorities addressed new work

first, then ongoing construction, et cetera, and O&M [operation and maintenance] last. I also

explained to the EPA that they could stop dredging, but our plan was to have all in order in

a couple of years, and showed them our time schedule. As a consequence of these efforts, we

didn’t have to stop anything in the operational field.

That was, I think, an initiative which saved the taxpayer and us a lot of money. Because of this

dredging issue, Bill Murden and I spent a couple of days on a Corps hopper dredge in Portland

so I could better understand the business. I began to realize that dredging was an expensive

operation and that probably the Corps should turn over to private industry the hopper dredge

business. It took a little while to ferment this idea, but privatization was finalized during my

term as Chief.

Lock and Dam 26 was another important issue with environmental implications.

A.. We had been repairing and upgrading the locks and dams on the Ohio River under Section

109 of the Water Resource Act of 1919, which gave the Chief of Engineers authority [not

financing] to maintain, repair, and rehabilitate existing locks and dams up to current traffic

without further congressional approval. The word “current” may not be the precise word in

the legislation. The interpretation in the Chief’s office for years had been that “current” meant

today’s traffic, not the traffic when originally authorized. As a consequence of that, we’d

upgraded practically all of the Ohio River locks to actual 1970 traffic levels.

Lock and Dam 26 came along. General Charles “Chuck” Noble was the division engineer in

the Lower Mississippi Valley Division. This was early in the process. He called me up one

day in early 1973 and said that he was going to issue a request for proposals on a new Lock

and Dam 26. I remember distinctly asking him if he had an environmental impact statement.

He said, “Well, we don’t need one. There’s no opposition, there’s no environmental problem

here.”

I don’t remember the dates exactly, but before he ever got around to a contract, we were

challenged. The challenge was that we were going to build a lock and dam to increase the

traffic from the original design to meet 1972 traffic requirements.

Well, when we looked at this law and really got into it, Joe Tofani said, “I’ve known for a

long time that we were on shaky ground with that law, but now that they’ve called our hand,

we might as well accept the fact that we’re not doing this right and back up and regroup.”

The Water Resources Congress, a rather powerful organization, called a meeting at the Coal

Building in D.C. to discuss Lock and Dam 26. Their thrust was to harness their political

power to either redefine the original language or to pass an amendment to relieve Lock and

Dam 26. Of course, the fact of life is there was no point in spending millions of dollars to

meet original traffic by rebuilding a lOO-by-6000foot lock. So the objective never changed,

but how to reach it became the issue.

101
Engineer Memoirs

When asked what I expected the Corps to do, I advised them that the Corps’ position was to

go the whole ten yards including authorization, which meant a complete evaluation of the

impact of this increased traffic on the environment of the upper Mississippi, et cetera.

Reauthorization would take four or five years. That didn’t seem to be a very attractive idea,

but on the other hand, I felt that was the only course open to the government. I went to the

groundbreaking as Chief of Engineers five years later.

Interestingly enough, preparing the Lock and Dam 26 authorization language presented a

couple of wrinkles worth mentioning. The first lock [ 110 by 1,200 feet] was adequate for

1976 traffic. The second lock was not needed for the current [ 19761 traffic but would be

needed to meet projected growth. It was impossible to authorize the second lock until the full

analysis had been made of the effect of added barge traffic on the upper Mississippi

environment.

The environmental impact on the upper Mississippi of the increased traffic which would result

from the second lock presented a difficult problem. The upper Mississippi is changing

naturally all the time and will continue to do so for many years. The basic problem was to

measure the impact of added traffic when there was no clear, stable baseline.

The study of this was put under the umbrella of the Upper Mississippi River Commission.

Ultimately the effect of increased traffic which a second lock would allow on the upper

Mississippi was reasonably well defined and found insignificant, and the project went ahead.

That was a landmark case because from then on all the other locks and dams that we’ve

modernized were done differently.

Lock and Dam 26 and also Tennessee-Tombigbee were two jobs that followed me through

my moves in OCE.

Another issue related to Lock and Dam 26 is still out there, and that is how to handle

recreational vessels. The impact of the recreational vessels on commercial traffic has become

significant since we originally opened these waterways. We should build separate locks for

recreational vessels. The standard commercial lock is not designed to handle smaller boats,

and while it would have been expensive, we had a chance to build small-boat locks as part of

the Lock and Dam 26 structure. In fact, an early plan provided a passage for recreational boats

that would not interfere with the commercial traffic.

I got on to this idea as a member of PIANC, which is the Permanent International Association

of Navigation Congresses. On the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal a lot of study went into the use

of separate locks for recreational vessels.

Q.

. How did you get involved with PIANC and other international activities?

A.. Navigation basically was a first love of mine in the civil works arena, and because of that, I

became involved with PIANC in 1959, with the National Waterways Foundation later in life,

with Harry Cook’s waterway conference, and actually was called upon by the government of

the United States to get involved in two international navigation projects. After the 1973 war,

the Corps was asked to advise the chairman of the Suez Canal Authority, Mr. Mashour Ahmed

Mashour. Bill Murden, Colonel Vincent Rathbum, Homer Willis, and I made up our four-man

team. Our job was to advise on how to put it back in operation and to improve its efficiency

after many years of inactivity.

That was a very interesting challenge. I made four trips over the years to the Suez Canal. The

Suez Canal Authority was very professional and did a magnificent job getting back in

operation. I’m not talking about removing the ordnance. The Corps of Engineers had very

102
John W. Morris

little to do with that. I’m talking about deepening, fixing the bypasses, and installing the

communications and navigation control facilities.

Ours was a good team which did valuable work for Egypt and for U.S. business. We were

there when President Nixon resigned. The reason I remember that is because he made the

headlines, and our little group was mentioned elsewhere in the same Cairo newspaper.

Then I was sent to Russia twice-once as part of PIANC and later in conjunction with a

program dealing with housing and other construction. HUD [Housing and Urban

Development] took the housing and the Corps took other construction. The other construction

was a much bigger piece of the pie than just the housing because it included all the dams,

waterways, power, and everything else.

While you were director of Civil Works, didn’t the Corps begin to think more seriously about

nonstructural solutions to water resources problems?

A: Yes, the accumulated effect of the absence of support for new dams, the problems of Lock and

Dam 26, the incessant oversight by the environmental communities all led to a belief that if

we are not going to be allowed to solve problems by building something, maybe we can solve

them some other way.

It turned out that there was an authorized project in Littleton, Colorado, to build a floodway

General Morris with the head of the Suez Canal Authority, Mr. Mashour Ahmed Mashour, in the

summer of 1974. The canal is in the background.
Engineer Memoirs

downstream from Chatfield Dam through that community. The citizens objected and asked

for the money to buy the land, move houses out if necessary, and leave it alone. Well, that

didn’t sound like a bad idea. Economically it didn’t look too bad either, after we checked it

out.

Our problem was an absence of any authority n& to build something. The congressman from

Littleton, Colorado, at that time was Bill Brotsman. Obviously we needed some special

legislation in the case of the Littleton project to allow the Corps of Engineers to use the

money which was otherwise appropriated for a floodway to solve the flood problem with a

nonstructural solution by buying land, et cetera, et cetera. I don’t remember the exact wording,

but that was the thrust of it. That worked out fine. People in Littleton were happy.

Later on, Section 22 in the next Water Resource Development Act authorized the Chief of

Engineers to consider nonstructural solutions to floods and other water resource problems.

That was a landmark event and Mr. Brotsman’s assistance was crucial. Later, he became

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Personnel at the same time that Veysey became Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Well, nonstructural solutions were neither understood

nor popular in the Corps initially because our people had grown up building things. Actually,

we did accomplish several major water resource improvements with nonstructural solutions:

Charles River in Boston; Indian Bend Wash in Scottsdale, Arizona; Prairie du Chien

Wisconsin; and others. The philosophy of nonstructural solutions worked, and I think as much

as anything else, it did give us a platform to approach the public with an alternative to

constructing a dam. Nonstructural solutions grew out of the broader issue of environmental

concern. The urban studies mentioned earlier were an example.

Another example of the emerging influence of environmental concern was the Cross-Florida

Barge Canal-a landmark case in which the Corps was involved. There were two separate

Genera/ Morris gave an address at the opening ceremony of the Permanent International

Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) in Leningrad, U.S.S.R., on 5 September 1977.

104
John W. Morris

environmentally sensitive projects simultaneously in the public arena. One was the Alaska

Pipeline and the other was the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. General Clarke had positioned the

Corps very well to do the Alaska Pipeline project. In fact, he and I flew up there in early 1973

to recon the route of the pipeline with the understanding that the Corps was going to oversee

the construction.

At that time, Dr. Pecora of the Department of the Interior felt the Corps should do it. He died,

and President Nixon replaced him with a Mr. Whittaker of the White House. Two things

happened rather quickly after that. The president stopped the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, and

Alyeska, a nongovernment agency, was organized to oversee the construction of the Alaska

Pipeline. I don’t know whether the Cross-Florida Barge Canal was sacrificed so that the

Alaska Pipeline could proceed or what, but at any rate that’s what happened.

Along the way of stopping the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, the president did something which

led to an important Supreme Court decision. The Congress had authorized this project and

appropriated money for the Executive Branch to build it. The president had unilaterally

decided not to build it and impounded the money. In the final analysis, the court ruled that the

president of the United States does not have the authority to impound the money without first

notifying the Congress, thus making the money available for use elsewhere. In other words,

as executive, he couldn’t turn his back on the instructions of the legislature. That was an

important decision. Even so, the Cross-Florida Barge Canal was dropped for the wrong

reasons-I believe. The publicity said it would ruin the fresh water aquifer. It would not.

Emotion in Florida was high. Martin Heuvelmans from Florida wrote a book [The River

KilZers] about the Corps of Engineers. He said that the Corps of Engineers had ruined Florida,

that we drained all the rivers, and we had controlled the flows in such a way that the wildlife

was perishing and the land was going to pot, so to speak. Heuvelmans was brought to New

York to appear on the Today Show about his book. He gave the Corps a bad time.

I was asked to come the next day and give the Corps’ side of the story. I did that. My first

appearance on national television, and I would just as soon it had been the last. Ispent IO, 12

minutes live on the Today Show, countering Mr. Heuvelmans’ comments in this book. I was

interviewed by Frank McGee, who happened to be from Oklahoma, and he was very

gentlemanly.

Heuvelmans had some points, however, that could not be ignored, particularly in the

Kissimmee area-since we’re now putting it back more or less like it was originally. As I

recall, the root cause of it was a state program which the Corps inherited and finished. Even

so, it doesn’t mean two wrongs make a right.

The Cross-Florida Barge Canal, in my judgment, should have been built. Hopefully someday

it will be. The environmental issues are delicate, but they are manageable, and the

transportation aspects would be very valuable. The old saw about the only reason we were

going to build it was to avoid submarines during World War II is not the basic point, it’s just

a matter of good transportation.

The whole scenario, though, of Lock and Dam 26, the Ohio River, and the Cross-Florida

Barge Canal, et cetera did raise a question in my mind as to what was the proper water

transportation system for our country. So

to answer the question, “What would a

we undertook,

national water

with congressional approval, a study

1 transportation system look like?” I

envisioned a map similar to the national interstate highway system to identify each

element--extensions, deletions, and the description of the normal size and shape of waterway

channels, locks, et cetera.

105
Enaineer Memoirs

My hope was that Congress would then authorize the navigation plan as a single objective,

therefore, when the Corps added an included segment, Congress would only have to refer to

the approved plan and wouldn’t have to go through the laborious process of justifying each

addition as if it were a separate project to carry its own weight.

That study was finished after I became Chief and will be discussed further later.

Q.

. What about dam safety?

A.. We’d had some dam failures throughout the country, not federal projects, but state and

private. A piece of legislation was passed while I was director of Civil Works-the dam safety

inspection program. Senator [John] Stennis called up one day, wondering how much money

it would take. I told him I was reluctant to give him a number but finally figured there were

probably 30,000 dams out there that we’d have to inspect at about $3,000 a dam or something

like $100 million.

I came up with $100 million but asked that the 30,000 dams be mentioned as well. I didn’t

know how many dams there were, and I didn’t even know how much they were going to cost

per dam, but at least we had the equation. The dam safety inspection program was established

and estimated costs identified. Money was not appropriated, so we didn’t do anything at that

time. One of the first things that happened after I became Chief of Engineers was the

implementation of that bill.

Q.

. Tell me about the Corps’ participation in the Bicentennial.

A.. We began to celebrate in 1975, so we put this together starting back about 1974. The Army

had criteria for military activities, but what was the Corps of Engineers going to do for its

public works role? I asked General Gribble at that time if it would be all right if we had only

one primary activity, and that I would like to spend $1 million on it. He didn’t object. The

Congress authorized us to spend up to $1 million of otherwise appropriated funds for the

Bicentennial. The plan was that the historical role of Congress in the public works program

would be identified.

Lieutenant Colonel Bob Benning was working for me at the time, and I gave him this task.

Bob was an outstanding visionary who could get a job done. He had been in Kansas City

District. He suggested he not be burdened with a committee. We decided to look at the old

Sergeant Foyd, a work boat in the Missouri River Division. I had known the boat while

there, and it was about to be junked. Major General Andy Rollins, Deputy Chief of Engineers,

was anxious not to let the Foyd be scuttled, so we had a strong support up front and were able

to get an okay to make a traveling museum using the old work boat.

Benning contracted to refurbish the Foyd; put a barge in the front of it; paint everything red,

white, and blue; and install a six-speaker, six-screen visual setup to give the history of the

Corps, its nation building and water resource development roles. It became a traveling theater.

A barge platform in front was used for local entertainment. This exhibit went many thousands

of miles through the Mississippi, its tributaries, and the Gulf. Several million Americans

visited the Foyd. It was very good. Benning deserves a lot of credit. A song was prepared,

“Let Us Try,” an environmentally sensitive song. We put a calliope on the boat to play this

song along the river either as a waltz, in a Dixieland style, or as a march. People would gather

at the dock and it was just-it was a good piece of work.

The Corps won the Silver Anvil for the effort. The Silver Anvil is a national award for public

relations. Competition included Gulf Oil, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, other big

companies, even the NationaZ Geographic. Naturally, we were very pleased to be chosen in

our class.

106
John W. Morris

Q:

When we moved to the Pulaski Building, we relocated the exhibits of the Floyd into the

visitors center in the new Chief’s office. That visitors center has been replaced.

The Bicentennial program was a highlight event during my tour as director of Civil Works.

In addition to Hurricane Agnes, were there other national emergencies while you were in Civil

Works?

A: Agnes was only the beginning-we didn’t escape having other national emergencies. The year

after Agnes [1973], the Mississippi River suffered a serious flood. General Noble had his

hands full as the Ohio flooded, along with the upper Mississippi and the Missouri, and New

Orleans was in some serious trouble. There had not been a flood on the Mississippi River for

2 1 years, and the historical average was every seven years. So we had one in 1973 and another

flood the following year. The two in a row brought the average back down to about seven

years.

In the process, the old river structure proved to have very serious structural difficulty. We

realized it had to be repaired and possibly replaced. Planning began and proceeded until now

there is a new auxiliary structure. That flooding reemphasized that the Atchafalaya is probably

the most environmentally sensitive region of this country.

The Corps of Engineers vessel, Sergeant Floyd, sailed the inland waterways to celebrate the

Bicen tennial in 1975.
Engineer Memoirs

Q: I would like to ask a follow-up question on the Section 404 program. In the court case,

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, the judge ordered the Corps in March

1975 to expand its definition of “navigable waters” and its Section 404 jurisdiction. Did the

Corps get much guidance from the Ford Administration at the time on how to implement this

court decision expanding jurisdiction?

A: Not unless you consider the Office of Management and Budget-an office within the

Executive Branch. OMB carefully coordinated the EPA’s and the Corps of Engineers’

programs.

We worked with EPA. As mentioned, our man was Brigadier General Ken McIntyre, then

deputy director of Civil Works. He did a great job on this. We had many meetings developing

draft procedures to announce in the FederaZ Register. After review by OMB and publication,

General McIntyre with EPA people conducted public hearings all over the country. Rebecca

Hamner represented EPA.

Ultimately, the hearings were finished, the regulations became official, and the procedures

were adopted. Those procedures have held up fairly well. There’ve been modifications

redefining the authority of both EPA and the Corps. The final “go” or “no-go” authority rests

with EPA, properly so, I think. My recollection is that the efforts of the Executive Branch to

implement that new law were thorough and involved many man hours over a rather long time.

So to answer your question directly, there was no strong guidance. The principal players-the

Corps, EPA, and OMB, particularly the Corps and EPA-formulated this process and then

went about the business of doing it. It worked.

Q: I followed up on this because in some ways this period is pretty critical in the history of the

Corps from then till nowA:

Q:

A:

Yes.

-because the environmental programs become such a big and important activity.

Well, you’re right. It turned out, as I may have mentioned earlier, the Corps’ load of only a

few thousand permits a year soon jumped to tens of thousands. The Corps showed up

wherever there was development in a wetland or navigable stream.

I don’t think it’s a job the Corps would have gone out and asked for, frankly, but it was

fortunate that the Corps got the job, in my opinion. We’ve taken a lot of heat over the years,

but the mission clearly emerged from the Corps’ role in water issues and demonstrated its

ability to perform well in regulating and implementing the national objective in environmental

matters.

After a few years, the environmental community preferred that the Corps keep this

responsibility because it had done a good job and was fair. An alternative was to give the

whole thing to EPA, and it’s my recollection that the public as a whole, and the environmental

community specifically, preferred the Corps to keep it.

This program gave the Corps a strong position in the growing national trend towards

environmental protection, and it continues to put the Corps on the proper side of the issue.

Q: It meant quite a few internal changes to the Corps as well, didn’t it? A lot of new disciplines

were brought in.

A: Well, NEPA did that earlier. The regulatory program had a tremendous impact on and

increase in the O&M manpower situation and the need to train people to do things they hadn’t

done before. The administration of the program became a very big challenge and subjected

108
John W. Morris

the Corps and then the Executive Branch to a lot of criticism by the Congress because we

weren’t getting the permits approved in time. People were complaining about that. So as time

went on, the authority to approve permits was re-evaluated.

There has been a lot of improvement. Since I’ve retired, Secretary [Bob] Page, Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, was very much involved in trying to streamline the

process. That’s still going on. So it goes back to the fact that there was once a rather inactive

program that just exploded.

Q

.

. Within the Corps it required a change in the Corps’ culture too, didn’t it?

A

.

. Yes, the regulatory program was another piece in the growth of the O&M side of the Corps,

the operation and maintenance side of the house. You may recall that early on in the civil

works program I had been approached by some of our senior staffers to get out of the O&M

business. General Cassidy, according to Joe Tofani, is credited with saying he didn’t become

Chief of Engineers to be a plumber. In other words, the implication was the Corps wasn’t here

to do O&M work, it was here to do engineering, build things, and all that good stuff. Well,

the fact is that by 1975 we had built most of the program, and early on in the 1970s the O&M

program began to overtake the construction program in dollars.

So the relative position and strength of O&M in relation to planning, design, and construction

was evolving, and the culture of the Corps changed accordingly. The Corps’ heavyweight

engineering and construction role had declined steadily while its O&M program had grown

steadily. To have given up that mission would have been a serious mistake.

The regulatory program has proven the wisdom of keeping the Corps in the operation and

maintenance business, because having the base on which to place the regulatory program

helped the Corps survive and become active in environmental matters to include hazardous

waste as well as regulatory issues. The change in the culture of the Corps started before the

regulatory program; however, the regulatory program broadened its understanding and value.

Another part of the cultural change within the Corps was the privatization philosophy which

reduced the Corps’ operation and maintenance of certain activities the private sector could do

as well and cheaper. So it wasn’t only the transition from engineering, design, and

construction into O&M, it was also changes within the O&M community to using contracts

in place of hired labor.

Personnel shortage was one of the problems created by the regulatory program. The Corps

never received the proper number of people to do the job early on; however, in all fairness,

the Corps was allowed to retain spaces they otherwise would have lost without the regulatory

mission.

Q

.

. You supported-or you talked about the privatization initiative quite a bit too, didn’t you?

Another controversial intemalA

.

. Well, it’s always controversial-internally. I had concluded we could privatize hopper

dredging if the industry would agree. We tried before, and they wouldn’t do it because of the

investment cost.

The idea to privatize hopper dredging had several objectives. One was to get the Corps some

improved equipment. Another was to generate spaces needed elsewhere and also to pass the

bulk of the maintenance of the waterways and ports over to private enterprise. Pipeline

dredging had already gone through that process.

109
Engineer Memoirs

I also believe that the Corps should contract the operation and maintenance of the

waterways-the locks and dams. Also, there’s no reason why the Corps can’t contract people

to run power plants.

Q

.

. The Corps was still using government employees for a long time to lay mat on the Mississippi,

wasn’t it?

A

.

. Well, they did as long as I was there. That was one of the things we did consider carefully,

but because the work was so specialized, private industry was not yet ready to do it by

contract. So the best thing was keep it.

Back in the 1930s and earlier, even earlier, there was limited or no capability in the civilian

community to accomplish many of the tasks needed to execute the Corps’ programs, so the

Corps did it with its people and with hired labor. As the nation’s private capabilities reached

adequate levels in various fields, including construction and engineering, the federal

government moved aside. Well, mat laying on the Mississippi was one of those areas in which

the civilian industry had not quite yet gotten the capability to do it, so the Corps kept it.

There’s a lot to that question. We should not privatize everything. The Corps should keep inhouse enough requirements to maintain an engineering capability and enough construction to

keep our contracting and construction management capabilities, et cetera. So there is a balance

in there.

In the period from 1970 to 1980, I really do believe more things happened to change the Corps

of Engineers than in any other period in recent times: The National Environmental Policy Act

followed by all the regulatory regulations that came along; the change in the Corps’ workload

in the civil works field from new work to operations; the arrival of the Assistant Secretary of

the Army for Civil Works; the impact of rebuilding the Army’s physical plant to suit the allvolunteer force; the growth of American presence internationally, beginning after World War

II and continuing through the 1970s in various countries; all the congressional and legal

battles that went on to determine what various new laws meant to name a few. All together

these involved a period of about ten years and created a tremendous amount of turbulence and

change.

Your comment on the culture is absolutely on target. The Corps in the late 1980s and early

1990s became a far different organization than in 1960 when I went to Tulsa, even when I

went to Omaha in 1970. You know, the old-timers speak of the “good old days” when

discussing or complaining about change. There’s little they can do about it, however. It’s

going to happen.

Now, I think the important fact about all this is the Corps has survived. It’s still looked upon

and respected at home and abroad as a premier source of engineering, construction, and

management talent.

We’re roaming around here a little bit.

Q

.

. Yes, but I want to roam just a little more. One thing that came to mind as we were talking-I

remember seeing a quotation from General Heiberg, sort of fondly but with some frustration,

I think. He referred to that “great inertia-ridden organization, the Corps of Engineers.”

Looking back at your career, you came out of the experience of a changing organization.

Some of the leaders of the Corps made the transition, and it was a difficult transition, and

some people took a lot longer. I guess what I’m saying is,“Why did you perceive the changing

environment and others were slower?”

110
John W. Morris

A.. General Heiberg’s observation is not wrong, but determined leadership based on good clear

goals can move the organization. Perhaps based on my background and earlier assignments,

I was able to look farther down the road to identify goals for the Corps to evaluate what was

going to happen, based on trends and the warning signals of change, and then try to come u p

with a plan or a concept which would allow us to turn those changes to our advantage, if

possible, at least to be prepared for them.

One of the things that happened during the decade of the 1970s was the various reorganization

plans for the Executive Branch. We really had to do some visionary thinking to get ourselves

onto a program which would allow us to walk the tightrope between not being insubordinate

to the commander-in-chief and yet protecting ourselves from being demolished. That

happened over and over again with the frequent reorganizations of the Executive Branch

while I was director of Civil Works. One approach was to form a Department of Natural

Resources as one of four super secretariats. The Corps was on the block. Later, of course,

President [Jimmy] Carter had even more serious plans for the Corps.

Q.

.

I like trends. I don’t like snapshots of where we are as a much as I like to see where we have

been to get here. From that background we can attemptto determine where we are or should

be going.

You asked about this transition. Once NEPA was passed and became law, and because of

General Clarke’s leadership, I soon realized there was no need to fight the program. In fact,

the Corps needed to team with and support the program and, out of it, try to adopt a strategy

which would be best for our institution and, because of our belief in the institution, for the

country. I think that’s what we did as best we could considering that every day we plowed

new ground.

The Corps could not be where it is today, in the public’s mind or in its value to this country,

if it had fought or tried to stay with the pre-1970 culture. So the challenge was to detect the

need for change and react smartly. I don’t think I’ve answered your question very well. For

sure, numerous excellent visionary people helped; and, together, given time and some good

luck, we found ways into the future which would accomplish those things.

Another related topic I need to add is training. While I was in Civil Works, as a follow-on to

my experience in Omaha, I was very much concerned about the training program in the Corps.

I thought there was a lot of duplication. Districts were often teaching the same subjects

differently. John Bryson, who had handled personnel in Omaha, was given a special

assignment to analyze the training program in the Corps. He issued his findings in a purple

book, you may remember. The sum and substance of that was to set up at Huntsville a

university-type training program. We eliminated duplication, saved many dollars, improved

training, and accelerated the move into the environmental program requirements. Cleaning

that up was, to me, a major management improvement in one specific field.

Any more comments about being director of Civil Works?

A.. I was very happy in Civil Works. In many ways, it’s the best job I ever had. At the time I had

authorities that may not still be there. I had a staff that was outstanding, and I’m sure they still

are good staffs. I had good bosses. General Clarke was truly an outstanding man, as was

General Gribble. General Gribble gave us room to operate. I remember clearly, though, when

General Gribble was chosen to replace General Clarke, I received a call asking me if I’d like

to be on the Tennessee Valley Authority. I called my friend Don McBride, and he said, “Jack,

if there’s any chance you’re going to move up to deputy or Chief, I’d say turn it down.” I did.

111
Engineer Memoirs

The same day I had a call from a friend of mine in OMB, who said, “I hear you’re going to

retire.”

I said, “I have no idea, no intention of retiring.”

He said, “Well, that’s the word out there.”

Ken Ballou, Under Secretary of the Army, with whom I had worked closely on the public

works business, had told General Abrams that I might be unhappy because I didn’t get to be

Chief. I don’t know where this all started, but I was surprised by this reaction.

I was called over to General Abrams’ office. Now, keep in mind I’d already had one call about

the Tennessee Valley thing and another call from a guy in OMB that morning. That afternoon

I went to see General Abrams, and being a very forthright person, the first thing he said to me,

“Morris, I’ve been hearing some nice things about you. Are you planning to leave the Army?”

So I said, “Sir, this is the third time I’ve heard about that same subject today. If you’re trying

to tell me something, I’d like to hear about it,” or some words to that effect.

He said, “No.” Then he asked, “Where is Kerr Dam?”

“It’s down here in Virginia. It’s a Corps project.”

“Well, I’m thinking about going down there for a couple of weeks. What do you think about

From left to right, Don McBride, former assistant to Senator Robert Kerr; Robert Kerr, Jr.; and

General Morris when he was Director of Civil Works.

112
John W. Morris

it?”

I mentioned that I thought that was okay, but the place was so close to Washington he

couldn ‘t get away from his business.

I suggested he ought to go to Fort Peck. He said, “Fort Peck, is that one of mine?” I said, “No,

sir, it’s one of mine.” I explained it all to him, about being in the upper reaches of the

Missouri River in Montana, that we had a good project man and horses for his daughters, et

cetera. He said, “How do I get there?” “Well, if you can get to Omaha, the Corps’ plane can

get you to Fort Peck.” So we fixed up the two bedrooms that had the baths in the lodge.

Abrams stayed two weeks and had a great’ time.

I’d call out every day or so and see how he was doing. Don Beckman, our project manager,

was a fine man. One day as I called Bob, he told me that General Abrams had said to tell

Morris to quit checking up on him.

When General Abrams came home, he had the swearing-in ceremony for General Gribble,

which I attended. General Abrams said he had a wonderful time. You know, he died shortly

after that because he had cancer. Sometime later I saw Mrs. Abrams at an affair in New York,

and she explained that going to Fort Peck in Montana was one of the best things that ever

happened to her and the family. She had no idea that the Corps of Engineers did the things

they did and had such wonderful people as Beckman and his team.

I was very proud of the Corps because it made such a nice impression on the Chief of Staff

and especially his family. That was quite a compliment. I always liked Fort Peck, and having

the Chief of Staff up there for a couple of weeks was a good thing.

My assignment to OCE as the director of Civil Works was a crucial duty for me for several

reasons. In many ways this was my most challenging and demanding job in the Corps and

surely one of the most rewarding. I was blessed with excellent career experiences for the work

which lay ahead and was most fortunate to serve under Lieutenant General F. J. Clarke and

his successor Lieutenant General Gribble.

Most i.mportan.t, however, were two watershed events wh.ich occurred during the period and

which forever changed the Corps and the public works program of the Department of the

Army. One was from without and the other internal to the Army.

Having been passed two years prior to my arrival as director of Civil Works, NEPA and its

executive agent, EPA, had found their footing. New environmental procedures impacted every

aspect of the public works program. Getting the largest public works agency-the Corps-in

step and a positive player in the new arrangements tested every member. Some were not

willing and others not comfortable to adjust. Nevertheless, the public works foundations of

the Corps of Engineers for the present and the future were laid during the first half of the

1970s decade.

The internal development was the activation of the position of the Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Civil Works. The effects of this are still emerging and will continue in the years

ahead. General Clarke was concerned that this position would generate fewer positive than

adverse values. He appears to have had good reason for his concern. To date, the most

apparent effect has been the steady intrusion of the ASAKW into the fabric and authority of

the position of the director of Civil Works and more seriously that of the Chief of Engineers.

For the ASA/CW to invade the command and control arena of the responsible commander is

wrong, and unfortunately such intrusions appear to be growing in number and depth.

113
Engineer Memoirs

In my view, the external event-NEPA-provided a new and productive challenge to the

benefit of the Corps of Engineers and, in turn, to the stewardship of the nation’s resources.

We may have objected and even resisted the change in direction, but time has proven the new

mission to be good. Conversely the position of the ASACW, which was accepted with

expectations or, better stated, with hopes, tends to distract rather than foster the Corps’

leadership ability to perform with greatest effectiveness. The latter is unfortunate because

there is great opportunity for ASA/CW to assist and advance the water resources program and

the Corps’ role therein and to the Army.

Deputy Chief of Engineers

Q

.

. Shall we turn to the position of Deputy Chief of Engineers, which you moved into, I think, in

August 1975?

A

.

. Well, let’s see. How did all that come about? It was June, I believe, because I was doing both

jobs for a while.

Danny Raymond was the deputy, and when he decided to retire I had been in Civil Works a

full three years. I was available. Of course, I think and hope General Gribble brought me into

that job as deputy because he thought I would be helpful to him and the Corps. General

Gribble picked General Graves to be the director of Civil Works. Graves was not available

for some time, so for about 60 days I remained director of Civil Works and also the deputy.

During this same time, we had an unfortunate event occur. In June, West Point Dam was

finished. The Secretary of the Army was [Howard] “Bo” Callaway, whose home was near the

West Point Dam. So the dedication program highlighted a speech from Secretary of the Army

Callaway.

Since General Gribble was not able to go, it fell on the deputy to accompany the secretary. We

flew down, Callaway and a group of congressmen, and were joined at the airport by General

LeTellier, the South Atlantic Division engineer, and another group of congressmen and their

wives. Altogether we were about 35. We were loaded into a magnificent, brand-new bus with

the elevated seats in front, a lounge area in the rear with tables with swivel chairs on each

side, sofas across the back, some mirrors, closets, and a refrigerator. It was very plush and a

nice way to go the 35 miles from the airport to the vicinity of the dam.

All the ladies and most of their husbands sat up front. The secretary-whose wife was in the

front-and the bachelors sat in the lounge. It was a rainy afternoon. A logging truck heading

in the other direction came over a hill, spun out of control, hit the bus head-on, killing both

drivers. The bus skewed around, and the back end slid halfway into a ditch. Fuel was spewing

to the ground, and glass and mirrors broke and flew all over the interior-a serious situation.

I was in the back with the Secretary of the Army, Congressmen [Bob] Jones, [Jack] Flynt, and

[Walter] Flowers, General LeTellier, and some others. None of those in the back were hurt

badly, although Congressman Jones seemed unconscious, General LeTellier had a cut on his

face from flying glass, and the secretary’s face had been cut. I was uninjured.

Lieutenant Colonel Freeman Cross, who was Deputy District Engineer in Savannah and had

been a company commander with me in Korea, had been standing up when this happened.

Once he got to his feet, he crushed open the partition between the front and the back. I went

up front and found a real mess. I mean, it was bad news. People had been thrown all around,

the seats had been broken loose, the driver obviously was dying if he wasn’t dead. I tried to

help him, but he was just smashed between the seat and steering wheel. Fortunately, the Corps

114
John W. Morris

had a lead and a trailing vehicle with radios. In minutes not only the Corps but the police were

there, and helicopters from Fort Benning began to arrive.

I was the senior military person. Major [Gary] Lord, a Corps officer from the office of

Legislative Liaison, accompanied the congressmen. So we had LeTellier, Cross, Lord, and

Morris from the Corps. We had the congressional group plus Secretary Callaway and wife.

Congressman Tom Bevill had been sitting in front with his wife, and when the impact

occurred the bus door flew open. I understand he just sort of slid out underneath of the little

railing in front of the first seat and outside the door. I think he had a couple of broken ribs,

but he was lucky. Mrs. Bevill was shaken up but not hurt. I immediately told Cross, who was

in pretty good shape, and Lord, who had a bad cut on his leg but was mobile, to have the men

with their wives sit on the ground beside each other so that the wives and the husbands would

go to the same place when the ambulances arrived.

Then we began to inventory the damage. Mrs. Nichols from Alabama had a seriously broken

ankle. The aide men put one of those plastic air-inflated emergency splints on her. We finally

got everyone out, paired up, and sitting on the side of the road in a drizzling rain, dazed. The

inside of the bus was covered with debris, shoes, purses, et cetera. It looked like a war zone.

Mrs. Callaway while standing, talking to her husband, suddenly looked like she was going to

collapse. She was laid on a stretcher and as soon as possible, onto an Army helicopter with

the secretary and myself. By the time the helicopter came, everything was about as orderly as

we could get it thanks to Major Lord and Colonel Cross. LeTellier was left behind with

instructions to be sure everybody in the military got to the hospital and received a physical

checkup.

Because I was in uniform and Callaway was in civilian clothes, the MPs were giving me the

attention. I explained that the other two passengers were the Secretary of the Army and his

wife. That took care of any concern for me!

Once at the hospital, I wanted to report the accident. Having worked in Legislative Liaison,

I had some feeling for how this all worked, so I told the operator to get me the White House

on the phone. She was kind of funny because she said, “We don’t have a White House at Fort

Benning.” I said, “No, I want the one in Washington.” After a brief gasp she did a fine job.

The phone was answered by Jack Marsh, who later became Secretary of the Army. This was

President [Gerald] Ford’s Administration, of course. I told Mr. Marsh about the accident and

that I wanted to be sure he heard from me before it was on the television and on the radio. I

reported we had two people killed and we had some serious injuries but it looked like the

congressmen and the ladies would be all right. Congressman Bevill was in the hospital along

with Congressman Flynt and Congressman Jones. Flowers was okay, as I recall. I retold Mr.

Marsh that the secretary was all right and that Mrs. Callaway’s back was bothering her. At any

rate, I reported all this to Mr. Marsh and he thanked me.

Within five minutes, the phone rang. It was President Ford. I talked to him a moment, then put

Secretary Callaway on.

We finally got to our lodgings near the dam late that evening. Having been assigned to

Savannah District years before, I still knew many people who were there. They had had

certain things planned for us that evening, which didn’t occur, but we did have the dedication

the next day. The secretary was quite sore, as most people were, but the dedication occurred

as scheduled.

115
Engineer Memoirs

Personally, I did not have a bruise. The reason was simple. I was sitting in a swivel chair with

its back toward the front of the bus. I was looking out the back of the bus, so to speak, and

when the impact occurred that chair just swiveled so that all of the impact went right into the

back of the chair, which was cushioned. Congressman Flowers, who was sitting across from

me, came flying over the table toward me.

It was a bad experience that took a lot of zip out of us for a few days. Then we had the

investigations because of the people involved.

General LeTellier finally submitted to a physical exam to learn, as I recall, that he did have

a slight fracture of his shoulder. Cross was okay, Lord came out of it all right. The most

serious passenger injury was the lady [Mrs. Nichols] whose foot was broken badly.

Early on after I became Deputy Chief, General Gribble asked me to go to Italy and Saudi

Arabia, take a look at that situation, and see how we were handling it. Colonel Torrey

Williams, Mediterranean Division engineer in Livomo, Italy, in preparation for our visit,

developed his plan for managing the Saudi program. I was accompanied on that trip by Fred

McNeely and Lee Garrett. I’d known Fred from my Goose Bay, Eastern Ocean District days

and in Civil Works. He knew the military construction business from top to bottom. I had

some earlier association with both Garrett and McNeely, but I really got to know them on this

trip. They were truly outstanding assets to the Corps’ team. The years to come proved their

worth over and over.

Lee and Fred certainly had much more in-depth questions for Colonel Williams about how

the plan was going to operate than I did, but I came to one conclusion during the outstanding

briefing. Colonel Williams wasn’t moving his headquarters to Riyadh fast enough. So on the

way out to the car to leave, I congratulated Torrey on his great briefing. Also, I said I was

going to recommend to the Chief of Engineers that the date of 1 July 1977 when Williams

wanted to put the flag in Riyadh be moved to 1 July 1976, which was ten months hence and

a full year sooner than he’d planned. I said, “Now, you will have an opportunity to rebut that

to the Chief, but that’s what I intend to recommend.”

The logic for the position was important. While we managed earlier overseas programs

successfully from the U.S., I felt we had to have this headquarters in Riyadh quickly. The

reason was fundamental-we were to spend the Saudis’ money, and we should have our head

of operations as close as possible to the people putting up the money. It was just a question

of time until they were going to want to know what happened to their money, and they’d

object to going back to Italy to ask these questions. Besides, the work was in Saudi Arabia,

and I wanted to have the headquarters in place before the workload developed into a really

heavy management and control burden.

Williams was not too happy about a one-year curtailment of his plan, but it prevailed.

Brigadier General [Richard] Wells became the first commander of the Middle East Division

headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Colonel [George] Gray was in Saudi Arabia as district engineer. He was a man you could put

at the end of the line and not worry about getting the job done. He wasn’t all that thrilled to

have somebody move in on top of him.

My deputy tour was only one year. I had several articles prepared for Water S’pectmm. One

was called, “Our Troubled Waterways,” as I recall [see Appendix A]. Then there was an

interview about my civil works, what I saw for the future. There were some pretty interesting

things in there, particularly on the wetlands, which in those days wasn’t a headline item but

which I had thought would become a major problem. We were still tidying up the 404

116
John W. Morris

program. General Gribble was instrumental, as you may recall, in getting us to call the

conference in New Orleans to come to grips with the matter.

Q:

A:

Would this be a good place to talk about Marco Island?

Yes. Marco Island became a major issue. I think the two projects that took the most time, as

deputy, were Marco Island and, again, Lock and Dam 26. What happened at Marco Island?

As I recall, there were several elements of the Marco Island Development plan-Areas A, B,

C and D. Area A was developed. The developers needed a permit to start B and D, and to

finish C. That’s the concept, as I recall.

The district engineer had recommended the permit be issued. The division engineer

recommended that it not be issued. The key element of the decision concerned the red

mangrove-98 percent of the red mangroves in the United States are in the state of Florida.

This particular tree is critical to the food chain for the shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico. The

environmental community was very much concerned that Marco Island was going to destroy

too much of the red mangroves. The governor of Florida wanted the permit issued, and that’s

normally a key factor. I think on that basis the district engineer said, “Okay,” but the division

engineer, for a variety of reasons, said, “No.” One reason, I think, was that this matter was so

important it should be decided in Washington. If the district engineer had turned the permit

MG John W. Morris was sworn in as Deputy Chief of Engineers on 1 August 1975 by First

Lieutenant Yuvonne Balentine, the junior officer in OCE. Lieutenant Balentine wrote on the picture,

“Congratulations, sir. Keep working at it and you may become Chief one day.”

117
Enaineer Memoirs

Q.

.

down, that would have been the end of it because his decision is irrevocable. The division

engineer’s position could be evaluated. General Gribble studied the matter and turned it over

to me for a recommendation.

I took the file and spent the entire weekend with it. Finally, I recommended the Chief approve

finishing Area C since most of the damage had been done and to disapprove the application

for Areas B and D. My rationale was simple. By law, every state was required to have a

coastal zone management plan. The state of Florida had not yet complied with that law. The

governor of Florida had said that if this permit were issued, he would not allow any more

destruction of the red mangrove. In the absence of a state law or a plan, there was no reason

to think that the next governor would be bound by this governor’s conclusions. So my

rationale was that until the state of Florida had a coastal zone management plan, the federal

government should exercise its position and deny the permit even though the governor wanted

it to be issued. My belief was that a well-conceived coastal zone management plan would

include necessary safeguards for red mangroves.

That decision created quite a stir when announced. It was a landmark decision, and it did have

a lot to do with the coastal zone management plan program. You may recall that during my

Civil Works times we made several landmark decisions on permits. I don’t think we should

try to cover them all-Bald Head Island, Block M, and a series of them. Marco Island was

only one, but one of the more dynamic because of the money that was involved in building

Marco Island and the political aspects.

General Gribble sustained the recommendation, and that’s the way it came out as I can recall.

I don’t know what’s happened since then.

Lock and Dam 26 came up again when you were deputy.

A.

. As deputy, I was chairman of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. It seemed that

no matter where I went, Lock and Dam 26 followed along. Lock and Dam 26 arrived at the

board for evaluation when I did. There were two key issues. One, of course, was the

hullabaloo about a 12-foot channel. The design called for 12 feet of water over the sill to

allow a tow to go in and out of the lock safely even though the river depth was for a 9-foot

channel. The additional 3 feet caused the opponents to claim the Corps was going to make the

river channel 12 feet deep and increase the tonnage. That was one part of the problem.

The project before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors included a 110 by 1,200-

foot lock on the Illinois side near Alton and another 110 by 600-foot lock on the Missouri

side. As you recall, the Corps did not have authority to build a structure which would increase

the capacity of the waterway. Congressional authorization would be required.

The studies had shown that the projected traffic would require a second lock in years to come,

but the current need required only the 1,200-foot lock. So technically speaking, we couldn’t

go for the second lock without having analyzed the impact of the extra traffic on the

waterway. We knew that the 1,200-foot lock was okay because it wouldn’t allow the traffic

to be increased on the upper Mississippi beyond the old Lock and Dam 26 capacity.

So the problem was how to structure the language in the legislation that would accommodate

the second lock without violating the NEPA, which required an environmental impact

statement before authorization of a federally sponsored project.

As you recall, this Lock and Dam 26 project problem started while I was director of Civil

Works. It didn’t end until after I became deputy chief. I finally took the language problem

home and drafted wording which was ultimately okayed by our counsel. It didn’t authorize

a second lock but allowed Congress to recognize that at some future date there might be a

118
John W. Morris

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A..

Q.

.

A..

need and if justified by the required EIS and other analyses, then it could be built without

further authorization by the Congress. I don’t recall the exact wording so I can’t be too

precise, but that was the thrust.

The review by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was a very touchy subject too,

wasn’t it?

Yes, and as indicated above, the problem became more sensitive when I was Chief. This entire

Lock and Dam 26 subject might have been handled here as a separate topic, not piecemeal as

part of the various positions that I filled.

What other duties did you have as deputy?

Also as deputy, I represented the Chief frequently on command inspections and at staff

meetings in the Pentagon. Every major element got a command inspection by one of the

directors or the deputy. General Gribble used the deputy on those of particular interest to him.

He sent me to Europe to look at EUD, which was relatively new as a division.

Frank Koisch was the engineer who precipitated the engineer command’s becoming the Corps

of Engineers Europe Division. When I first arrived as deputy, Major General Lou Prentiss was

the division engineer. I spent a lot of time on this particular visit with the senior military

people. General [Fritz] Kroesen had the VII Corps. He and I had been classmates at Carlisle.

You may recall General Ken Cooper was the deputy CINC, USAREUR [U.S. Army, Europe].

Our principal concern was the condition of maintenance of military facilities in Europe. I’d

visited General George Patton, Jr., commanding general of the 4th Armored Division. The

tanks were in the mud, and the barracks were beat up. I’d been in Europe, of course, in 1949

to 1952-25 years earlier. The facilities really were no better-perhaps worse in 1975.

So I came back with a fairly bleak report on the facilities situation and the command’s

concern about it. Cooper advocated a strong new program to upgrade facilities in Europe. I

had little to do with the program, but that trip helped General Gribble to support it.

What were your impressions of EUD as an organization?

Let me think about that. I liked it. It was under some unique contracting and management

constraints because of the way construction was handled in Germany. Also, a number of the

staff had been in Europe since the war. Too many. So Lou and his successors, LeTellier,

Donovan and [Norman] Delbridge, dealt with this problem and corrected it. Initially that was

a concern.

The workload grew as the program to upgrade facilities was financed. When Delbridge

arrived in 1977, he asked for and was given a couple of hundred more people. I was Chief and

Graves was the deputy at the time. The Europe Division grew and became a very active

division with a nice workIoad and numerous contracts. Morale was good. I happened to be in

Frankfurt on Engineer Day one year, and they had a very well attended and enthusiastic

evening celebration of that event. It was a good division with a large unique job. E.UD had no

districts.

It had been established in 1974. Until then, USAREUR had taken care of its own construction,

so it only had a couple of years under its belt ano had to prove itself, I think.

That’s what happened. As mentioned, when I first visited Prentiss, he was really working hard

to build the foundation for good U.S.-German contractor relationships. While in Europe, I

visited every commander we served, Army and Air Force, just because of what you said. I

119
Enaineer Memoirs

came back with a fairly comfortable feeling that the division would get the job done. I am sure

history will give it good grades.

Q

.

. What other initiatives did the Chief ask you to work on?

A.. Soon after I became deputy, General Gribble asked me to set up a command management

program similar to the one I had installed in Civil Works. So the process was started, and that

was fortunate because when I moved up to Chief, the year of preparation made it much easier

to pursue my goals for the corps.

General Gribble also established a philosophy of “customer satisfaction” and often brought

up the subject to his principals when we would go to the various directorates for the weekly

brief updates. Today we hear customer satisfaction all the time in the public arena. General

Gribble was a forerunner of that particular concept and all the implications that go with it.

General Gribble from 1973 to 1976 was a splendid Chief of Engineers. Some people felt his

experience in the Corps was limited, but he had been district engineer in Alaska and division

engineer in the North Central Division. Also, he was very intelligent, exceptionally good with

people, andunderstood the Army and the Corps. I felt it was the Army’s shortsightedness that

they didn’t give him command of the Army Materiel Command and a fourth star.

While I was director of Civil Works, he set up the Research and Development Directorate and

put all the laboratories under the chief of Research and Development. I had to give up the

Waterways Experiment Station and some others. I certainly didn’t want to give up anything,

especially the labs, but I must say the move was correct and has worked out fine.

Based on General Cooper’s advice and help in 1974, General Gribble pushed hard to establish

the Assistant Chief of Engineers’ [ACE] position with an office in the Pentagon. Next,

military housing and all related staff functions were consolidated under the new ACE. Bill

Gribble was on target and put in place the capability for the Corps of Engineers to become the

engineer for the Army in every way. OCE could handle the entire real property function from

the cradle to grave. This became an objective which impacted on my decisions later as Chief

of Engineers.

Having the ACE’s shop allowed the Chief of Engineers to do the staff work for the Chief of

Staff more responsively and more efficiently. General Cooper was the first Assistant Chief

of Engineers. The whole idea made eminent sense, and the Army staff understood his plan.

Q

.

. There had been a Directorate of Facilities Engineering for a while.

A

.

. General Gribble’s idea also. The importance of facility maintenance to the Army warranted

a separate staff element to manage this program. The Facilities Engineering Directorate

removed the function from the Construction Directorate. Brigadier General Walt Bachus was

the first and only director of Facilities Engineering. He started the “first annual facilities

engineers conference” in Chicago. When I asked him about the title, he said, “We had to have

the first annual so we can have the second annual.”

Walter was a dynamic, enthusiastic, and effective director.

As deputy I began to realize there were many operational matters in OCE which should be

done in the field. The headquarters people needed to spend their time making policy, getting

decisions so the field could perform operations. So you’ll find later that one of my first

objectives was to get the Corps out of the operations business.

As we will cover later I expect, out of that came the Facilities Engineering Support Activity

and the Water Resources Support Center, all at Belvoir.

120
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A..

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

General Gribble may not be a Chief who comes immediately to mind when you talk about

Chiefs of Engineers. I don’t know who does and who doesn’t, but he did several things that

were critical to the Corps as we now know it: The ACE, the Research and Development

change, and the Directorate of Facilities Engineering. His “customer satisfaction” philosophy

was a set piece as well.

He was an articulate gentleman. I only know one time when he seemed to be out of sorts, and

that was-he just didn’t want to go see the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

I may have mentioned earlier that he felt that the director of Civil Works should be able to

handle that office. Gribble was a man of few words and a clear thinker. When he didn’t like

the way the 404 program was going, it was very simple. He just called me up and indicated

we had problems with the 404 situation and I’d better get it straightened out. That was about

all he said. “It’s not working right, I want you to get it straightened out.”

Would you characterize him as being a little hesitant on the environmental program? Was it

something that he was reluctant to see the Corps get involved in?

I don’t think so. He wasn’t reluctant about straightening out the 404 program.

Well, the Marco Island decision.

The way he operated on the environmental things was to have the staff do its work first.

There’s no question about that. Maybe he felt that he needed to bring the staff in on these

environmental types of things because it was new ground.

But he backed up the decision.

Always. Yes. No question about that.

In terms of his relationship with the ASAKW, did you ever hear him say anything that would

indicate he feared that the ASAKW might become more involved in the day-to-day operations

of the Corps?

I would not be surprised if Fred Clarke didn’t pass on to Bill Gribble his concern about the

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works’ position. Gribble believed, as I did, that the

director of Civil Works should be the counterpart to the ASAKW and as such should keep

the ASAKW out of the other business of the Corps. Completely. This would save the Chief

for the Secretary of the Army on civil works matters. It made a lot of sense to do it that way.

The Chief had the military program, the research and development program, facilities, and

other matters besides civil works to worry about. So the principle was clear and it prevailed

through my term. As Chief, I never dealt with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil

Works unless I absolutely had to. Gribble, to my knowledge, only dealt with the ASAKW

twice in the whole time. So I think he probably realized that an erosion of that relationship

would mean the Chief had to deal at a level where he shouldn’t. If the Chief works at that

level, he doesn’t have the same flexibility in going to the Secretary of the Army and is

distracted from his duties in supporting the Army.

There was no animosity between him and Secretary Veysey. That wasn’t the problem. It was

just the operating procedures, as he saw them. General Gribble was absolutely right on that.

Was there a pattern to the duties that General Gribble gave you? Sometimes you see the “Mr.

Inside, Mr. Outside”pattem, or was it more an issue at a time that he assigned to you? I mean,

in terms of your working relationship with the Chief. Or maybe you weren’t there long enough

to really see a pattern.

121
A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Engineer Memoirs

He gave me specific requirements. Also, I carved out certain areas to oversee on my own. I

kept a lot of people busy, I know that. The secretaries up there wondered what I was up to. I

chaired the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Also, I led command inspections, plus

getting the headquarters of the Saudi program moved and producing the command

management program he wanted. I was fairly busy as a deputy. I probably was busier than

people realized. As I say, I kept a lot of secretaries busy.

One follow-up question on establishing the ACE’s shop. Did that lead to any overlap with the

Directorate of Military Programs? Did the spheres of the director of Military Programs in

headquarters and the ACE’s office have to be carefully worked out?

Yes, they did and that’11 come up a little later. The ACE’s shop traditionally puts together the

program for the Chief of Staff to present to Congress. Consequently, the ACE had to work

very closely with the director of Military Programs. For the normal staff things such as

training, military equipment, and policy matters, the ACE didn’t have to be concerned about

the director of Military Programs.

We haven’t talked about Tenn-Tom.

True, and we began to get rumors of cost problems when Danny Raymond was division

engineer at the South Atlantic Division and later when he was deputy. He’d watched

Tenn-Tom like a hawk and predicted it would become a real issue. He was right. During my

term as deputy, the issue of the cost overrun of Tenn-Tom arose again, but not so much as it

did later. General LeTellier succeeded Raymond at the South Atlantic Division. He briefed

us on the cost growth and why it was happening. The environmental issue was very critical

also at that time, and he mitigated as much of the environmental impact as possible. I went

to Atlanta while I was deputy to get a detailed briefing on the progress and other various

aspects that were beginning to evolve into major problems.

Were there other important issues on the military side?

I can’t remember exactly when it happened, but Mr. Veysey added to his staff a position to

overlook the entire Army’s environmental program, but principally to overlook the Corps’

environmental program. On our own initiative, I had the Strategic Studies Group, Don

Weinert, take a cursory look at what the Army was doing about the environment and came to

the conclusion that the military wasn’t doing very much. I remember reporting to the Army

staff that NEPA applied to the Army as well as it did to everyone else, and that we had to be

mindful how we operated within our installations. CERL [Construction Engineering Research

Laboratory] began immediately to work up an environmental assessment worksheet and

program for the installation commander.

The Army’s early attitude seemingly was that training was more important than the

environment. That mindset had to be changed. The Corps was early on in trying to highlight

this problem, this mindset.

We made a survey of the Army and found that we had a long way to go. At the same time, you

may recall, there was a big program, big move on to save energy. Funds were appropriated

for an energy survey and we managed to get money for an environmental survey also, which

the commanders didn’t like because they felt that it was money they otherwise would have

had for some other purpose.

My recollection is that the Corps of Engineers assumed leadership in opening the subject of

environmental attitudes within the Army family. It has taken a while, but now the Army is

onboard everywhere because, as I said, the commanders in the field in the 1970s felt training

and military preparedness were more important than the environmental constraints on post.

122
John W. Morris

Q

.

. Going back to what you just said, is it true to say that for installation commanders, both

facilities engineering and this environmental plan were issues that were important to them,

but they didn’t particularly want to concentrate on them?

A

.

. I’d say the environment was something they thought was a lesser priority than training.

The reason the facilities engineer business kept popping up as a management problem was

that most commanders wanted to control the post O&M money. If it wasn’t for the fact that

they wanted the money, it would have been a simple matter for the Chief of Engineers to

become the facility engineer for the Army in an effective operational sense, not just in a staff

sense. We never could and still haven’t been able to get the installation commanders to release

that money, relinquish the money.

The Corps can budget it, you know, and they put it in the program, but when it comes out, it’s

a post commanding general’s to allocate. So they may have held hands off, you know, of the

environmental needs.

Q

.

. Because one of the complaints is that they want results they can see right away or very soon.

A

.

. That’s one of the reasons why, later on, we got into this one-stop shopping idea. To me it was

just unreasonable that all the Corps’ talent on the civil side of our house was not at least

available on a reimbursable basis to help the posts. The one-stop shopping idea turned out to

be a winner. The posts were getting immediate results. I mean, if they had a problem, if their

staff couldn’t handle it, the post commander or his representative could call up some district

and get help. That started off as just a peanuts program. Now I think work worth hundreds of

millions of dollars goes through that process.

It’s improved the Corps’ relationship within the Army, at least the Army’s understanding.

That’s always been an educational problem, getting the Chief of Engineers’ civil works

mission to be part of the Chief of Staff of the Army’s mission. I mean, those trails have not

always even stayed parallel, much less converge. We’ll come to that later, too, because we did

a lot of work on that subject. I think some decent work.

Q

.

. Maybe we could conclude today by getting your summary ideas about being deputy. As you

pointed out, by the end of the time you were deputy, you knew that you were going to be

Chief. That made it a little different, but how would you characterize the position of deputy

and how you felt about the work there?

A.. The position of deputy is directly influenced by the personality of the Chief. In the case of

General Gribble, he was perfectly happy for the deputy to oversee the civil works program as

his alter ego, basically to manage the aspects of the regulatory issue, the dredging problems,

and all the rest.

He did not have a vastly different attitude toward the military programs, but he seemed to be

a little more involved in the military directly. As far as research and development was

concerned, having been head of research and development for the Army, he was very close

to that. So my work as deputy involved those things which either belonged to the deputy by

some kind of a regulation, or the things the Chief would rather have him do. In my case, the

deputy position provided a great opportunity to get back “up-to-speed” on other than civil

works activities in OCE, the Corps, and the Army as a whole.

As an overall assessment of the job, being deputy for General Gribble for three years would

have been fine. The only problem I would have had, if any, could be my own personality. I’m

123
Engineer Memoirs

not too good as number two. I probably would have been happier as director

than I would have been as Deputy Chief of Engineers for a three--year term.

of Civil Works

There was one other thing about the deputy’s job. It carries with it a certain prestige, you

know. You represent the Chief on the Army staff for many important subjects. As deputy

you’re recognized much more than you were, say, as the director of Military Programs or

Civil Works.

Q

.

. Did you do any work up on Capitol Hill or did the director of Civil Works take care of that?

A

.

. Yes. I continued to have a lot of communication up there because I knew so many people, but

I didn’t interfere with the directors of Civil Works or Military Programs in their relations.

Chief of Engineers: Internal and External Relationships

Q

.

. Let’s begin the session today by discussing your selection for Chief.

A.. Of course, having been on the panel for selecting my successor, I can tell you that no one

knows in advance who will get the job. Actually, I was out of the running when I became

deputy in mid-l 975. The reason was simply arithmetic. A person could not assume that job

unless he could finish four years by the time he was 59, and I would pass the 55 milestone

before General Gribble finished his four-year term in 1977.

When General Gribble elected to retire a year early I became eligible. I didn’t learn he was

going to retire early until after the board to select a new Chief had been appointed. A neighbor

at Fort McNair casually mentioned to my daughter that General Gribble was going to retire

a little early, and she told me. I was surprised. Next day I asked Colonel Russ Lamp, executive

to General Gribble, “What’s this I hear about the Chief retiring a year early?”

He said, “Well, that’s supposed to be close hold, but since you asked, he reported to the

Chief of Staff he’d like to retire this summer.”

So that event made me eligible; and it then became just a question of whether or not my

record would be attractive to the board. The Chief of Engineers is selected by a system

established by legislation. No less than three, no more than five officers of equal or higher

grade to the position being filled would consider all colonels and higher in the Corps of

Engineers. The chairman normally is a four-star general. The procedure normally produces

the names in a sequence. The Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Army can rearrange the

names, but they can’t add any. Nor can the president, for that matter.

There is a story going around about General Pick. President Truman had received a list to

replace General [Raymond] Wheeler, and he kept sending it back. The Army finally asked

him what was wrong with the list, and the president supposedly said, “Well, if you’ll send

me a list with Lewis A. Pick’s name on it, I’ll keep it.” That may or may not be true, but it

makes a nice story.

In any event, I heard from a fairly good source that I was among those recommended. My

experience fit the needs of the Chief’s job, as I’ve tried to explain in these interviews.

Whether or not my performance

excellent candidates with other

in tholse jobs would support selection from

and talents remained to be seen.

among the other

Finally, my recollection is that about the middle of May, General Gribble came in one

morning and said, “I want you to know I’m going to retire the 30th of June and you’ve been

nominated to take my position. Until it has been announced, you can’t say anything about it.”

In reflecting on it, I don’t know when General Gribble decided to retire, but I have a feeling

it could have been as early as Christmas in 1975.

124
John W. Morris

General Gribble was a very private person, particularly about his personal affairs. You

couldn’t have a better boss or advocate if he liked your performance.

As I have tried to explain to people, becoming Chief of Engineers, in part, is a matter of

timing. When you walk down the hall, if the door’s open, you have a chance to go in. If the

door’s closed, because of a lot of reasons, you just pass by and you have missed it. In my

case I was definitely on the way past by, but the door opened all of a sudden and I was given

a chance.

In 1976 Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma was in the U.S. Senate. He had been governor of

Oklahoma when I was district engineer in Tulsa in the early 1960s. We’d stayed close to each

other over the years because of a couple of projects of national interest which he supported.

He was also very close to President Ford at the time. In late May 1976, he and I attended the

dedication of Kaw Dam in Ponca City, Oklahoma.

Senator Bellmon learned that President Ford had nominated me to the Congress to be the

44th Chief of Engineers the morning of the day of the dedication. Much to my surprise and

to everyone else’s in the audience of about 15,000,20,000 people, Senator Bellmon said he

was happy to announce that the next Chief of Engineers was going to be General Morris. Of

course, I’d been district engineer when the project was authorized and funded. Consequently,

I was fairly well known to a lot of those people.

I had a wonderful time that day. As an honorary chief of the Ponca Indians from my Tulsa

days, I was soon to become another chief-a bigger and different tribe, for sure. After a

barbecue and other events that go with that kind of festivity, I went to Tulsa and stayed with

some friends, and the celebration continued over the weekend. So it was a nice way to have

it happen, especially since our son John, then First Lieutenant John W. Morris, III, was with

me.

I don’t know what else to say about getting the job. The great men and women of the Corps

are loyal to their Chief and seemed to accept the news okay, but as Chief number 44, I knew

that in the final analysis I had to earn their support by performance, not selection. The

transition into the job was very easy. As deputy, I was sitting next to General Gribble and had

worked with him closely ever since he’d become Chief three years earlier. One sidelight,

shortly after my selection I was asked to move from Fort McNair into General Gribble’s

quarters at Fort Myer. My countersuggestion to redesignate my quarters at Fort McNair as

the Chief’s quarters was approved. General Clarke had lived at Fort McNair when he was

Chief.

To become Chief of Engineers you go through a series of interviews. In my case I’d been

interviewed by the Secretary of the Army [Martin] Hoffman, then by Secretary of Defense

[Donald] Rumsfeld. Finally, I was called over to the Senate for confirmation hearings.

Senator Stennis had me appear before the full Armed Services Committee for hearings on my

becoming Chief of Engineers. I don’t think that’s happened with many other Chiefs, at least

not anyone in my recent memory. That was quite a nice event. They were very kind to me.

On 1 July, General Weyand promoted me to lieutenant general, and Secretary Hoffman

presented me with the appointment from the president to be Chief of Engineers. Gerry, the

children, family, and friends were present for this very nice ceremony.

I think the most memorable event in conjunction with the change-over occurred when

General Gribble gave me the “MacArthur Castles.” As background, General [Leifl Sverdrup

had been MacArthur’s engineer in the Pacific during World War II. He was given this set of

125
Engineer Memoirs

Major General John W. Morris and his son, First Lieutenant John Morris, in Ponca City, Oklahoma,

on the day in late May, 1976, when General Morris learned that he had been nominated to be the

next Chief of Engineers.

castles by General MacArthur with the instructions that they should be given to some worthy

engineer and not put in a museum someplace. So they were given to General Gribble while

he was Chief. The leadership of the command changed when General Gribble pinned the

MacArthur Castles on me. That transfer started a tradition-permanently, I hope.

I pretty much knew what I wanted to do as Chief of Engineers. I’d been in OCE by this time

for four years and knew the staff and OCE operations. In addition, many years in the field

in several districts and divisions meant that I didn’t have to spend a lot of time learning how

the Corps worked or what I needed to do. So I was able, within two weeks, to announce four

goals that I wanted to achieve during my term. They were all interrelated.

Stay in Business. That meant getting the Corps in gear with the environmental

program while remaining active in the traditional engineering field. I did not want

the Corps to be pushed aside because of our historical achievements. This goal

became much more significant later when President Carter was elected.

Support the Total Army. Total Army, meaning Active, National Guard, and the

Reserves. That was important because the Army’s program emphasized these

elements. Furthermore, the Army didn’t always understand the public works program

and felt it diverted some of the engineer support that the Army needed. The best way

126
John W. Morris

to resolve this issue was to do a very good job for the Army. There is a basic

difference between the civil and the military work. The Chief must remember, and

I think, promote rather than ignore or suppress the difference. “Vive la difference.”

We had much work to do within the Army, as will come up later.

Support the Nation, our other customers. That led us into the international program

and an improved position with the Air Force and other elements of the Executive

Branch.

Get OCE out of the Operations Business. I thought OCE had to take care of policy

and the world outside the Corps. The divisions and the districts could handle

operation with good staff work and the support of OCE.

You may remember there was an exodus of people out to the Humphreys Engineer

Center-to the Kingman and later the Casey buildings. We set up the Water Resources

Support Center and the Facilities Engineering Support Activity. The headquarters became

more active in policy and the coordination activities which the districts couldn’t do. That

would turn out to be a much more significant goal in 1980 than I had ever thought.

Those were the four things that were to require most of my time. If we did all those, that

would be enough. As time passed, those goals affected many day-to-day decisions.

Those were published the 15th of July, and every field activity put together measurable

objectives to support the four goals. I implemented the four goals early because I wanted to

give the Corps direction. Fortunately, a couple proved to be crucial to our future when the

Major General Charles I. McGinnis, Division Engineer, Southwestern Division (left) and Major

General John W. Morris, Deputy Chief of Engineers (center), participated enthusiastically in the

dedication parade in Ponca City, Oklahoma, for Kaw Dam, 1976.

127
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Democratic Administration and its philosophy towards the Corps settled into place in early

1977.

An early requirement was to select a deputy. That crucial decision proved to be more of a

challenge than I had anticipated. There were many outstanding choices, but I needed to find

a man with strengths in areas where I had weaknesses or limited experience.

I listed the areas where I did not feel I needed deputy strength and the areas where I thought

I needed an experienced second-in-command. I then reviewed each major general of the

Corps without concern about seniority. After analyzing each person’s strengths against the

weaknesses in my experiences, I chose Bob Marshall, Major General Robert C. Marshall.

Bob had been senior to me until that moment I became Chief of Engineers and a year ahead

of me at the Military Academy. Bob had an outstanding background in military duties, in

special weapons, in the space program at that time. He knew the Army staff very well. He

had a good solid background in civil works, which I didn’t need, but in the Mobile District

he had a large military construction program which I considered valuable. I asked Bob if he’d

take the job, and he said he would take it if after one year he could become president of the

Mississippi River Commission and division engineer of the Lower Mississippi Valley

Division. On that basis, I accepted him. I know I picked the right man. Perhaps I should not

have agreed to the one year, because that led to his leaving at a time when I wished I could

have kept him. We made a good team, I think.

I also had to select an executive. Colonel Lamp agreed to stay, but he didn’t want to stay too

long. Russ Lamp was rock solid. He was an aggressive and extremely capable person. I

ultimately selected Roger Peterson to take Russ’s job. My secretary in Civil Works had been

Jeanine Huffman, and I considered her briefly for the Chief’s secretary position. I elected to

keep Helen Velsmid, General Gribble’s secretary.

Did you have a civilian assistant to the chief of staff at that point?

Yes, Jack Quinn. Actually, Russ Lamp selected him. Jack had a lot of growing up to do in

that job, which he did. Now I suppose Jack is looked upon as an old head that knows

everything about everything, but he had to start off just like everybody else. I can honestly

tell you that-he’ll tell you-the first year or so wasn’t easy for him. I didn’t lack for ideas

of things I wanted to do, and many, particularly internal stuff, drifted down to him to execute.

So Jack had his hands full.

What about the major directorates?

Civil Works was headed up at that time by Ernie Graves. Bates Bumell was the director of

Military Construction. Walt Bachus was the director of Facilities Engineering. Major General

George Rebh was still there in the Postal Program-not a directorate.

Manning Seltzer headed Legal and Woody Berge was in Real Estate. Woody and I had

known each other since I was in Tulsa. I’d known Manning since then also. I had to replace

them all, though, during my term. Who else? What else did I miss? Personnel was Bob

Jacobs, but he was getting ready to leave. I think Ralph Loschialpo was either in the saddle

or getting pretty close.

Public Affairs was Bob Benning and then Sam Kern.

Had the Resources Management Directorate been established?

I established that.

128
John W. Morris

Q.

. You established that. So there was still the old comptroller’s office. We do need to talk about

that.

A.. Comptroller was Ted Geesay. Later I changed it to the Resources Management Office. Bill

Taylor was running Research and Development. All these people

of them would depart shortly after I became Chief. So I had

decisions to make on personnel. Maybe they all decided once I

leave.

I’ve mentioned, every one

almost a clean sweep of

got in, that it was time to

Once into the job, an early requirement was to communicate

engineers face-to-face. We met regionallj.

with the district/division

At the end of 45 days I was able to put on paper the issues which I thought were causing

difficulty in implementing the goals. So by the 1st of September, things had settled down

quite well. We’d tried very hard to make the change quickly and get on with our work

because we had so much to do, and besides, the presidential elections were coming in

November.

The Chief of Staff of the Army passed from General Weyand to General Bernard Rogers, my

classmate from the Military Academy. We had known each other over the years.

As the election campaign warmed up, candidate Carter made some strong statements about

the Corps, and I began to realize that we were going to have trouble if Carter was elected. So

we began to prepare for that possibility.

Unlike earlier reorganization plans for the Executive Branch, this one would be a little

different, because the president personally had made a statement that he was going to do

something adverse to the welfare of the Corps. Under earlier reorganization schemes, the

director of Civil Works usually became the action officer and, as mentioned earlier, he was

the one that put his career on the line in case something went wrong. The idea was to insulate

the Chief.

In this particular case, there would be no alternative but for the Chief of Engineers personally

to become involved in developing a plan to stay in business.

Well, as you know, Jimmy Carter was elected. I had probably, along with a lot of other

people, misinterpreted the public’s will, intent, and it was only in the last days of the

campaign that we began to realize President Carter would probably make it, or had a good

chance of making it. So we began to plan how to react should he implement his campaign

promises to put the Corps of Engineers out of business. That occupied a lot of my thinking

in the early days.

Shortly after the election, the Chief of Staff of the Army had his annual commanders

conference. The commanders sat with the Chief of Staff at the table. The staff along the back

normally didn’t say anything unless they were asked to or a subject came up which was their

principal area of interest and responsibility. I was prepared to make a comment if I could get

an opening, but none came so I took the initiative and asked if I could present an issue I

considered important to the Army. General Rogers said, “Yes, go ahead.”

I then mentioned to the staff that I had a realproblembecause the new president of the

United States had said he was going to put the Corps of Engineers out of business-out of

the public works business. I stressed that such was not in the best interests of the Army or

the country, but the president was our commander. My plan was to convince him, by good

works, that his plan was not the best thing to do. I stressed that I could use the Army

129
Enaineer Memoirs

commander’s support, but I certainly didn’t need any distractions. I indicated my hope that

the Army staff would support us in our initiatives to keep this mission with the Army for the

good of the Army. Otherwise, I’d appreciate it very much if they would refrain from making

adverse comments and just let me fight my own battles in my own way.

I was extremely pleased and relieved when every senior general in the Army supported the

Corps’ keeping the civil works mission. I had some concern that the Army leaders and the

staff would not understand the value of the civil mission to the Army. I soon realized the

senior people in the Army did understand. General [Robert] Shoemaker, Forces Command;

Kroesen, Vice Chief of Staff; Stafc and General [John] Vessey, CG VIII Army, had seen the Corps

at work and knew the Corps’ efforts in the public arena and how well we had handled

ourselves with the leaders of communities. Their response and that of al 1

most supportiv‘e and valuable . No doubt there are problems at the colonel, 1

commanders was

ieutenant colonel,

or maybe the brigadier general level, but not to the senior people who’ve seen the Corps at

work nationally.

After the meeting, I was walking down the hall with General Rogers to thank him for letting

me have a chance to make the pitch. Also, I wanted to review the Army’s position. In the

course of that discussion, he indicated he felt the Corps should be a major command and

asked my thoughts. I agreed and was asked to put together a recommendation.

By this time, we had established the Resource Management Office as a general officer

position. I wanted a general in there, so I’d brought in somebody I thought would be a

general, and that was Morelli, Don Morelli. Don was an excellent commander and overall

an outstanding Corps of Engineers officer. He’d been a district engineer and a regimental

commander at Fort Leonard Wood. He was a go-getter, highly regarded, had a lovely wife

and beautiful family. Morelli was given the job of putting together the paperwork necessary

to get the Army’s approval to make the Corps of Engineers a major command.

Ultimately, I had to go see General Kroesen, Vice Chief of Staff. This process took quite a

few months. General Fritz Kroesen asked me, “Do you really want to do this?” I said, “Yes.”

He asked, “Why?” I said, “Well, I’ve given it a lot of thought and I think there’s more pluses

than there are minuses.” I said, “It may be a little awkward at first because the Army’s got

to accept this, but in the long run it recognizes the fact that the Chief of Engineers is a

commander and gives him a clearer voice within the Army where he needs it.” He approved.

Then we had to develop command insignia. Also, we needed a crest. We had a contest for

the crest, and after a lot of disappointments, a handicapped employee from the Kansas City

District came in with a proposal. It was beautiful, and we adopted it.

We had a lot more trouble getting the patch worked out, though. I gave General Bachus the

job. He developed a family of patches. Ernie Graves had moved up to be deputy, so this was

during late summer 1977, and I gave them to Ernie to look over. I didn’t especially like any

one of them, but I didn’t want to disapprove them out of hand, so I asked Ernie if he’d take

a look at them. About ten minutes later he came back in with a design he had drawn up and

which we adopted. That was quick.

There was one thing, however, about the patch. It looks a lot like the 20th Brigade patch. As

you recall, I’d commanded the 18th Engineers, and for a moment my reaction was to make

it look less like the 20th Brigade patch. I decided I shouldn’t get personal about this thing so

I left it alone. I did, however, mention to Ernie that he obviously had been in the 20th

Engineer Brigade.

130
John W. Morris

General and Mrs. Morris cut the cake at the Corps of Engineers' 205th anniversary at Ft. Belvoir,

Virginia, in June 1980. The new unit crest for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a major Army

command is in the background.

Q.

A:

Dealing with a new president who had criticized the Corps was a major challenge, wasn’t it?

We were really greatly worried because, as with most presidents, it’s difficult for a new

administration to fill all key positions. We didn’t know who was going to be Secretary of the

Army for quite a while. Near the inauguration time, President Carter selected Clifford

Alexander, a Washington attorney, to be the Secretary of the Army. The Assistant Secretary

of the Army for Civil Works became Mr. Blumenfeld, who with Secretary Alexander proved

to be a good team for the engineer community.

I continued General Gribble’s practice of having the Chief deal with the Secretary and the

director of Civil Works deal with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Mr.

Alexander actually knew very little about the Crops at the outset. He was a lawyer and had

his own agenda. He was very strong on suppressing discrimination, fostering equal rights,

and promoting equal opportunity.

An opportunity to deal directly with the president on major Corps issues arose quickly. I had

been in New York around the 16th or 17th of February. On returning to D.C. I had a phone

call awaiting at the airport. My secretary advised me I was to be in the president’s office at
LTG John W. Morris, Chief of Engineers; Clifford Alexander, Secretary of the Army; MG

Ernest Graves, Director of Civil Works; and President Jimmy Carter at a meeting in

February 1977 to discuss the President’s “hit list" of water resource projects.

1600. This was about 1430. I said I would go home and put on a new uniform and asked if

the Secretary of the Army was involved. She said she didn’t know. I asked her to check with

the secretary’s office and then to call me at home if he wanted to give me any instructions.

So I went home and was changing clothes when the phone rang. The secretary said he knew

about the meeting and would like me to pick him up at 1530. We went together. On the way

over, he asked if I knew what it was all about. I said I wasn’t sure, but guessed it had

something to do with the “hit list” that we’d been hearing and reading about in the paper. So

we discussed the secretary’s options and his best position.

I told him that we had been trying since I was in Civil Works to get the Congress to direct

the Corps to review every one of its projects to see if they met the environmental criteria. The

idea was that we would like to get the constant hassle about previous decisions behind us so

we could dedicate our efforts to future work. I felt the hit list approval would work only if

the president asked the Congress to approve the approach.

Secretary Alexander again discussed what he should tell the president if he was asked to

comment. I recommended he tell the president that if he wants to stop projects or if he wishes

to set new criteria, that he do it in conjunction with the appropriations cycle, which would

start a couple of months henceforth and continue for a couple of months. In this manner the

subject would be aired in the Congress, and everybody would know what the president was

doing. Of course, this would delay the process several months, but he would then have a clear

shot.

132
John W. Morris

Well, when we got to the president’s conference room, the table was full of people. On the

right of the president was Secretary [Cecil] Andrus, the Secretary of the Interior, and next

to him was Secretary Alexander, and then so forth and so on. I was sitting directly across

from the president. General Graves, director of Civil Works, was with me that day.

The comments went around the table. First, the president asked Secretary Andrus what he

thought about his plan to stop some projects. Andrus suggested sending up one and see what

happened. He came to Secretary Alexander, who said, “Well, we should do this but in

conjunction with the appropriations cycle, so everybody knows what’s going on and there’s

no surprises to the Congress.”

To Secretary Andrus the president indicated that it was not his intent to just send up a trial

balloon, and to Alexander he indicated, it meets the objectives but takes too long. He didn’t

want to wait but wanted to do this now and make an impact.

I was the last one and when asked if I had any comments I noted, “It sounds to me like there

is a list of projects.”Besides the newspaper accounts, I’d never seen such a list. So President

Carter said there was and for me to see it. Mr. Bert Lance went out and brought in a list, gave

it to me, and I looked it over. There were 19 projects, as I recall, 11 of which were Interior

and 8 or 9 were ours. I reviewed the projects on the list. As it turned out, the Corps had

planned to recommend minimum or no funding for all except two projects. The two projects

were the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and the Red River Waterway.

I suggested he drop the two navigation projects because his criteria didn’t apply. His criteria

were to retain only those projects that had immediate benefits and also meet all the

. environmental criteria. I stated that the navigation projects may meet the environmental

criteria but they rarely give immediate benefits. Navigation tonnages have to build up over

a long period of time, unlike flood control, where you can get benefits at once.

The president agreed and indicated we probably should review his list.

Then I noted that one project in California provided electric power and they were having an

energy crisis. This could create a political problem because of its need. He said, “Thank you

very much,” and then announced that, “Anybody who wants to challenge any of these

projects or add to it may do so, but I want this list ready to go and to include a requirement

to review all other unlisted public works projects not completed.” President Carter departed.

So the next thing I knew, somebody was leaning over my shoulder. It turned out to be Mr.

Burt Lance. “General,” he said, “you made a very good impression on the president with your

presentation. You seem to know what you’re talking about and he needed that kind of help.”

So I said, “Well, thank you very much.” I wasn’t feeling too well that day. I thought I was

getting the flu. Well, it turned out I was. Friday I worked half a day and for the only time

since 1960 I went home and went to bed.

Saturday morning I stayed in bed and decided to write a letter to the president about the

meeting on Thursday. Ms. Velsmid came to my home, and I dictated a letter to the president.

The letter basically stated that what he was going to do was necessary and very courageous,

but it was going to lead to a lot of problems for him politically because of the sensitivity of

those programs to the Congress. I was most supportive of his directive that all projects be

reviewed. I said also in the letter that the review, when complete, would have a very positive

impact because the Corps of Engineers could then divert its great talent of solving

tomorrow’s problems instead of just fighting yesterday’s decisions. That was the thrust of

the letter. I closed with the thought that I wished I had time to sit down and talk to him

133
Encjneer Memoirs

because there were so many things that the Corps could do for the future of this country. I

mentioned a few in passing. I wished him good luck with his program.

When I got to the office Monday morning, the letter was all prepared. I gave it to Bob

Marshall to read and asked for his comments. Bob said, “It’s a great letter, Chief, but I

wouldn’t send it.” I asked why not. He said, “Well, you’ll probably lose your job.” It was a

tough situation, but the future of the Corps was at stake, and I felt that made the letter worth

the risk. I asked Ms. Velsmid to take the letter to the White House immediately before I

changed my mind. I signed it. I did not tell Secretary Alexander or the Chief of Staff. I knew

I could not clear the review process quickly and the iron was hot.

We got a call from Jack Watson of the White House staff saying the president would like me

to come over and talk to him. I was surprised and also happy. I prepared several talking

papers on the Corps’ role in recreation, in environment, in water supply, et cetera. I also

made a list of things that the Corps could do: the strategic petroleum reserve, mass

transportation, improve recreation, the quality of life, conservation, things that-1 don’t

remember the details because it’s been so long ago now; but at any rate, I went over to see

the president well prepared to convince him of the value of the Corps to him and the country.

Mr. Watson was present and noted to me that we had about 15 minutes. Well, it took us an

hour and a half. Along the way, we got on to the Sprewell’s Bluff project, which I knew was

the knotty issue underlying his concept and problem with the Corps.

When I was director of Civil Works, Sprewell’s Bluff was authorized for a new construction

start and carried $10 million in the budget. The U.S. congressman from that area was Jack

Flynt.

While governor, Carter had come out strongly in opposition to the project. As was the

practice, the Corps did not start new projects if the governor opposed them. If it was under

construction we’d continue, but we would not start. So as director of Civil Works I

personally called OMB and asked Don Crable [or Tom Berry] to put that money on another

project or distribute it elsewhere.

Then Congressman Flynt wanted a resolution prepared which, if passed by the legislature of

Georgia, would override the governor’s position. So he asked me if the Corps would draft

it for him. I said, “No,” because it was not a federal activity and I didn’t want to become

involved. He then asked if I would review a draft if he prepared it. I said, “I’ll read it but only

for one purpose-to see if it conflicts with any federal regulations.” So he drafted it and sent

it over. I read it and responded that if it passed, the Corps could perform its role.

So then Flynt sent that down to Georgia. They introduced it in the Georgia legislature, and

the majority of the people voting supported overriding Governor Carter, but because of

absentees the number who voted did not represent the required majority of the total

membership. So the motion failed to carry.

Governor Carter had gotten the idea that the Corps was the bad guy in this, that we had put

in the $10 million, that we had written the legislation, and that we were lobbying against him.

So during our meeting I explained all this to him. He indicated he thought I had written the

legislation. I said, “No, Sir, I refused to write it.” I said, “I’m also the fellow that took the

money out of the budget because as soon as I heard you were against it, I didn’t want to push

this new start against your wishes as an executive. That’s our policy and we used it.”

134
LTG John W. Morris and President Jimmy Carter

after a meeting in early March 1977 to discuss Corps’projects and the future.

We then discussed my ideas of things the Corps might do to support the nation’s needs. The

meeting ended on a good note. I walked out with Jack Watson, who sat through this whole

thing and indicated he thought that was a very interesting meeting. He felt the president must

have been interested because he scheduled only 15 minutes and used over an hour.

I subsequently had some confirmation that that was a very good meeting. I also caught hell

from the Secretary of the Army. When he found out I’d been over there, I received a call

from him with emphatic words to the effect that, “You don’t go see the president of the

United States without my knowing about it, General.” So I said, “Yes, Sir, I’ll never do it

again.”

Well, the sum and substance of it was that the president suggested to his cabinet that they use

the Corps of Engineers.

The seeds of success which led to the Corps’ not being organized out of business were

planted, I believe, during that face-to-face, one-on-one conversation, particularly when we

got Sprewell’s Bluff clarified. While the Secretary of the Army was upset, and had every

right to be, the event happened so early in his tenure that we were able to soften that issue

as we accomplished a lot of things together later.

An afterthought-when the president had his open house in January immediately after the

inauguration, Vice President [Walter] Mondale said to President Carter, “General Morris and

135
Engineer Memoirs

Mrs. Morris,” and I added “Congratulations, Mr. President, I’m the Chief of the Army Corps

of Engineers .” He said, “I know who you are.” I never will forget that, “I know who you are.”

All these other things I’ve mentioned follow that.

So that was an early highlight, very important to our first goal of staying in business.

The next event involving President Carter personally occurred in the fall of 1977 when the

Tacoa Dam failed in Georgia. You may recall that Senator Stennis, years before, had

sponsored successfully the dam safety inspection program [$lOO million]. It’d never been

implemented. So when the dam failed down in Georgia, there was another meeting in the

president’s conference room on the subject of inspecting the dams and implementing this

legislation.

The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture very much wanted that program

and made strong proposals. The program was in the Corps’ bill and budget, so we had a leg

up on it. General [Charles I.] McGinnis, then director of Civil Works, was with me this time.

The president asked if the Corps could undertake the dam safety inspection process. I

indicated we were ready. He then asked when we could start. As I remember, that meeting

was conducted about the middle of November. I said, “We’re looking to start around the 1st

of April, beginning of the second quarter of the next calendar year. All of our people are

busy, and we must issue contracts or we have to take people off of other things.” That’s when

he said, “Well, I wish we could start a little quicker.” I responded that we would start the 1st

of December.

Back in the office I asked General McGinnis to inspect one dam in each state during the

month of December. Why? I didn’t want any governors calling us up and saying, “You did

somebody else’s dams, you didn’t do ours. ” Besides, we couldn’t do more than 50 in the first

month anyhow. That’s what we did and it worked nicely. There were no political

ramifications and we did get the program going. Turned out we had a lot bigger job than we

thought we would. There were liability issues but we worked through those, and as far as I

could tell, the president was satisfied with the program.

The Corps as an institution gathered a lot of international attention from the dam safety

program. The chairman of the International Committee on Large Dams [ICOLD] asked me

to write the protocol for a permanent ICOLD committee on dam safety. I formed an ad hoc

committee of international engineers and went to work. After two years we finished the job.

By then I was retired. I hoped and expected to become the chairman of the international

committee on dam safety once it was made permanent; however, the chairman said, “You’re

retired now and don’t have anything to do with dams any more, so we’re going to find

somebody else to be president.” I was surprised and disappointed.

I was invited to the White House to dinner one evening in honor of the president of Nigeria,

who was visiting the United States. President Obasanju was an engineer, and he wanted to

make the Niger River navigable up to where a new capital would be built. The United States

had been asked to help in the navigation project, so I was invited to the White House for

dinner and we spent some time discussing the matter. The project did not materialize.

My last event with President Carter occurred when I was about to retire. I asked my secretary

to call the president’s appointment secretary and schedule a farewell visit. The lady said

she’d take it down but she didn’t think there was any chance. Word came back that President

Carter would like to see me before I left the service and we set the visit for the 17th of

September. This time I told the Secretary of the Army I was going.

136
John W. Morris

A White House meeting presided over by President Carter to discuss dam safety on

28 November 1977.

We had in the works, at that time, two unique items of interest to the OMB. One was a new

airplane for the Corps. The old twin prop G-l was the oldest of its type flying. We wanted

to replace that with a jet, a G-2. The Congress had okayed it but OMB wouldn’t release the

money.

The other item concerned a new athletic facility at West Point for basketball and ice hockey.

Congress had approved a $5 million supplemental military construction appropriation to meet

a cost overrun. OMB claimed President Carter didn’t want to release that money because

there was too much need in the Army for bullets and rifles and he couldn’t, just on the eve

of the election, spend $5 million or more to build a basketball court.

When the word got out about the 17 September visit, the guys in OMB began to wonder what

I was going to talk about. They called up and asked, so I indicated, “I just want to go over

and say goodbye.” The OMB representative then asked if I was going to talk about that

airplane. I said, “Oh, I’m glad you reminded me, but I don’t know whether I’ll talk about it

or not.” So we started a little game.

For some reason or another I had to go see Mr. McIntyre, Jim McIntyre, the director of the

OMB, prior to September 17. While there the basketball court came up and he said, “Well,
Enaineer Memoirs

we

but

know all about that, and it just doesn’t seem like a good move this close to the election,

as soon as the election’s over we’ll release the money .”

On the way out of the office I asked Jim about that airplane. He asked, “What airplane?” So

I knew he had not heard about the famous Corps of Engineers request for a new airplane.

Then I explained that his people at the new executive office building were not releasing the

money Congress had appropriated so the Corps could replace the old airplane that was about

to fall apart. So he again indicated he didn’t know anything about the airplane. That was the

end of that conversation.

The 17th of September was the day after all that trouble in the desert of Iran when U.S.

Forces were trying to release the hostages. My appointment was canceled; however, on the

day I retired, Mr. McIntyre called and said, “Go buy your airplane, Jack.” So that whole

scenario about going to see the president created some pluses, even though the visit was

canceled.

Well, I’ve gone all the way from the first day until the last day and haven’t even talked about

what we started to talk about. I tried to stay on track with my relationship with the White

House, a single subject.

Q.

. Yes, that’s good.

A.. I saw quite a bit of President Carter. The Chief of Engineers isn’t all that important in the

scheme of things around Washington, but we did have some issues that were important to

President Carter, and I found that the best thing was to get one’s act together and try to

arrange to talk about them. It worked out in my case.

I have tried to keep the White House events together as a single subject. The real importance

of the visits and discussions with the president and his principal staff was to keep the Corps

of Engineers in business. There was no plan or single decision to do that, but the overall

impact was positive. When the reorganization of the executive office was finally released,

the Corps of Engineers was not mentioned one way or the other. So whether we dodged the

bullet or not, I don’t know. I’m not even sure one was fired, but we thought the president was

taking aim, anyhow.

Q.

. What about your relationship with Congress?

A.

. Now, it might be a good idea to talk a little bit about the relationships with the Congress. The

Chief of Engineers was fairly free to deal, within the proper limits, with the Congress. I had

a comfortable and knowledgeable association with the committees of Congress and

particularly the staffs of those committees. That turned out to be important and valuable,

particularly when we got into things like the Tennessee-Tombigbee, the privatization of

dredging program, Lock and Dam 26, environment and many, many other subjects with

political implications. The Secretary of the Army naturally was concerned because he did not

want the Chief or anybody in the Corps lobbying. The fact is we didn’t lobby, but there was

a perception. In my case particularly, since I had been so closely involved with the members

and committee as district engineer in Tulsa, division engineer of MRD, and director of Civil

Works.

My objective was to keep Congress informed, and that paid off because later on there were

special hearings on whether or not the Corps had been up front with the Congress on various

things, particularly Tennessee-Tombigbee. So having and keeping a good relationship with

the Congress was almost as valuable as the relationships we had established with the White

House. I say “almost” simply because the president as the chief executive could, by executive

order, make changes internally which the Congress, of course, could not do summarily.

138
John W. Morris

The idea of getting OCE out of the operations business helped us in OCE devote needed time

and our capabilities to dealing with those externalities which were so important to us.

Q.

. Turning to the Corps of Engineers itself, how did you feel about the internal organization of

the agency?

A.

. The organization of the Corps of Engineers was a delicate issue to the Congress. We should

talk about that a little bit because the organization of the Corps of Engineers has been a

continuing subject for many years. Joe Tofani and I worked out a plan in 1974 to manage the

continental United States with five or six divisions.

We also knew there were districts we didn’t need. So the first suggested change in the

organization involved the districts. We got slapped around so badly politically we reevaluated whether or not that was a good idea. We rationalized and concluded that the district

distribution was not exactly the way we would want it, but we needed a certain number of

districts in any case. The number we had wasn’t too bad. While we might make it a little

more logical to change them around, we probably wouldn’t improve the operation a great

deal especially when compared to the pain and cost of moving them. That was our logic train

and it’s probably true because there’s so much political interest in these districts by the local

people and by the Congress.

As far as the organization of the offices was concerned, I had always felt that the structure

within the division organization was excellent. Not so at the Corps headquarters. The districts

were similar to a division with normally a deputy for military, a deputy for civil, with all the

other functions in support of the two programs. You didn’t have a separate engineering

division for military and a separate engineering division for civil.

Since the districts and divisions were organized one way and because OCE was structured

differently, communication presented some problems.

My thoughts began in the 196Os, long before I became Chief. Once in OCE, I noted that the

civil works organization was a cradle-to-grave kind of thing; whereas, the military program

was fragmented between program development, facilities engineering, and military

construction. So the idea evolved to combine the related military functions into a directorate

similar to the directorate for civil programs. They would be structured the same internally.

Then, with that in place the directors would become program managers. Support activities

would be combined into a directorate with a civilian in charge. That was the idea, but there

was much work to do before we could get to that point.

First off, we designed the Army Real Property Management Program, which spanned real

property from concept, acquisition, planning, authorization, construction, operation, and

disposal to be one program. It became part of the Army program management plan and was

published. It was then lectured at the Army War College and carried to all the major

commands. There was a general consensus at TRADOC and FORSCOM in support. All real

property funding was combined except for the operation and maintenance money, which was

allocated to the post commander, who didn’t want that money going someplace else. I can

understand that.

The ACE’s shop required definition to break out the Assistant Chief of Engineers’ function.

For policy and staff work we agreed that the ACE would work for the Chief, but for the

military programs part, he’d report to the director of Military Programs. Major General Bill

Wray had been the Assistant Chief of Engineers and became the first director of Military
Encjneer Memoirs

Programs. So finally the civil works and military programs organizations were conceptually

the same.

The last step then was to establish the Directorate of Engineering and Construction and, to

some extent, operations to support the two program managers. That was yet to be done when

I retired. There was in place a director of Military Programs, and a director of Civil Works

with two major generals as program managers. I had expected Lloyd Duscha would head the

third directorate. I don’t know what happened after I retired. General [Joseph] Bratton never

created the third directorate, but he changed the director of Military Programs to the director

of Engineering and Construction with a major general in charge. Without saying it was good

or bad, this arrangement was a diversion from the plan I had envisioned and the direction we

were heading.

One of the by-products of the changes was that the ACE’s shop became very big instead of

being very small. I felt the ACE’s shop should be kept very lean. I think in the long run the

expansion led to the ACE’s shop being dismantled as has now happened, but I don’t know

enough about it to be constructive.

So the organizational plan that I had in mind which worked very well under Bill Wray during

the Israeli airfield job got off track. I do not want to make this record sound critical because

I have no criticism of it. It’s just that it was different from what I had thought we should have

done.

To change the organization of the Corps of Engineers is a continuing major issue. Now, 16

years later, General Williams is still having agonies over this. Of course in the meantime, a

couple of the Chiefs decided to get rid of some districts with the same bloody experience that

I had. The current plan has not deleted any districts. They’ve changed the shape of them, but

they haven’t changed the number of them. To reorganize is a major, major undertaking,

which creates a lot of turbulence and has adverse morale effects.

I really hope that all these other studies have led to improvements in each iteration to where

we now have a plan that’s suited to the times. I don’t know if it is or not, but I hope that’s

what happens.

Now, inherent in the organization plan that I’ve discussed so far was this idea of getting OCE

out of the operations business, and I’ve already mentioned what that did to the Humphreys

Engineer Center. It also caused us to consolidate the Facilities Engineering Directorate into

the Military Programs Directorate. So we actually saved a general’s space, which we needed

elsewhere.

We also began to realize that in some areas of the country the Corps was not going to be

building any more major projects, so keeping the same structure at all the districts was

becoming inappropriate. The question was, “How were we going to handle this change

without closing down districts?”

We came to the obvious conclusion that we would tailor the districts to meet the

requirements. The idea was that if a district didn’t have any construction programs, it didn’t

need a construction division and possibly didn’t need an engineering division. It needed a

good operations division to run what they’d built and a planning division to take care of the

studies they were doing and probably a little engineering and construction to help with these

operational problems. Basically, we tailored the district to the need. That allowed us to put

some lieutenant colonels in as district engineers. That gave us some command positions

below the colonel level and it gave us a better training base to move up into district and

division spots later.

140
John W. Morris

In the process, Charleston was a district that we tailored. A couple of civilian employees

started the rumor that we were going to close the district. Senator [Ernest] Holdings became

upset and threatened to do something about the Army’s budget for the M-l tank. He began

putting a lot of heat on the Chief of Staff.

I had General McGinnis [director of Civil Works] go over and talk to Senator Hollings.

McGinnis came back after a rough session and said, “Don’t you ever do that to me again.”

Senator Hollings remains a strong supporter of the Corps, but he’s also very jealous about

the Charleston District.

In the tailored district concept, we resolved quite a few issues. The nice thing about it was

we didn’t have to publicize it too much. The main thing noticed publicly was the fact we put

lieutenant colonels in the districts instead of colonels. Occasionally we had to justify the

change, but the rank didn’t make that much difference apparently. We were able then to

resize the districts down gradually, through attrition or other basis, and not cause a great deal

of public reaction.

Of course, once you say you’re going to tailor a district and you select out a few to be

tailored and leave the others alone, you risk reaction; but if you do it as part of a logical and

evolving business plan, it seems to work.

Before concluding our discussion of organization, I want to include a few points about the

Huntsville Division. The Huntsville Division is an important element in the Corps’ structure,

although I admit to setting up a study group with the charge to determine its possible

dissolution. This step taken early in my tenure as Chief proved convincingly that a separate

division to address special and unique problems made more sense than the alternative

approach to such issues. Huntsville’s good work on the missile programs, management,

training, postal program, special procurements, and other activities has substantiated the

value of the division and completely reversed my initial thoughts.

Q

.

. The headquarters moved to a different building while you were Chief, didn’t it?

A.. The move-yes.

One of President Carter’s initiatives was to establish the Department of Energy. He selected

Dr. James Schlesinger to be the first Secretary of Energy. Schlesinger had been Secretary of

Defense. In that position he knew about the Forrestal Building. He apparently told President

Carter he wanted the Forrestal Building for the Department of Energy. In any case, President

Carter gave it to him. So then we had to figure out what to do next, and my hope was we

could get a new building. We already acquired the land, some 600 acres at the Humphreys

Engineer Center, and we had a master plan for developing that complex. It was moving along

right about on schedule. We had planned three buildings there plus a museum.

I really wanted a new headquarters at the Humphreys Center, but at that time the Department

of Defense was promoting a group of buildings, one of which was Buzzard’s Point. I went

over and looked at that and it wasn’t big enough. I advised the Secretary of Defense’s office

that we would take that building at Buzzard’s Point but I needed 50,000 square feet. There

were only 25,000 available. The fact that I showed some interest in it at least was a plus and

maybe put us in good standing when we asked for something else.

We looked at a lot of places and the only one of those that seemed to suit us was 20

Massachusetts Avenue. One of the minuses was its proximity to the Capitol. We felt the

141
Engineer Memoirs

White House wouldn’t like that. That was an unfounded theory, or at least one that never

surfaced.

Senator Stennis called up one day and asked me where we’d like to go. He indicated it was

not his business but wanted to be sure the Corps was taken care of. I told him that we were

looking at the Pulaski Building but I wasn’t sure. He said to tell the House people who have

the hearings first. Mr. Schlesinger had asked for something like $17 million to remodel the

Forrestal Building. So the day of that hearing I was called by Hunter Spillen, House

Appropriations Committee, and asked what we wanted to do. I said we liked the Pulaski

Building. That’s when he asked me if we had a fall-back position and I said, “Well, yes, but

let’s not discuss it yet.”

So when Schlesinger came over to the House committee to get his money, they indicated

okay on his money but he had to give the Corps of Engineers the Pulaski Building. That’s

how that came about. Secretly, I’d hoped that they wouldn’t be able to pull it off and then I

was going to ask for the money for a new building.

I don’t know if we would have gotten a new building had I put it up front or not. Anyhow,

I thought if we asked for the Pulaski Building and didn’t get it, then our case for a new

building would be very strong. My belief at the time, I’m pretty sure, was that we had to at

least be honest about the buildings that we could use, and the Pulaski was one of them. So

we got it and then moved. That happened during 1979. General Bumell was the deputy by

that time and was in charge of the move. I didn’t have too much to do with the layout. Bob

Blakeley was the true responsible planner.

Bumell picked a little office for himself. I remember looking at the plan. I said, “Bates, I

don’t think that’s going to be satisfactory for the deputy. Why don’t you put your office on

the other side of the secretary.” He said, “No, I want the deputy to be able to walk through

a door into the Chief’s office. I don’t want to have to go across anybody’s area to get there.”

I said,“Well, okay, if that’s how you feel.” I said, “The rest of it looks pretty good.” We

moved in June and early July.

Bob Blakeley also handled the physical part of the move and did an outstanding job. Bob was

a strong asset to the Corps in so many ways over the years. You may remember he’s the one

who helped me get the air-conditioned vehicles when I was in Tulsa. Bob and I spent a lot

of time together, and I just have the highest regard for him.

So we finally got ourselves into the Pulaski Building. I took my things over on the 4th of

July, 1979.

The furniture in that office was brought over from the Forrestal Building. A professional

decorator had done the executive suite at the Forrestal Building. When it was brought over

to the Pulaski Building, it looked out of place. I kept the desk General Clarke had, a small,

fairly modem desk with some chrome on it. That office in the Pulaski Building now has the

traditional military furniture in it. It looks better.

Q

.

. Okay, a quick follow-up?

A.. Yes.

Q

.

. We were going to come back to the subject, and I should have interrupted you earlier, about

the relationship between the ACE and Military Programs and that new reorganization.

A.. Yes. You mean the ACE’s shop?

Q

.

. Yes, the ACE’s shop and Military Programs.
John W. Morris

A.

. That was a tough problem. The Assistant Chief of Engineers basically is there to assist the

Chief of Engineers on Army staff matters. If the Corps did not have a civil works program

it would still need to have an Assistant Chief of Engineers. He might be called the deputy or

something. Historically, an engineer battalion in an Army division had a division engineer,

the battalion commander, and an assistant division engineer. The latter officer served at

headquarters and responded to the division staff while the battalion commander ran his

battalion. The ACE is the same concept and was understood within the Army.

At the Department of the Army level, the Assistant Chief of Engineers’ office inherited many

operational activities. We were able to list those duties which fell into purely the Assistant

Chief of Engineers’ business as the representative of the Chief. The rest fell under Military

Programs.

Generally speaking, the overall management of the ACE’s shop, except for purely staff

actions, belonged to the director of Military Programs including items on the borderline.

The program worked well once in place, and if you talk to General Wray he’d probably

agree.

Q

.

. You have some additional observations on your selection as Chief.

A.. I’d like to go back a little bit and pick up being selected for Chief of Engineers. I mentioned

the luck involved in getting the job. In my case, being a little bit late getting through the

grade of captain, for reasons I’ve already discussed, I was junior to two classmates who were

exceptionally well qualified and, in my judgment, more likely to be selected.

However, they both left the service before the selection process commenced. One was Bill

Glasgow, General William A. Glasgow, who had to retire for health reasons in 1969. He had

been executive to General Wilson as Chief of Engineers. The other was Bob Mathe,

Brigadier General Robert E. Mathe, who was the last engineer commissioner of the District

of Columbia and also, I believe, the first member of the class of June 1943 to make general.

Bob was exceptionally well qualified, based on outstanding performance all through his

career; however, for personal reasons, he elected to retire in the late 1960s.

So those two better qualified candidates departed the service, cleared the way, and improved

my chances for selection. When I was sworn in, both were present, and I did thank and

congratulate them for their foresight in leaving the Army.

Another thing that happened that I would emphasize is the impact of all this on my wife and

family. Being away in Vietnam for a year was one thing. They knew I was going to be away

a year and they built their life accordingly; however, when I came back to Omaha and then

to the Chief of Engineers’ office, their life depended on my daily schedule more or less,

which wasn’t always predictable, convenient, or comfortable. In 1970, our son was at the

Military Academy and our daughter had already graduated from the University of

Connecticut and was teaching. So Gerry’s life was considerably different during that period

than it had been earlier when our children were at home.

She traveled with me as much as she could within the regulations and took a great interest

in the Corps’ roles. I think she probably visited more hydroelectric powerhouses and

inspected more dams than any woman in the world.

The situation changed materially with the Chief of Engineers’ job. Social requirements meant

adapting our fairly private home lifestyle to the demands of the position. Such things as

entertaining the wives of the Engineer Officers Advanced Course students, New Year’s

143
Enaineer Memoirs

reception, visiting officials, et cetera. Incidentally, we had moved to Fort McNair in January

1976 while I was still deputy on the assumption that we would be there until 30 June 1977.

The engineer wives affairs turned out quite nicely. Even now Gerry meets women who

remember very well their visit to the Chief’s house. Then, of course, there were the holiday

events and visitors to Washington.

So I shouldn’t pass through this period of my career without emphasizing the importance that

Gerry played, not only in supporting me as I went along, but the requirements of my various

assignments, especially the Chief of Engineers. No doubt the other occupants of her position

have had a similar experience.

Q

.

. In talking about becoming the Chief of Engineers, you mentioned the MacArthur Castles.

You said at some point later you’d talk about Mrs. [Jean] MacArthur’s reaction to the

castles?

A

.

. Colonel Joe Markel, retired, was a remarkable and highly regarded New Yorker. He was a

lawyer who had served as a legal officer in the Corps of Engineers during World War II. He

had a great love for the Corps of Engineers and was very active in the Society of American

Military Engineers and in other defense matters.

One evening, he hosted an event in New York to honor Melvin Laird, the Secretary of

Defense. A small receiving line included Mrs. Abrams-General Abrams had died by this

time-Mrs. MacArthur, Secretary Laird, and me-plus Joe Markel, the host.

During the evening, Mrs. Abrams and I visited quite a bit about their trip to Fort Peck, which

I covered earlier. She reiterated to me then that that was most pleasant and the last time that

her husband and the family had vacationed together before he died.

Mrs. MacArthur, whom I had not met before, was a most charming and interesting lady.

During our discussion, waiting for the event to begin, I removed one of the castles and

handed it to her without explanation. She looked at it. “Oh, this belonged to the general,” she

said. I remember her saying “the general,” because she never mentioned any other name.

I then explained to her how I happened to have them, and there followed a very pleasant

discussion. Later, I got a note from her mentioning that she enjoyed being at the event and

particularly enjoyed hearing about the castles, and she was happy to know they were being

put to good use.

Q

.

. But she recognized them right off.

A

.

. Oh yes, immediately.

Q

.

. We’ve discussed this a little before, but I wonder if it would be appropriate here to talk more

about Blumenfeld as assistant secretary and those who followed. Is there any additional

material you’d like to add about your relationship with these men, Secretaries Alexander and

Blumenfeld? You did mention that Secretary Alexander had some things that he was

particularly interested in. Affirmative action, I think, was one of those.

A

.

. Well, we’ve covered my activities with the president pretty well. As for affirmative action,

the secretary was very aggressive as described elsewhere. There were two other elements of

the Executive Branch that demanded a lot of time, not just from the Chief of Engineers, but

from the director of Civil Works as well. One was the OMB, and the other was the Secretary

of the Army’s office. I will mention OMB before I get to your question.

144
John W. Morris

Having worked directly with the Office of Management and Budget so frequently when I was

the director of Civil Works, I knew the people there. Initially, Bert Lance was President

Carter’s director of OMB; later, he was replaced by Jim McIntyre.

When the division engineers conferences were held in Washington, I tried to get an outside

speaker who would be of interest and of value. On one occasion I invited Mr. Lance. He

spoke to the division engineers in the conference room in the Forrestal Building.

It was an excellent event, and we carried on from there. Every time we’d have the division

engineers conference in Washington, I would bring in someone from somewhere-including

the Secretary of the Army.

To stay with OMB for a moment, there were people at OMB who were constantly looking

for ways to save a few bucks on the taxpayers’ expense account. I subscribed to that in

general, but one of the things they got after was the magazine Water Spectrum. Joe Tofani

had started Water Spectrum and it was a valuable magazine with a good subscription. It was

very popular, widely read, and the articles were excellent.

That magazine, in the eyes of the OMB workers, seemed unnecessary. We were able to put

them off, at least during my term, although subsequently, it has been stopped, I understand.

Too bad. Joe Tofani created Water Spectrum and published it out of Civil Works. He

wouldn’t let the public affairs people have it, to start with because he didn’t think they could

suit the way he wanted it done. He may have been right.

Chief of Engineers and Mrs. Morris cut a birthday cake on the 204th Corps anniversary in 1979.
Engineer Memoirs

That was just one example of the constant pressures that OMB brought to bear on the office

of Civil Works, and then, if the issues were important enough, the Chief of Engineers

personally would become involved. Military programs activities involving OMB were

handled by the Army staff at the Pentagon.

A similar situation was true with the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, but the Chief’s

involvement was less frequent in that arena during my term in OCE. The Assistant Secretary

for Civil Works, of course, is a political appointee, and he’s under certain external pressures

that neither the director of Civil Works nor the Chief of Engineers know about.

As covered in some detail in the section on my term as director of Civil Works, Victor

Veysey built the office of ASAKW with the help of Jack Ford. They did a good job in

general and were followed by Mike Blumenfeld.

As Chief of Engineers, I didn’t deal regularly with the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works;

even so, I realized Blumenfeld was much different from Veysey. Veysey, a former

congressman from California, was also an engineer who tended to get into the operations of

the civil works program.

Blumenfeld, on the other hand, didn’t have the same desire to run the Chief of Engineers’

civil works affairs. He had a keen awareness of public interests and a very astute political

mind. He was almost ideal for the job, in my judgment, because his primary purpose was to

deal with the public, the Congress, and the Executive Branch on political matters.

He was followed by William Gianelli, another California engineer with excellent credentials

in the water management field. I had retired by the time Gianelli came, so my thoughts about

him are derived from infrequent and brief contact and observations. For all his good work,

which was substantial and far reaching, he became quite possessive of the Corps’ activities.

Subsequent assistant secretaries seem to have only increased their inward management of the

Corps rather than outward dealing with the political forces. Gianelli was known to deal

directly with the district engineers, bypassing OCE and the division offices. I think Bill

slowed the decision-making process and brought the Chief more directly into ASAKW

operations than appropriate.

Bob Dawson followed Gianelli. I knew Bob very well and saw a lot of him even though I had

retired. He called all the Chiefs in the D.C. area, plus General Graves, and asked us to give

him a hand getting the Water Resources Act of 1986 passed. Bob had been an administrative

assistant in the Congress and certainly knew his way around the Hill. I thought Bob paid

attention to the political winds quite well. He got the 1986 bill through to his great credit. I

give Bob good grades. He was very serious, very conscientious about his job, and since he’s

left the service-the federal service-he’s stayed in closer contact with the Corps than any

of his predecessors-quite loyal.

My only reservation was that I thought he subordinated, perhaps unknowingly, the position

of the Chief of Engineers by taking General Heiberg with him on trips when I think he should

have taken the director of Civil Works. The Chief is big enough to stand alone. Besides, the

Chief has more things to do than just civil works. I must admit he and General Heiberg made

a very strong and effective team. Vald Heiberg was the director of Civil Works when I retired

and a great presence for the Corps.

Bob Page was good. Bob was an engineer-an understanding engineer. He instituted some

procedures which put the Corps in good stead: the educational arrangement at Huntsville

between the University of Alabama and the Corps, an outgrowth of the study of Corps

training mentioned earlier; the CPAR [Construction Productivity Advancement Research]

146
~ John W. Morris ~~

program, exchanging technical information between the laboratories and industries. I had

promoted this initiative, but it took somebody like Bob Page to get it done. The third thing,

of course, he drew on his construction background to install project management throughout

all levels of the Corps’ organization - an expensive change which to me had questionable

value above the district level. So Bob was the last ASAKW with whom I had much contact.

I met Mrs. [Nancy] Dom, his successor, and

Engineer Association, which I’ll cover later.

went to see her about setting up the

Ed Dickey assisted Mrs. Dom and became acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Works on her

departure. He’s well steeped in the Corps because he was directly a long-time member of the

Army Liaison Staff in OCE, which predates ASAKW Veysey. Ed is presently in OCE as

Chief of Planning.

In hindsight, that whole group of ASAKWs is interesting because they were all so different

with different priorities. First, an engineer ex-congressman, followed in turn by a businesstype administrator, a water resources manager, an ex-staffer and Washington insider, a

successful construction manager, a lady attorney, and finally another ex-congressman. Their

diverse talents and varying knowledge of the public works program have impeded the Corps’

flexibility and decisiveness. At the same time, they have been helpful politically and in

promoting the program publicly. On balance, professional engineers are the most bothersome

as ASAKW, to the Corps’ operation and nonengineer, ex-congressmen are most helpful

politically.

If General Clarke asked me today for my assessment of the position of ASAKW, I would

have to admit the Corps appears weaker in the eyes of decision makers, and the Congress,

particularly. Even so, I’d respond favorably with reservations or hopes for improvement. I’d

like an ASA/CW who looks outward, not inward in the “how to perform” department. Also,

I’d hope the ASAKW would be a political activist in resolving matters which, by legislation

or by DOD or DA [Department of Defense or Department of the Army] directive, adversely

impact the civil works mission (to wit, the acquisition corps/contracting officer matter), and

finally I would hope the ASAKW would be a positive spokesperson for the great work the

Corps has done and can do.

One observation is my belief that only a solid, well-disciplined organization such as the

Corps could remain so viable and effective after over 20 years of oversight and control by

such a diverse and divergent group.

Q.

. You mentioned a contracting officer problem-could you elaborate a bit?

I was speaking of ASAKW’s help when needed. A current [ 19961 example is the policy

which prohibits district engineers from being contracting officers unless they transfer to the

Acquisition Branch. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works should get in the

middle of that fray and get it unraveled for the national good because the Corps’ public works

effort is a victim of a procurement program related to weapons, and not to construction.

When the colonels and the lieutenant colonels stop being contracting officers, I’m concerned

that the new people handling contracts won’t know about the business, causing contract

difficulties and costs to increase and work progress to worsen. The district engineer becomes

less important. The fact of the matter is it has taken away a major strength of the district

engineer position and impacts on the need for military personnel in the program.

147
Engineer Memoirs

There has never been any problem with the district engineer performing as contracting agent.

I think in the whole history of the Corps, there’s only been one district engineer that failed

or mismanaged. The Corps is recognized and renowned worldwide for its manner of handling

contracts.

I can tell you, since I’ve retired, I’ve heard more complaints about the Corps’ contracting

attitude than I ever heard before, and I think it’s because the people who are managing

contracts aren’t communicating with the contractor like the district engineers can and would.

I hope I am wrong, but it forebodes major problems for the Chief of Engineers when the

district engineers are no longer allowed to be contracting officers.

So the assistant secretary must become involved and if necessary get support of the Secretary

of the Army. I consider it a crucial issue in both military and civil programs but more so in

the latter.

Q.

. Let me ask you one follow-up question. In recent years, the Corps has also had much more

to do with the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Logistics, and Environment. In the 197Os,

I think maybe it was just Installation and Logistics. During your term, did you have a lot of

contact with the other assistant secretaries?

A.

. Yes, we did, but we were talking about the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.

I haven’t gotten into the military programs yet. Maybe we should now. I

the impression civil was more important to me as Chief tha n military. It

don’t

defini

want to

tely was

give

not.

I spent a great portion of my term as deputy, and later as Chief, in consolidating the

management of the Army military real property. During that period, because the AU/I&L

[Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics] had given up housing, there

wasn’t quite as much business with that office.

Now, we did deal with AU/I&L on the environment until the Assistant Secretary for Civil

Works established a position that managed environmental problems for the Army. We

continued to work with ASA/I&L on equipment and other post issues, but not as much as

today, where AU/I&L is more involved in post operations.

Of the two, even though there was no lack of interest on my part for the

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works was the more dominant of those

military program,

two insofar as the

Corps business was concerned. That situation could have easily changed; however, we need

to recognize there is the entire Army staff directly below ASA/I&L which provided the

appropriate avenue for the Chief of Engineers in issues involving the A&A/I&L.

Q.

. Is now a good time to talk about Secretarv Alexander’s concerns?

A.

. Yes, of course, we got off track again on your earlier question, but first I should mention my

first secretary-Martin Hoffman. I was amazed at the man’s energy and his ability to deal

with problems.

Hoffman and General Rogers, Chief of Staff of the Army, made a good team. Secretary

Hoffman asked the Chief of Engineers to arrange a trip so he could see what civil works was

all about. He went to Lock and Dam 26, which was a very hot potato politically in those days.

When he came back, he was a very helpful secretary because he’d seen the project. We’ve

worked together since I’ve retired. He remains a very dynamic and personable man. I don’t

know how he was to work for, but he was very good to work with.
John W. Morris

The only confrontation I had with him had to do with a racial issue in Mobile District.

Colonel Drake Wilson was the district engineer, and I received a call one day from the

secretary’s office about a latrine which had “black” and “white” signs on it.

Secretary Hoffman asked me to come over and see him about this report. I asked for a little

time to get back to him. It turned out that it was true. It was an abandoned building which had

not been in use for some time. Colonel Wilson had it tom down at once.

So I went back to the secretary, and I explained all of this to him, and he indicated we would

have to take our lumps on this one. That was that.

In January 1976 he was replaced by Clifford Alexander. Alexander also was an astute

politician. He carried the equal rights program every place he went. That was a top item on

his list of things to do.

There was a sincere ongoing effort by the Corps to resolve the racial issues, but Secretary

Alexander made sure. He came to our division engineers conference in the Land Between the

Lakes, Kentucky, raked the Corps very hard, and told those present what he expected in

strong terms.

If Alexander intended to make an impact on the Corps leaders he was successful. Having him

attend the conference was good because he saw the division engineers and staffs discuss

politically sensitive issues, criticize each other, and try to find the right answers. He saw the

committees working on current problems and on long-range objectives. So it was good for

him to come, but he did give us a strong and critical message, which everyone remembers.

My association with Alexander, though, improved. Improved may not be the right word. It

matured, because it started off with each not knowing the other and having to get acquainted,

and there were some uncertainties following my meeting with President Carter.

I didn’t know his priorities initially. So we had several meetings early on, and shortly after

he came in, he again brought up the toilet problem in the Mobile district. The same people

who had raised the matter with Secretary Hoffman had apparently brought it to Alexander’s

attention, not reporting that the thing had been destroyed.

When he brought it up, I mentioned having been down this trail already with his predecessor.

I assured him there was nothing there.

He seemed to appreciate the advice I had givenhim on the way to the White House about the

hit lists, and the dam safety inspection programwas handled with some political correctness.

In a matter of weeks after that, Lock and Dam 26 surfaced as a critical issue, and Secretary

of Transportation Brock Adams wanted to make another study.

Secretary Alexander made an appointment to go see Secretary Adams and asked me if I’d

come along. I remember I didn’t think we needed another study, and I was sure we could not

have other elements of the government making a study of our projects. If there was to be a

study made, it should be done by the responsible agency, and that was the Secretary of the

Army and the Chief of Engineers. So the Army just had to stand tough on that with Secretary

Brock Adams.

So he did. Secretary Alexander handled that very well. I thought it was the end of the deal,

but it wasn’t. I didn’t realize that Alexander had agreed to take 18 months to do a reevaluation.. In the meantime, work would be delayed. I wrote a letter to the secretary

explaining that we’d never brought up the subject of safety before, but this project was in bad

149
Engineer Memoirs

shape physically, and we just didn’t need to wait another 18 months while a study was being

made. To me there was a time beyond which we shouldn’t go with the present structure. It

may be 18 months, it may be 18 years, but the dam was in bad shape, and we should get it

replaced quickly.

I mentioned the word “safety” in that letter, and it upset him because one of the president’s

personal priorities was to emphasize dam safety to avoid more dam failures.

Secretary Alexander called me over to make this point personally. I admired him for that, in

hindsight. We had quite a discussion. My point was simply that I didn’t know anything about

the 18 months, and that if he felt he had to go with 18 months, I would support it, but that as

his engineer I desired a chance to present a position on engineering matters prior to

commitment.

I don’t want this to sound like it was a

respected my position, and from then

knockdown-d

on, we never

ragout, but that

had a problem.

was the essence of it. He

He became the Corps’ most ardent supporter when the issue of reorganizing the Executive

Branch arose. I can’t overstate how supportive he was, and how outspoken he was in defense

of the Corps. We couldn’t have had a better advocate than Secretary Alexander. From my

view he and I had an unusually constructive arrangement. That’s not to say that we always

agreed, but we always could communicate.

Other persons that we haven’t talked about were the Chiefs of Staff, the military bosses. I had

two Chiefs of Staff. One was General Bernard W. Rogers and then E. C. Meyer.

Understandably, they were both very strong individuals. As mentioned previously Rogers and

I were classmates, so I’d known him a long time. He was a principal in the Corps’ becoming

a major command. He and Mr. Hoffman got along so well-that whole arrangement between

the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army, as far as I was concerned, was very

comfortable.

The Corps had some problems that involved the Chief of Staff Charleston District and

Senator Hollings for example.

Then we had the blizzard in Buffalo while Dan Ludwig was the Buffalo District engineer.

I heard about troops being sent to Buffalo on the TV one morning. At the Chief of Staff’s

meeting that same morning, I mentioned the fact that when the troops arrived up there, they

were going to be working for a Corps of Engineers colonel. It would be nice if he knew who

was coming since the Corps of Engineers was in charge of the emergency snow removal and

so forth. We were, thereafter, to my recollection.

Secretary Alexander, in reviewing the documentation to support the Corps’ becoming a major

command, was impressed with the responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers and

unbeknownst to me, had decided that he would support making the Chief of Engineers a fourstar position. Since Rogers was leaving, Alexander decided he’d wait until General Meyer

came in.

Meyer came to see me on the 7th of December 1979 for a briefing. The four-star subject did

not come up. Three weeks later, Secretary Alexander apparently indicated he would like to

get the Chief of Engineers’ position elevated to four stars. Meyer seemed very upset with me

about that because I didn’t mention it to him in early December.

The truth of the matter is this whole thing about getting the position upgraded was handled

with Morelli because they didn’t want me to be involved in it. Unfortunately, we got trapped

a little bit. General Meyer told the secretary he didn’t want to do it. I believe the job has

150
John W. Morris

Chief of Staff of the Army General Bernard Rogers (shaking hands with General Morris) addressed

Corps employees at the Engineer Day celebration in June 1979.

responsibilities that equal or exceed those of other four-star generals. I felt that way

especially because of the Israeli airfield job, which was hot at that time.

At one Army staff meeting, I think there were five generals trained as engineers around his

table. One interesting discussion arose around the policy that an infantry colonel with a

secondary MOS [military occupational specialty] in engineering could be a district engineer

while the regulations prohibit an engineer who has a secondary MOS in infantry from being

an infantry troop commander.

I told the staff that wasn’t fair. I indicated also that these good infantrymen with secondary

MOSs in engineering would all transfer to the engineers anyhow, so we’ll get the good ones,

and the Corps would be better off in the long run.

Of course, the Chief of Engineers worked with everybody on the Army staff, Personnel,

General Officers Branch, et cetera. The principal players were the Chief of Staff of the Army,

the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, the Secretary of the Army, and, of course, the OMB

and the president. The Secretary of Defense was involved, but only on rare occasions, like

the Israeli airfield job, which we’ll talk about.
Engineer Memoirs

General Morris toured Corps of Engineers emergency operations in Buffalo, New York, after a

severe snowstorm in February 1977.

What about the Chief of Engineers’ relationship with Congress?

Congress. The Chief of Engineers has a lot of business with governors too, incidentally,

because of the permits. Congress looks on the Chief of Engineers as an individual with whom

they have a right to communicate. They do. The Chief of Engineers, to be effective, needs

to be able to deal with the Congress smoothly, within the limits of his authority and what he

can do, but also, he has to know the players over there and be able to talk to them.

I had much background in dealing with Congress, including 11 years testifying before four

committees. I had no problem with the system. I don’t mean I didn’t have problems with

individual congressmen. So far as knowing the players, who to deal with and how to

approach them, respond, et cetera, we worked that out pretty well, I think.

As always, we had good people in Civil Works. The directors of Civil Works in my time

were McGinnis and Graves, and they were both very good in dealing with outside elements.

The staff in Civil Works, Tofani, Gene Lawhun and Schwaiko and Irv Reisler, all those Civil

Works staffers who had been in the congressional liaison field since-were just excellent.

They were probably the best team in Washington for doing its business with the Congress.

The trick wasn’t doing business with them. The trick was doing business with them and

staying within the bounds of propriety. We were always accused of stepping over the line,

but in fact, I know of no instances where the Corps used its access to the Congress

improperly. Of course, you know, everybody says we did. Those are the people and agencies

in our government with whom the Chief of Engineers dealt.
John W. Morris

Q.

. You mentioned Mr. Tofani. Did he leave the Corps during the time where you were the

Chief?

A.. Joe left while I was in Civil Works. He kept talking about retiring for years, and finally he

did. I do remember we had a nice party for him at the Forrestal Building cafeteria. President

Nixon signed a letter for Joe.

Several people retired right after I became Chief. Perhaps they didn’t want to work for me!

Joe was a good friend, and also an outstanding Corps person. As I said earlier, I think he was

the most respected man in Washington, as an individual, in the water resource program and

water policy.

Q.

. As Chief of Engineers you also worked with foreign countries. What other governments were

you involved with?

A.. The only things we haven’t talked about in terms of relationships would be the foreign

governments. How to handle that one.

As you recall, as director of Civil Works, I was sent off to Egypt and to Russia under the

auspices of the United States government. Egypt was a special project associated with the

Suez Canal. Russia was a type of technical exchange. The Corps also was sending people to

China, but not under the civil works aegis.

When I became deputy chief, General Gribble sent me to Saudi Arabia. In the course of that

trip, I went to Italy and some other places.

The point I’m getting at here is that during the time that I was in the Office of the Chief of

Engineers as the director of Civil Works, deputy, and later as Chief, there was a growing

attention to the Corps’ technical ability in the international arena, and I found I was spending

an unusually large amount of time receiving visitors from various countries.

So we set up the International Projects Office. I asked Colonel Bill Badger and Ms. Olga

Lansing to start the project. It took over the liaison that I had been doing personally and

handled it even better because they had time to devote to it.

Later on, Frank DeMateo, chief engineer for USAID, joined the Corps. Frank had been the

assistant project manager for the job at Goose Bay, Labrador, when I was there some years

before. I knew Frank from that and had a high regard for him. So he ran the office for some

years with Olga’s help.

The Chief of Engineers had to operate properly in the international field. I don’t know how

it is now, but during my time, the international program was quite important.

Out of the international program came several specific events. One had already started, of

course-the Saudi Arabia construction program. That probably was the catalyst for setting

up the international organization.

The Suez Canal project was important and should have developed into a much greater

involvement with the Corps than it turned out. We could not obtain adequate congressional

support and the funding needed to go beyond technical advice in the Suez Canal.

The same thing is true, to some extent, in China. Our involvement in China goes back into

the 1970s. It’s been hot and cold, obviously. It’s never really developed into any major

program for the Corps’ engineering capability. There’s been some, but it’s been a little

153
Encjneer Memoirs

Q.

.

disappointing, particularly in the water transportation field. Everybody’s been jumping

around trying to build dams, and that’s okay, too, but transportation has been left out.

One by-product of the international program, of course, was the Israeli airfield job, and that

came to the Corps because President Carter had put it into the Camp David agreement. In

many ways, that’s probably the most complicated and most difficult job I had in my military

service in the Corps. I think we’ll save that for a special subject later.

I want to leave the international program by stressing its beneficial results from projects in

Africa, South America, et cetera.

We have discussed civil and international programs.

support of the Army and Air Force?

What about the Corps’ activities in

A.. We haven’t talked much about military, but as Chief of Engineers, I spent more time on

military programs than I did on the public works and the international programs. The reasons

for that are rather basic. The only reason that the Corps of Engineers exists in the first place

is to provide good engineering service to the military. If there had to be a choice-and I hope

there never is-the public works program would not be a part of the Corps’ mission. The

military support would always be-that’ s fundamental.

However, if the Corps has a civil works program, this peacetime mission greatly enhances

our ability to support

understood.

the military in war and peace. That point’s not al.ways clearly

One of the Chief of Engineers’ fundamental requirements is keeping the United States Army

as his principal target for support service. All the other roles have to be subordinated to that

objective. That’s why one of our four goals was to support the Total Army. Total Army:

National Guard, Reserves, and Active Forces.

We took a serious look at all the things we were doing and how to better support the

military-not just construction, but military mobilization, engineering equipment, supply,

organization for combat, support of soldiers, and support in the Army-the whole spectrum.

Several things came out of that which I believe we should illustrate. One was the real

property management program, which we covered earlier. The idea was that from cradle to

grave, the Chief of Engineers should be responsible for real property. He should be required

to acquire the land, develop plans and programs for its use, design, do construction, the

operation and maintenance, then ultimately

property, and my thought was the Chief of

every bit of that, including the money.

the dispos al. Those functions all deal with real

Engineers should be: the responsible person for

At that time, program management was a big thing. There was a program for research and

development, a program for procurement. I published and lectured on the real property

management program for the Army, and was successful, basically, in putting all that under

one manager, the director of Military Programs, as I’d call it. We finally brought to the Chief

of Engineers all of the functions that I mentioned except one, that one-the control of the

money for repairs, utilities, and maintenance.

We had the money for the housing, we had money for construction, but we didn’t have

control over the money for operation and maintenance; however, we did have a lot to say

about getting the money and justifying it to Congress and providing technical advice to the

facilities engineer in using the money. So that real property management program to me was

a simple, clear way to visualize the military program. Out of that idea came what we called

154
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

“one stop shopping” for engineering service, which was mentioned earlier in the deputy

discussion.

I was always promoting the importance of the civil works program to the Army by keeping

us ready to respond during peace-keeping work and especially mobilization for war with

competent engineering capability, et cetera.

After getting the Army leadership’s support, I began to wonder what happens if they call our

hand, call our bluff on mobilization. Could we react promptly? The answer was we could not.

We didn’t have the mechanisms to convert our civil capability and the construction industry

to full mobilization. Only a few generals serving in 1978 had been involved in the total

mobilization by this country in World War II-gas coupons, food stamps, rationing, et cetera.

A lot of people have planned for total mobilization who have not experienced it. Total

commitment of a country to support a war is a rare and mammoth move.

The Corps staff was instructed to go about the business, internally, of figuring out what we

had to do to support mobilization. Then General Rogers set up an Army policy that spoke of

mobilization. General Meyer followed with a rather dynamic objective for the Army to be

prepared to mobilize to meet international requirements.

There were several meetings at the National War College, Fort McNair, on the subject. It

turned out that the engineers were well ahead because we had asked ourselves the question

some months earlier.

In conjunction with that, we needed to do something with the construction industry in the

country. So I looked to the Society of Military Engineers [SAME]. Today, thanks to Walter

Bachus [brigadier general, retired], executive director, SAME has a nice program to

communicate with and activate the industries.

Then came the environmental and the energy programs. We, the Corps, initiated a survey of

energy efficiency on military posts. Colonel Don Weinert and the Strategic Studies Group

came up with a program to evaluate energy consumption and energy conservation.

The environmental program on military installations was more difficult. CERL had

developed a computerized EIS environmental assessment program. As mentioned earlier, the

military commanders in the mid-1970s didn’t look on the environment as something that

impacted them, within the post perimeters. We tried to change that philosophy, but I don’t

know that we did a very good job of it at that time. The Army now has the message on using

the property properly and on handling pollution problems.

Besides engineering support, energy, and the environment, the Corps’ activity on the military

posts included the basic construction program in housing and facilities. We were starting the

day care facility program. Nobody really wanted to talk about day care early on but, of

course, that has developed into quite a program. We were competing very heavily to get the

post exchange work, and the commissary work. We got some, but not all of it because they

did not use appropriated funds totally.

The really big item for military program management was the Saudi program, and then later,

the Israeli airfields.

What did the military construction program look like during your term as Chief?

A.. It was pretty big. The Saudi program dominated it. We had-1 would say $6 billion a year

in the military program, and I would guess 40 percent of that was Saudi, maybe a little more.

155
Enuineer Memoirs

A lot of housing for U.S. forces, the program to build new facilities for tanks, and thanks to

General Cooper there was an upgrade program to get our soldiers in Europe in better shape.

The rest of it was just spread throughout the country on various posts. Hospitals, we were

building hospitals. Hospitals are always tough. Walter Reed was completed during my time.

We upgraded the hospital in Hawaii, and the congressional group from Colorado was

insistent that we replace the Fort Carson hospital.

Q

.

. What about work for the Air Force?

A

.

. Air Force construction was managed a little differently because the Air Force had AFRCE,

Air Force Regional Civil Engineers. Each of our districts had to deal with an AFRCE. In

some cases, an agent, a representative, was placed in the district office, like in Omaha.

I think we gave the Air Force better projects than we gave the Army, and one of the reasons

was the Air Force probably did a little better job figuring out what they wanted, to start with.

The changes were not quite as late, or as extensive. Second, their method of coordinating the

work was better. The fact we were working for another customer may have had something

to do with it.

Our Air Force construction responsibility, incidentally, was modified somewhat because

earlier, Congressman Mendel Rivers divided the world into two parts. The Navy does the Air

Force in one and the Corps in the other.

Admiral Don Islen, commander of the Facilities Engineer Corps in the Navy, wanted to

adjust the boundary to give him Italy and Sicily. We took over the eastern Mediterranean,

which included Saudi Arabia and also Israel

General Bachus started the annual facilities engineers conference. The first was held in

Chicago and I attended that. They’re still going on. That was a very good move, incidentally.

Finally, I became convinced that there was a better way to operate and maintain Army

facilities than the way we were doing them. I never could understand why, in a state where

you have three or four posts in the same general area-like right around Washington, for

example-you have to have separate organizations for each installation when the same type

of work has to be done for all of them.

So we made a study to consider the Chief of Engineers’ taking over the entire facilities

engineer program. I brought Colonel [Charles] Blaylock, district engineer, Mobile, to develop

a method of consolidating military facilities maintenance. Well, it turned out that was a good

idea in the minds of Perry Fliakis, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations. Perry had

also decided that there was too much money being spent managing contracts on all these

various military facilities. When Blaylock’s report surfaced, Mr. Fliakis was agreeable to the

idea.

I wanted to start in the Norfolk area to get away from Washington and to a location where

there were Navy, Army, and some Air Force facilities nearby. He said to do it here in

Washington. That’s how this Washington arrangement occurred.

I suppose that’s worked fairly well, but I do think that the Army would be well served to

make the Chief of Engineers responsible for executing the Army installation maintenance

program. It would be difficult to organize and structure, but it can be done, and I believe it

would save the taxpayers a lot of money while improving service to post personnel and units.

You still end up with this basic problem of who gets the dollars on the post. I hear that the

Congress now has directed a study of 20-some installations, some Air Force, some Army,

some Navy, to come up with a single plan for reporting operations, backlog of maintenance

156
John W. Morris

repair, et cetera. I suppose a concept for organizing and operating facilities and engineering

will emerge.

I know I’m in a minority there, and it’s a program that may never fly. Still, I think it’s

sufficiently critical that it should never be allowed to die completely. As the Army gets

smaller, it seems that it’s more and more important that the limited moneys and manpower

available to maintain and operate these posts be put to the maximum productivity. I think the

Chief of Engineers could manage such a program, similar to the way we operate and maintain

the facilities in the public works programs.

The money thing could be worked out with the post commander in some way. So that

idea-that egg was laid, but it’s never hatched.

I’ve got one here that may fit in this area. I think it was in 1976 that the Corps of Engineers

was designated a combat arm?

A little before that maybe. [Lieutenant] General Frank Camm, when he was at TRADOC,

was successful in having the engineers designated as a combat arm. That was something he,

as well as a lot of other engineer officers, strived for over many years. He takes a lot of pride

in the fact that this was accomplished-and he should.Later these efforts contributed, to

some extent, to our becoming a separate command, which was a matter of pride among the

Army engineers. It put us in a different reporting category in things like command selection

lists, et cetera. Our commanders are now selected as part of the same command selection list

for the rest of the Army.

Let’s return to the subject of international programs. You have some additional information

you would like to discuss.

Yes, I just want to wrap up the international as a general subject and, of course, later on,

under projects, we will become more specific. I want to be sure the record reflects that there

were several peripheral events that influenced my thinking on the need for the Corps of

Engineers’ becoming involved in international work. One was PIANC, the Permanent

International Association of Navigation Congresses, and the other one was the International

Committee on Large Dams. The former was made up of countries as opposed to individuals,

and therefore when you went to one of the meetings, you were really speaking with the

counterpart in government about their country’s interest in water and water transportation

development.

The International Committee on Large Dams was made up of members of the industry and

also individuals from various national organizations. The important thing is that in each of

these the United States was looked to as a leader in water resources and environmental

programs. I felt that there should be a way that our national engineering potential could be

brought into the international arena.

Even though it wasn’t an assigned role of the Corps of Engineers, there was no reason why

we shouldn’t use our opportunities to open the doors for the American engineering and

construction industries and also to further relationships of the United States with our friends

throughout the world. So I became pretty solidly convinced that we should do whatever was

possible to transfer American knowledge and technology in the engineering and construction

fields both in the military and in the public works arenas.

As opportunities began to reveal themselves through discussions in the international

organizations, we soon found countries wanting our advice in a variety of subjects. It was my
Enaineer Memoirs

hope that we could develop this program to help the American construction and engineering

industry and also to help the quality of life throughout the world.

Unfortunately, the ability of the Chief of Engineers or even the Corps to expand this program

depended a great deal on funding and internal support. There was in the Corps, and in the

Executive Branch of government, a feeling that the talent of the Corps of Engineers had been

established to perform only those missions which were funded by the United States

government and primarily within the United States. These missions might be neglected if the

foreign program became too demanding of manpower assets. As a result, the international

initiative was constrained.

I mentioned the Suez Canal earlier, and there was a typical example where for just a few

thousand dollars the United States could have had a very major role in reconstruction of the

corridor from Port Said in the north down to Suez City at the southern end of the canal.

In addition to the constraints placed on the Corps because of manpower diversion, there was

a further constraint placed on the U.S. construction industry by U.S. tax laws. Whereas other

nations were actually subsidizing the construction industry seeking international work, our

government was tilting the playing field to the disadvantage of our industry. There was more

to it than just the people doing the work. In the Saudi program, as we will probably discuss

later, in addition to the work, all the materials and supplies were produced in the United

States. If we put up 10,000 homes, there were 10,000 refrigerators, 10,000 stoves, et cetera,

made in the United States.

The erosion during the 1970s of U.S. involvement in the international construction and

engineering fields was dramatic. In the mid-197Os, American contractors performed 90

percent of the work in Saudi Arabia. By 1980, I’d say 15 percent of it was by American

contractors. The Koreans with Korean government support took over most of the major jobs.

Morrison Knudsen lost an $800 million job to Sam Whan in Saudi Arabia. The Japanese

whipped American dredgers in dredging the Suez Canal and other areas of the world. The

Dutch government financed their contractors and actually financed some of the jobs to help

their contractors get work.

So the international initiative may have been a great idea in many ways, but the ability of the

Corps of Engineers to ensure American participation in the international arena became more

and more difficult. Even though our initiatives in this area increased, overriding counterforces

came into play. Ironically, the desire to have American effort never diminished on the part of

the countries which looked to the Corps. Unfortunately, the ability of the American

engineering and construction industry to respond became so constrained that the program

began to atrophy.

Q.

. During the 1970s the Corps came under a lot of criticism, especially from the environmental

community.

A.. Somewhere in this dialogue we’ve got to talk about the Corps’ image and reputation in the

public arena. In 1970 there were no problems finding articles critical of the Corps of

Engineers. It was a little frustrating because I believed then as now that as people know the

Corps better, opposition diminishes proportionately. The better they knew us, the better they

liked or at least understood us. So we had a real challenge in developing such an

understanding.

I felt it was important to take advantage of every opportunity to speak to every group which

asked us, whether they were opponents or friends. I welcomed appearances before the Sierra

Club, the Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Ducks Unlimited, whatever. Sometimes

158
John W. Morris

I felt these groups didn’t want to hear our story. In any case, when we began to communicate

with the people, we realized they also had certain objectives to protect or pursue. Since the

Corps of Engineers was considered to be the bad guy, it made a pretty good target. Even so,

we should not keep a low silhouette for fear somebody was going to shoot at us. That would

be a poor approach. I believe it’s better to keep a high silhouette and let people know what we

stand for, even at the risk of getting shot at occasionally. So we went on an extensive program

to be responsive and to participate. We began to react to criticisms by the press and in

publications which were based on errors in the facts. I think I may have covered this point

earlier.

I never believed that we should take on any editorial. Everybody is entitled to his own

opinion, whether we agree with it or not. We should be serious about the facts. So we

established a program that we would respond to public criticism if erroneous facts supported

a position. That turned out to be a simple but effective move.

In the course of implementing it, we had interviews with the editorial board of the New York

Times, with the management board of the Reader’s Digest, and individual discussions with

national writers. In this approach we never argued - I never did, at least, and I don’t think our

people did-although I visited most of the senior organizations myself. I usually took Locke

Mouton, our public relations man, along. He helped prepare our position carefully.

I distinctly remember the New York Times visit. The writer was named Wayne King, and after

visiting with him and his board, we later ran into each other at the Tennessee-Tombigbee

hearing in Mississippi. King then wrote a more positive article about the Corps than I think

he would have had we not visited with him earlier.

At the Reader’s Digest, a man named James Miller had written a very critical article on the

Tennessee-Tombigbee project and the Corps in general. Errors in fact prompted me to visit

the leadership of Reader’s Digest in Pleasantville, New York. We spent a very busy morning

going through the article step by step. After that, I do not recall any critical articles based on

nonfactual data.

A lot of articles began to appear which were authoredwithin the Corps

answer” interviews. I had a verygood experience withthe Bass Anglers

or by “question and

Sportsmen Society.

BASS conducts an annual fishing contest that is publicized nationally. They had been fairly

critical of the Corps; however, after attending one of their tournaments and visiting with Mr.

Scott, Ray Scott and his people, they published some decent articles about the Corps on how

it was handling the water resource program, et cetera.

The Corps personnel and I, in particular, became much more available and exposed. I went

to the Audubon Society’s annual meeting at Estes Park and made a keynote presentation. I

believe we got across the point that if they were able to change the laws, that we’d be

delighted to implement the changes; however, in the meantime, we intended to execute the

laws in force. The same thing with the Fish and Wildlife Service meeting in Denver. So the

point of this discussion is that not only the Chief but all the people in the Corps-the division

engineers and the district engineers-were asked to make themselves available and to become

active, not reactive. I think it had a positive effect.

We never, of course, expected to be free of criticism. On the other hand, we felt that we had

to take some offensive against unwarranted, unjust, and erroneous criticism rather than

assume a passive attitude that with time, all will pass. It wouldn’t pass.

159
Engineer Memoirs

Publications of various sorts emphasized the Corps’ role. I mentioned Water Spectrum. We

also published special publications on dredge material, technical fliers on our research

programs, et cetera. The aggressive public relations had several internally good effects. It

bumped up morale and also began to get the team singing off the same sheet of music

throughout the country. The latter became especially important in meeting the reorganization

challenges which arose during the four years I was in the leadership position.

Q.

. Could I ask one follow-up question on that? Did this mean any changes in the Public Affairs

Office, in the Corps headquarters?

A.. Not really. We had a good civilian staff. There was Locke Mouton and Ray Leonard, also

Warren Pappen, who was over in Civil Works directly under the director of Civil Works.

Mouton was very well trained in the public relations business. He’d been working in

Albuquerque and Tulsa Districts years before as a public relations person. He wrote well and

he had an incisive view on things. So the staff was good.

Usually, an engineer colonel was the Public Affairs officer. General Kern, Sam Kern, as a

lieutenant colonel was a very good Public Affairs person. Our public relations staff

coordinated frequently with the Army Public Affairs people in the Pentagon.

As mentioned earlier, the Corps won the Silver Anvil Award, the Oscar for public affairs,

with the Sergeant FZoyd Bicentennial effort.

About the middle of my term two things happened at the Pentagon which affected the public

affairs activities. First, they offered us a nonengineer professional public relations

officer-Colonel Tom Garrigan. Garrigan was excellent. He knew most of the name reporters

in town from his time in the Pentagon. He brought a new twist to our efforts.

The Army Chief of Public Affairs suggested that the Corps produce a magazine, a newspaper.

So we started the Engineer Update. The first one was published in 1978 and has become

pretty popular throughout the Corps. I hope it is being distributed to retired people and friends

as well as just to active duty and permanent people within the organization because it should

continue to get broader attention.

While on the subject of public affairs activities, I should cover a few specifics. One of our

public affairs officers was a Lieutenant Colonel [John V.] Foley, who later became district

engineer in Los Angeles. I was asked to appear on the NBC Today Show in 1974. Foley

helped prepare me before we went to New York. As covered earlier, and while director of

Civil Works, a Mr. Heuvelmans from Florida had written a book about the Corps of Engineers

ruining the rivers of Florida.

He had been on the Today Show and gave us the works. I was asked to come up the next day,

which I did, and was interviewed by Mr. Frank McGee. It came off okay, partially because

the Public Affairs Office prepared me and managed the visit nicely.

A bit earlier, I had also been on 60 Minutes. Now, the Today Show was one thing, that’s live

so you know what happens is what happens. On 60 Minutes they took about four hours getting

about maybe a minute on TV. Morley Safer did the interview in my office in Civil Works.

Locke Mouton was present and helped me prepare.

The subject of their program was the conflict between the Fish and Wildlife people and the

Corps over the effects of navigation and flood control, especially in the upper Mississippi.

The 60 Minutes process was interesting. Mr. Safer was very courteous as was everyone else

while asking a lot of questions. As time went by, we became much more comfortable with

each other, at least I did, and at the very end they made some comment about the Corps’

160
John W. Morris

rebuilding the country. I mentioned how the Corps could help the Department of

Transportation rebuild the Northeast railroad corridor. Joe Tofani had worked up a “Red

Book” on the subject. So if anybody saw the show, they might remember that the last thing

Morley Safer said referred to the Corps of Engineers’ having built so much of this country,

et cetera, and then commented to the effect, “They’re not done yet. They’ve even got a red

book on how to rebuild the railroads.” That’s what came out on television. I thought it rather

humorous, but we got a lot of publicity out of that that we didn’t necessarily expect and I’m

not so sure we wanted. We heard from the Department of Transportation.

The last event of national TV significance involved General Clarke’s 1970 interview by Lem

Tucker. Tucker is still active. In any event, the program really did a job on General Clarke.

It wasn’t a live program. They managed the film to show the Chief at bad angles with the

bright lights. They showed dead fish in the river that had nothing to do with him. The scenario

was put together in a way to make General Clarke and the Corps look like villains. That was

in 1970.

Almost ten years later, in early 1979, the network considered a follow-up. They phoned and

asked if I would participate in a ten-year review. I was delighted. Mr. Tucker came over and

we sat in my Forrestal office. It was a very good interview. We got along fine. There were no

rough spots to speak of. The conclusion had to be that the Corps had done a much better job

than they had anticipated when they put the earlier program together.

The reprise was never shown. Later, after I’d retired, I was on a trip to Chicago and a group

of reporters were also on the plane en route to the funeral of the well-known newsman, Max

Robinson. Mr. Lem Tucker was among them, and I asked him about why he didn’t produce

the 1979 interview. He indicated the Corps had done such a good job that there really wasn’t

anything that would be of national interest. He seemed sincere when he indicated he would

have liked to put it on, but his bosses wouldn’t let him show it.

The important point is that the Corps was a whipping boy for a long time, but as we began to

get our act together and to do better environmental work, better understanding followed and

criticism diminished-“diminished,” not “ended.”

The Corps as a public institution owes the public an honest face so that the public can see the

Corps for what it really is. It’s almost as bad to fail to produce the honest picture as it is to

tout something that you’re not, in the hopes of getting some kind of credit.

So that’s why I wanted to discuss the public relations program. I think the Corps’ image did

improve over that period. Similarly, the same thing happened with the Congress. Our

relationships with the Congress remained at a high level professionally in spite of the fact we

had some extremely difficult projects ongoing: Tenn-Tom, Lock and Dam 26, the Ohio River,

on and on, plus the permit program.

Q.

. What other agencies of the federal government, outside of the Defense Department, did the

Corps work closely with during your term as Chief?

A:: With the formation of the Department of Energy and with the development of the EPA, there

were two new organizations on the scene during the decade of the 1970s which needed

engineer support. The Corps made an effort to be available to those people. The Corps does

a lot of work for EPA now and hopes to do more work for the Department of Energy.

At first, our work with the Department of Energy was difficult. When General Gribble retired,

the last thing he said to me was, “Jack, in a few days you’re going to get a contract to do the

strategic petroleum reserve for the Department of Energy.” The people he was dealing with

161
Engineer Memoirs

soon left the Department of Energy, and we ended up handling only the real estate-none of

the government construction management.

It was the Department of Energy that moved us out of the Forrestal Building. I thought the

Corps was in very good shape to work with the Department of Energy, but there were people

in the organization that wanted to build their own engineering capability. Even after I retired,

I met with and talked to the people in Department of Energy and explained my view that they

needed an organization to get on top of the hazardous and nuclear waste problem. We spent

half a day on that subject with their top people. Recently they have given the Corps some

work out at Hanford and other places. The point I’m trying to make here is it takes a long time

to get the relationships and associations going.

With EPA it took six or seven years following an initial a&s-length kind of arrangement.

Finally, while Doug Costle was administrator of EPA, we signed an agreement for 600 manyears of Corps effort to help the administrator of EPA with the waste water problem.

When I left the job as Chief of Engineers the last couple of things I said to General Bratton

were, “Leave the districts alone,” and, “go get the hazardous waste program.” He indicated

his concern that the Corps was not qualified to do the hazardous waste program. I said,

“Neither is anyone else, and the Corps can become qualified more quickly than anyone else.”

That’s worked out to a degree.

Work for others has to be kept on the Chief of Engineers’ things-to-do list. It doesn’t matter

who the others are, but you either go forward or you’re going to go backwards. With the

Corps’ construction involvement going down, it has to find other places to use its talent, and

work for others is one way.

I never thought we had quite enough work for the Department of State. We made some

inroads on that. The trip to China was a by-product, to some extent. There were other flashes.

The Corps could and should have done the foreign building office work in the embassy field.

USAID was another organization within Department of State that sporadically gave the Corps

work internationally. HUD, in their protocol with the Russians “housing and other

construction,” gave us the “other construction” piece as mentioned earlier.

Then there were the laboratories. At that time our laboratories, WES, CERL, and CRREL

[Waterways Experiment Station, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, and Cold

Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory] performed a significant amount of work not

only for other federal agencies but for certain industries at times. The CPAR program, which

Bob Page put together, is a good idea. I felt all along that if the Corps was going to execute

research at public expense, the public was entitled to know the results and that information

should be transferred to them. Thanks to Bob Page that happened, ultimately.

I also thought the United States Corps of Engineers labs should be allowed to support private

industry. After I retired and was president of PRC, Engineer Group, the Dutch put their Delft

Laboratories behind one of their contractors to bid on a major international bridge job.

Finally, the Corps of Engineers laboratories were allowed by Congress to support private

industry under certain conditions.

The mayor of Seattle came to see me in 1979 and asked for some help on a new bridge. He

wanted the Corps of Engineers’ technical advice on it. I was told by the staff we couldn’t do

it because there was no authority. That was correct. On the other hand, there was no directive

not to do it. It was a vacuum. At least that was my understanding.

162
John W. Morris

The point was, though, it was the right thing to do. After all, the city of Seattle was another

government within the United States spending federal dollars and needing help. The Corps

was available, had the capability, and would be paid for its service. Finally, the Corps helped

Seattle. It was not a great deal of effort but it was enough to solve the need. That began the

whole idea that we should probably make the Corps’ capability, through its labs and

otherwise, available to others under selected conditions.

We’ve done work for the Department of the Interior, including the Bureau of Reclamation.

I think it was either General Hatch or General Heiberg along with General Wall who preached

the idea of the “federal engineer. ” That’s the concept. I think it’s a little stretch and risks some

resentment to say, “The Corps will be the federal engineer,” but the idea is right. The more

work you do for others and do it well, the more likely you are to get there by evolution rather

than by dictum. If you put up on the table the thought that the Corps is going to be the federal

engineer, you would probably get a lot of competition and argument about it. If you get there

by growth, you’ll probably make it because the Corps can do all these things and do them

well. The Congress recognizes that and always has. That’s how the Corps grew in the water

business in the first place.

So I think the work done for others is more than just the work itself, it’s a whole philosophy.

It’s necessary for the survival of the Corps. In the 1970s we could see the construction work

going down and the operation and maintenance going up, but in order to keep our tools sharp

Groundbreaking ceremony of the Arthur Casagrande Building at the Waterways Experiment

Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, on 28 June 1978. Next to the prominent engineer, Casagrande

(left), are General Morris (center) and Colonel John L. Cannon, commander and director of WES.

163
Enaineer Memoirs

in the field that we were best qualified for, we needed to have work of the type that required

our engineering staffs to be busy, not only our operation and maintenance staff. So work for

others was critical. Is critical. I think we can do a lot more. I think we should do work for

states if they need us and can pay for the service.

Q

.

. One question about work for others. In more recent years, some of the assistant secretaries

have been reluctant about the Corps’ participating in work for others. Were there any

problems with the Assistant Secretary or the Secretary of the Army on your initiatives in this

area?

A

.

. My only answer to your question is I didn’t find that a real problem with the assistant

secretaries during my term because I did have the president’s and the Secretary of the Army’s

support.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Responding to natural disasters and emergencies also required your attention as Chief.

It seemed that every year there were one or two events that required immediate reaction.

As our government experienced these emergencies and more and more of the public was

impacted, the organization to deal with the emergencies was adjusted. As a result, sometime

after Hurricane Agnes and in the mid-197Os, FEMA came into being, Federal Emergency

Management Agency. That had an impact directly on the Corps. In emergency conditions, the

law allows the Corps of Engineers to use funds otherwise appropriated to prevent loss of life

or critical damage.

However, to go beyond that into the clean-up phase or to provide relief after the event is

another matter. Prior to FEMA the Chief of Engineers could be more decisive in responding

to disaster matters. During Agnes, General Clarke had be to sure that the Office of Emergency

Preparedness was aware of what he was doing to relieve suffering and clean up the damaged

areas. The Corps was much more responsive in those days. Today, in order to enter the repair

and clean-up phase, FEMA must direct the Corps to act. I’m not being critical of FEMA, but

it’s another layer of decision making.

Because of the flooding that had occurred in the early 1970s while I was director of Civil

Works, we had set up in the Chief of Engineers’ office an Emergency Operations Center to

monitor floods and disasters. Today, the center has matured and increased in its effectiveness.

I noticed during Hurricane Andrew that the Army became more visible than the Corps of

Engineers. I have no problem with that, but I’m trying to emphasize there’s been a major

change in the authority and a reduction in the flexibility of the Chief of Engineers.

My first experience with emergencies was “Operation Snowbound” in the Midwest in 1949,

January of 1949. Based on a series of emergencies over 25 years, I believe in many ways the

public was better served when the Chief could respond directly rather than through FEMA.

The important change was setting up FEMA. Fortunately, General Ben Lewis, who was a

Corps officer, helped to develop FEMA procedures. George Orrell, who had been with the

Strategic Studies Group, went to FEMA also. George was just an outstanding civilian

employee. He did great work for the Corps and he was a real asset over at FEMA.

My last emergency involvement was Mount Saint Helens. Incidentally, Mount Saint Helens

was the catalyst that led to our finally being able to get a new aircraft. I was out of the country

at the time, and General Heiberg used the Chief’s plane to visit the site, but he couldn’t get

there as fast as everybody else did because of the quality of the aircraft. The Corps did a

tremendous job with the Mount Saint Helens disaster. Because of my trip to China and the

Israeli airfield matter, I had practically nothing to do with the critical phase. The emergency

164
John W. Morris

work was initiated promptly thanks to General Heiberg’s good work, and that of the Deputy

Chief of Engineers-Major General James Johnson.

The main thing about the emergency program, in my judgment, is that the Corps has a great

capability to respond because of the quality and geographical setup of the organization. When

the Corps’ men and women, even retired individuals, know the Corps is on the firing line,

they’ll respond.

The only other emergency-we’ve already talked about it-is military emergency. The Corps,

along with the rest of the Army, needs to keep current on what to do in case there is a

mobilization or a major military conflict.

Q

.

. You mentioned before we started today that you recently ran into a friend who had an impact

on your career.

A.. Yes-[Brigadier] General Arch Hamblen, retired. People who have been important in your

life are too often forgotten. Hamblen was a classmate assigned to West Point when I was

being considered for assignment there. He personally went to see the commandant and

suggested that they accept me. That ultimately happened.

Later, he was transferred to the Pentagon just before I was ordered to the Army Legislative

Liaison office. Arch, a very religious man, was in charge of the general officers prayer

breakfast. All the members of the prayer breakfast were generals except for Colonel Hamblen,

who took care of the administrative arrangements.

Another colonel joined-Elizabeth Hoisington, soon to became the first woman general in the

Army. Arch convinced them that he needed some help, and so I was brought into this as his

alternate and the number two colonel. I’ve forgotten the details, but I managed the breakfasts

during a period when we studied the book of Mark. If the general who was supposed to have

the subject on a particular day didn’t come, then the colonel had to do it. Well, we had a lot

of generals that didn’t want to talk about Mark, I guess, because I recall I gave many of the

sessions.

Later, the promotion board that selected me for brigadier general was comprised of several

generals from that prayer breakfast. Apparently my dissertations on Mark made a favorable

impression, and I can -thank Arch Hamblen for his role in my getting promoted to general.

Saint Mark probably had a lot to do with it too.

Q

.

. Who was your driver when you were Chief?

A

.

. When I was director of Civil Works I had a driver named James Boswell. Boswell was very

natty and devoted to his boss. It didn’t matter if it was Morris or Koisch or whoever had the

job. James was probably the best driver the Corps had. He always dressed properly and wore

a cap and he was always available.

When I moved up to be the deputy I brought James with me. Then, when I became Chief, we

had a real problem because the Chief’s driver was “Jeff’ [John Jeffries]. Jeff’s a wonderful

man, really, but James had been with me too long to abandon him, so Jeff had to move aside.

I noticed in 1977 that James was becoming less alert and his driving more erratic as time went

on. So in the summer of 1978 I asked him if he didn’t think it was time to retire. He didn’t.

So I asked James to see a doctor. He did, and we learned he had terminal cancer.

165
Enaineer Memoirs

James had accumulated almost a year of sick leave. Actually, it turned out to be enough so he

could go on sick leave for the period of time necessary to reach permanent retirement and

certain benefits.

When I mentioned this to James’ doctor, he predicted James would be lucky to live the year.

Well, he made his retirement date by just five days. It was sad. I lost a good friend.

Then Jeff came up, and I have to say Jeff was excellent and is still a good friend. Those

drivers were a great part of the Corps family. Not many people realize that, but you know,

when you’re going to a tough meeting or congressional hearing, it’s nice to have a driver who

will listen-and not argue.

Chief of Engineers: International and Military Projects

Q

.

. Let’s begin talking about the major projects that occupied your attention when you were

Chief.

A

.

. Well, we’re down to projects. Let’s take some of the easy ones first. Russia. While director

of Civil Works sometime during President Nixon’s Administration a protocol was set up with

the Russians called “housing and other construction.” “Other construction” was everything

except housing and therefore was the most diverse and often biggest piece of this package.

It included waterways, dams, tunnels, highways, ports, and all things except housing. The

chairman of the group was always the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development [HUD].

That was Patricia Harris during our time.

In December of 1977 I went to Russia as part of the housing and other construction group and

took the chief of Operations of the Corps, and several engineers from CRREL. We had asked

before we went if we could visit the railroad tunnels they were digging and also to go to one

of their laboratories to visit their dam and hydraulic design facilities. The Russians wouldn’t

show us the tunnel because they’d had some problems with it.

That meeting was quite interesting and they later sent a delegation to the United States, but

nothing, to my knowledge, ever came of any of our initiatives with Russia, either from the

HUD’s or from the Corps’ standpoints. There was a lot of activity between CRREL and the

Russians which from a scientific standpoint was productive. To my knowledge, very little in

the engineering field other than research and development materialized.

On the other hand, a similar situation arose with China during my tour as Chief of Engineers.

Vice President [Walter] Mondale had been to China in August of 1979 and as a result of that

trip had agreed to send a delegation of American engineers back to China to discuss water

resource development and hydropower, specifically the Three Gorges Dam. That delegation

left in late February of 1980 and came back in about three weeks. The delegation consisted

of Dave Freeman, the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Assistant Secretary of the

Interior Martin, and a group from the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bonneville Power

Authority, and the Corps of Engineers. The principals were allowed to take their wives. Gerry

was allowed to go with the wives of other chief delegates.

The Corps also provided the exec and secretary for the whole group. Our highly qualified

group of engineers included Duscha, Murden, and Robert Bruckner.

We arrived in China and were divided into several groups. Mine included one Tennessee

Valley Authority man, a couple of Corps people, and several Chinese engineers. Our host was

the Minister of Water Resources and Electricity-a Mr. Li Rei. He was a Mao supporter and

had had a very tough time in the Nationalist prison before he was released. He was a top party

166
John W. Morris

The dam at the Shimen Power Station during

General Morris’ trip to China in 1980.

The dam at the Wujiangdu Power Station under

construction during General Morris’ trip to China in

early 1980.

member. Li Rei wanted to go with the Corps people. Lloyd Duscha was with me. Bill Murden

went with another group.

The bureau group went up the Yangtze River to Three Gorges whereas our group traveled

south to the Pearl River. Ours proved to be a tough trip for about a week. We traveled in a

new Toyota van through mountain trails and narrow roads looking at dam sites. The

accommodations in 1980 were Spartan government houses. In some places, we slept on beds

with wooden or rope bottoms, no heat, and outside toilets. It was cold in February. Everything

was very clean. A Chinese girl came in the morning and brought us a pitcher of hot water.

Unless you hurried it was soon cold. The food was marginal but it was a military-type setup

and nothing that I had not encountered before as a soldier, but it was primitive by our

construction site standards.

At one site I visited a nearby troop unit which was doing some initial exploratory work on the

dam site.

I spent a lot of time with Mr. Li Rei. Somewhere along the line when we were alone he

brought up the subject of the Three Gorges Dam and what did I think of it. Since I had not

seen the site, I only noted that we had seen several other sites which with less money would

get power sooner. I had the feeling that he agreed.

Yichang, a major city on the Yangtze River, is the site of a dam called Gezhouba. The entire

American group assembled there. We were staying in a construction camp, again, which was
Engineer Memoirs

The dam at the Panjiakou Power Station during General Morris’ trip to China in early 1980.
John W. Morris

Site of the Three Gorges Dam.

Photographs taken during General Morris’ trip to China in February 1980.

very primitive, no heat at night and little heat in the daytime but occasional hot water this

time; however, you didn’t dare get up in the middle of the night because it was bitter cold.

Seems like everyone except me became ill.

The next day we boarded a riverboat and went up river to the Three Gorges Dam site. We

passed beautiful scenery into the high gorges and debarked to visit dam site borings. After a

brief visit we had lunch on the boat on the return to Yichang. Then back to Beijing. In those

days, the best hotel was the Beijing Hotel. The present new hotels were not yet built. Cars

were rare; everybody walked or rode a bicycle.

Contrary to Russia, the Chinese were very friendly to the military. I wore my uniform to the

first briefing and I realized right away I was getting too much attention. Our chairman, Dave

Freeman, was being ignored to some extent so I wore civilian clothes thereafter.

Our headquarters in Beijing were in the American Embassy where our whole group met to

prepare our final report. En route to Beijing from Three Gorges, we traveled by train for part

of the trip during which Lloyd Duscha, Bill Murden, and I discussed the Three Gorges Dam.

Having seen other dams, I felt I should raise some questions about Three Gorges when we met

with the Chinese officials. The Corps team seemed to support my views. As a result, I told Mr.

Freeman, as we were preparing for our final briefing, of my reservations and questions about

the Three Gorges Dam.

As an example, the Chinese talked about comprehensive base planning, project planning.

They had all the right words but I had the feeling that they maximized the power productivity

and then they stuffed flood control, transportation, et cetera, into the project. That bothered

169
Engineer Memoirs

me. I gave Dave Freeman a preview of my briefing. He indicated I should make my points.

I then asked if I could go last because my presentation was going to be controversial.

As the final meeting with the Chinese proceeded, everyone’s presentation was smooth and

pleasantly received until I came along. I began by mentioning we hadn’t been there long

enough to get answers to many questions, however, our visit had generated some questions

that needed to be answered. Perhaps they had the answers to them and if so-fine. If they

didn’t, they shouldn’t build the project until they got the answers. That was the thrust of it.

The guests were all on one side of this long table and the Chinese on the other. I was sitting

next to Mr. Freeman, who was straight across from Mr. Li Rei. The Minister of Commerce

was there with the Minister of Communications, a woman. They did not seem to support the

project. Also present was Mr. Wei, the chairman and president of the Yangtze River

Development Authority. Of course, he was very much in favor of it.

Anyhow, I indicated there were five questions.

1. Would the Yangtze River be more important over the next century for

transportation or for hydropower?

2. Would it be more productive to build a number of smaller, yet large projects on the

excellent tributary dam sites, which would get their industrialization program moving

forward more rapidly? Even the smaller ones would be as big or bigger than anything

in the U.S.

3. If you’re going to have flood control, and you’re going to build levees below the

dam, why not raise the levees higher and strengthen them and lower the Three Gorges

Dam?

4. What problems were they going to have with environmental effects upstream in the

reservoir and dislocation of hundreds of thousands of people?

5. Were they prepared to put all their eggs in one basket in case they had a disaster,

a military operation, or some other event that put the project out of order?

So those were the five questions. The implication was that the project should be held off until

they were answered. In the course of doing this, Mr. Wei from this Yangtze River

Development Authority made an outburst but Li Rei kept order.

After the meeting ended the Chinese group came over saying things to me that I didn’t

understand. Turned out, though, many were favorable. I was surprised that there was so much

support for not proceeding with that project at that time. I don’t suggest there was support for

abandoning it, but over a decade later they still haven’t built it. They’re going to build it, but

they have changed their configuration. It’s lower. The navigation situation is much better than

it was in the older project. It’s a tough job but they can do it; it can be done. They’ve found

a way to relocate their people, apparently. I’m satisfied the questions were valid and worth

answering. I expressed to Mr. Li Rei before I left my hope that I hadn’t done anything to cause

a big problem but I felt that we were asked to come over to give our opinions.

There were several articles written against the project and I was interested, and disappointed

to a degree, to see that there was only one article that intimated that the Corps of Engineers

might have had an influence on the project’s description and configuration.

I went back to China in 1985. I taught a summer course in management as part of the

University of Maryland’s exchange with East China Technical University in Nanking. It was

a very interesting experience.

170
John W. Morris

Oh, I forgot to mention earlier, the original protocol for the visit to China dealt with

hydropower only. I asked the State Department representative to include “hydropower and

related water purposes,”which gave us a reason to look at navigation. The Corps group stayed

three extra days after the others came home to look at navigation issues.

When I went back in 1985 I was asked to come to Beijing to discuss water transportation. I

was given an invitation to survey water transportation facilities in China. I told them I would

like to do it, but I was no longer a member of the government, I was a private citizen, and they

should work that out with the Corps of Engineers. It never happened to my knowledge. That’s

too bad since the Corps seems to have been circumvented, more or less, by either private

enterprise or other government agencies, such as the Bureau [of Reclamation] in the dambuilding arena.

I do think there’s a great need for the Corps over there on the transportation side. The

approaches to the harbor at Shanghai need engineering attention. Inland locks, dams, and

channels need to be reviewed and modernized. They need an overall water transportation

system. I think the Corps has a role to play there when the political situation permits, and I

believe the Chinese would like very much to have the Corps of Engineers participate. In May

1993 I was asked by the Chinese embassy here to arrange a meeting with the Chief of

Engineers’ people to talk about getting the Corps back into China. Whether it will happen, I

can’t say. I do feel that the U.S. government should at least keep the door open so if the right

circumstances develop, the Corps can move in. The Corps’ presence would make way for

American business.

I was able to convince the Secretary of Defense’s office that the Chinese may not need

American help in engineering and design; they can do that. They didn’t really need our help

in construction practices-they’d rather use their own labor-intensive system. But they really

needed our organization and management techniques. That’s why I taught that summer.

My term as Chief was not the only one that dealt with China. I know that General Heiberg

went later with Secretary Dawson.

Q.

. Last time we ended by discussing the program in Russia and the program in China, but those

weren’t the only international programs that the Corps had going on when you were Chief of

Engineers. Perhaps we could pick up talking about the program in Saudi Arabia.

A.

. Yes, I believe I covered earlier the philosophy for the international program and setting up the

International Projects Office. The foundation for that idea really was the Saudi program.

Going back to the President Eisenhower days, the Corps worked in Saudi Arabia building an

air terminal in Dhahran under an engineer assistance agreement. Later, when the Saudi

Arabian government found itself with financial resources and the need to modernize its

country, one approach was to re-institute the engineer assistance agreement. Under the

agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the government of Saudi Arabia, in its more

recent form, the Saudi Arabian government could develop a modernization program and

finance it by depositing money in a facility in the United States against which the Corps of

Engineers could charge its expenditures for the Saudi program. The important point is this

major program costing $19-$20 billion was entirely paid for by Saudi money, not by U.S.

money.

My personal involvement

Engineers in 1975, and, by

. did

that

not materialize significantly until I became Deputy Chief of

time, the potential growth of the program was predictable. The
Enqineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

director of Military Construction was responsible for the program even though, as I recall, the

funds were managed through the Civil Works accounts.

On 1 July 1976 the headquarters moved out there as a new division, the Middle East Division.

Colonel Gray remained as district engineer of the Riyadh District, and Brigadier General Dick

Wells became the first division engineer. He was selected because of his solid, thorough,

deliberate, and correct decision-making process-characteristics we needed for a new office

during a turbulent period. Gray stayed a short while, returned to the States, and ultimately

retired. Wells built up the Middle East Division and got it off to a good start.

Was it important to have a general officer there?

A

.

. It was critical to have a general officer there. It was the biggest program we had. The Saudis

are quite sensitive to having top people. Also, making it a division in itself was important, but

we must remember that the Saudi program probably was as large as the rest of the military

construction program, and it was a long way from home. We also set up a division rear out

at Winchester. A general was appropriate.

Q

.

. Why was Winchester chosen?

A

.

. Well, it was not accidental. The chosen site, not where they are now but where they went

originally, was secure and had good communications once Bob Blakeley set up a satellite

communications network to Riyadh directly from Winchester.

It was far enough away from Washington to protect the activities from what I would consider

unnecessary visits and queries, et cetera. Several sites closer to D.C. were considered but none

was as suitable.

As time went on, and almost immediately after I moved up to be Chief of Engineers, I met

with the officer in charge of the Saudi military construction program, Prince Nasir Faisal. He

was a major, very sharp, and I thought, excellent. During an early meeting I mentioned that

while the program was big then, it would not stay big forever. I wanted the Corps to finish its

work with pride and dignity, and I would like to try to predetermine a date for coming home

if possible.

So I asked him if he would give us a flight path into the future, which he was unable to do.

However, by asking that question when we did I think it alerted the Saudis to the fact that

somewhere out there there would be a phase-down and that should be handled properly. Of

course, that was a low-priority item at the time because we were so busy doing the job.

A couple of other things came up in the Saudi program. Our charter and our responsibility

were to the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, and also to the National Guard. The ministers

over there were possessive about people who worked for them. I offered to do a study of their

water resources nationally, similar to what we’ve done in several regions here in the States.

It was a very attractive offer, but we could never get the authority to deal with a ministry other

than the Ministry of Defense and Aviation for reasons I don’t understand. The Corps could

have done it nicely.

So we concentrated on the Ministry of Defense and Aviation, and out of that program came

some truly magnificent projects-no question about it. The headquarters of the National

Guard is a monumental building, cost a couple of hundred million dollars. It was designed by

Leo Daly and built by DiMathis, an American company with the Korean, Sam Whan, as a

partner. It is a beautiful building. We had some problems with it, of course; you always do.

Then we built the headquarters for the Ministry of Defense and Aviation itself, which is

another monumental building, the headquarters for the Air Force, headquarters for the Navy,

172
John W. Morris

all in Riyadh. I guess the first project we did there was the communication setup for Voice of

America, but I was not involved.

Then there was quite a bit of work in the west, Khamis Mushayt, Tabuk, and Jidda. Jidda

District was formed, leaving the eastern area to Riyadh District. Later we set up the Al Batin

District in King Khalid Military City. The latter alone was a multi-billion dollar, 70,000-

person city, built in the middle of the desert. We did work for the Navy at Jubail and actually

built a port nearby at Ras al Mashad to service the work at Al Batin So it was a magnificent

program, and the Corps carried the American engineering and construction industry with it

to Saudi Arabia.

Also, in the early stages American manufacturers were blessed because the work required

furniture, fixtures, and facilities that were ordered by Winchester from U.S. suppliers.

Now, as with any program of that size, there were difficulties. The difficulties, in hindsight,

were primarily with executing the construction, not the program. The only programmatic

adjustment we ran into was with the National Guard. Prince Abdullah, who’s now the crown

prince, was then the head of the National Guard Bureau. While we did a lot of good work for

him, the National Guard began to manage its own contracting and did not use the Corps after

the first couple of years. I am not aware of any dissatisfaction other than they thought we were

expensive.

The internal politics of the Saudi government, royal family, is a pretty complex environment

in which to work, isn’t it?

A: Yes. Yes. The Ministry of Defense and Aviation was under Prince Sultan, still is, and he

stayed up-to-date on the program. His staff included Prince Nasir Faisal, whom I mentioned,

and other people in his ministry. This group and the Corps established clear procedures, so

National Guard Headquarters Building in Saudi Arabia, part of the massive Corps of Engineers’

managed construction program for the Saudi Arabian armed forces.
Engineer Memoirs

it worked out well. That was one of the advantages of only working with one ministry. You

had only to understand one ministry, as opposed to trying to figure out two or three.

King Khalid showed up at major events like the dedication of the National Guard

Headquarters. At Al Batin, we built a guest home for him which he used once or twice.

It’s too bad, in a way, that the American industry lost its preeminence in this program as other

governments began to subsidize their construction industry. I think I’ve covered that already.

Q:

A:

Did you go over several times?

Yes. I was in and out of there several times a year. I happened to be in Saudi Arabia the night

that the Camp David agreement was to be signed. Gerry and I were guests of Governor [John

C.] West, the American ambassador to Saudi Arabia. That evening he was called away from

our dinner party. Later I learned he had received instructions to tell the King that the

agreement had been signed. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm in Saudi Arabia for the

Camp David agreement, as I recall.

The next day I was in Egypt to do some work with the Suez Canal authorities and I was the

guest of Chairman Mashour at his headquarters in Ismailia. The Egyptians were delighted

with the Camp David agreement. There were parades and Mashour had to leave us also, but

he went to celebrate. While we were there, somebody asked what the Corps was going to do

about those two airfields, which leads us into the Israeli airfield project, although you haven’t

asked about it. Along with the Saudi program, this became a major effort of the Corps.

Believe it or not, I didn’t know anything about the two airfields when I was asked this

question. I replied, “What airfields?” So I learned, sketchily, that the Corps was to replicate

General Morris participated when King Khalid of Saudi Arabia dedicated the National Guard

headquarters building.

174
John W. Morris

in Israel a couple of fields that were in the Sinai before that area was returned to the

Egyptians.

Well, by the time I got home, General Bumell, the deputy, had gotten things well organized.

He’d sent some people to Israeli already.

So that was the beginning of the Israeli job, the airfield job, which turned out, in my

judgment, to be the most difficult single project during my term in the Corps. Before I leave

Saudi, we should discuss a few lessons learned from the standpoint of contract management.

The Saudis would, of course, determine the program and they would approve the design. We

had no objection if they suggested contractors who might bid on a job, but the Corps

definitely objected to any influence being exerted by the Saudis on who was to be selected to

do the job. Until very late in the program, that was never an issue. The Saudis respected that

and we didn’t have any problem.

When the King Khalid Military City came along, we had to select a contractor to build the

infrastructure-the roads, the water system, quarries, et cetera-and then to operate and

maintain those for the major contractors who were to build the facilities. The infrastructure

contract was highly competitive and very expensive for the bidders to prepare proposals. After

several iterations, meetings, and reviews, we derived a short list of contractors whom we

wanted to go to the next go-round.

At the last review there were two critical issues: one was how to organize and manage the job

and two was how to handle the materials going to the job site. The second point proved quite

simple. The freight forwarder, whoever moved the materials from the United States to the

project, would be responsible from the time they were picked up in the States until the time

they were turned over to the using contractor at the job site. That meant through all the ports

and in and out of the customs and then reshipped in Saudi from water to land, et cetera. That

was a tough requirement for the freight forwarders. That allowed us to deal with the

contractor because his risks were defined a little more clearly than if he had to pick materials

up at the port.

The next question, though, was management. We wanted to be sure that the contractor had

proven experience in managing complex projects. We had some excellent competition. We

were just about to make the final decision when we got a call from the Saudis saying they

wanted a certain U.S. firm to be allowed to bid on the job.

I objected to being told to give favored consideration at that late date and that it was a

violation of our understanding that the Saudis would not try to influence the selection process.

The fact is, I felt so strongly about it that I mentioned to the Defense Department that if the

Saudis insisted on forcing this issue, that I would suggest that they find another agency to

handle the Saudi program. The ship had already left the port, for all practical purposes, and

there was no way to get this new firm into the system in any reasonable way. As it turned out,

the president of the company came to Washington. I briefed him on the whole situation. I

noted that there really was no way to get a new bidder at that point in time and still be fair.

Actually I would have been happy if the timing were different. He agreed and asked that his

company be withdrawn from consideration. That was the end of the problem.

The contract went to Morrison Knudsen for about $800 million. I may have mentioned earlier,

when the time came up two years later for renewal, Morrison Knudsen indicated they did not

want to bid it. They felt they’d lost money. I asked them to bid since they were already there.

They did. Sam Whan came along with a bid that was significantly less. Sam Whan is still

175
Engineer Memoirs

Q::

.

there, as far as I know. So it was another example of what I’ve already discussed, where

American firms lost out. I really do think Mr. Bill McMurren, the president of Morrison

Knudsen, put in an honest bid-that is the amount he thought they’d need to be successful.

In contrast, when the Corps finished there were claims. Contrary to awarding a contract, I

thought the Saudis should participate in the discussions relating to claims. Payment was often

held up because of their questions, and if they participated in the negotiations to settle these

claims, the chances are they’d be settled without delaying questions.

While we didn’t want the Saudis involved prior to the contracts being awarded, I felt they

should be involved in the close-out claims situation.

When we first got into the Saudi program, there were some morale and personnel problems.

Ultimately we moved over a thousand people out there. Initially, our people were living in

homes that had been procured from the market throughout the city. Don’t misunderstand me,

they were very nice homes, but they were scattered all over Riyadh. Our women couldn’t

drive, and transportation was difficult because the road nets weren’t finished. It was just very

inefficient and somewhat unpleasant for all, especially the women.

So we asked the Saudi officials to allow and finance us to build housing areas for our own

people. That was done to include recreation facilities. The housing areas were to have betterthan-average facilities for family-entertainment, playgrounds, tennis courts, et cetera. We

may have been a bit extravagant, but I have no apologies. It was the right thing to do.

We built a nice area for the senior people called “The Wadi” including a larger home for the

division engineer. The division engineer needed a little more space. He had some entertaining

to do, and the houses weren’t all that large anyhow. Besides, the Saudis expected the senior

people to be better cared for-that was their style.

Morale problems lessened at once, and most people who went to Saudi loved it. They were

often hesitant to go, but once they got there they loved it. I remember when we sent [Major]

General [James N.] Ellis, whom I’d yanked around a couple of times earlier in his career. Mrs.

Ellis did not want to go, but after she got out there she loved it. Really. The same thing

happened, to some extent, with [Major] General [George] Robertson. He and his wife were

happy too.

I look back on the Saudi program as a severe test of the Corps’ managerial talents and

capabilities. It was a successful program. Some people may say we should have stayed longer.

Still, our goal was to export our talents and teach the Saudis how to do their own

management-and they’ve done that.

I wanted to ask you about that. There was an emphasis on training the Saudis.

A.

. Yes, absolutely. We never made any bones of the fact that we were going to be there as long

as they needed us, but our intent was to come home. When we came home, to leave behind

a capability that could fill in behind what we were doing. You always hate to give up a nice

program, but when we’d finished our mission the Corps came home in good shape. Fact is,

they had a ceremony to recognize the work. Along with General Clarke and selected key

people, I was invited in 1988 or ‘89 to a very nice Corps’ recognition affair in Riyadh and at

King Khalid Military City. I’ve been back to Saudi several times since I retired and the Corps

remains well liked. They’ll never bring the Corps back in to do what we did before, nor

should they, but they still call on the Corps for advice and help.

The only other incident in the Saudi program that I can think of was when Under Secretary

of Defense [William] Clements thought the senior U.S. officer in Saudi Arabia, the Air Force

176
John W. Morris

commanding general of the U.S. military mission, should be in charge of everything in that

country involving U.S. personnel.

Having just departed Saudi Arabia, I was up in Brussels visiting General Haig’s headquarters.

Also, I had a very bad cold, but on learning of Secretary Clements’ interest, I decided we had

to get back to Riyadh. We were able to get a helicopter from NATO [North Atlantic Treaty

Organization] to go to Orly, and fly from there into Saudi Arabia. Lieutenant Colonel Jack

Clifton was with me. We had some difficulties because of weather, but all that worked out and

I got back to Saudi at 0600 and went right to this meeting. At the end of his visit Secretary

Clements decided not to make that change.

While in country, Secretary Clements dedicated some facilities for the National Guard and

I was able to spend time with him. It was during that period of association and discussions that

I think he decided not to make a change. That was a near thing because, while we would not

have lost the mission, we could have lost control.

We had another little event which maybe shouldn’t go in here but it was important and

humorous in a way. General Haig had been replaced by General Rogers at SHAPE [Supreme

Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe]. In Saudi, of course, you’re not supposed to drink

alcoholic beverages. There was an arrangement made with the Saudi government which was

well recognized and well managed allowing the Corps to import alcoholic beverages and

distribute them within the U.S. compounds with the understanding that the whiskey would not

go outside the compound and that we’d remove labels and break the bottles.

When the sergeant major of the U.S. military mission was replaced, he told his successor,

“One of your most important duties is to handle the Class VI distribution.” Well, the new

sergeant major didn’t keep that as close hold as he should have and the word got back to

General Rogers. Rogers said, “Quit sending whiskey into Saudi Arabia.” That decision

threatened to be a big morale problem as you can imagine.

Fortunately, we had enough supply on hand that we could stop temporarily. Finally, I called

General Rogers on the phone and explained to him the impact of his decision. So he finally

said, “It’s your problem. Solve it, but I don’t ever want to hear about it again.”

So there were two close calls in things that affected our program. We successfully survived

Mr. Clements’ initial ideas and also kept our spirits.

Q

.

. It’s interesting, the story you said about the Corps’ getting out of Saudi Arabia. I interviewed

General Bill Wray in 1987, and his objective, he said, and he was there at the close-out, was

to get the Corps out, to get it out with its dignity.

A.. Well, that was the policy.

Q

.

. And to leave.

A.. I’ll tell you how that came about. Another good friend of mine, General Parfitt, had been

governor of the Panama Canal, and when the decision was made by President Carter to

relinquish the canal, the position of the governor and the canal company was immediately

impacted. I felt that the Corps had been summarily dismissed from Panama. Although General

Parfitt did a magnificent job in closing out his operation, we didn’t want a similar event to

happen again in Saudi Arabia. So we did start, years ahead, to plan a proper departure with

the flags flying, morale high, and a fond farewell.

177
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Q

.

.

A

.

.

I’m glad to hear Bill Wray felt that way because he was a significant player in the whole

Saudi situation. He deserves a great deal of credit for many other things including closing our

offices when he moved to Europe as top man.

That brings one follow-up question on this I wanted to ask. When the Mediterranean Division

moved to the Middle East, it left the work in Europe in the hands of the Europe Division,

EUD, which was a fairly new organization.

Yes.

Did you have any reservations about that?

No. The Saudi Arabia matter was paramount. Med Division was busy in Sicily. About that

same time an agreement was made for the Navy to take over the perimeter of the

Mediterranean to a certain distance east, and Admiral Islen’s people moved in behind the

Corps in Sicily and lower Italy under this new agreement. The Army effort, which went from

Med to Frankfurt, wasn’t as big as you might otherwise have thought.

While the Europe Division, as such, was relatively new, we need to remember that an

engineer command under Generals Koisch and LeTellier existed before EUD. I don’t recall

having any hesitancy about that. Anyway, that’s what we did and it worked. That’s the key

thing.

We’ve spent a lot of time on Saudi Arabia.

You talked about the discussions of the American military command arrangements in Saudi

Arabia. I wondered if that had come up, the whole idea of putting the Corps’ effort under the

American armed forces commander over there. It would be sort of logical that that idea would

come up, I guess.

Well, it does. First, he was the senior man. Actually the access to the United States

government through the military mission was cleaner than in our assistance agreement. It was

an idea that seemed to have some promise, but the timing would have been serious. Anyhow,

Secretary Clements decided not to do it and I was happy. Also, about this time was another

somewhat unfortunate decision here at home. Our Congress included the engineer assistance

agreement work as part of the foreign military sales effort. That meant that Congress got in

the act on all the work that was done under the engineer assistance agreement.

Turning to the other big international program when you were Chief, the Israeli air base

program.

Well, as I said, that’s the toughest specific challenge we had. Many complex factors made it

tough. When this whole project started, I suggested or decided that we’d send a public affairs

person to Israel to be on the ground during this whole process. As a result of that, a book has

been written. I don’t remember the title [B&ding Air Bases in the Negev], but a Corps’

historian [Frank N. Schubert] wrote it so you can find it. The book’s okay; however, it was

based on a perspective below the Chief of Engineers’ level; therefore, some assumptions or

conclusions were off target when drawn about my thinking and decisions, but I don’t think

I should belabor that point. The book is a worthwhile read.

The key problems with the Israeli project were:

First, there was a fixed deadline to make the airfields operational or the Israeli air

force would be grounded.
John W. Morris

Second, there was less money appropriated by the Congress than needed, so the

Israelis had to provide the last $240 million. This meant that every dollar saved up to

that amount was their money.

Third, there was no logistics or base upon which to build and there was no labor

market to draw upon.

Fourth, we needed a cost-plus type of contract because there were so many

uncertainties.

If there was a fifth, it would be that the plans for the existing airfields in the Sinai,

which we were to replicate, were in Hebrew and the as-builts were very incomplete.

So there we were. We didn’t have any design, we didn’t have a logistics base, we didn’t have

a labor base, we had a very tight deadline, the money was short, and so on.

As I mentioned, General Bumell had begun to gather critical data by sending a team to Israel

to evalua

One was

t e the situation. There were, however, several key and basic decisions to be made.

the money. First off, the Congress of the United States did not act immediately on

the Camp David agreement. In other words, it was three or four months before they

appropriated the money to execute the program. We really couldn 't afford to lose three or four

months in our planning. Then, we had another problem. Air bases were an Air Force-type

program, but the Corps was going to do all the work. I was convinced the Corps needed the

money, and we took the position from the outset that we had to control the money. The Air

Force insisted it was their program and they wanted the money in their budget. This grew into

a very interesting and crucial issue.

To me, it was a critical problem. If we didn’t have the money, we would not have the control

we needed to do the job. Well, the thing finally got up to the Secretary of Defense’s office.

Mrs. Shay was Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, as I recall. She was the senior person

from the Air Force present at a meeting. She appeared with her group. I was alone. Mr.

McGiffert was the Assistant Secretary of Defense who dealt with this project. I’d known

McGiffert when he was the Under Secretary of the Army. As soon as the meeting started, I

think he realized that I was very serious about solving the money matter correctly.

Fortunately, General Graves, who had been my deputy in the Corps, had become McGiffert's

military adviser. As we all know, General Graves is very perceptive.

After considerable discussion, Mr. McGiffert indicated he didn’t want to have to solve this

problem by a directive and for the Air Force and the Army to come to some understanding.

So Graves put a proposition on the table that the money would be put into the Air Force

budget with the proviso that it would be passed through without change directly to the Chief

of Engineers. That’s what we did.

So that was the first, I think, fundamental decision that had to be made. That was not an easy

decision but DOD got that right.

The next decision related to the kind of contract we needed. As it turned out, the Military

Programs staff devised a completely new type of contract, the only one of the type we’ve ever

had and may never have again. A consortium was to be formed wherein the construction

contractor would be the principal, but he would have to put on his team a well-known, highly

respected design engineer firm. We had to do a fast-track job by designing as we went along.

These aspects, plus many other uncertainties, dictated a cost-plus contract. We just couldn’t

identify all the risks, particularly since we didn’t have the plans and specifications. Still, we
Engineer Memoirs

had to start work if we were going to get this thing done on time. By the time Congress got

its money straight, we had less than three years to do a five-year job.

We looked around the Corps for people who had cost-plus experience and we found three

people. There must have been more out there but we could only find three, and I happened to

be one. I must say here I really gave thanks for Fred McNeely-a rock in this project. Those

who have dealt with cost-plus know that it’s a complete flip on the normal fixed-price

contracting officer and contractor responsibilities. Instead of the contractor being responsible

for doing the job within a fixed price, under a cost-plus job the owner becomes responsible

for managing the contract to be sure that the costs stay in line. Cost-plus requires stronger

control.

Then we had to select a contractor for each airfield. We couldn’t use a contractor that was

working in Saudi Arabia. We ended up using Guy F. Atchinson and Perini. We were

extremely fortunate to have two such outstanding contractors. We actually started work

almost on a handshake because we couldn’t definitize the contract till we knew more about

the details.

We finally got the contract definitized in January 1980 or about eight months after we started

work. In the meantime, the two contractors spent well over $100 million and I don’t think they

spilled a dime. I really was impressed by their patriotic, All-American, get-the-job-done spirit

and their reliance on the Corps to treat them fairly.

On 14 July 1979 we dedicated New Melones Dam. Guy Atchinson built it. I attended the

dedication with Joe McNabb, president. Joe came up and said, “Jack, this thing’s not going

to work.” I thought he was talking about New Melones Dam. He was talking about the Israeli

airfields. I said, “Why?” He said, “Well, I can’t get any answers.” I asked him to provide the

questions. I took 14 questions back to Washington on Saturday. On Tuesday morning I called

and we gave him all the answers. He said, “Well, I guess we can get the job done if we get

that kind of service.” That reinforced the need to have excellent control and management and

led to another key issue-how to manage this job.

I mentioned earlier the goals and policy to keep the Corps headquarters out of the operations

business. I thought the headquarters had plenty to do in the policy and the programming

arrangement. Based in part on my own experiences in Labrador, we selected North Atlantic

Division as the operating division. Their job was to get the job staffed, manned, get the

materials rolling, get the contracts set up, et cetera, et cetera. My intent was that whenever the

center of gravity of the work moved to the field, in other words when the contract was

awarded and we had the staff in place and everything was working, then we would remove

North Atlantic Division by setting up a small-division type of operation under a general

officer stationed in Israel. In the meantime, I was satisfied a colonel would be satisfactory,

especially since he was under Major General Jimmy Johnson, the division engineer, North

Atlantic Division. When General Johnson came down to be deputy, Major General Ben Lewis

took over. There was considerable discussion later as to whether I should have sent a brigadier

general at the outset directly to Israel.

Ben Lewis did an outstanding job definitizing the contract. I don’t think anyone else could

have done as well. He ran the project with firm control out of New York, which caused a

certain amount of tension at the other end. Sometime in the spring of 1980 Bill Wray, General

Wray, came to me by memo saying, in effect, “We’ve got to do something about the

organization. We ought to put a general out there.” I said, “Well, if you do, we’re going to

take North Atlantic Division out of the net, and I don’t want to do it until we are sure it won’t

be an operational burden on OCE.” He indicated, “We’d better do it.” So we picked out John

180
John W. Morris

Q.

.

Wall, who’d just made the brigadier general list. John was in school getting a doctorate in law

and not available until late May. He was exactly the right man. I had known John in many

earlier jobs and there was no one else I really wanted to send. So we sent him. He arrived in

June.

We then began to extract North Atlantic Division. That created a certain amount of tension,

too. General Lewis didn’t want to give up the job, but the time had come to do it. Even so, we

didn’t take him out of the net until September. I had to give Wall time to get his feet on the

ground. I was supposed to retire on 30 June 1980, but because of this project General Meyer,

Chief of Staff, allowed me to stay on until the end of September. So I went there in August

to be satisfied Wall and his people were ready. The book mentioned earlier has quite a bit of

discussion about that whole scenario of the general going to Israel and taking Lewis out of the

net and so forth. My actions were simple and predictable. I followed the original goal of

keeping the Chief’s office out of the operations business. We could swallow up 40 or 50

people just running a job, at the expense of policy and programs. It worked.

We sent the best people out there. I found three of the Corps’ best colonels-Don O'Shei,

Jack Gilkey, and Dick Curl-and they were the first three colonels assigned. Jimmy Johnson

was given the choice of each of those for the projects and for running the office. He chose

Gilkey to run the office, and he put O’Shei and Curl in the projects-good decisions that fit

the persons involved.

In executing the job, it took a while for things to settle down. The labor market problem

became significant. Perini used Thais, who proved to be great equipment .people, but their

upper body strength was low, so they didn’t do as good a job on roofing and heavy lifting

things. Perini, I believe, had to have three or four different mess halls because of the different

types of food. The other contractor used the Portuguese and they were infiltrated with some

Communists. They went on strike, which had to be straightened out.

In the end, the Corps built two beautiful airfields. I, of course, had retired in the meantime.

It’s a real credit to the Corps and the personnel in the Corps that they were able to get that job

off and running and finished ahead of time and that the budget process worked well. I think

it ended up costing $1.24 billion, instead of $1.2 billion. We had a $40 million overrun. The

fact is the Israelis got all the equipment at the end of the job. I believe they got their $240

million back in other ways. There were changes to the job also. Quality control was tough,

cost accounting was difficult, as was scheduling of the work because of the design issue. All

of those things and many more created a host of problems and difficulties at the project level.

You mentioned logistics was a problem.

A.

. Ben Lewis told me early on in his term that the big bugaboo was going to be procurement. He

was right. Procurement was the crunch item.

Personnel was a problem, too, in a way. The Corps did not have a team in place to send out

to do the job, so we made some ground rules initially. One, we were only going to send about

100 Americans. Everybody in the Corps was busy when this job came along. We didn’t have

people sitting around doing nothing. So the idea was we’d send a limited number of key Corps

personnel and hire a construction management firm to supplement this staff. Lester B. Knight

became part of our office. The number of Corps employees was set simply because we wanted

to keep down the number of people we took out of the system and also we thought we could

find 100 key people who were well qualified.

181
Enaineer Memoirs

They had never worked together. Many knew each other, but they’d never worked as a team.

The rules of the road were different. So getting the office organized was a tough job. Jack

Gilkey had the task. The two outsiders, the U.S. Air Force and the Israelis, became very

impatient. They wanted a lot of things to happen more quickly than was the case.

In hindsight, I don’t think we protected Gilkey enough. Gilkey was a colonel; the counterparts

were brigadier generals. His flank was overexposed. Instead of being able to concentrate

entirely on getting his office organized, he had to deal daily with these externalities. As a

consequence, I sent Brigadier General Max Noah from Huntsville to set up the management

information systems and to help Jack. Max did his job. The contention was that if we’d had

a general out there to deal with those other generals, it would have made all the difference in

the world. I don’t think it would have made much difference because the initial distractions

for the project manager would not have changed. I admire Gilkey for his performance,

perseverance, and objectivity.

Start-up was a major problem. Then General Lewis had problems with some of the Corps

individuals and he wanted me to replace them. I finally had to tell Ben, “I don’t know where

we’re going to get better people. We’ve sent the best we had. Unless there’s some disciplinary

problem, our best bet is to train those into a team rather than sending new people out.” I went

to Israel in January 1980 and told our people that I would be back in August and left four or

five things to be done. Many were nervous about losing their jobs so I announced to the

groups that, “absent some difficulty with the Israeli government or some disciplinary problem,

you’re the people who are going to get this job done.” Afterwards, our people settled down.

I went back in August. John Wall was there by this time, and the management information

systems were beginning to work.

To emphasize Jack Gilkey’s problem, I found that every time I went to Israel I had trouble

with the Air Force and the Israeli generals assigned to the project. They kept hammering on

all the things that were too slow or going wrong with the Corps’ operation. They were tough

and I rarely had a chance to say anything. One day we were supposed to go see the Minister

of Defense, Mr. Ezer Weizmann. After lecturing me for about 30 to 40 minutes, the Israeli

brigadier general indicated we had to leave. I asked where we were going. They indicated we

were going to go see the Minister of Defense. I said, “Hold it. Since I haven’t had a chance

to say anything, I am sure we are going to be a little late.”

When we got over to the minister’s office I raised the relationship problem. I said, in effect,

that he had bought a Chevrolet and now we were going down the road about 50 miles an hour

and somebody decided he wanted a Ford. If you want to stop long enough to let me off, it’s

okay, but if we’re going to continue we’d better figure out how to work together.

Mr. Weizmann acknowledged the Israelis could not do this job. He said words to the effect

that he didn’t think anybody in the world could do it except the Army Corps of Engineers.

That’s what he had asked for, that’s what he got and was going to keep them. He gave the

Corps a big pep talk, and that was the end of that. So when it’s all said and done, the Israeli

airfield job was, I think, a great challenge to all the key people involved. Everybody had to

work hard, and they did and I include all the players-U.S. Air Force, Israelis, Corps of

Engineers, and contractor personnel. The level of concentration and loyalty of the Corps’

group in Israel sets a standard, in my judgment. In spite of all the pressures, all the difficulties,

they put this job together; and they got it done on time, generally within the budget, and with

182
John W. Morris

high-class quality. That was under great pressure, not only externally but internally. So you

have to admire the results, and then you have to compliment the people that got us there.

There was no adverse publicity. You didn’t read adverse comments about this job in

Engineering News Record or in the WalZ Street Journal. Most jobs of this nature attract public

attention. This one didn’t. So I’m pleased with the way the Israeli airfield job came out. I am

especially gratified to General Bill Wray, Fred McNeely, and Lee Garrett of his office for

their excellent management of the entire project.

Q.

. One follow-up question related to this and having to do with the cost-plus contract. In the

Corps’ past there had been some very bad publicity associated with cost-plus contracts, so that

was an additional pressure on the organization.

A.. Yes. The circumstances that normally lead to using cost-plus usually generate problems. The

reason you go with cost-plus is because of uncertainties. You want the government to protect

itself rather than have the contractor put into his bid exorbitant amounts of money to cover

the known risks and some he can’t foresee. So in and of itself, a cost-plus contract has

controversial characteristics and uncertainties, but there’s definitely a place for it. My

philosophy is that the best answer is fixed-price. If you find there are enough uncertainties or

other specific reasons to warrant a different type of contract, whether it’s cost-plus or fixedprice with incentive or whatever, then you adopt a deviation from the standard justified by

specific situations.

Q.

. Let’s begin this morning by talking about the MX program that appeared on the horizon

during the Carter Administration.

A.

. The MX was an on-again, off-again program because of discussions about whether it would

be built on a track that ran across a large part of a country, a mobile system, or whether we

had multiple mini-sites, the mini-MX program. The Corps’ role would have been to supervise

the construction of whichever plan was finally adopted. A large area of the Southwest had

been identified for the mobile train, and our greatest efforts were oriented towards organizing

to do that job.

We used the lessons learned from the original ballistic missile program which was placed

under an existing division. Soon the new missile program was taking so much attention that

the division couldn’t execute its basic program efficiently. In that instance, the Corps decided

to set up the Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Command. Some slippage resulted as a

result of the change in the organization and management.

We didn’t want to repeat that situation. On the other hand, to get started, we needed to put the

organization and management and a certain amount of the startup under one of our divisions.

The South Pacific Division was chosen with the Los Angeles District as the primary

management office. That’s also the way the ballistic missile program started. In this case,

however, the start-up plan for executing the MX program was to describe the circumstances

which, when fulfilled, would indicate that the time had arrived to set up a separate command.

We didn’t want the change-over to happen as a result of deficiency in performance. Rather,

we wanted to have a preprogrammed plan to initiate the new MX construction command and

relieve the division. From the outset, the South Pacific Division knew that it was not going

to build all the MX requirements.

General Delbridge, division engineer in San Francisco at that time, was personally directed

to develop such a plan for handling the MX program.

183
Engineer Memoirs

Q.

.

When I retired, the MX program had not materialized. There was a great deal of attention

given to it, both in the Congress and in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, which

included the Corps, of course. Ultimately, it was canned and now it will probably never be

built. Still, the Corps was well placed, if it had happened.

You know, the military program was fragmented over a large number of military installations

throughout the world. Consequently, individual projects often were not sufficiently substantial

to warrant particular discussion here. Exceptions would include the Israeli airfield work and

portions of the Saudi program--also, programs such as housing, military training facilities,

special warehouses, and shop facilities. The projects within the programs were usually

distributed over two, three, a dozen, or three or four dozen installations.

Some programs stand out in my recollection, for example, the hospital programs. Every

hospital was tough, so a special management group involving medical and Corps people was

established. Hospital construction was a major management challenge within the Corps.

Most of these were renovations rather than new constructions?

A.. There were some of both-a new one in Colorado, a rebuild in Hawaii. Fort Campbell got a

new hospital. There were several new hospitals. I don’t remember all of them now, but then,

as you say, there were a lot of rehabilitations. Walter Reed was the predecessor of most of the

ones I’m thinking about, and we learned enough at Walter Reed to help us with the rest of

them_

The postal program was winding down. The point I’d like to leave on the military is-it’s not

that there wasn’t a large program, it’s not that there wasn’t a lot to do, it’s not that it didn’t

take a lot of management-it’s just that with specific exceptions, the program at any one

location did not provide multimillion-dollar structures.

Q.

. Wasn’t there a particular problem with facilities in Europe?

A.. There are two parts to this subject. One is the facilities engineer business itself. General

Bachus, as I think I’ve already mentioned, became the director of Facilities Engineering in the

Chief of Engineers’ office in a move by General Gribble to elevate the importance of

providing and maintaining our soldiers’ facilities.

In conjunction with that, we started the one-stop shopping concept mentioned earlier, where

any district could support any commander who called up and asked for help. That added a lot

of momentum. We did reduce the backIog of maintenance repair here in the United States.

A singular issue was the European housing facilities for our soldiers. General Cooper was

deputy commanding general, U.S. Army, Europe. He became particularly concerned about the

housing situation for soldiers and proceeded to focus attention from both the command and

engineering approaches. This issue arose while I was deputy chief as indicated previously, so

a program was devised to upgrade the facilities for our soldiers, not only the living facilities,

but the functional facilities-in Germany especially.

Once the Congress became aware and started the funding, there were significant

improvements. It was a big program which our Europe Division managed. There, again, it was

fragmented. There’s no single place that stands out like an Israeli airfield or the Saudi

program, but as a program it was especially important and valuable.

One other item in the military area is engineer equipment. As a second lieutenant in World

War II, I used a D-handle shovel and a D-7 tractor. I noticed the second lieutenants in 1976

still had a D-handle shovel and D-7 tractor while modem sophisticated equipment served the
John W. Morris

rest of the Army. The Army engineer consequently did not have the mobility to keep up with

the troops he was expected to support.

The entire time I was the deputy chief, we had an ongoing effort to get the UET, the universal

engineer tractor. Then it was the ACE [MO9 ACE, armored combat earthmover]. That’s what

it finally came out to be, I believe.

As Chief of Engineers, I only had staff input, so the real momentum resided in the commands,

the Army commands, not with the Chief of Engineers. The Chief of Engineers’ office played

a principal role in getting the top leadership of the Army to recognize this deficiency and

ultimately have it satisfied.

Later General Kern, while CG at Fort Belvoir, advocated and got the E-Force moving. Now

we have an engineer brigade instead of a battalion in the infantry division. That was an

important move. General Kern deserves credit for his leadership.

Then there was the problem of mine detection. Having been in Vietnam, no one was satisfied

that we had a good way to clear a minefield. The old-fashioned method was good, but it was

just so slow and risky. So we were always looking for new methods. We had the flailer, an

attachment to a tank. Not a bad idea, but it had to work hard to get the job done.

That problem really has not been totally solved to date. In the matter of combat equipment,

I think mine detection and minefieldbreeching has to remain a front-burner item, particularly

since, as we learned in DESERT STORM, mobility is so important. Breaching minefields

remains a vital tactic and a major command concern.

I remember going out to the Engineer Topographic Laboratory with General Rogers, the Chief

of Staff, and being given a demonstration on how the Pershing could identify on ground what

had been programmed into its guidance system, and we were trying to develop water

purification and treatment facilities so we could have small amounts of water quickly for the

individual soldiers and larger amounts for large units.

So the whole set of combat engineer equipment being upgraded should always be a continuing

effort because times and requirements change. In my day, it was mostly the ACE and the

minefield equipment.

Q.

. Bridging equipment probably was one.

A.. Bridge equipment, of course.

Chief of Engineers: Civil Works Projects

Q.

. We’ve discussed a lot of the military projects when you were Chief. Let’s turn and discuss

the civil works projects and issues while you were Chief.

A.

. Before we go to specific projects, we might set the stage a little bit by reviewing the national

issues that impacted on the public works projects.

There really were a couple. One was the environmental program, and the other was the

programmatic effect of having filled so much of the nation’s water resource management

needs. So we had this national movement legislated in NEPA, superimposed on a program

which was declining in any case.

I’ve written and made so many speeches about how we got into the environmental priorities

during the 1970s that I really don’t feel that we need to repeat them in detail now. There’s no

185
General Bernard Rogers, a classmate of General Morris at West Point, visited the Engineer

Topographic Laboratory when he was Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. General Rogers is

second from the right and Genera/ Morris is third from the right.

question that as our country grew, used more and imposed greater burdens on our natural

resources, we would have to take stock of that growth and our development attitude.

The evaluation was precipitated, at least accelerated, by the environmental movement. The

environmentalists who raised the question of the destruction of our resources and the ensuing

long-term effects precipitated a change in our nation’s policy. NEPA and subsequently

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act amendments are evidence of their influence.

Section 404 put the Corps of Engineers in an ambivalent position. On one hand, there was a

great pressure on the Corps to operate its business in accordance with the new policies, and

that put numerous projects under close scrutiny. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers

was placed in the position of having to monitor and approve development by others in

navigable streams and wetlands.

Those same rules gave project opponents a basis to challenge the method of satisfying them.

Of course, everybody knows the lawsuits and all the stories about the snail darter, the Indiana

gray bat, the striped bass, the eagle, the black-footed ferret, the peregrine falcon, et cetera.

One reaction to the constraints on construction was to find nonstructural solutions to various

problems. As already covered, the Corps became the frontrunner. As early as 197 1 we began

to discuss ways to solve the drainage downstream from Chatfield Lake through the small

residential community of Littleton, Colorado. Ultimately, legislation was adopted to use open

land as a nonstructural solution to this drainage problem.

186
John W. Morris

Soon general legislation was passed--Section 22, as I recall, of the Flood Control Act of

1974. One of the better projects was Indian Bend Wash, which maybe we’ll talk about later.

It’s in Scottsdale, Arizona.

So when you talk about projects in the public works area and even in the military arena in the

197Os, you really have to place them against the backdrop of the environmental and regulatory

programs in effect at that time.

The major programs that had been put into place by the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of

Engineers, and to some extent, the Department of the Agriculture, but primarily by the Corps

of Engineers in the 50 years leading up to 1970, had resolved a high percentage of the major

objectives in developing American water resources. By 1975 only a few dams for hydropower

were under construction. Flood control was fairly well in place as was the transportation

system.

So a good question was, “What’s left to do?” Especially in view of the environment and the

other constraints. Should the Corps change its basic orientation in the public works arenafrom

major construction, water resource development, to some other activity? To better answer that

question we analyzed each function for which the Corps had a major role-hydropower,

navigation, water transportation, flood control, water supply-to identify the need throughout

the country.

Congress authorized us to make twostudies - the national hydropower study and the national

waterways study. The waterways study had begun while I was still director of Civil Works.

I also had hoped to have a similar study made on the national water supply system.

The standard in those days was that the beneficiary of a project should pay. For example,

water supply became a local responsibility as did local flood protection. As a result, the water

supply study was not undertaken at the federal level. The hydropower study involved both

high-head and low-head dams and small projects.

One year General McGinnis, as director of Civil Works, and I went to New Hampshire to

inspect a project. We drove by a mill on a small river and noticed that there was some kind

of small electrical facility there. We stopped by, and sure enough, the owner of this old fabric

mill had installed a small turbine on a low-head dam. It was making enough electricity to run

his plant. We both wondered how much more of this was going on around the country. Lowhead power was getting to be a subject of great discussion.

Earlier, the Corps had installed an inclined turbine at Webbers Falls on the Arkansas River

project. We felt that if we could get a horizontal turbine [run of the river] in the Mississippi

below Lock and Dam 27 we could generate considerable energy.

In spite of engineering problems, there was big interest in low-head dams. So the director of

Civil Works and I decided to have a conference on this subject in Washington in 1979 at the

Hilton Hotel on Connecticut Avenue. We were joined by the Energy Department, and we

expected to have about 300 people.

We got about 1,200 from all over the world. An unbelievable success. The Corps ran the next

one two years later. Then because of instructions from above, I’m not sure where, the Corps

was not allowed to plan that conference anymore, I’m sorry to say. Fortunately the

hydropower conference is still continuing under the auspices of the American Society of Civil

Engineers and remains quite successful.
Enaineer Memoirs

Well, back to the basic point. The hydropower study indicated that we could easily more than

double the present hydroelectric power output in the United States by improving the

efficiency of turbines in our existing projects, adding turbines to existing projects, and

developing certain low-head projects. That was a good report. It hasn’t been executed and

probably never will be since the energy situation has improved. The need for the hydropower

may have diminished but there is, in this country, an opportunity for increased hydropower.

On the navigation study, as discussed earlier, you recall, while director of Civil Works I asked

that we develop a first-class water transportation system for the United States.

We needed to determine standard shape and size of a good waterway. We had 9-foot channels,

12-foot channels, 600-foot locks, 420-foot locks, as I recall-the depth over the sill varied,

as did the radii of curvature on curves. In other words, the criterion varied to the point that we

needed a standard against which every project would be designed.

We also felt that we needed to know a little bit more about the movement of the traffic and

the relationship between the waterways and the trains and the highways. Where were the

future tonnages going to come from on the waterways, et cetera?

Well, that was a good study. Unfortunately it became quite involved, and I am not sure it

answered the original question and produced a simple drawing that showed the waterways,

where we could extend them, which ones we could get rid of, and a cross-section of a properly

designed channel, et cetera.

The next thing, then, was flood control. So I asked simply for a list of the 10 or 20 worst flood

conditions in the United States. It turned out we didn’t have a great number. The Santa Ana

River in Los Angeles was number one on the list. That’s being fixed now. We always knew

we had trouble on the upper Mississippi if we had floods that exceeded the design plan.

Sacramento also has a flood risk of major proportions.

Overall we had a good look into the future, and it turned out there wasn’t all that much out

there. We had to finish up what we had, and there were only a few new projects. Basically,

it told us that the public works program as we’ve known it all these years was changing. It

wasn’t over, but almost, and it was changing. That meant that the Corps should think about

other things.

While all this was going on, you realize, there were constraints being placed on our personnel

strength. Going back to my days as director of Civil Works, I did not think the Corps of

Engineers should perform any functions that could be performed by the American business

community. The federal government shouldn’t be operating hopper dredges if we could find

companies that could do the same work and could pay them to do it. Economics are involved,

but the principle is okay.

Among the more “political” efforts was the program to privatize the hopper dredging activity

of the Corps. Following visits to the Corps’ dredging program in the Northwest and along the

Southeast and Gulf coasts, I began to realize private companies could do the job. Earlier the

Corps had privatized the pipeline and barge business, so a precedent existed. The impetus to

move came when severe personnel cuts were imposed on the Corps’ workforce.

Even so, there was considerable resistance from within the Corps and surprisingly from

without as well. The dredging industry was very skeptical of the Corps’ intent and was not

anxious to invest millions of dollars in building new dredges without some assurance that

work would be forthcoming. Another obstacle arose when plans to upgrade the Corps’ ancient

dredge fleet became known.

188
John W. Morris

These items generated great pressure on the members of Congress who dealt with water,

transportation, environment, and to a lesser degree operation of the ports and waterways. The

debates went on for months. Mr. Robert Losche was the lobbyist for the dredging industry,

and I should add an extremely effective one-probably the best in the business.

Finally, with much input from Bill Murden, I went to see Senator [Bennett] Johnston from

Louisiana who was responsible for public works appropriation in the Senate. Bill went with

me and we outlined a plan which would satisfy most complaints and concerns. Basically the

Corps would reduce its existing dredge fleet of some 24 to 26 hopper dredges to 5 or 6,

including 3 new dredges to be authorized. As part of this legislation, the Corps would

guarantee the commercial dredge fleet some 20 million cubic yards annually. This amount was

several times greater than their capacity.

I may have the details off a bit, but the proposal was adopted, passed, and implemented. The

American hopper dredge industry was soon developed, the Corps saved spaces and dollars and

also received three new dredges-the Yaquina, Wheeler, and Essayons.

I also felt, and still do, that we could privatize the operation of our waterways systems and our

hydropower plants. There are plenty of hydropower plants being operated in this country by

private industry. Of course, you like to have your own people;and there is resistance within

the family to doing those things, but when you’re looking for new missions and you have to

cut man years, how do you man new opportunities? The new missions are the future of the

Corps, especially since the old ones are drying up rapidly.

Those background conditions affect specific projects. Among specific projects, I guess we

should start off with Lock and Dam 26, which has been covered in detail as director of Civil

Works and as deputy.

I remember clearly how much time and effort went into the wording of the authorizing

document. We ultimately got authority and proceeded to construct the first lock and a new

dam. We had been working on the project since 1972 or 1973 when we finally got everything

back in place, and I believe in 1976 we had the groundbreaking.

So Lock and Dam 26 was a landmark, a defining moment, because it threw out the old

authority basis for all the work we had done on the Ohio system. It meant, from now on, if we

changed the capacity, we had to get new authority. It also brought into play the effect of

increased traffic on the environment. Lock and Dam 26 was, in fact, the most important lock

in the river because it was the primary bottleneck for the traffic on the upper Mississippi.

As discussed earlier, Joe Tofani and I had talked about the 1909 authority, and we had

concluded before the judge’s decision that we had stretched our authority. The Corps’

interpretation was if you’re going to spend millions to replace something, why not replace it

to modem standards? That was not the question. The question really was, “What did the

words in the law say?”

The answer to that question set a tone which showed up in the Tennessee-Tombigbee project.

That project, which had been in the works almost a hundred years, was well under

construction when challenged by the Izaak Walton League and the Louisville and Nashville

Railroad. I think it was called L&N.

We were challenged on two bases. One, the Corps

assessments in good shape, and two, the Secretary

did not have

of the

the env

lacked

ironmenta

authority

.

ll Impact

to make

189
Engineer Memoirs

certain changes. Because of my long background on this project, I ended up testifying. The

Tennessee-Tombigbee was a hot project for almost my whole time in Washington.

I testified over a two-day period for 11 hours in Greenville, Mississippi. I think I’m the only

Chief of Engineers who ever testified in court. I had been with the Tennessee-Tombigbee

Waterway problem as director of Civil Works, deputy, and Chief. I had signed all the papers,

one way or another, and I probably knew more about Tenn-Tom than any other senior person.

I couldn’t send somebody else because I felt I owed it to the Corps, and also, I was the one

that knew the most about it.

To prepare, I asked that we set up a straw court. Mr. Seltzer helped me with that. He had

people on each side of this issue in my office. We spent a whole day listening to the charges

and the defenses, trying to get a feel for how the thing might go.

Ultimately, we did a good job. The judge concluded the plaintiffs had dilly-dallied around and

waited too long to raise their protest, but the fact is that we had presented our case very well.

I think, on balance, and even later in my discussions on the plaintiffs’ team, the Corps was

credited with having satisfactorily justified its actions.

There were two things that I think are relevant. One is that General Itschner, while he was

director of Civil Works and later Chief of Engineers, had said openly he didn’t think the

Tennessee-Tombigbee project was a worthwhile project. I’ve talked to him since then. He

indicated that now that it’s built, he would not argue it, but at the time he just didn’t think we

should spend the money.

When I was district engineer in Tulsa, we had eliminated one of the three locks on the

Verdigris River. The money we saved on that lock gave us enough funds to extend the head

of navigation to a more favorable location.

That was all done with a general design memo. We presented this change to Congress in the

annual budget, but we didn’t go back to Congress to get it reauthorized. The history of various

decisions in the past, General Pick’s testimony, and all the rest, supported such decisions and

were helpful in the Tenn-Tom authority debate.

Another issue became very sticky when one of our civilian employees in Mobile District had

prepared a memorandum concerning an annual budget-it had to be about in 1975. He

indicated the project was going to exceed a billion dollars and that he thought that, for

political reasons, we should leave the budget item somewhat below a billion because he

believed the Congress would react adversely to a billion-dollar project. That piece of paper

was unbeknownst to me.

When the project came up to OCE at over a billion dollars, the annual budget had been

finalized in the Congress. I personally went to the House of Representatives and to the Senate

and explained to them that the newest total estimate was over a billion.

The total cost didn’t affect the funding for the next [budget] year. It was, however, a number

that impacted future project appropriations. The committees of Congress decided that they’d

talk about it in the hearings, but they wouldn’t change the budget, which was at the printing

office, as I recall. That was done as an administrative expedient because of the timing.

Well, during the discovery process for the trial, the mentioned memorandum was located, and

immediately the Corps was accused of withholding information from the Congress. Whoever

wrote that memorandum all of a sudden became the most important man in the Corps. He had

more authority and knew more about the world than the Chief of Engineers or anyone else.

This memorandum was held up as an indication that the Corps was devious in its business.

190
John W. Morris

Q.

.

Frankly, if you read the memorandum and knew nothing about my discussions with Congress,

you’d come to the same conclusion.

Shortly after the case was settled in court, I got a call from Senator Stennis stating he felt the

Senate’s Public Works Committee was all over the Corps about withholding information. So

I had to go to a special hearing. The chairman was Senator [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan of New

York. His members were Senator [Alan] Simpson from Wyoming and Senator [Pete]

Domenici, from New Mexico. Domenici was, to me, the most formidable person because of

his deep knowledge of the money situation. He was really the money person. Senator Stennis

excused himself from the hearings. I had gone over there with two or three people, and I had

all the usual backup books for a hearing. I never opened a book. I did not have to because,

having just gone through the trial, I was really pumped up with information.

Well, they grilled me for about two hours, and the staffers kept feeding questions up to

Moynihan and Domenici which I’d answer promptly. I told them about coming over

personally, et cetera. Finally, Domenici apparently said, “That’s enough,” and they knocked

it off, but it was a grilling. Senator Moynihan was very complimentary afterwards. He told me

that he was pleased with the hearing, and he thought that we’d done nothing wrong. As far as

he was concerned, he wouldn’t question the integrity of the Corps, as long as I was Chief.

That was nice.

So we took all our books and went home.

Tennessee-Tombigbee was ultimately finished and I went to the dedication. Don Walden, the

Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Association manager, had been very active through all of

these years of political pressure and development. It was quite a celebration. I was happy to

see that the court performance was recognized and that the Corps was given a reasonable

amount of credit for the whole thing.

The Tennessee-Tombigbee will always be considered a real test. Interestingly enough, I think

the Corps has become more successful in dealing with the environment and the opposition

because of the Tennessee-Tombigbee. I don’t mean to say that everybody got the idea the

Corps was doing right, but it was such a bitter-really bitter-debate, that when we came out

of that one in good shape, I think it made it easier for subsequent cases or situations to be

resolved.

What other projects occunied vour attention as Chief?

A.. I should talk briefly about the Bonneville project because it brings up another issue. The

Bonneville project, originally built back in the 1930s or 194Os, was one of the make-work

projects under the Roosevelt Administration, as I recall. The very small town of Bonneville

grew up primarily because of the construction people. There were some natives there also. In

the course of the years that followed, this little community of Bonneville had grown into a

small, medium to lower-middle-class town. It was not a booming or even noticeably

prosperous city.

When the new power plant was approved for Bonneville, that little village had to be moved.

Getting it moved and then rebuilt turned out to be an issue of national significance.

Jack Gilkey was the district engineer there and did a tremendous job in keeping all the warring

factions at the conference table. The people of Bonneville, the new Bonneville, really did

extract out of the federal government a high price for moving to the new village. All the

public facilities for a new town and the infrastructure were government responsibility.

191
Enaineer Memoirs

Relocating towns was not a new thing. As I go back to my district days, quite a few towns

were relocated. Most of the time the community cooperated. There was always a certain

anguish because people had to leave their homes. They were done with minimum turbulence,

but not Bonneville. Bonneville was a political game, and the Corps was the football; however,

it’s done now.

There were other big projects that I can speak of. We should talk a little bit about the

problems of the lower Mississippi, which were not so much structural as they were

environmental. The old river diversion structure kept the Mississippi River in the Mississippi

River channel and precluded the river from going into the Atchafalaya. During the flood of

1974, the structure began to shake, rattle, and roll from great pressure and stress. The decision

was taken to relieve it with a new structure. The Atchafalaya is certainly among the one or

two most sensitive environmental areas in this country. The law on regulating the Mississippi

River established a minimum flow into the Atchafalaya at all times to keep the Atchafalaya

channel alive and also to provide water for the surrounding area, not people.

The Corps has come up with several plans to keep the Atchafalaya from filling up with

sediment. Every one of those plans runs into a great deal of environmental difficulty. I’m not

entirely sure what the present situation is; however, it did seem to me that the worst situation

was to do nothing. If you left it alone, it was going to get in trouble, so therefore, the problem

was, “What could you do?”

Everything that was attempted became an environmental tug-of-war. We never really solved

the Atchafalaya problem during my time.

New Melones was another new project in the West. During the period of time in June 1979

when it was being filled, and prior to the dedication, the 14th of July 1979, an individual

chained himself in the reservoir to a rock and said he was going to stay there and drown if

necessary. He didn’t. New Melones was certainly one of the last of the big projects to be

completed and dedicated.

I think that’s about enough. If there are specific questions on projects-there are just so many

conflicts, so many environmental problems: the lower Chesapeake Bay, the James River,

trouble on the Great Lakes because of the winds, et cetera.

Q

.

. What about Indian Bend Wash?

A

.

. Oh, Indian Bend Wash. I mentioned that earlier. Indian Bend Wash is a successful

nonstructural solution in Scottsdale, Arizona. The city had help from Congressman [John

Jacob] Rhodes, who was on the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. I’d

known him when I testified from the Missouri River Division. Rhodes was from Kansas

originally.

Anyhow, we came up with a scheme that we would build in the floodway through Scottsdale

some public facilities-recreation, golf, and other items-which if inundated would recover

quickly. There were limited regulatory structures in there: some embankment protection and

some channelization, but very minor. The entire area was landscaped. So when you go there,

you may not know you’re in a flood plain.

That, to me, was a landmark case because the Corps had used a

produced a very fine example of how you could solve flood probl

non

ems

structural approach and

without building a dam.

Q

.

. Should we touch briefly here on the urban studies program?

192
John W. Morris

A.. This was covered in detail earlier in our interview, but I will recount it briefly. You will recall,

it grew out of a requirement by Senator Hruska of Nebraska when I was in Omaha. His new

idea was to have all water-related federal money coming into the region through the Corps for

management. My reaction was that that would be too controversial and that we’d be better off

appointing the Corps as the coordinating agency of a committee made up of local people and

the other agencies to develop a plan.

That first urban study turned out to be very helpful and attractive. Other cities requested help,

and that effort developed into a program as discussed earlier. I don’t know how many of these

studies we did. I think we must have done 30 or so. It was a good engineering program which

lasted over six years. There’s no reason why those urban studies aren’t of continued value.

My thought was then, and still is, a vision that if those studies were properly done and could

be integrated into a software program in some fashion, then the city manager could very easily

determine his budgets, his future priorities for investments, and on this integrated plan, make

sure that the federal funds available are put to the most productive use and in the right

sequence.

Q.

. Did it continue after you were Chief?

A.. I think we had some studies going on. I’d have to go back and check. The districts took about

three years to do one, as I recall.

Q.

. I might toss in one other topic here, for maybe just a couple of minutes. We’ve been talking.

about dredging. Was the disposal of dredged material a controversial issue while you were

Chief?

A.

. It always was, and-yes. We covered this matter in some detail in the director of Civil Works

period; however, it did continue through the 1976 to 1980 period. The study envisioned by

Frank Koisch and commissioned by the Congress [in 1971 or 19721 to evaluate dredge

material was still active and is going on, as far as I know. By the end of my term as Chief, we

had learned that dredge material is not as bad as claimed. In the meantime, dredge “spoil” was

guilty until we could prove otherwise, and much dredging was stopped.

As mentioned before, the problem was really worldwide. That circumstance led to the

international dredging conference in London where the Corps played a big role. Out of that

came certain international standards on dredging.

As a sidelight, we had to change our hopper-dredging procedures. For years we let the hopper

overflow to get rid of excess water allowing the hoppers to contain more material. Well, the

overflowing was stopped to reduce or avoid pollution. That meant we made a lot more trips

to sea than before, and that meant we didn’t get as much dredging done as we used to for the

same cost.

You will recall that because of these experiences, I wrote a letter while Chief to Mr. Roger

Peterson, president of the Audubon Society, and proposed that if he would give us the criteria,

I thought we could build wetlands and habitat for endangered species, or whatever. I’m still

convinced the Corps can be helpful in this regard.

As you can guess, we undertook quite an aggressive program to put the best light on the

dredge material situation. After all, a great factor in the U.S. economic picture was the

operation of ports, harbors, and waterways.

193
Engineer Memoirs

In addition to standard divisions and labs, what other Corps organizations reported to the

Chief?

A: There are three of them: the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Engineer Studies

Center, and the educational facility at Huntsville. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and

Harbors was established by Congress with the idea of providing an independent review

capability at the highest level to look at projects for the Chief of Engineers before they were

recommended to the Congress.

That board, in my judgment, worked directly for the Chief of Engineers, not for the director

of Civil Works. In fact, the director of Civil Works is the one element that the Board of

Engineers for Rivers and Harbors should not have worked for, because the board’s mission

was to review projects after they had passed through the staff system and were ready for the

Chief’s final review.

The point is that the board was there to provide the Chief of Engineers an independent review

of these projects. I’m not talking only about the board, which is comprised of division

engineers. I’m talking about the staff as well. The permanent staff of the Board of Engineers

for Rivers and Harbors was composed of truly outstanding people-some of the best minds

we had. People came from our districts to serve. The board conducted a training program for

selected district personnel called the Planning Associates Program.

If a project cleared the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief then could sign

off and send it on its way with a high level of comfort that it was technically adequate, did not

violate policies or laws, and deserved whatever was recommended.

I sincerely believe that the Board of

Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was a

most valuable institution in protecting the

taxpayers. Why it was abolished is not

clear. I’m sure it was an economy move,

and somebody thought it was just a review

board and probably we could get along

without it. We’re not going to get along

without it. We’re going to pay a very

serious price for not having it, either in

poor projects getting through or in hiring

somebody else to do what they were doing

in the first place.

I notice now we’re turning to the National

Academy of Engineering to provide its

input on Corps projects. If the Board of

Engineers for Rivers and Harbors existed,

such might not have been needed.

Meg Sergeant, wife of Colonel Howard Sergeant,

painted this portrait of General Morris when he was

Chief of Engineers.

I considered it a high honor to be chairman

of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and

Harbors. I tried always to reflect my high

regard for the board and staff and the

importance of their job.

194
I went to the deactivation of the board. I was sad.

to lose those things is not clear, but it happened.

I feel that it was a mistake. Why you have

The Engineer Studies Group was called the Strategic Planning Group. Many outstanding

engineers led the group-Dave Parker, Don Weinert, Bill Stewart, et al. Don now is the

executive director of the National Society of Professional Engineers. George Orrell was a top

civilian who went to the “new” FEMA. I turned to them to give me a hand with organizational

matters. We put together, after testing it among ourselves, what I considered to be the

optimum organization for the Office of the Chief of Engineers. That was the two directors

with a support division of technical people, similar to the division-level organization.

We tested that in many different ways. We would cut it up, put it back together again, and I

was impressed with how thoroughly and how well they did their job. They also helped develop

the energy conservation plan for the Department of the Army. Don Weinert and his people

came together with a plan of how we should go about that. We looked at drawing down the

size of the Army - the Army, not the Corps. One analysis, which I thought was very valuable,

was to determine the unused capacity of existing posts. How many more people could properly

be put in, say, Fort Benning? It wasn’t so much looking at which ones we should get rid of,

but which ones could add capacity efficiently, and that would then free up space that could

be assessed to fill needs or whatever.

Having discussed the trend that our public works program would atrophy and change as we

had known it, the question arose, “What should be the future skill levels in the Corps? What

kind of people should be in the Corps?”

Some of the kinds of people that we had needed in the past wouldn’t be needed so much in

the future, and some we didn’t have in the past we’d definitely need in the future. The study

group’s analysis showed all of that. The thing I remember was that the crucial profession for

the future was projected to be mechanical engineering.

So those are just three or four examples of the Engineer Studies Group, but they came directly

to me. They helped a bit with the dredge privatization analysis, but not as much as Bill

Murden and his people.

The third activity was Huntsville. I think I’ve already covered somewhat the training program

within the Corps. John Bryson worked for me in Omaha as our personnel guy. He was a stickout on the way he saw things. So he came to Washington about the time I came in to be

director of Civil Works.

The Corps’ training problem initially was an economy thing. District engineers were running

schools that weren’t compatible with what other district engineers were doing, as an example.

So I asked John to analyze the on-going training. Out of that came the famous purple book of

his that everybody came to know.

More fundamentally, it developed the Corps’ “university,” or whatever you want to call it, at

Huntsville. The center started off on a shoestring and now it’s housed in a new building

owned by the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The Corps is using some of those facilities.

On a recent visit I was really impressed with how well the program has moved forward. It is

a very good program.,

Training the Corps’ people was the first objective, but the school should be able to pay for

itself by training other people, doing work for others. Someday, soon I hope, the facility

should become accredited. It could then sponsor a master’s degree course in management.

195
Q

.

.

Nowhere is there more and better talent than in the Corps’ construction engineering

management. While a bit visionary, that’s a reasonably good job for someone to make happen.

I don’t want to give you the idea that everything we did went through one of those three, but

collectively, they were very helpful. I didn’t believe in ad hoc committees. I may have told you

that earlier. I felt that if you had to form an ad hoc committee, you should get rid of it as soon

as possible. We had a couple of ad hoc committees, but they didn’t last very long. They did

their job, and then they were disposed of.

So I liked these three outfits. They earned their pay.

You mentioned that you wanted to talk about energy conservation on the military side of the

house.

A

.

. That’s correct, I’m glad you brought that back. The studies group came up with the only

reasonable solution-to make a survey of major posts against certain criteria to see if they

were operating as efficiently as they might, or could they be improved.

I was successful in getting the government, the Army, to budget a certain amount of money

to do these surveys. After we made a few, the Energy Watch was implemented and overall

energy consumption declined. The post commanders felt we were taking money that would

have otherwise been theirs and using it for a specific subject. That may or not be true. If I had

been a post commander, I would have felt the same way, I am sure, but my understanding was

that most of that money was new money, not shaved off the top. Nevertheless, we did do the

energy survey for the Army.

In the energy

which we’ve

f arena

talked

the Corps took the initiative for the Army. Another was

about, and again, the studies group helped with that one.

mobilization,

Of course, the studies group didn’t wait for the Chief of Engineers to call up and give them

a job. They were always reviewing certain Corps missions. Don Weinert was very good, and

George Orrell also was excellent. The two of them made a very nice team, and their

presentations were high-type and professional in a quiet, not overly animated way. At

briefings in the Pentagon they did very well. That helped George get the job in FEMA, I

expect.

Q

.

. I’d like to ask you now about your impact on the Corps’ historical program, and your interest

in the Historical Foundation. I think some of this accompanied the Bicentennial.

A

.

. I have said several times that I believed that the people who knew the Corps liked the Corps.

I knew the Corps had a great history. I did not inaugurate the history program. I don’t mean

to take any credit for that, but I do think that in the course of time, I had something to do with

the momentum that the program developed, and maybe I don’t deserve that either. Some of

the things I did were probably forced upon me because of national attitudes towards the Corps,

the recurring move to reorganize or put the Corps out of business, and my experiences in

district work, particularly in Tulsa, where I soon learned that it was better to have the initiative

than to react. If there was a problem, I tried to get it out in the public arena quickly before it

got there from another source.

The same thing was true in Omaha, where we had such a reaction from the environmentalists

and we were getting nowhere with the press until we established, as I mentioned, a separate

arrangement with the local newspapers to put our office on somebody’s beat.

196
John W. Morris

After I came to Washington in 1972, I visited many of our projects. The one that sticks in my

mind is Bonneville, where we had a beautiful visitors center right next to a-well, I should

back up a bit.

When I was in Tulsa, and also up in Omaha, I made sure we had good visitors centers, not as

a matter of us popping out our chests so much as getting the visitors organized so they didn’t

get lost, injured, or do something dumb out of ignorance while they were on our property. So

each project had a visitors information center and included an exhibit to say a little about the

project and maybe about the Corps.

As a new director of Civil Works, I visited several projects including Bonneville, which is

adjacent to a very lovely Department of the Interior fish hatchery. As you enter the project

area you are greeted by an attractive sign that says,“You are now entering the Department of

the Interior fish hatchery. Visitors welcome,” et cetera. At our visitors center I began to ask

visiting people, “Where are you?” They’d say, “Oh, we’re at the Department of the Interior’s

fish hatchery.” I thought, “This isn’t too good.”

We weren’t doing a good job. I quickly required every dam or other public use facility to have

a castle on it; also, that every project’s visitors area include something about the history. Out

of that we came up with the visitors center program in which every project had a visitors

center, and a selected number of locations would contain regional visitors centers to tell the

regional story and the history of the Corps.

So that kind of outgoing, best-foot-forward type of promotion was a little bit self-serving.

There’s no question about that. In fact, I got an article in Jack Anderson’s column accusing

me of beating the drum, tub-thumping. I wrote him back and said, “You’re right. I’m the

biggest tub-thumper they’ve got, and if I didn’t do it, who would?” So he sent me an

autographed picture to his favorite “tub-thumper,” which was kind of neat.

The point was that I felt we needed to get the Corps out telling its story. Also, the district

history program was moving along well, and just by accident, the Tulsa District’s history was

published while I was director of Civil Works. I began to read these histories and encouraged

district histories be prepared.

As far as the Chiefs’ and senior civilians’ oral histories, like you’re doing with me, is

concerned, my only concern there was that we didn’t miss somebody like General W.K.

Wilson, who was senior-I wanted to make sure we got the older people in before it was too

late.

Out of that, I developed a little book called Corps Vignettes, which may not have gotten much

attention, but to me it was very nice. With the help of the historical folks, we accumulated 20

or 30, maybe 40 little stories, as you’ve seen. We published those in a nice cover which I gave

to visitors. I must have given out hundreds of them. They made nice mementos, but the

important value was that as people read them, they learned a little something about the

Corps-the human side, not so much the technical stuff.

I think if you ask the people around, they will tell you that I was fairly

to improve the Corps’ self-promotion.

Q.

. Then the Historical Foundation?

aggressive in myefforts

A.. Oh, that’s another. I always felt that there should be an organization, somehow or another, to

do for the Corps what the Ordnance Association and what the Association of the United States

Army, and so forth, do for the Army and for the other branches. We didn’t have anything like

197
Enaineer Memoirs

that. We had a museum out at Fort Belvoir, on the military, which was fine, but we had

nothing to service the public works or engineer command side.

I was fortunate and honored to be selected as the Straub Lecturer for the U.S. Steel

Association in 1976. I gave this lecture. Unexpectedly, I received a check in the mail for

$2,000 as an honorarium. Well, I couldn’t keep the money, of course, but I did get permission

to use it for a charitable, tax-exempt activity.

Manning Seltzer was brought in, and some others, and we started the Corps of Engineers

Historical Foundation. That $2,000 was used to finance the first move.

Well, we got off to a bad start in one sense. We had a strong group of people to help us. The

idea was to do the history, to set up some scholarships, and to provide a source of pride and

understanding of the role of the Corps of Engineers in the history of this country. The

foundation was not intended to be a professional organization, or anything like that.

Two initiatives surfaced. One was the statue of the Army engineers somewhere in the

Washington area, like there is for the Seabees and others, and the second one was a museum.

We hired Felix de Weldon, an outstanding sculptor who sculpted the Marine Corps’ Iwo Jima

memorial. I went to his place up in New England-he showed me a mockup of the monument

he would propose.

Unfortunately, the monument appeared to get the first priority. The museum was supposed to

have gotten first priority because it was much easier to deal with. Putting in a monument was .

a big problem.

So we frittered away quite a bit of time and energy on that. General Clarke was chosen to be

the first president of the Historical Foundation. We began to make progress on a museum at

the Humphreys Engineer Center near Fort Belvoir. We raised quite a bit of money from the

industry to build it, but we lost a lot of ground when the decision was made not to put the

Corps headquarters out there. Now everything is tied to the southeast federal facility, and

that’s still in abeyance-or in the background, at least.

While all this was going on, the engineer regiment was established at Fort Leonard Wood, and

it dealt directly with the soldiers and had

not permit members, which maybe was

memberships. The His torical

not a good plan. In any case

Foundation charter did

we soon found we had

one group dealing with the military and one group dealing with the civil program, and that

wasn’t good. General Clarke tried, in 1989, to have them put together. General [Daniel R.]

Schroeder, the first CG at Fort Leonard Wood, was lukewarm to it because he was so new.

Two years later, I went to see Schroeder with General Clarke’s blessing, and this time, the CG

agreed to 

Association

for it.

put them together into a new organization which became the Army Engineer

AEA]. The Army Engineer Association should be successful. It has a lot going

People say, “Why do I need the AEA and SAME?” Well, SAME is a professional

organization It deals with engineering. The Army Engineer Association deals with the Corps

of Engineers’ family and history-the soldiers and the civilians, particularly the civilians,

which we’ve not been able yet to attract adequately, but that’s going to happen.

So that’s what the AEA’s about. The AEA represents the entire engineering family. The Army

element of SAME is that part of the community which is professional. So it’s a subset of the

AEA basically.

198
John W. Morris

That’s the Historical Foundation’s story. I do take credit for starting it and for assisting its

being merged into the new organization, the Army Engineer Association, which was approved

by the Secretary of the Army, and the Chief of Staff. So far, everybody’s behind it.

The Corps is too valuable historically, and it’s too important,presently and for the future, not

to have a coalescenceof people who are interested in it.

The Army Engineer Association will give you that kind of a grassroots network if needed.

We’ll have a museum, and someday we’ll have a monument. Initially we must identify and

credit the civilian personnel who have been so important in the Corps. The point is not to

overlook the military, however. Communicating with the military is rather easy using the

units, troop units, and the registers and rosters of retired military people. The civilian records

are not that good, and actually, the Corps owes so much to its civilian people, it’s got to take

on the problem. We need some people in the civilian community to help us with that.

I didn’t mean to say our civilians are more important than the military. It’s just that the

military is so much easier to deal with and attract to an organization like the AEA.

Q.

. Let’s begin by talking about your retirement. You were extended three months because of the

Israeli air base project until the end of September 1980. What was your retirement ceremony

like?

A.. As retirement approached, Ted Gay, executive, asked my wishes about a banquet, dinnerdance, gifts, et cetera, for the occasion. I had the idea that formal affairs were not only

expensive but somewhat inconvenient, and consequently many would not. be able to attend.

I really wanted to say goodby to all the folks at the headquarters, and this led to my asking to

have a picnic for the employees and their families. That would be a fine farewell event for me.

As for gifts, I told Ted I only wanted one - whatever that was to be didn’t matter but should

not be very pricey.

With help from Bob Blakeley and many others, I’m sure, Ted delivered. I do not know how

many came, but I was pleased so many did, especially the clerks and younger employees and

so many children. The food, the weather, the games, and the program were just right. My gift

was a battery-operated clock with my picture in a war bonnet on the dial. I still have the clock

in my office and it runs fine-just like the picnic.

Previously, the change of Chiefs was a relatively simple event which occurred in the Chief’s

office or in a conference room. When I became Chief, the signal event, as mentioned, was

passing the MacArthur Castles from General

He wen t home and I went to his desk.

Gribble to me. We shookhands and that was it.

During my term, the Corps of Engineers became a major command. Consequently, my

retirement introduced a formal military change-of-command ceremony for the first time.

Colonel Ted Gay, the chief of staff, arranged for the Pension Building, which was in the

process of being modernized. This magnificent building was within walking distance of the

office. General Vessey, the Deputy Chief of Staff, was the senior Army person present and

represented the Chief of Staff.

The principals were on a dais and their families were in the front row. Behind the dais were

flags representing all the Corps divisions and, of course, the national colors and the Corps of

Engineers command flag. Several hundred attendees came from all over the Corps.
Engineer Memoirs

Mr. Blumenfeld was there from the secretary’s office. General Vessey made brief remarks and

then with help from the command sergeant major passed the colors from me to General

Bratton. Then I made a few brief remarks and General Bratton followed. A reception at the

other end of the Pension Building concluded the ceremony. Everybody seemed pleased. The

organizers did a great job.

We had visitors from the other services, and later the Navy patterned a ceremony after ours.

While the subsequent changes of command have varied somewhat, I think it’s still formalized,

because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a major command.

You may recall my earlier comments that as I was leaving for the Pension Building, Mr. Jim

McIntyre, the director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Carter, called

and said, “Jack, go buy your new airplane.”

That same afternoon my retirement parade was held at Fort Myer. This impressive ceremony

included full colors, the old guard, the Pershing’s Own, all the state flags, and, of course, the

U.S. colors. A beautiful day. This was a Friday, as I recall. The preceding Tuesday I stepped

into a hole and damaged my ankle. I stayed off of my feet until that morning and was able to

do the parade. We made it all right, but it wasn’t very pleasant. As I trooped the line of flags

I stopped and talked to the young man who was carrying the Maryland flag. I needed a break

about that time so that was a good way to do it.

Then there were a couple of unique aspects about the ceremony. The retiree is allowed to

select the music while he troops the line. I had them play “Please Release Me, Let Me Go.”

A little bizarre, a little fresh maybe, but it was a song that everybody recognized, and you

could hear the people laughing as the band started. I wasn’t that anxious to leave, but my time

had come.

Then Secretary Alexander presented the retirement certificate and made a very nice speech.

I may have been the only general he retired during the time he was secretary, certainly one of

a few. In any case, his presence was quite an honor to me and a sign of his respect for the

Corps. Also, there were people present from the Congress. Anyone who’s gone through the

retirement ceremony finds it quite intimate and very personal.

Gerry was recognized. She received the wife’s retirement certificate and a bouquet of roses.

After the ceremony we had a small reception. That was the end of it. I was almost through. I

went home and the next morning when I got up I wasn’t in the Army anymore.

Of course, getting out of the Army involves a lot of administrative details, but the Army staff

and the good people at the Corps made it all very easy.

So my leaving the Corps was pleasant. It fills your ego for a short while. Many people asked

me if I was sorry to leave. I rationalized that I’d had over 37 years in the Army and I’d done

all the things that I could have ever expected to do and more. I’d had my crack at being Chief

of Engineers, and there was no other place to go for me in the Army unless something unusual

would happen, which it didn’t. My time was up. I’d been in the Army longer than most people

are allowed to stay based on age or total service.

My only regret was leaving unfinished a few things I had begun. The reorganization of the

headquarters was principal in that regard. Also, I could have used another month on the Israeli

airfield thing, but it wasn’t necessary. The real regret was a feeling that I’d reached the peak

of productivity and could accomplish more and make decisions easier than at any time in my

career.
John W. Morris

On the other hand, I was anxious to try my hand at something new. I had accepted a position

in a major international construction company as the director of international business. The

company was headquartered in Rotterdam, Holland.

Q.

. Your successor as Chief of Engineers was General Joseph Bratton. Could you talk about the

choice of the next Chief of Engineers and what role the sitting chief plays in that selection

process?

A.. Well, as discussed earlier, the process to select the Chief of Engineers is spelled out fairly

carefully. A board of five generals, including myself, all senior to anyone eligible to be

selected was chaired by General John Vessey, then Vice Chief of Staff.

We considered all colonels and higher and selected the three candidates considered best

qualified in our collective view. Major General Joseph Bratton stood alone at the top. He was

ultimately recommended to the Congress by the president. As a matter of interest, age was a

deciding factor in the case of several excellent major generals.

There was an interesting story associated with selecting my successor. Keep in mind General

Bratton had spent most of his career in the nuclear business and was less well known than

others in the Corps during the mid-1 970s. Commencing 1 July 1976 and into late 1979, there

were four leading candidates whom I had begun to consider: Major General Richard E.

McConnell, division engineer, North Pacific Division; Major General Carroll LeTellier, who

was division engineer in Atlanta; Major General Charles McGinnis, director of Civil Works;

and Major General Wesley Peel, commanding general of Fort Leonard Wood. By late 1979,

steps had been taken to add to General Bratton’s Corps experience. You have to understand,

the Chief of Engineers only gets one vote on this, but because he knows these people so well,

his recommendations are respected. Every one of those four generals had to leave the service

before I did and therefore were not available. McConnell had serious health problems.

LeTellier had had surgery, which wasn’t prohibitive but it did lead him to retire earlier than

expected. McGinnis decided he needed to undertake another career for a variety of reasons.

Peel’s father was tragically killed in an accident in Texas and he felt that he had to retire and

go home for family reasons. So those four candidates were removed.

Fortunately, a couple of years earlier General Bratton had returned to the Corps and was

rapidly becoming reacclimated to Corps operations. Harry Griffith, an outstanding general

who was well trained, had just been selected for promotion to lieutenant general to fill a key

position in the Defense Nuclear Agency-a job for which Bratton was exceptionally qualified.

There was some discussion whether or not it would be better to try to switch him and Griffith

for the Army’s benefit; however, the die had been cast.

The only other consideration that I recall was should we bring in a lieutenant general as

opposed to promoting someone into the job. There was one truly outstanding lieutenant

general who would have been a great Chief of Engineers. Still, everyone was happy with

Bratton, and there was an advantage to promoting someone up to the job. One of the reasons

why generals are retired relatively early from the Army is so others can move up-not

laterally.

Q.

. Did you have an opportunity-1 guess informally, rather than formally-to pass on some

advice to General Bratton, any major points that you wanted to make?

A.

. I have to say I think I passed more advice on to him than General Gribble did to me, but

remember that I had spent over three years working closely with General Gribble. Here’s what

we did with General Bratton. When he emerged as a potential candidate for becoming Chief,

we made some assignments rather quickly to increase his Corps experience base. First as the

201
Enaineer Memoirs

South Atlantic Division’s engineer in Atlanta. Shortly after that as the deputy when General

Johnson retired. So in the course of a couple of years, he had two important

exposures-division engineer and deputy chief.

While deputy, he and I spent a lot of time talking together, and there were some specific

suggestions. The thing I tried to emphasize to Joe was he had a great staff and the Corps was

made up of good people, so he should give the authority to the people who work for him and

let them do the work. Also, unless he had some reason to change or modify a staff

recommendation, he should accept it. Otherwise, the paperwork would kill him. The other

thing I mentioned was to keep the OCE organization that was being put in place on track. In

that, I did suggest something about keeping the ACE’s shop small and staff oriented and

getting the director of the Engineering and Construction Support organized with the top

civilian in charge.

The other point I recall mentioning was the hazardous waste program. Joe was a little

concerned about taking on that mission because he felt the Corps wasn’t properly trained to

do it. Well, neither was anyone else, and besides, the Corps could do it better, so I felt he

should try to land that Superfund program. Which he did.

You know, I’m not a great believer in passing advice to your successor. One should answer

questions if asked. As a matter of fact, I never believed in overlaps. Everybody has to arrive

at his own conclusions on what he’s going to do.

You may recall that back in our earlier discussions I had the good fortune of having been in

OCE for four years after having been in a Corps of Engineers division. I knew what I wanted

to do when I took over, but even so, I had to sit in that chair for a little while to get the-to

really grasp the breadth of responsibility and authority. After you’ve done that, whatever

somebody may have told you probably has been forgotten.

In summarizing the period from 1976 to 1980, I believed the Chief of Engineers’ primary role

was to be a practical visionary who stayed in close communication with his people and

represented them and the organization with deep pride and respect. Respect for the Corps’

illustrious past, which when combined with pride in the quality and capability of the men and

women under his command, provided him the confidence to defend the Corps and to seek

aggressively new and challenging roles which ensured a solid future for the organization. I

personally never doubted that the Corps would respond to any challenges. In fact, I sincerely

believed one of the two ways to weaken the Corps would be to fail to change when necessary

or fail to grasp new opportunities as they arose. The other, more insidious threat would be to

weaken the ability of the commander to command. History has shown that the transfer of the

command-and-control mechanism into the hands of those who do not have direct control

responsibilities for the people and the mission is a more dangerous and ultimately fatal trend.

This process had been in the works only about seven years when I retired and at that time

seemed under control. I am afraid the process is now somewhat out of control and worsening.

It needs to be reevaluated and reversed quickly if appropriate.

Answering the Army’s need for good facilities for its soldiers and their families, new or at

least well-maintained support activities for the Army’s equipment, and strengthening our

national defense is the Chief’s primary responsibility. All else leads to the fulfillment of the

Corps’ mission as part of the U.S. Army. Public works, albeit of great positive value to the

nation and a steady demand on the Chief’s time and attention, is in its best sense a source of

202
John W. Morris

Genera/ Morris, outgoing Chief of Engineers, introduced Major General Joseph K. Bratton, incoming

Chief, to Senator Jennings Randolph (D-WV), in September 1980.

especially well-trained and talented engineer personnel in case of full national mobilization

or when needed to respond to national or international military needs or emergencies.

The responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers, while great, were distributed among a strong

staff with excellent credentials. My most pressing personal responsibility involved dealings

outside the organization-the White House, Congress, state and foreign governments, public

and professional agencies, and of course DOD and DA.

As a final thought, I thoroughly enjoyed the job and looked forward to going to work every

day. You cannot beat the work or the fine people who helped get it done.

How did you rate yourself on achieving the goals which you outlined at the beginning of your

term as Chief of Engineers?

A My appraisal is probably about a “B.” Significant developments occurred in each.

Stay in Business “A.” We did stay in business in spite of several serious challenges.

Our position with the White House and the Executive Branch strengthened during the

period.

Support the Total Army “A-.” The most significant effort brought forth many

attractive initiatives in the environmental, energy, and maintenance fields. Support
Encjneer Memoirs

to facilities engineering by the Corps districts (one stop shopping) was singularly

successful. Mobilization efforts assisted the Army staff. Becoming a major command

allowed the Chief to meet directly with the Chief of Staff of the Army and his

commanders. This goal must remain in some form. This is the Corps’ bedrock criteria.

1976 to 1980 showed good progress and momentum increased, but there is always

more to do and keep doing.

Support the Nation “B.” Sister service relations were excellent and constructive, but

meaningful relations with other federal agencies-Department of Energy, Department

of Transportation, Department of State, et cetera-were disappointing, possibly

excepting EPA. International work thrived. The Corps’ professional presence was

apparent in China, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and others. The Corps’ role

in environmental matters stabilized as the public works program was transformed into

regulatory and O&M.

Get OCE out of the Operations Business “CT Good progress which allowed

headquarters to deal with crucial external issues and concentrate on the first three

goals more thoroughly. At the same time reorganization of the headquarters was

initiated but not finalized, leading to problems after 1980.

Post-Retirement Career

Q

.

.

A

.

.

Turning to your retirement career, then, as a retired Chief of Engineers you must have had a

lot of options about what you could do. How did you sort through those and decide what to

do?

First off, I had no magic equation that I plugged into. I did give thought to the areas where I

could be of some value. My father had been a very good businessman, and I learned a lot by

association with him. There is a difference in working for somebody and working for yourself.

My father believed that it’s always better to work for yourself, even with a small business,

than to work for someone else.

I like that thought, and another factor was the field of effort. Many Corps retirees do well in

engineering companies. My attraction was toward construction.

We didn’t want to move. Gerry and I liked it in the Washington area, and we would have

moved for the right job but we didn’t particularly want to. We refused one job which was

extremely attractive because we had to move. We owned our home, and this was our

“headquarters” area. I’m from Maryland; she’s from North Carolina.

I asked myself how I would explain taking a job with a company that had previously worked

for the Corps, and also why I chose one of them over another. So I finally decided not to go

to work for anybody who had worked for the Corps. At least, not immediately. That was

naive, I expect, but I made the decision and that eliminated many good prospects. It turned out

that a week before I retired, I was asked to be the director of international operations for Royal

Volker Stevin-then the eleventh largest construction company in the world. The effort was

mainly in dredging, a field I was pretty comfortable with, plus a lot of roads and ports, which

I liked also. They offered me a very nice salary. It was less than I might have gotten from

some of the American companies, but the benefits were especially attractive. Also, I would

be the senior American---or non-Dutch person in the company.

They said, “You can stay in America, but we want you to come over here once a quarter to our

business meetings. We also want you to look at the international scene. You can do that from

204
John W. Morris

there as well as you can from here.”They financed us to set up an office here in Washington,

which I did. That worked out very nicely. It was a fine job. It gave me a chance to get my feet

on the ground in the construction business and also gave me an office of my own which later

facilitated the transition into working for myself.

I was successful in getting new work, but fairly soon I became a troubleshooter for problems

in contracts using American money. I was sent to Yemen a couple of times to help straighten

out a USAID project. The claim was over $100 million, so it was a big exercise. Yemen’s not

the greatest place in the world. As someone joked, “It’s not the end of the world, but you can

see it from there.”

Then there was the Zilwaukee Bridge in Michigan which had failed. The Dutch were great

engineers and business people, but the labor situation up in Michigan presented them with

many unfamiliar problems. Ultimately, at my urging, the contract was terminated for the

convenience of the owner, allowing our company to withdraw from the job successfully.

There were also efforts on the Miami People Carrier and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel

projects.

I hired an ex-Corps colonel, Jess Baldwin, to help me. Right after Thanksgiving 1980, two

months after opening the office, I was called from Rotterdam by the principal who hired me.

He indicated that for the first time in its history, the company incurred a big loss. I suggested

that might mean they would not need me anymore. He said, “No,” and they kept me.

The international business had to be put aside while they straightened up their internal

problems and kept their home base work solid. That’s when they put me in the troubleshooting

business. Even so, I was not fully engaged. I was asked to stay at least another year and told

I could do other work so long as I was available when they needed me. That was really very

nice of them. By my second or third year I had met many people in Holland and formed,

informally, a company called Holland-American Industry Group with a friend over there. He

searched out companies that needed representation in the United States, so in the course of

a year or two I was representing about eight or nine companies from Holland. Finally, when

I was disengaged from Volker Stevin we had a solid business in place.

That business included some work with Royal Dutch Shell, and this led to a real business

adventure. Royal Dutch had a nondestructive procedure for testing pavements. The Corps of

Engineers used a vibrating process that was good but very cumbersome, while the Dutch

equipment was small and easily shipped. You could tow it behind a car or Jeep down the

runway or over the highway.

Royal Dutch Shell wanted to export that process to the United States. Dr. Matthew Witczak,

at the University of Maryland, was a leader in the asphalt and pavement business and a

consultant to the Dutch process in Holland. He and I began to work together trying to export

or set up its company, Pavement Consultancy Service [PCS]; in the U.S. The Royal Dutch

people had a wholly-owned Dutch company in New York called Scallop which financed the

startup of PCS, United States. Scallop personnel didn’t want to get involved directly, so they

contracted with my new company, J. W. Morris, Ltd., to organize the project. I was hired as

the manager, and they paid J. W. Morris, Ltd. for all personnel and administrative support.

That expanded our office. I had already hired Jess Baldwin and another ex-Corps major, Tom

Donnelly, to help, but PCS pushed our office staff up to about 20 people. Tom was promoting

this product rather aggressively, but all of a sudden the main company back in Holland

decided they wanted to get out of the business. They sold PCS, and immediately I was told by

205
Engineer Memoirs

Q

.

.

the people in New York they were only in this because they were told to by the people in

Holland and that I was to get rid of the business.

By this time, Matt and I had become very much involved in the activity. So I went to New

York and bought it myself. I became the owner of an engineering specialty company, one of

my exciting endeavors. Subsequently, Witczak became part owner. He was the real technical

brains of the company and had assembled a group of smart, ambitious graduates of the

University of Maryland. Ultimately, we sold it to Law Engineering of Atlanta.

In the PCS process, Dr. Witczak asked me to give a series of lectures on management at the

University of Maryland. Ultimately, he asked if I would help develop a course of instruction

in construction engineering management. I agreed and became a member of a committee

headed up by Mr. James Clark, the owner of Hyman Construction and Omni Construction.

Clark is a regent and put up half a million dollars, as I recall, of his own money and another

half million in matching funds, which generated a million and a half dollars to underwrite the

chair and this program. I was the deputy chairman and did most of the course organization

work and wrote the scenarios. We ran our paper up to the president, and it was accepted as

written.

At that time it was all pro bono. It was just an interesting exercise. I was then asked to

organize the course while a chair professor was sought. From the aspirants they selected an

individual from Georgia Tech, and he agreed to take the job. Then I was asked to begin

collecting the staff and get everything ready because the chairperson could not arrive until late

summer and the course was to start in September.

Lo and behold, about the middle of August the selectee announced he could not accept the job.

I was asked if I would take over the chair duties as acting professor. So that’s how I got to be

chair professor at the University of Maryland for about three years. That was going on while

we were marketing PCS and while I was representing several overseas companies including

Partek, a Finnish company that was in the construction business. I have enjoyed immensely

working with Partek. Two other Finnish companies were in our fold, also. So we had a fairly

big program going. We had hired Tom Donnelly, as m_entioned, plus the four engineers out

of the University of Maryland. Also retired Colonels Bob Bangert, Al Costanza, and Max

In&off were helping. Later, Clay Meyers, Captain Meyers, USN [retired], was employed to

expand our civil engineering services to include operation and maintenance.

In 1985 J. W. Morris, Ltd. was fairly busy. As I say, we had about 20 people, we owned the

pavement testing company, and we were representing a group of foreign companies. None of

these were competing with each other, andAnd you were teaching.

A

.

. And I was teaching at the University of Maryland. That became a problem, incidentally,

because it ties you down. My wife told me when I mentioned the opportunity to teach, “Jack,

that’s going to tie you down too much,” and that was the only comment she made. I decided

to do it because it had other benefits.

Anyhow, we were going well-the financials looked good, the people were fairly happy and

had a good retirement plan and benefits, et cetera-except the teaching was tying us down as

Gerry had predicted. Then one day Dr. Witczak asked to move PCS from my office closer to

him at the University of Maryland. So we agreed but kept a liaison in Arlington. I offered

some of the released space to the Water Resources Congress. Joe Tofani had been running

WRC and had just stepped down. So they moved in with us with Ray Leonard in charge. I

continued as the chairman of PCS.

206
John W. Morris

At that time, I began to concern myself more with these companies we were representing in

the United States. We were up to about 12 from Europe and some from other areas. Also, I

had been to China twice to teach school and had some contacts in China. Saudi Arabia had

gotten to be important because of my background and new associations with a firm in Saudi

Arabia. The pavement business was attractive in Saudi, so I began going back and forth again

to Saudi Arabia. Our international base had grown, and we were really spreading out quite

nicely.

Then out of the clear blue sky I got a call one day to go see Mr. John Toups, chairman of

Planning Research Corporation headquartered in McLean. John asked me if I’d help him find

somebody to take over the engineering group which was, at that time, the largest engineering

group in the United States. Its companies included Frederick R. Harris, Consouer Townsend,

Environmental Management Incorporated, and Planning & Development Corp.

So I sent resumes to him on several candidates. I really tried to get Mr. Toups to take John

Wall, even though John wasn’t going to retire from the Army for six or eight months. Finally,

I told Mr. Toups I didn’t have anyone left to suggest. He said, “Well, why don’t you take it?”

By this time I figured I would be too old and also I felt he wanted to sell the engineering

group. He promised me he would not put it on the market for a couple of years.

I then told Mr. Toups about my company business, and he offered to buy it. I should have sold

it, perhaps, but I concluded I might not be with PRC very long, so I had better not abandon J.

W. Morris, Ltd. so soon. To eliminate any conflict I formed a new company called Engineer

Management Services, Inc. [EMSI], Ltd. Captain Meyers became the president of EMS1 and

I sold all the J.W. Morris, Ltd. work to EMSI.

As events developed, PRC was sold within two years anyway. It wasn’t put on the market; Mr.

Toups lived up to his word. He received a very attractive offer from Ashland Technology

Company [ATC], which owned DMJM, Holmes & Narver, and Williams Bros. Company in

Tulsa. I was out of a job. Al Dorman, who was the chairman of ATC, certainly wasn’t going

to give me his job, but he asked me to be his assistant.

There was still some engineering work being done in PRC, and I was kept on as the engineer

for two years. I wasn’t out of a job completely, but it was just a matter of time. I was also

allowed to work for Ashland on an hourly basis up to 50 percent of my time.

During the 1987 SAME meeting in California, I received a call from Governor Bellmon of

OkIahoma, whom I had known for many years. He asked if I could prepare a proposal for the

state of OkIahoma to submit in the superconducting super collider competition. He asked me

to think it over and let him know. I said, “I will call tomorrow and tell you if I can do it.” I

talked to Mr. Dorman and his people, who happened to be at the SAME in San Francisco and

found out that DMJM and Bechtel had a team of people who had worked on a similar study

and could be made available if Oklahoma had a site. Most states had been working on the

project for more than a year . We only had three months to get Oklahoma’s report together.

So, to make a long story short, I accepted that task. J.W. Morris, Ltd. was back in business all

of a sudden.

EMS1 was set up as a company to have the contract with the state of OkIahoma to perform the

study and I was the technical adviser and overseer and Chuck McGinnis was liaison with the

Governor’s office. Structurally it was sound, and Bechtel and DMJM were subcontractors to

us. We put together a very nice report on time.

207
Enaineer Memoirs

Q.

.

A..

My work at Ashland continued also. So that whole period from about 1982 or when Volker

Stevin began to go down, until, oh, 1989, we were just very busy doing a lot of different

things. The significant ones I mentioned. We no sooner finished the super collider when Ray

Leonard, who ran the Water Resources Congress, was asked by the Trade Development

Program if WRC, as a nonprofit organization, could do a study of the water transportation

system in Bang1adesh.

I happened to be the chairman of WRC at that time. Ray was the only active person in WRC.

So he asked me, and I said, “Yes, we can do it. I’ll manage it.” So we did that. We put together

a team. We did a $1 million study for the Trade Development Program of the State

Department, and it was quite successful, I thought. WRC established itself as a competent

organization to do engineering studies. EMS1 was now recognized; WRC was recognized.

We found a great team for the Bangladesh job. General Jimmy Johnson, who had been deputy

chief, was in charge of the field work. Jim organized the group that worked in Bangladesh.

The results were impressive, and the WRC made a good impression on the World Bank.

About that time, I began working as an engineering adviser to Seltzer and Rosen, which was

a law firm. Our thrust was to avoid claims. I’ve been working for them now for over four

years.

So my retired career has been rather varied. I’ve left out a few things. I stayed active in

PIANC and in USCOLD [U.S. Committee on Large Dams], and I became very involved with

the Corps of Engineers Historical Foundation, which is now combined with the Regimental

Association into the AEA. The AEA is important to the Corps. We need to have a grassroots

organization of alumni and active-duty people in the Corps for a lot of reasons.

Then I’ve stayed very active in the Military Academy at West Point. I will always feel that I

owe the Academy. My class gave a $1 million gift to the Academy, a new main entrance

facility. I was the chairman of that committee. It took from 198 1 to 1993, a 12-year job, but

we did it. We did all the concept engineering ourselves. We hired Bums and Roe to do the

detail work, but all of the planning, the concept, the contract management, and the supervision

of the work we did ourselves. I think the overhead was about 1.2 percent, but we put days and

months and years of our lives in that thing.

Last, there is the National Academy of Engineering. I have served on the Building Research

Board and have been involved in several studies over the last five-plus years. Presently I am

on the Water Science and Technology Board [WSTB], which uses my experience nicely.

All in all, I’ve had a lot to do, and I guess it breaks out pretty much even into pro bono and

paid. I really have been very pleased with the opportunities I’ve had since I retired. I haven’t

done as many significant things as others perhaps, butI wanted to ask you about the teaching in China.

While teaching at the University of Maryland, I began to realize that the Chinese were going

to do their own engineering and that they wouldn’t mechanize as we had. The one area I

thought we could help was in management of projects, organizing and conducting project

management.

So I was able, through the University of Maryland, to get the East China Technical University

in Nanking to set up an exchange. They invited us over to teach a course in construction

managemen t. Because of my Army background, I went to see General Richard Stillwell

[retired] in the Department of Defense. He was involved in the international matters for the

Secretary of Defense and became quite attracted to the idea. So I carried a Corps of Engineers

208
John W. Morris

flag in one hand, the University of Maryland flag in the other, and took with me Dr. Mark

Smith from the University of Maryland’s construction engineering and management course.

The three-week program went well and was underwritten for the following year. The next year

the Corps provided Colonel Steve West, district engineer in Omaha, to fill my spot. The idea

was that from then on the Corps of Engineers would become the prime mover in teaching

engineering management to the Chinese. My belief was if we could get that done, even though

the Americans may not get the construction contracts, the American management system

would be adopted, out of which would come many benefits for the American construction

industry and U.S. suppliers.

I didn’t have enough power to keep it going. I just couldn’t drive the thing hard enough. The

Corps supported it the first year-the University of Maryland and the Corps together-but,

as I say, I didn’t have enough clout to keep it going. It’s too bad because it had taken a

yeoman’s effort to get started.

Were there classes in English or did you have a translator?

I had to use a translator. That was a major weakness.

In retirement you’ve been, as we talked about last time, very involved with the University of

Maryland. What about other academic institutions that you’ve been involved with?

My experience in construction management led to my being invited by quite a few universities

in the United States and abroad to lecture on management and leadership in the engineering

and construction field. I felt there was value in passing on to future engineers and managers

important lessons that I had learned.

Now, besides the University of Maryland and the lecturing business, I also was asked and

accepted a position on the board of advisors to the dean of engineering and mathematics at the

University of Vermont. I have no affiliation with Vermont, but I know some people who do

and they recommended me. I was accepted. I am happy that I did so. I’ve been working with

them for about four years now.

The other area of academic activity <has been the Association of Graduates at the Military

Academy. While the Association of Graduates is not involved directly in academics, it is very

much involved with all the activities at the Military Academy. Since that was my alma mater,

I was delighted with the election to the board of trustees of the Association of Graduates and

have been on that board for almost nine years. My term expires in the summer of 1998.

The Association of Graduates takes considerable effort-I am the chairman of a couple of

committees, I’ve served on several others. I try to stay active because I think it’s important that

graduates of the Military Academy maintain a voice in the affairs at West Point, particularly

those where the superintendent needs to hear from the alumni. The Association of Graduates

does not function like an alumni group of most universities; however, it does have somewhat

the same interests.

The Military Academy, a federal organization, is regulated by law and the military

department; therefore, there are some distinct limits on the Association of Graduates.

Nevertheless, the association does keep in contact with the students and cadets and has

provided me with an opportunity to lecture to the cadets on management and on engineering,

specific engineering problems. That became another facet in my association with academia,

but if my background and experience are of value in the educational field, then I’m most

anxious to offer it.
Engineer Memoirs

The University of Maryland paid me as a professor, but the lectures and the boards of the

University of Vermont and West Point are not remunerative. In fact, they rarely pay expenses,

but that’s not the point. The reason I mention the financials is that it does distract from the

things I do that generate money, which can be used to do the nonpaying work. So, as long as

I can, I’ll continue to participate in passing on, within academia, experiences and lessons I’ve

learned. I see a need to develop leaders, not only of engineering but engineers who take

leadership positions in government. We’re not as well represented as we should be, and

unfortunately many of our major construction companies are being managed by nonengineers.

Q

.

. We discussed a little bit your involvement in other professional organizations, but I think there

are several we haven’t talked too much about, like PIANC and ICOLD. You’ve continued to

be involved with professional societies, as well.

A

.

. Well, yes. My experiences and associations while in the service with professional engineering

organizations supported the logic of retaining my association with them. PIANC is one of my

favorites. It’s not an organization of people so much as it’s an organization of countries, and

therefore it’s a very pleasant annual event when you go to the meetings and, every four years

or so, to their congresses. You’re really the guest of the country.

Aside from the social and the pleasantry aspects, the professional features are very good

because PIANC is truly an outstanding professional organization. It’s the oldest continuously

operating professional organization. Its 50 country members are represented by individuals

who are in important positions either in government or in the educational field in the area of

water transportation and affiliated structures.

While the United States has the largest individual membership in PIANC, it also has one of

the weakest organizational structures. That’s been overcome in the last 15 or 20 years because

of some good work by a few people. Dwayne Koch, the U.S. PIANC coordinator under the

director of Civil Works in the Corps has kept PIANC activities in front of the membership and

encouraged them to become more active. The U.S. has maintained a leadership position in the

international organization-General Casey in the 194Os, General Holle in 195 1, General

Heiberg, Thordike Seville, to name a few.

One other thought on PIANC. I was elected as one of the first four international vice

presidents. For years, there were no international vice presidents, but as the organization got

bigger it became more difficult for the president to manage it. So the organization was redone,

and Sir William Harris of Britain and I worked on that task. I was very pleased with having

had a part in it, and also the results have been cl&e rewarding.

One interesting event occurred in the first year I attended in Sicily in 1972. We were so much

in the environmental program back in the United States, and I made a motion that a

commission be established to evaluate the effect of navigation structures on the environment.

I did not get a single supporting vote outside of the U.S. delegation. No one felt the subject

was sufficiently important to establish a commission, which means a four-year study.

The next year we had a congress in Ottawa, Canada, and early in the affairs the leader of the

Russian group to PIANC came to me and said, “If you’d move again to establish a commission

to evaluate environmental effects of navigation, our delegation will support you.” So I boldly

stepped forward and made the motion a second time. It carried unanimously. In the course of

one year, something happened. In any event, PIANC became active and remains an active

exponent of the environmental impacts of navigation structures.

Beyond PIANC, the large dams groups, USCOLD and ICOLD, were important professionally.

I wanted to be a voice for the Corps in a different sort of way in these professional

210
John W. Morris

organizations. I always felt some engineer officer should be good enough to be on the exec

committee of USCOLD. That’s never happened to my knowledge. They make the Chief of

Engineers an honorary member, and I think that’s so he can’t have a voice on the exec

committee. They also make some other people honorary members. On the other hand, the

Corps has always been very well represented through our family of outstanding civilians.

We’ve had several who ended up as the president of USCOLD-Lloyd Duscha and Dick

Armstrong recently. I always felt that there was in the Corps of Engineers at least one officer

of some rank who was technically qualified to be nominated for and make it to the exec

committee, but it hasn’t happened to date.

I became chairman of the Environmental Effects Committee of USCOLD and was responsible

for the environmental program at the ICOLD conference in San Francisco in 1986. The

previous International Committee on Large Dams’ meeting in Europe was harassed greatly by

the environmental group, “the Greens,”they call them. We didn’t want that to happen in San

Francisco, especially since there was an environmental group meeting at the same time at

Berkeley on the rain forest problem in South America. Several of us went to their meeting,

which included some interesting presentations. The author of Cadillac Desert was a principal.

Q.

. Mark Reissner?

A.. Yes, Mark Reissner. I had not seen him since his book was published. While the book was

very critical of a lot of things and a lot of people, it was not critical of me personally. I wanted

to let him know I was present because I was interested in having some of those present at his

meeting attend a joint workshop at the ICOLD meetings.

The joint meeting at ICOLD was a little stormy, but still it was managed-and came off pretty

well. Unfortunately, shortly after the congress, I had to ask to be replaced as chairman of the

Environmental Effects Committee because of personal problems-well, not problems. Gerry

had a hip replacement, and I just didn’t feel that I could do all the running around at the time,

so I asked Lloyd Timblin of the Bureau of Reclamation to take over. He has done a great job

since then.

Having been a past national president and having recommended and financed the annual

sustaining member award, the Society of American Military Engineers [SAME] still attracts

much of my time. It deserves it. I try to go to all the annual meetings. Both Gerry and I enjoy

seeing so many friends. I take some pride in the results of energizing the sustained

membership in 1976. SAME climbed from 250-300 sustaining members to about 3,000, and

that’s really been the injection of talent, knowledge, and leadership that’s made the SAME so

much more attractive to the young engineers, civilians as well as military.

I don’t know how to say enough for Walt Bachus’s leadership and good work. He changed

SAME from mostly a social outfit with a rented downtown office into an organization that’s

quite active in the technical field and owns its own fully paid-for building in Alexandria.

SAME puts on a great annual meeting. I’ve been urging them to have annual meetings in

Washington so the sustaining members can get direct input from the Congress and the leaders

of the country. In return, our engineering talent needs to be seen and heard more. That goes

back to the idea of having better engineers in leadership positions. I think SAME can be a

factor. Having the annual meeting in Washington will cause improvement in that field.

Actually, the annual meeting should be in Washington-it’s a national meeting-if not each

year, then every third or fourth year.

- 211
Engineer Memoirs

Then there are the water organizations. Actually, there are about three of them. I was the first

president of the National Waterway Foundation. It was set up to provide grants and not to be

outwardly active. We published a book called Waterway Productivity. It’s a good book. The

National Waterway Foundation is a passive sort of organization. It does not have members.

The Water Resources Congress, like so many water organizations, is having a hard time

because the interest that supports it has been moved into other areas. Business can’t support

too many organizations, so it’s a challenge for the Water Resources Congress to find a new

field to supplement its previous areas of grandeur.

The other activity that’s taking a lot of time is the Corps of Engineers Historical Foundation,

now the Army Engineer Association, which was covered earlier.

Q

.

. You’ve also been involved with the National Academy of Engineering, too, isn’t that right?

A

.

. Yes. The Academy-I was honored by election to the Academy in 1977, and for the first

several years thereafter I was not involved too much. About six years ago I joined the Building

Research Board of the Academy. The Academy has boards and committees. Normally there

are two or three members of the Academy on a committee and the remaining members serve

from industry based on their professionalism and desire to service the Academy.

The Building Research Board is financed, in large measure, by the Federal Construction

Council, which is made up of the federal agencies involved in the construction business

including the Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, the Smithsonian, the State Department, the

Postal Service, the General Accounting Office, et cetera, et cetera.

Service with the Academy is another effort to return to society some of the lessons learned at

public expense while in the Army and since I retired. I’ve enjoyed my activities in the

Academy. As I said earlier, I also serve on the WSTB. A current WSTB study concerns flood

protection for Sacramento.

The Building Research Board has looked into the responsibility of the architect-engineers in

the construction phases of contracts. Previously the board published a report on the value of

inspections to quality. We analyzed the need for mega-projects and if there could be megaprojects in the future because of the constraints from environment, funding, and local

cooperation, et cetera, for major projects. Could we put a man on the moon? I think the super

collider is probably evidence of the problem because it’s now been stopped, not because of

the project itself but because of financial considerations.

All the pro bono effort when put together adds up to about a third of my time, at least three

to four months a year spent doing things that are directly related to passing on knowledge, if

you want to call it that, or to repay an obligation to my benefactors through the contributions

of my knowledge and experiences.

Q

.

. Recently the Army Engineer Association has taken up a bit of that time.

A

.

. Yes, that’s been a great demand lately. I was the originator of the Corps of Engineers

Historical Foundation. I was on the board and later the chairman at the very end. The Army

Engineer Association is important to me because of my role in getting the structure, the

charter, and the bylaws taken care of. I asked not to be put on the new AEA board. On the

other hand, President Chuck Fiala did ask me to be chairman of the Policy Committee. Once

all this levels out, my role will be to try to market the considerable value of this association.

When I get to the point where those extracurricular things seem to be more important than the

consulting work, I’ll retire like everybody else does.

212
John W. Morris

Q

.

. I was going to ask you that. Is there any thought of “retiring” again?

A.. Well, yes. I think of it frequently, and it depends on the personal situation. Unfortunately,

Gerry’s had a lot of problems the last five or six years with arthritis, and as I mentioned, her

hip replacement. Besides, she’s had both corneas replaced in her eyes. Those were serious

operations. She’s had three operations on her foot to try to eliminate the pain when she walks.

Also she’s had one joint in one finger, her index finger on her right hand, worked on. So I’m

hoping that after this current surgery she’ll be mobile, but we’re reaching the point pretty

quick where I think we should devote ourselves to each other. Still my work gives us diversity.

It allows us to travel some, which we otherwise might not, but there’s no question where the

priority is. The priority is at home. When I have to choose, that’s where I’ll go full time. Also,

as an individual I am becoming less attractive in the business arena. You asked did I ever think

about it. Yes, I think about it a lot. Gerry and I have pretty much agreed that as long as I can

continue to get around and do some good things and as long as she’s healthy, our present

arrangement is best. She wouldn’t know what to do with me at home anyhow.

She spends most of the summers in North Carolina at our beach place where I have a fax

machine, a copier, and so forth. I can do my consulting and board work from North Carolina

as well as here in Virginia. Helen Sari, my secretary, keeps my local office open and handles

the administration. I fax letters for her to type, et cetera. She is a wonderful person who has

become a good friend to Gerry and me.

Q

.

. Have you found in the last few years that you’re doing more pro bono work?

A.. Yes. It grows and grows. I had a very good friend who retired as a flag officer and his policy

was not to do anything he didn’t get paid for. That’s okay. If you do that, you’re probably

going to make a lot more money. My feeling, as I mentioned a couple of times, is slightly

different. I just felt that I could be of value to the future by putting my experiences to work in

fields which often are of a pro bono nature, like the Academy of Engineering, the Association

of Graduates, the University of Vermont, and so forth. Of course, the water organizations.

That’s my background, navigation and water, so I serve on them, and it’s a labor of love.

There’s no altruistic objective there. So as time goes on, it seems that I’ve gotten more

committed, but I think that’s going to change because next year I am also going to curtail my

activities with the Academy of Engineering and the University of Vermont.

To answer your question clearly, I believe when I first retired I was so interested in finding

an occupation that I didn’t pay much attention to the pro bono work. Then, once I settled in

and became comfortable with the fact that I was going to be able to survive financially, I began

to do more and more pro bono work. It’s now reached a peak probably, and it’ll wane in the

future. I’ve enjoyed the effort, don’t misunderstand me. It’s not a one-way street, and I have

no regrets in any way. I wouldn’t want this record to reflect I have. I’ve enjoyed the pro bono

work, and I’ve met some wonderful people. I am not sure a person can make more money if

he avoids pro bono efforts. Actually, some of my consulting work has resulted directly from

my exposure at the National Academy of Engineering.

Q

.

. Looking back over the 16 years of your retirement, you’ve been involved in a large variety of

activities and projects and various kinds of work. Perhaps we could wrap up this segment of

the interview by summarizing the types of activities you’ve been involved in during the last

few years.

A.

. I would say that the first general comment is I was interested in being involved in a lot of

things. I just think that’s my nature. The higher I went in the Corps, the more I enjoyed my

213
Encjneer Memoirs

Q

.

.

work because I had broader areas of responsibility and I seem to do better when I have a lot

of irons in the fire, instead of just one thing. I’m not a specialist, I guess, by nature. So when

I retired, my first priority, as I have just mentioned, was to find a job that sustained my income

equivalent to my service income plus a little more. So the startup was basically to double my

retirement income.

The next area of concentration, I would say, would be in the professional organizations that

related to my work and to my past. That brought in the water resources and environmental

activities, the professional organizations like the military engineers and civil engineers,

USCOLD, PIANC, and then, finally, the Academy of Engineering. Somewhat overlapping the

second group were just the pro bono things that I do like advice to the University of Vermont

and the Association of Graduates of the Military Academy, lecturing at various places, the

Army Engineer Association.

The main thing is that I’m really doing the things I like to do. Occasionally I’ll get a contract

with a firm to do something that I end up not feeling too comfortable with, so then I usually

tell them that they should drop me. I’ve done that two or three times. So that’s how it breaks

out. The job, then the professional societies, and finally the pro bono things. That’s the

sequence.

What about your relationship with the Corps of Engineers since you’ve retired?

A.

. Basically you’re asking about the official relationship or business relationship. Well, the field

that I’ve chosen to work in since I retired is a field in which the Corps is also quite active, i.e,.

engineering and construction. I have felt constrained by law and also by my conscience that

I should not promote a company which employed me with the Corps of Engineers. I never did

that. The first five or six years I had little or no association with the Corps in any way except

socially. General Bratton and General Heiberg continued a practice that had started with

General Fred Clarke, and that was to have lunch about once a month with the previous Chiefs

and just talk about things. The Chief has a pretty lonesome job and needs somebody to talk

to. Other than that, I didn’t see much of the Chiefs. The current Chief never needs an old Chief

of Engineers poking around or telling him how to do his job. I went to the Christmas parties

when I was invited, and I went whenever possible to the update that the Chief gives to the

retired people.

I explained to the people who employed me they could not expect me to promote them to the

Corps. One very large local company became quite upset that I wouldn’t try to get work for

them. I refused to do that and asked that my contract be terminated.

Exceptions arose when I found the Corps was being criticized or heading into trouble in an

area. For example, district engineers or contracting officers are accused of not talking to

contractors. That led to general comments that the Corps is hard to work with, is unfair, or

whatever. So when I’d hear things like that, I would make a point of enlightening the Chief.

On the other hand, I always wanted to be available to the Chief in case of any problem.

General Williams has been a little different from General Hatch, as I recall. General Heiberg

was similar to General Williams in one sense, and that was if he had a problem I could help

him with, he’d call me, and I like that. Later, more recently, however, I’ve been a lot more

involved with the Corps, particularly through the Academy of Engineering. I’ve known

General Williams personally since Vietnam. He’s easy to talk to-a very fine man. So I

probably am a little more active today.

Of course, as time goes by, your constraints lessen, and you’re no longer a factor in Corps

policies. I think retired Chiefs can be of value to the Corps. General Clarke certainly was a

214
John W. Morris

Q

.

.

great help for me. I have offered and encouraged a similar arrangement with the Chiefs. If they

need me, fine, but I’ve tried not to become a nuisance.

I called Kansas City the other day for something, and the lady that answered the phone said,

“Oh, I remember you when you were division engineer in Omaha.” We had a long

conversation. I enjoyed it a great deal, but that’s very unusual. It doesn’t take long for Chiefs

to become has-beens. And that’s good too! All retirees have the same situation-I believe they

should nourish becoming “has-beens” unless needed.

In recent years you have received a number of awards, including the prestigious Founder’s

Award from the National Academy of Engineering. Tell me about those awards.

A

.

. I guess if you live long enough and remain active, you will receive awards. In my case there

has been a small flood lately. The Beaver’s Engineering Award, the Construction Industry

Institute Award of Excellence, the National Academy of Engineering Founder’s Award, the

Gold de Fleury Medal from the Army Engineer Association and the Distinguished Engineering

Alumni Award from the University of Iowa in February 1998. In March 1998 the Society of

American Military Engineers selected me for their Golden Eagle Award. Finally in May 1998

the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy gave me a Distinguished

Graduate Award during a parade of the Corps of Cadets as part of the annual alumni program.

Each is for a different field and a truly outstanding recognition, so I would not want to

compare or select a favorite. I can say, however, that the National Academy of Engineering’s

Founder’s Award and the Distinguished Graduate Award were the most unexpected and have

been received by some great Americans. I am honored and humbled by each and really wish

everyone who helped me over so many years could, in some way, share and enjoy these

acknowledgments. After all, only because of them were the awards given to me. No one can

achieve these accolades by himself, and nowhere is this truer than in the Corps of Engineers

and our industry.

Conclusion

Q

.

. What do you see in the future for the Corps of Engineers?

A

.

. A tough subject, which has concerned me since 1970. Most of my thoughts apply to USACE

[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] primarily. One thing is clear-as General Heiberg said

recently, “The Corps’ future will be different.” The truth of this statement comes into better

focus when I reflect on the Corps of Engineers I joined in 1943. At that time, the Chief of

Engineers was the commander of all engineer soldiers and was responsible for Fort Belvoir,

the Engineer Center. He assigned all officers in accordance with his career development

policies, and he was responsible for the traditional engineer staff and engineer construction

missions to include the politically sensitive public works program.

Beginning in the early 196Os, a series of Army reorganizations, personnel management

changes, and other modifications steadily reduced the scope of the Chief’s responsibilities and

authorities to their present level. The USACE, established in 1979, consolidated under the

Chief of Engineers, as commander, those functions that survived and remained under his

jurisdiction.

While the basic role and purpose of the Chief and his command to support the Army have not

changed, the Corps today is much different than it was a few years ago.

215
Enaineer Memoirs

David J. McGrath publisher of Engineering News-Record, congratulated Genera/ Morris after ENR

named him “Construction’s Man of the Year” in New York on 16 February 1977 at the Pierre Hotel.

As for the future, changes will continue. I am inclined to believe the reductions in

responsibility and authority of the Chief of Engineers have reached a low point, and future

modifications will begin an upward adjustment. This swing of the pendulum depends on the

reversal of a trend which began three decades ago and apparently has become more serious

in the last half of the period.

Q:

A:

Can you define this trend more clearly?

Yes, but first I want to establish the essential point that all short-term or specific action gains

must be within the framework of the bedrock goal of “improving the support by the Corps of

Engineers to the Army.”

Q:

A:

What about the public works program of the Corps?

Chiefs of Engineers and most senior generals of the Army realize that the world’s finest

military engineer capability is in the U.S. Army because of the added value generated through

the professional practices demanded by the civil works program-especially in peacetime. The

trick for the Chief is to convince his military superiors that such is the truth. The Chief needs

help and support, similar to that which I had, from the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the

Army. This comes from personal, frequent contact and involvement.

Q: All right. Back to the trends over the past 30 years or so.

216
John W. Morris

A.. As I see the past from a distance and through the veil of retirement, there appear to be several

events which singularly and collectively have diluted the capability of the Chief of Engineers

and his command (USACE) to fulfill their role of service to the Army in war and to the nation

in peace.

within USACE asRivers and Harbors was abolished.

Professionalism has softened steadily

b The Board of Engineers for

b Technical job prerequisites

positions traditionally filled by engineers.

were broadened to attract nontechnical applicants to

b Contracting authority has been removed from the district commander unless he or

she branch transfers. As a consequence, the commander is denied a key commandand-control element essential in executing his responsibilities.

. In-house engineering continues to give way to engineering by contract.

b Army career-development programs for the military have progressively favored

repeated troop service to the disadvantage of and disservice to USACE and in the

number and qualifications of general officers chosen for Corps roles.

. A cultural change has occurred as the civil program trended away from devezopment

of resources toward

always be in the mix

munagement of resources. Even

of tasks.

some development will

b Operation and maintenance budgets now exceed the construction budget, and for the

foreseeable future, environmental and operational matters will continue to capture the

lion’s share of both the military and public works budgets.

b The appreciation and support of the Corps of Engineers within the Congress has

declined from all outward appearances. USACE has seen several of the most

knowledgeable and supportive members of Congress leave that body in the last few

years.

b The increasing demands of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works on

the time of the Chief of Engineers have reduced the Chief’s time for his top-priority

mission to support the Army. As a consequence, the historic, deep-seated, and widely

spread lack of understanding and appreciation of the importance of the civil program

within the uniformed Army has been aggravated and intensified. Having been directly

involved with the assistant secretary’s office during the first seven years of its

operation and a close observer for the past 17 years, I believe this element of the

secretariat needs to be evaluated in detail for composition, purpose, need, and possibly

combining with another assistant secretariat such as Installations and Environment.

I do not question the value of the ASAKW office in the political arena and with

Congress and senior elements of the Executive Branch. On the other hand, the

ASAKW currently has only one activity and one command to address. As a

consequence, like a mother hen with one chick, the assistant secretary becomes overly

involved in the internal activities of USACE. Over the years, this involvement has had

the unexpected and unintended impact of reducing the Chief’s time for supporting the

Army. Both USACE and the U.S. Army suffer.

217
Engineer Memoirs

The Association of Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy presented General Morris (center) with

the Distinguished Graduate Award along with MG Adrian St. John II (Ret.) (left) and MG Michael

Collins (Ret.) (right) in 1998. (Photo courtesy of Assembly, Roger Pettengill, Academy Photo.)

. The importance of the Chief of Engineers and USACE suffered a major setback

when many of the duties of the Assistant Chief of Engineers were assigned to a new

DA staff element. The reasons for this move are not clear to me, but the effects seem

clear.

Of course, there have been other developments which are more positive and provide the basis

for my observation that the pendulum will swing in a direction more favorable to the Chief of

Engineers and USACE

. The civilian staff within USACE remains outstanding and must continue to be so,

for herein lies the strength of USACE

218
John W. Morris

b Within the engineering construction community, the Corps remains highly regarded;

however, there is a noticeable rise in dissatisfaction with the new contracting officer

situation.

b Major reductions in end-strength and budgets have placed pressure on military post

commanders responsible for a well-maintained and smooth-running installation. This

is an opportunity for USACE to support the Army.

b The growing role of the U.S. military in international peacekeeping magnifies the

importance, value, and opportunity for engineers on the Army team.

b As indicated earlier, the basic missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have

not changed.

Q.

. So there seem to have been some good as well as some bad events over the past years?

A.

. Yes, that is true, but collectively the effect has been to weaken the Corps significantly. Within

the positive aspects, however, lies the basis for future growth in the Corps as we know it. So

long as our mission, our reputation, and our civilian staff remain intact, the opportunities seem

ripe for the Chief and his command to become the strong arm of the U.S. Army in nation

building and in the operation and maintenance of military facilities.

I believe these opportunities can become reality if-

’ The overarching goal of the Chief and his entire command is in fact and by

appearance, “Support to the U.S. Army.”

b Near-term actions successfully reverse the events which, over time, have diluted the

capability of USACE to fulfill its role and which challenge the Chief of Engineers’

ability to influence DOD and DA policy and activities. Crucial is the need to restore

contracting authority to district commanders. Failure to do so may well lead, in due

course, to the elimination of military personnel in these positions. Also important are

improving the career patterns of rising officers and the selection ratio of general

officers for USACE, developing a personal and direct relationship with the Secretary

of the Army and the Chief of Staff, and restoring the purposes and effectiveness of the

ACE’s shop.

In simpler terms, this relates to improving the authorities and training of the military

leadership within USACE and the influence of the Chief of Engineers outside USACE.

In summary, the commander of USACE has an unusually good opportunity to move himself

and his command into a stronger and more meaningful position in the U.S. Army over the near

term (3 to 5 years). The current Chief has my best wishes, for if he is unable to make the shortterm adjustments during his tour, I am afraid the pendulum will be stuck for a long time.

Essayons!

One final thought relates to marketing the Corps and USACE especially. In many ways

USACE is a business and must promote itself to attain the highest level of customer

satisfaction and to generate new customers. Of course, doing a good job is the essential

element, but in today’s fast-moving world, this alone is not enough to sustain, much less

“grow” the business. An aggressive, multifaceted communications and public relations

program including a little “tub-thumping” is in order at all times. In this regard, the fledgling

Army Engineer Association and its Amy Engineer lbgazine provide a new and valuable

means to draw the entire engineer family together-troop units and USACE, civilian and

219
Engineer Memoirs

military, retired and active-and to broaden understanding within the U.S. Army. An excellent

asset.

Now I can ask a question: “What is left to discuss?”

Q

.

. That is about it, unless you have something more.

A

.

. There are two final thoughts:

First, my entire career has been blessed with good fortune and great assistance from

outstanding men and women. None was more important and supportive than my immediate

family. My wife, Gerry, was 100 percent devoted to helping me during more than 37 years of

Army duties, and our two children, Susan and John, were more interested and involved than

I realized at the time. The three of them not only allowed me to focus my attention on the work

of the Army, but encouraged it.

Now, in closing, a final word about the Corps. We read a great deal about leadership-both

corporate and military. The libraries are full of publications on the subject. The students of

organizational effectiveness need look no further than the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for

the best example of an agency which has served the U.S. Army, the United States, and the

world with great success and effectiveness for 200 years. Its personnel make it so and will

keep it so.

220
John W. Morris

ABDA

ACE

ACE

AEA

AFRCE

ASAKW

ASA/I&L

ATC

BASS

C&GSC

ccc

CERL

CEV

CG

CINC

CPAR

CRREL

D.C.

DA

DMZ

DOD

EIS

EMS1

EPA

EUD

FEMA

HUD

ICOLD

L&N

LOC

LST

MASH

MOS

Acronyms

Arkansas Basin Development Association

Assistant Chief of Engineers

Armored Combat Earthmover (M-9 ACE)

Army Engineer Association

Air Force Regional Civil Engineers

Assistant Secretary of the&my for Civil Works

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics

Ashland Technology Company

Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society

Command and General Staff College

Civilian Conservation Corps

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

Combat Engineer Vehicle

Commanding General

I

Commander in Chief

Construction Productivity Advancement Research

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

District of Columbia

Department of the Army

Demilitarized Zone

Department of Defense

Environmental Impact Statement

Engineer Management Services, Inc.

Environmental Protection Agency

Europe Division

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing and Urban Development

International Committee on Large Dams

Louisville and Nashville Railroad

Lines of Communication

Landing Ships, Tanks

Mobile Army Surgical Hospital

Military Occupational Specialty

221
Engineer *Memoirs

MRD

NATO

NC0

NEPA

NORAD

O&M

OCE

OMB

PCS

PIANC

RANDU

ROCID

ROTC

SAME

SHAPE

SOP

TO&E

TOW

UET

USACAV

USACE

USAID

USAREUR

USASTAF

USCOLD

USED

USMA

WES

WRC

Missouri River Division

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Noncommissioned Officer

National Environmental Policy Act

North American Air Defense Command

Operation and Maintenance

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Office of Management and Budget

Pavement Consultancy Service

Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses

Repairs and Utilities

Reorganization of Combat Infantry Division

Reserve Officer Training Corps

Society of American Military Engineers

Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe

Standing Operating Procedure

Table of Organization and Equipment

Tube Launched, Optically Tracked, Wire Guided

Universal Engineer Tractor

U.S. Army Construction Agency, Vietnam

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Army, Europe

U.S. Army Strategic Air Force

U.S. Committee on Large Dams

U.S. Engineering Department

U.S. Military Academy

Waterways Experiment Station

Water Resources Congress

222
John W. Morris

Index

A

ABDA. see Arkansas Basin Development

Association

Abdullah, Prince, 173

Abernathy, Ralph, 68

Abrams, General, 79, 112-113, 144

ACE. see Assistant Chief of Engineers

Acronyms, 22 1-222

Adams, Brock, 149

Adams, Carroll E., Jr. “Hap,” 72,74

Advanced management course, 64-65

AEA. see Army Engineer Association

AFRCE. See Air Force Regional Civil Engineers

Air-conditioned vehicles, 59-60

Air Force

construction projects, 156

housing construction, 30-3 1, 88439

Air Force Regional Civil Engineers, 156

Alaskan earthquake, 57

Alaska Pipeline project, 105

Al Batin District, 173-174

Albert, Carl, 49-50,54,57,91

Alexander, Clifford, 131-135, 144, 149-150,200

Anderson, Andy, 81, 87

Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, 14, 16

Andrus, Cecil, 133

Arkansas Basin Development Association, 50, 59,

87

Arkansas River

project, 50-53

salt study, 53-57

Armogida, S.A., 23-24, 30

Army construction projects, 30-3 1

Army Engineer Association, 198,208, 212,215,

219

Army-Navy game, 62

Army Real Property Management Program, 139,

154

Army War College, 45-46,60

Arrowhead Lake Recreation Facility, 57

ASAKW. see Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Civil Works

ASA/I&L. see Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Installations and Logistics

Ashland Technology Company, 207-208

Assistant Chief of Engineers, 120, 122, 139-140,

142-143, 185,202

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,

97-98, 113-114, 121, 146-148,217

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations

and Logistics, 148

Association of Graduates, 209, 2 13-2 15

Audubon Society, 101, 193

Awards, 2 15

B

Bachus, Walt, 120, 128, 156, 184, 211

Badger, Bill, 153

Bag boy situation, 66

Bagnulo, Aldo H., 37

Baldwin, Jess, 205

Baldwin, William C., iv, vii-viii

Balentine, Yuvonne, 117

Ballard, Joe, 76

Ballistic Missile Command, 183

Ballou, Ken, 112

Barracks design, 88-89

Bartek, Ronald, 73

Beck, Chris, 99

Beckman, Don, 86, 113

Bellmon, Henry, 51,53,56,125,207

Bennett, Donald, 62-63

Benning, Bob, 106, 128

Berge, Woody, 128

Betts, Jim, 14, 19

Bevill, Tom, 115

Bicentennial program, 106-107

Bixby, George, 16

Blakefield, Bill, 42

Blakeley, Bob, 142, 172, 199

Blakey, Lew, 96

Blaylock, Charles, 156

Blumenfeld, Mike, 97-98, 13 I, 144, 146,200

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,

118-119, 122, 194,217

Boland, Bill, 58

Bolling, Bud, 71

Bonneville project, 191-192

Booth, William, 63, 74

Boswell, James, 165

Boswell Dam, 54

Bowbells, North Dakota, 22-23

Boy Scouts of America, 5,55

Bratton, Joseph, 162,200-203,214

Britton, Frank, 42,44

Brotsman, Bill, 104

Bruckner, Robert, 166

Bryson, John, 111, 195

Buffalo, Oklahoma, 56-57

223
Engineer Memoirs

Buffalo District, 150, 152

Building Air Bases in the Negev, 178

Building Research Board, 208, 212

Bunch, Jim, 46

Bureau of Reclamation, 49, 187, 21 I

Burnell, Bates, 128, 142, 175, 179

Bush, Command Sergeant Major, 41

C

Cadillac Desert, 211

Caldwell, Joe, 96

Callaway, Howard “Bo,” 114-115

Camm, Frank, 157

Camp David agreement, 154, 174

Cannon, Howard, 68

Cannon, John L., 163

Career summary, ix-x

Carhart, Thomas, 63

Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, 46

Carlson, Frank, 50

Carney, Thomas P., 61

Carter, Jimmy, 126, 129, 131-138, 141, 149, 154,

183,200

Casagrande, Arthur, I63

Casey, Hugh, 15-17

Cassidy, Mike, 87

Cassidy, William, 47-49, 109

Cavalry Division, lst, 40-45

Central Oklahoma project, 53-54

CEVs. See Combat engineer vehicles

C&GSC. see Command and General Staff College

Charleston District, 141

Chatfield Dam, 85, 104

Chavez, Cesar, 68

Chief of Engineers

civil works projects, 185-204

internal and external relationships, 124-165

military projects, 166-185

Childhood, 3-5

China, 153, 162, 166-171,208

Civil engineering degree, 18-2 1

Civil Works, Director of, 91-114

Claims issues, 58

Clark, James, 206

Clarke, Frederick, 73-74, 77, 79-80, 85,90,92-93

97-98, 100, 105, 111, 121, 125, 142, 147, 161,

164, 176, 198,214

Clark Hill Dam, 28, 31, 89-90

Clean Water Act, 98-100, 108, I86

Clements, William, 176-177

Clifton, Jack, 177

Cochran, Charles A., 75

Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory

(CRREL), 162, 166

Collins, Michael, 218

Combat engineer vehicles, 43

Comenose, William, 74

Command and General Staff College, 30, 32-33, 39

Community relations, 56

Connell, Dick, 46

Construction Engineering Research Lab (CERL),

122, 155, 162

Construction projects

Goose Bay, Labrador, 33-37

hospitals, 156, 184

Israeli airfield project, 154, 174-175, 178-183

Missouri River Division, 85, 88

Saudi Arabia, 155, 171-178

Vietnam, 7 1-72,75-77

Contract management, 147-148, 175-176

Cooper, Ken, 95, 119-120, 156, 184

“The Corps Cares” buttons, 82-83, 87, 90

Corps Vignettes, 197

Costanza, Al, 99, 206

Castle, Doug, 98, 162

Cowboy Hall of Fame, 57

Coy, Bob, 36

Cross, Freeman, 42, 114-116

Cross-Florida Barge Canal, 104- 105

Curl, Dick, 181

Currier, Roger, 66

Curry, William, 40

D

Daly, Leo, Sr., 89, 172

Dam safety inspection program, 106, 136-137

Daniels, Father Richard, 60

Danora, 28

Davison, Mike, 61

Dawson, Bob, 146, 17 1

Decorations, xi

DeGeer, Myron, 49, 56

Delbridge, Norman, 119, 183

DeMateo, Frank, 153

Department of Energy, 16 I - 162

Department of State, 162

Deputy Chief, Legislative Liaison, 65-70

Deputy Chief of Engineers, 114-124

Deputy Commandant, U.S. Military Academy,

62-64

DeQueen, Arkansas, 57

Dickey, Ed, 95, 147

Dillard, Jack, 63, 74, 76, 79

DiMatteo, Frank, 36

Director of Civil Works, 9 l-l 14

Dirkes, Francis, 8, 10-11, 19

Dirksen, Everett, 68

District Engineer of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 46-60

224
John W. Morris

Division Engineer, Missouri River Division, 79-91

Dodge, Charles, 42,44

Dodge, Roy, 44

Dola, Steve, 95

Dolphin, Harry, 82-83

Domenici, Pete, 19 1

Donnelly, Tom, 95205-206

Donovan, Jim, 72,76, 119

Dorman, Al, 207

Dorn, Nancy, 147

Drake-Merritt, 36

Dredging Is for the Birds, 100-10 1

Dredging program, 100, 188, 193

Duke, Charles, 33-34,78

Dunn, Carroll, 34, 50, 53, 59

Durham, Chuck, 89-90

Duscha, Lloyd, 90,96, 166, 169, 21 I

E

East Academic Building, West Point, 67

East China Technical University, 170, 208

Eastern Ocean District, 33

Edelman, Lester, 99

Edgar, Ernie, 72, 95

Edmonson, Ed, 50

Education

summary, xi

University of Iowa, 18-21

University of Pittsburgh, 62,65

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College,

32-33

U.S. Army War College, 45-46

Western Maryland College, 3-5

West Point, 3-13

Egg-Lotti, Charlotta, 27

Egypt project, 103, 153, 158, 174

18th Engineer Brigade, 71-79

8th Engineer Battalion, 4M5

EIS. see Environmental impact statements

Eisenhower, Dwight, 32, 171

Eisenhower, John, 32

Eister, Don, 44

Elder, John, 78

Elkey, Robert W., 74

Ellender, Allen, 50

Ellis, James N., 176

Emergency Operations Center, 164

EMSI. see Engineer Management Services, Inc.

Endangered species, 84

Energy conservation program, 155, 196

Engineer aviation battalions, 13-14

Engineer Aviation Unit Training Center, 3d, 11, 13

Engineer equipment, 184-185

Engineering and Construction Directorate, 140

Engineering News-Record, 216

Engineer Management Services, Inc., 207-208

Engineer Officers Advanced Course, 2 1, 143

Engineer School. see European Command Engineer

School

Engineer Studies Group, 194- 196

Engineer Topographic Laboratory, 185

Engineer Update, 160

Environment Advisory Board, 100

Environmental Effects Committee, 2 I I

Environmental impact statements, 84, 118, 155

Environmental programs

Army program, 122-123

Civil Works, 96-1 14Y 185

on military installations, 155, 195-196

Missouri River Division, 8 1-82, 84-89

Tulsa Engineer District, 55

Environmental Protection Agency, 87, 97-98,

lOO-101,108,113,161-162

EPA. see Environmental Protection Agency

EUD. see Europe Division

Eufaula Dam, 5 1-52

European Command Engineer School, 23-26

Europe Division, I 19, 178

F

Facilities Engineering Directorate, 120, 140, 184

Facilities engineer program, 156

Faisal, Prince Nasir, 172-173

Family history, 3

Far East Air Forces, 15

Fay, Spofford, and Thorndyke, 36

Federal Construction Council, 2 12

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 92,94,

164, 195-196

Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments,

96,98

FEMA. see Federal Emergency Management

Agency

1st Cavalry Division, 40-45

Fisher, George, 83

Fliakis, Perry, 156

Flood control, 188

Flowers, Walter, 114-116

Flynt, Jack, 114-115, 134

Foley, John V., 160

Ford, Gerald, I 15, 125

Ford, Jack, 97-98, 146

Forrestal Building, 141-142, 153, 161

Fort Belvoir, 13, 21, 23, 26,39, 120, 131, 198, 215

Fort Benning, 28, 30, 115, 195 1

Fort Campbell, 184

225
Engineer Memoirs

Fort Carson, 81, 85, 156

Fort Gibson, 54

Fort Lawton, 13

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Fort

Leavenworth, 23, 30, 32-33, 38, 81, 85

Leonard Wood, 76, 81, 85, 89, 198,201

McKinley, Manila, 15, 20

McNair, 125, 144, 155

McPherson, 28

Myer, 125, 200

Peck, 84, 86,90, 113, 144

Riley, 81, 85

Stewart, 30

Free, Richard H., 50

Freeman, Dave, 166, 169-170

Fritzinger, Willard, 25

Fulbright, J. William, 50

Fuller, Jim, 90

Funeral arrangements, Robert F. Kennedy, 67-68

G

Gap Filler sites, 37

Garrett, Lee, I 16, 183

Garrigan, Tom, 160

Garrison Dam, 90

Gay, Ted, 199

Geesay, Ted, 129

General Officers Branch, 40

George, Walter, 31

Gianelli, William, 98, 146

Gibson, Ed, 38

Gilkey, Jack, 18 l-l 82, 191

Gillham Dam, 53

Glasgow, William A., 8, 143

Goose Bay, Labrador, 33-37,45,47-48, 57,60,70,

79,153

Graduate school, 18-2 1

Grand River Dam Authority, 54

Graves, Ernest, 11, 114, 128, 130, 132-133, 146,

179

Gray, George, 116, 172

Gribble, William, 97-100, 106, I1 1, 113-114,

116-128, 153, 161, 184, 199,201

Griffith, Harry, 72-73, 201

Groves, Richard, 92-94

Guam, 14-16,26

Guest, Jim, 33-34

Gurney, Mark, 95

Guthrie, Oklahoma, 57

Guy F. Atchinson, 180

H

Haig, Alexander, 62-63, 177

Hallock, Duncan, 44

Hamblen, Arch, 165

Hambrick, Frances, 29

Hamner, Becky, 99, 108

Hamner, Steven, 38

Harbridge House, 55

Harris, Fred, 51

Harris, Patricia, 166

Harris, Sir William, 210

Hartwell Dam, 28, 31

Hatch, Henry J., 71, 163, 214

Hawthorne, Major, 42

Hayes, Thomas, IV, 63

Hays, Jim, 77

Hebert, Edward, 67

Heiberg, Vald, 75,99, 110, 146, 163, 165, 171, 210,

214-215

Helms, Dave, 47, 53, 59

Hennessy, Dick, 33, 37, 39-40

Hepatitis, 42

Heuvelmans, Martin, 105, 160

Hicklin, Tom, 95

Historical Foundation, 196-198, 208, 212

“Hit list” of water resource projects, 132-133

Hoey, Wayne, 42

Hoffman, Martin, 125, 148-149

Hoisington, Elizabeth, 165

Holland-American Industry Group, 205

Holle, Charles, 28, 30, 210

Hollings, Ernest, 141, 150

Hospital construction, 156, 184

Hottenroth, Jim, 12, 15-16

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 103, 162,

166

Howard, Newman, 72

Hruska, Roman, 85, 193

Hubbard, Marie, 15

Huffman, Jeanine, 95, 128

Humphreys Engineer Center, 127, 140-14 1

Hunter, Bob, 55

Hunter, Marilyn, iv

Huntsville District, 141

Huntsville educational facility, 111, 194-195

Hurricane Agnes, 9 1-94, 107

Hutchinson, Kansas, 56

Hydropower study, 187

I

ICOLD. see International Committee on Large

Dams

Indian Bend Wash, 187, 192

Indian Nations Council, Boy Scouts, 55

Ingwersen, Glenn “Dutch,” 8, 14, 18-20

International Committee on Large Dams, 136, 157,

210-211

International navigation projects, 102-103

226
John W. Morris

International Projects Office, 153-154

Islen, Don, 156

Israeli airfield project, 154, 174-175, 178-183

Italy program, 116

Itschner, Emerson, 19, 38-40, 190

J

Jack Armstrong, The All-American Boy, 28

Jacobs, Bob, 128

Jannarone, Johnny, 6 1

Jeffries, John, 165

Jenna, William W., 20

Jewett, Richard L., 8, 25

Johnson, Harold K., 69

Johnson, James, 165,180-18 1,208

Johnson, Lyndon, 50-52,55,66

Johnson, Melvin, 7 1

Johnson, Wendell, 89

Johnston, Bennett, 189

Jones, Bob, 114-115

Jordan, Bob, 66

J.W. Morris, Ltd., 205-207

K

Karabatsos, Gus, 84

Kelley, John, 37

Kelley, Roy, 39

Kelly, James, 95

Kern, Sam, 72, 128,160, 185

Kennedy, John F., 51

Kennedy, Robert F., 67-68, ‘70

Kerr, Robert, Jr., 69, 112

Kerr, Robert S., 47-50,53

Kerr Foundation, 68

Kewitt, Peter, 89

Khalid, King, 173-174

King, Geraldine. See Morris, Geraldine King

King, Martin Luther, 70

King Khalid Military City, 173, 175-176

Kingman Building, 99, 127

Knapp, James, 33-35,37

Knight, Dana, 57

Koch, Dwayne, 210

Koisch, Frank, 34, 100, 119, 178, 193

Korean War and the 1st Cavalry Division, 40-46

Kroesen, Fritz, I 19, 130

L

Lake Eufala, 57

Lamers, Ethel, 70

Lamp, Russ, 124, 128

Lampert, James, 61

Lance, Bert, 133, 145

Landing ships, tanks, 14

Lansing, Olga, 153

Lawhun, Gene, 96, 152

Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the

Army, 65-70

LeMay, Curtis, 15

Leonard, Ray, 160, 206,208

LeTellier, Carroll, 72-73, 114-116, 119, 122, 178,

201

Lewis, Ben, 164, 180-182

Liddy, John, 46

Lincoln, George, 92

Lindsay, John, 68

Lines of communication program, 71-72,75-77

Li Rei, 166-167, 170

Little, Lee, 92

Little River system, 54

Littleton, Colorado, 103-104

Lock and Dam 26, 101-102, 118-119, 148-149,

161,189

LOC program, 7 1-72,75-77

Lord, Gary, I 15-116

Losche, Robert, 189

Loschialpo, Ralph, 128

LSTs. See Landing ships, tanks

Ludwig, Dan, 150

M

MacArthur, Douglas, 15, I26

MacArthur, Mrs., 144

MacArthur Castles, 125, 144, 199

MacDill Air Field, Florida, 1 I, 13-14

Management award, 55

Management course, University of Pittsburgh,

62-65

Marco Island development plan, I 17-118

Markel, Joe, 144

Marriage, 18

Marsh, Jack, 115

Marshall, Robert C., 72, 128, 134

Mashour, Mashour Ahmed, 102-103, 174

Master’s degree, 18-21

Mathe, Robert E., 8,44,46, 143

Maynard, Charlie, 52

McBride, Don, 48-50,52,68, 11 l-l 12

McClellan, John, 49, 68

McClellan-Kerr navigation project, 50

McConnell, Richard E., 34, 201

McElhenny, John, 92

McGee, Frank, 105, 160

McGiffert, Mr., 69, 179

McGinnis, Charles I., 127, 136, 14 1, 152, 187, 201,

207

227
Engineer Memoirs

McGrath, David J., 216

McGuinnes, William V., Jr., 15

McIntyre, Jim, 137-138, 145, 200

McIntyre, Ken, 99, 108

McMurren, Bill, 176

McNabb, Joe, 180

McNeely, Fred, 116, 180, 183

“M-Day,” 4243

Media image of the Corps of Engineers, 158-161

Mediterranean Division, 178

Meyer, E.C., 150, 155, 181

Middle East Division, 172

Military programs

Goose Bay, Labrador, 33-37

hospital construction, 184

Israeli airfield project, 174-175, 178-183

Missouri River District,.85, 88

MX program, 183

Russia, 103-104, 166

Saudi Arabia program, 153, 171-178

support to Army and Air Force, 154-155

Vietnam, 7 I-72,75-77

Military Programs Directorate, 122, 140, 142-143

Miller, Jim, 42, 44

Mills, Wilbur, 50

Milner, Walker, 15

Mine detection, 185

Mississippi River flood, 107

Missouri River Division, 21, 79-9 1

Mobilization support, 154-155

Moellering, John, 4 1

Mondale, Walter, 135, 166

Monroney, Mike, 48

Moody, Lester, 31

Morelli, Don, 130

Morris, Geraldine King, 15, 17-21, 23-25, 28, 30,

33,35,46-47,49,59-60,63,69-70,73,80-81,

90,92, 127, 131, 143-144, 174,200,204,206,

211,213,220

Morris, John, 24, 27, 34,46, 55, 59-60, 62-63, 70,

80,90,125-126, 143,220

Morris, Susan, 18, 23-24, 34,44, 56,59-60,62-63,

70,80, 125, 127,220

Morrison Knudsen, 175-176

Mount Saint Helens, 164

Mount Santa Rosa, 16

Mouton, Locklin L., 50, 96,99, 159-160

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 19 1

MRD. see Missouri River Division

M- 16 rifle problem, 66

Murden, Bill, 102, 166, 169, 189, 195

Murdock, Ken, 96

Murnau, Germany, 23-27

Muskie bill, 96

MX program, I83

N

National Academy of Engineering, 194,208,

212-215

National Environmental Policy Act, 80-82; 87, 89,

96,98-101, 108, 110-111, 113-114, 118, 122,

186

National Guard Headquarters, Saudi Arabia,

172-174

National Waterway Foundation, 2 12

Natural disasters, 164

Navigation projects, 102-106

NEPA. See National Environmental Policy Act

Newcomb, Clyde, 36

New Melones Dam project, 180, 192

New York Times, 159

Nichols, Mrs., 115-116

Nixon, Richard, 83, 87, 103, 105, 153, 166

Noah, Max, 182

Noble, Charles “Chuck,” 101, 107

Nonstructural water resource solutions, 103-104

North American Air Defense Command, 8 1, 85

North Atlantic Division, 33, 180

North Field, Guam, 14, 16

North Platte, Nebraska, 22

Nuclear weapons course, 32

0

OCE. see Office of the Chief of Engineers

O’Donald, Ed, 75

Office of Emergency Preparedness, 93-94

Office of Management and Budget, 100, 108, 112,

137, 144-146,200

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 33, 37-40,46-49,

56, 59-60, 74, 91-92, 94,97, 100, 120, 123, 127,

138-140, 146-147, 151,180,190,195,204

Ohio River, 101

O&M. see Operations and maintenance program

OMB. see Office of Management and Budget

Oolagah Dam, 59

“Operation Last Chance,” 76

“Operation Snowbound,” 2 1-23

Operations and maintenance program, IO 1,

108-109, 123 Optima project, 57

Orrell, George, 164, 195-196

O’Shei, Don, 18 1

P

Pacific Air Command, 15

Page, Bob, 109, 146-147, 162

Pak-Ai Orphanage, 44

Panama Canal, I77

Panjiakou Power Station, 168

228
John W. Morris

Panmunjom, Korea, 45

Pappen, Warren, 160

Parfitt, Hal, 75, 177

Parker, David S., 15,44,7 1, 73-75, 195

Parse, Mel, 49

Partek, 206

Patton, George, Jr., 119

Pavement Consultancy Service, 205-206

PCS. &e Pavement Consultancy Service

Pearl Harbor, 6

Peel, Wesley, 201

Pendergast, Pat, 82-83,89-90

Penney, Howard, 47-48,63,65-70

Pensacola project, 54

Pentomic division organization, 4u5

Perini, 180-181

Permanent International Association of Navigation

Congresses, 102-104, 157,208,210,214

Personnel management, 38-40,45

Peterson, Pete, 15

Peterson, Roger, 128, 193

Philippines and the Pacific Air Command, 15

Phillips, James, 8, 10-1 I

PIANC. &e Permanent International Association of

Navigation Congresses

Pick, Lewis A., 21, 28, 79, 82, 124, 190

Pierson, Helen, 82

Pine Creek Dam, 54

Pine Tree Network, 37

Planning Research Corporation, 163, 207

Ploger, Robert R., 38-39,78

Ponca Tribe (Oklahoma), 57, 125

Post-retirement career, 204-2 15

PRC. see Planning Research Corporation

Prentiss, Lou, 92, 119

Presidential dedications, standing operating

procedures for, 52

Princess Anne, Maryland, 3

Privatization initiative, 109-110

Pro bono work, 213

Procurement officers, 58-59

Promotions

brigadier general, 68

colonel, 44-46

history, x

lieutenant colonel, 29-30

lieutenant general, 125

major, 24

major general, 90

Public Affairs Office, 160

Public hearings, 54-55

Public relations, 56, 158-16 1

Pulaski Building, 107, 142

Q

Quinn, Jack, 128

R

Randolph, Jennings, 203

Rathburn, Vincent, 102

Raymond, Danny, 85, 114, 122

Reader’s Digest, 159

Real estate issues, 54, 59

Real property management program, 139, 154

Rebh, George, 72,89, 128

Recreation projects, 88

Red River project, 53-54

Regimental Tactical Officer, U.S. Military

Academy, 6 1-62

Reisler, Irv, 95

Reissner, Mark, 21 I

Renshaw, Clarence, 33

Reorganization of Combat Infantry Division, 4 1

Repairs and utilities program, 15

Reserve Officer Training Corps, 20

Resor, Stanley, 66-67, 73

Resources Management Office, 128-130

Retirement

ceremony, 199-200

post-retirement career, 204-2 15

Rhea, Frank “Snuffy,” 33

Rhodes, John Jacob, 192

Richard B. Russell Dam, 3 1

Rivers, Mendel, 66-67, 156

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, I 16, 172, 176-177

Robertson, George, 176

ROCID Division, 41

Rock Island Arsenal, 85

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, 81

Rogers, Bernard W., 8-9, 12, 30,62, 88, 129-130,

148, 150-151, 155, 177,185

Rollins, Andrew, 78, 106

Roes, William, 14, 20

Roosevelt, Franklin, 3, 83

Roper, William, 78

ROTC unit, 20

Royal Dutch Shell, 205

Royal Volker Stevin, 204-205

Ruckelshaus, William, 87, 98

Russell, Richard, 28, 31

Russia and construction projects, 103-104, 153,

166

S

Safer, Morley, 160

Saint John, Adrian, II, 218

Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, 67-68

229
Enqineer Memoirs

Salt study (Arkansas River), 53-57

SAME. see Society of American Military Engineers

Sam Whan, 158, 175

Santecrose, Command Sergeant Major, 72

Sari, Helen, 213

Saudi Arabia program, I 16, 153, 155, 158, 171-178

Savannah, Georgia, 27-3 I

Sawyer, K.T., 19, 38, 57

Schlesinger, Dr. James, 141

Schroeder, Daniel R., 198

Schubert, Frank N., 178

Scott, Richard, 6 I-62

Scottsdale, Arizona, 192

Section 404 program, 98-100, 108, 186

Selman, Mr., 56-57

Seltzer, Manning, 59, 84,99, 128, 190, 198

Seltzer and Rosen, 208

Senate Armed Services Committee, 67

Sergeant, Howard, 95

Sergeant, Meg, 194

Sergeant Floyd, 106-107

Settle, William, 57

7th Division, 40

Shay, Mrs., 179

Shimen Power Station, 167

Shoemaker, Robert, 130

Shrader, Henry, 73, 78-79

Silver Anvil, 106, 160

Simpson, Alan, 191

60 Minutes, I 60

Skidmore, Frank, 20

Smith, Dr. Mark, 209

Smith, Jim, 95

Smith, Tony, 57

Smith, Walter, 92

Society of American Military Engineers, 155, 198,

211

Solomon, Morton, 33-34, 37

SOPS. &e Standing operating procedures

Southern Hills Country Club, 55

Sprewell’s Bluff project, 135

Standing operating procedures for presidential

dedications, 52

Steinberg, Bory, 95

Stennis, John, 106, 125, 136, 142, 191

Stewart, Bill, 195

Stillwell, Richard, 71, 77, 208

Strategic Air Command, 14, 8 I

Strategic Planning Group, 195

Strong, Pat, 28

Suez Canal project, 102-103, 153, 158, 174

Sugar Bowl, 67

Sullivan, Jack, 57

Sultan, Prince, 173

Susquehanna District, 9 1-94

Svore, Jerry, 87

Swaiko, Alex, 95

T

Tacoa Dam, 136

Tarbox, Bob, 14, 61, 71

Taylor, Bill, 129

Tener, Bob, 42

Tennessee-Tombigbee project, 102, 122, 133, 138,

159, 161, 189-191

Tennessee Valley Authority, 48, 166

Texas City disaster, 17

3d Engineer Aviation Unit Training Center, I l-l 3

13th Engineer Battalion, 40

Three Gorges Dam, 166-167, 169-170

Thurman, Max, 61-62

Thurmond, Strom, 28

Timblin, Lloyd, 21 I

Today Show, 105, 160

Tofani, Joe, 95, 101, 109, 145, 152-153, 161, 189,

206

Tokyo, Japan, 15, 17,20,23,44,71

Toohey, Mike, 95

Toups, John, 207

Train, Judge Russell, 98

Train, William, 46

Trainor, Charlie, 28

Truman, Harry, 21

Truman Dam, 84

Tucker, Lem, 161

Tulsa Engineer District, Oklahoma, 47-61

U

Uniform Committee, U.S. Military Academy, 63-64

University of Iowa, 17-21

University of Maryland, 170, 205-206, 208-209

University of Pittsburgh, 62, 65

University of Vermont, 209-210, 213-214

Upper Mississippi River Commission, 102

Urban studies program, 86, 193

U.S. Army, Europe, 119

U.S. Army Strategic Air Force, 14

U.S. Committee on Large Dams, 208, 210-211, 214

U.S. Congress, relationship with, 138, 152

U.S. Military Academy, 12, 18, 39, 60-65, 67, 80,

208-209, 2 15

USAREUR. see U.S. Army, Europe

USASTAF. see U.S. Army Strategic Air Force

USCOLD.see U.S. Committee on Large Dams

V

Valenti, Jack, 51

Value engineering, 55, 88

230
John W. Morris

Van Autreve, Leon L., 41,75

Vehicles, air-conditioned, 59-60

Velsmid, Helen, 128, 133

Verdigris River, 59

Vessey, John, 97, 130, 199-200

Veysey, Victor, 97-98, 104, 122, 146

Vietnamization program, 77

Vietnam War

18th Engineer Brigade, 7 1-79

helicopter accident, 74,79

impact of build-up on West Point cadets, 63

protest movement, 69-70

troops build-up, 66

W

Waggoner, Jack, 72

Walden, Don, 19 1

Walker, George, 85

Wall, John, 72, 101, 163, 180-182

War College, 38,40,44--46

Washington, D.C.

Chief of Engineers, 124-204

Deputy Chief of Engineers, I 14-124

Director of Civil Works, 91-114

Legislative Liaison, 65-70

post-retirement career, 204-215

Water Resource Development Act, 104

Water Resources Act of 1986, 146

Water Resources Congress, 86-87, 101, 206, 208,

212

Water Science and Technology Board, 208, 212

Water Spectrum, 116, 145

Waterway Productivity, 2 12

Waterways Experiment Station, 100, 120, 162-163

Waterways study, 187-188

Watson, Jack, 134-135

Waurika Dam, 49

Weinert, Don, 40, 122, 155, 195-196

Weizmann, Ezer, I82

Wells, Richard, 116, 172

WES. See Waterways Experiment Station

West, John C., 174

Western Maryland College, 3-5

Westmoreland, William, 66,69

West Point, New York, 3-13, 19-20, 32,60-65,67,

70-71, 128, 143, 165,208-209,213-214

West Point Dam dedication, 114-116

Wetherall, Stewart, 72

Weyand, Fred, 69, 125, 129

Wheelock, Gray, 61

Wherry housing, 31

Whitehead, Ennis, 15,20

Wichita, Kansas, 49

Wilhoyt, Ellis E., 28-30

Wilkinson, Bud, 51

Williams, Arthur E., 72, 140, 214

Williams, Torrey, 116

Willis, Homer, 95-96, 102

Wilmington, North Carolina, 20

Wilson, “Babe” Francis, 50, 59

Wilson, Drake, 149

Wilson, Walter K. “Weary,” 28,47, 50, 55, 197

Witczak, Dr. Matthew, 205-206

World War II, 6, 10, 13

Worthington, Fayette L., 15

Wray, Bill, 139-140, 143, 177, 180, 183

WRC. See Water Resources Congress

Wright, Jim, 50

Wujiangdu Power Station, 167

Y

Yangtze River, 167, 169-170

Yerks, Bob, 62

Young, Crawford “Jug,” 23

Young, Mason, 36

Youth Improvement Program, 66

Z

Dais, Mel, 71, 77

231


The requirement to dredge our navigable waterways to insure proper. channel depths for shipping, and the resultant need to dispose of the dredged materials, has become a

problem of great national significance. Unless we can find

ways to continue the maintenance of our waterways in the

face of environmental, legal and technical constraints, a

situation may be precipitated which could adversely affect

the entire economy.

For the past 30 years, domestic waterborne commerce, including inland barge and Great Lakes traffic, has moved

almost 16 percent of the Nation’s ton-miles of intercity

cargo.

This inland waterway barge traffic has increased over the

past 2 decades at a compound rate of slightly over 5 percent

per year.

The amount of tonnage that can be moved in a single

tow has increased from 5,000 to 50,000 tons per tow

during that period. It is predicted that traffic on

various segments of the waterways will increase from

4 to 6 times in the next 50 years. Total waterway commerce presently totals 1.7 billion tons per year-over

350 billion ton-miles-or about 7 tons per capita. This

cargo is carried at an average cost of 3 mils per tonmile.

L__

While the freight traffic of grain, ores, chemicals and con-

. . . . struction materials continues to increase it is the energyhproducing commodities, predominantly petroleum and coal,

that comprise slightly over 50 percent of the domestic waterborne freight. As the cost of energy materials increases, it

becomes more important to move them as economically as

possible for the ultimate benefit of the American consumer.

As the prime mover of energy supplies, water carriers are also

the least consumptive-using less than 500 British Thermal

Units of energy per ton-mile.

About 1/3 of total waterway commerce is with foreign

countries. Raw materials and manufactured products which

move through our waterway system to the export market

contribute significantly to our national economic health by

bulwarking our balance of payment deficit and helping to

keep the dollar strong in foreign markets.

While a national view of waterway economic statistics may

demonstrate magnitude, a narrower focus can be more

meaningful when applied to a localized situation. At New

Orleans, for example, the economic impact of the port to the

local area and to the State is tremendous. The chain of eco- nomic events that starts when cargo lands at that port finally

results in the employment of 37,000 people, $7 million in

city taxes, $19 million in State taxes, $256 million in portrelated income. and a total economic impact on Louisiana of

$1.8 billion a year.

A-2

Thus, the viability of our economy is clearly dependent

upon our ability to keep the channels of our waterways,

ports, and harbors open to navigation. However, our harbors

and channels are subject to shoaling and loss of depth from

natural deposits of material. In order to maintain navigation

we either have to limit vessel draft or remove the material

blocking the channels by dredging.

This national decision involves the Corps for the followingreason. Since 1824, the Corps has had a congressionally

mandated mission to plan, construct, operate and maintain

our waterways. During this time, the country has developed

25,000 miles of navigable channels, 107 commercial ports

and harbors and 400 small boat harbors. Fifteen thousand

miles of these channels are 9 feet or more in depth and, except for the upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and the

St. Lawrence Seaway, all of the waterways are open to yearround navigation.

In order to maintain this year-round capability, periodic

dredging of all channels is required. This, by itself, is a

straightforward task, varied only by the methodology involved, and for 150 years dredging has been a daily activity

attracting little or no attention from the public or other water

resource agencies. All of a sudden, however, dredging

became a dirty word and the Corps was placed in the position

of being able to take the material from the bottom of our

waterway channels-but without any place to put it.

When constraints are placed on the methods of disposal of

the dredged material, a classic dilemma is born. Dredging is

essential or shipping stops. If there is no place to put the

transient real estate blocking the channel-we cannot

dredge. We found the sharp horns of this dilemma gouging

us more deeply each day.

So the stage was set for the entrance of the first constraint-the environment! Previously, there has been very

little understanding of the national dredging program on the

part of either the general public or other water resource

agencies. Nor has there been any attempt on the part of the

Corps to explain what essentially was a routine operation.

Consequently, when the environmental alarm bells rang and

‘pollution” became a household word, it was understandable that concern would b e evidenced when there was talk of

wetlands being destroyed by dredged material placement,

back channels being blocked to the detriment of fish and

wildlife, and deep water areas used for placement of dredged

material named “ocean wastelands.”

To overcome this communications gap and to develop better public understanding of the problem, it is essential to

discuss openly and fully the pros and cons of the dredged

material placement program, the constraints under which

the Corps operates, and what is being done to rectify the

situation.

There are only 4 general types of areas that may be used forplacement of the material removed from the channels,

These are off-channel, ocean or other open water areas,

diked areas, or areas upland from the dredging site. Each has

both advantages and disadvantages.

Off-channel discharge, common to our inland waterways,

is highly cost effective. This consists merely of a dredge

pumping the material from the bottom of the channel and

redepositing it in the water far enough away from the pickup

point to prevent the material from slipping back into the

channel. This method has some positive benefits, in that it

can extend wetland areas, create artificial islands and

A-2
Over half the domesticfreight movements,

carry energy related commodities.

such as this coal laden tow,

About 1/3 of our waterway commerce originates or terminates in foreign

countries.

WATER SPECTRUM

develop attractive recreational areas. On the negative side,

this method of disposal causes a short-term increase in water

turbidity at the discharge point for a short period, temporarily disrupts the local biotic community, and tends to

cause shoaling which can interfere with lateral drainage and

natural flows. In regard to the affected biotic communities,

we are aware that changes do take place, but the state-of-theart does not yet permit us to evaluate these changes quantitatively with any degree of accuracy.

This inland disposal problem is in sharp focus in the upper

Mississippi River, where off-channel disposal is used extensively. The Corps has maintained navigability of this area

since 1922 by congressional direction.

Maintenance dredging in the channel, along with natural

accretions, has created a series of small islands which act to

reduce the water surface, to narrow existing wetlands and, in

some cases, to cause shoaling. This has caused back channel

drainage problems. As a result, our disposal techniques have

come under sharp criticism from environmental interests in

the adjacent States, where court injunctions have prohibited

all but emergency dredging.

Ocean and other forms of open-water disposal have always

appeared environmentally acceptable and this method has

been used for many years. It avoids disruption of all the

natural values in the coastal zone, including estuaries and

wetlands. Further, the disruptive influence it has in the discharge area is so small in comparison to the vast and

dynamic influence of the surrounding waters that the net

effect should be minimal. On the other hand, some marine

scientists contend that the long-term cumulative effects of

ocean water disposal could have serious adverse conse-

quences. Again, we simply do not know enough about the

effects of open-water disposal to determine the degree of

risk involved.

One approach to this problem is to dispose of the dredged

material in very deep water at great distances from the shore.

However, the cost of long-haul disposal increases drastically

with distance. The Corps has been faced with this alternative

in San Francisco Bay where constraints against traditional

open-water disposal have seriously affected maintenance

efforts.

This happened when other Federal agencies and the State

of California adopted suggested Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) guidelines for pollution. The guidelines for

heavy metals, for example, provide that dredged material

containing levels in excess of those recommended should

not be placed in open water. However, the natural state of

certain spots in San Francisco Bay already exceeds EPA

guidelines for several heavy metal pollutants. Consequently,

if we pick up bottom material from these spots, we cannot

put it back in the bay.

The alternative is to take this small percentage of material

that exceeds EPA guidelines out to sea for disposal.

However, this increases unit dredge costs and the time required for normal maintenance dredging.

Reduced dredging in some vital channels could pose a national security problem as well. Without normal channel

depths, that part of the Pacific Fleet home-ported in the bay

area would have to be diverted to other refitting and resupply berthing areas along the West Coast.

Diked disposal offers major advantages absent in either

off-channel or open-water methods. This method can

be used to supply land fills for industrial or recreational

development. Additionally, by carefully controlling the

elevation profile, diked disposal areas can be used as wetlands. One limiting factor is environmental, since diked disposal areas generally lie along a shoreline or are superimposed on natural wetlands and, consequently, are usually

controversial. Furthermore, the cost is high. For instance,

our diked disposal program in the Great Lakes will cost an

estimated $240 million over the next 10 years. Yet this same

amount of money would pay for 25 years of open-water disposal in the Great Lakes.

A typical problem with diked disposal can be illustrated by

the Cleveland Harbor project. Dredging on the Cuyahoga

River outlet is backlogged because the initial diked areas

have become filled in the Cleveland area. New diked areas

have not yet been completed. The delays are caused by

various factors, including environmental objections to the

newly selected sites. Only the currently high waters within

the Great Lakes, which have increased draft depths, are preventing an immediate problem of serious magnitude.

Hopper dredges can dump into open ocean water, but cost of long-haul

disposal increases in direct proportion to distance from dredging site.

Upland disposal, the fourth method of disposal, is often

suggested as an alternative by those who find the other 3 objectionable. Unfortunately, this method also has its disadvantages because it requires that considerable real estate be

taken out of the useful land inventory for a period of time.

For example, a small effort such as the river channel at West

Haven, Conn., involves only 81,000 cubic yards of dredged

material, but it requires over 20 surface acres for placement.

In high density population areas, even a parcel that small is

difficult to find within economic reach of the dredges and at a

reasonable price.

This method also causes some change in land configuration, some disruption of the predisposal biotic community,

and almost always some opposition from landowners, communities, developers, conservationists and a host of others

who disagree with the site selected for one reason or

another.

WATER SPECTRUM 5

A-5
Diked disposal can supply landfills for new development but often

conflicts with existing land uses.

Dredged material placement often enhances an area so much that further use brings

environmental protests. The fishing hole at Cabin Johns creek on the C&D Canal-is an example.

A-6
Occasionally the Corps does such a good job of material

placement that disposal sites are preempted. At Cabin Johns

Creek, on the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, we used up

approximately 1/3 of our disposal capacity at that uncontested placement site back in 1969. When we returned this

year to reuse the site, we found that the pond created in the

upper basin had become a popular fishing place, was abundant with wildlife and enjoyed by many recreational visitors.

So that site is now a valuable natural resource, environmentally unacceptable to use for further disposal placement.

I

n the legislative arena there have been several major laws

enacted that impact on our maintenance effort, beginning

with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. Only 3

of the laws enacted since then, however, primarily affect

dredging. These are the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972, and Section 103 of the

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

The latter section is referred to separately as the Ocean

Dumping Act.

Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

is required whenever a major Federal action significantly

affects the quality of the human environment. On the date of

NEPA's enactment the Corps had over 1,200 navigation

maintenance projects, many of great scope and environmental complexity, and we had to consider initiating impact

statements on them all. The administrative burden alone

was rather staggering.

During the period the Corps was getting underway with

NEPA, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Ocean Dumping Act. While

both acts designate the Corps as the permit issuing agency

responsible for authorizing dredged material discharges,

they also give EPA substantial review responsibility and the

ultimate decision making power in a contested action.

The key factor in each act is the requirement to provide

notice and opportunity for public hearings. While this requirement has existed for construction projects for many

years, this is the first time it has been applicable to maintenance work. Although primarily oriented toward permit

authorization for dredge disposal by commercial entities,

these provisions apply equally to Corps operations. While

the Corps does not issue permits to itself, it does apply to itself (by regulation) the same criteria and procedures that are

applied to other permit applicants. Of course, Corps actions

are also subject to EPA review and potential denial of

selected sites.

While the administrative requirements are being met with

relative ease, the remaining problems involve 2 principal

matters: first, the overwhelming number of impact statements that have had to be prepared; second, it now requires

greater effort and time to provide impact statements sufficiently technical and legal to satisfy private organizations and

other Federal agencies.

Not being able to prepare these impact statements on

short notice, we established a priority for ongoing projects.

Even though NEPA did not require an EIS on projects under

construction prior to NEPA, the Corps made a conscious

decision to include these in the belief that some change

might be needed in a given project which would be beneficial

to the environment.

To date, over 1,600 environmental statements have been

prepared. We now have impact statements prepared and filed

on all new construction work. On certain dredging projects in

operation before NEPA, some of which have been underway

for a century, we still have a substantial backlog. There are

environmental assessments available, but no statement or

WATER SPECTRUM 7

negative determination has as yet been filed with the Council

on Environmental Quality.

Under the previously mentioned public notice provision,

those in oppostion to a project not covered either by an EIS

or negative determination have a basis for legal action. In

emergency situations, however, waterway navigation and

dredging activities to sustain it must continue-meaning

some dredging projects may have to go ahead immediately

without either type of statement. Potentially controversial

projects, however, have been identified and expedient EIS

action is being taken to preclude work stoppage by legal injunction.

Another congressional directive engendered a constraint

of an entirely different nature, which also had an impact on the dredging program. Two years ago, the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees directed the Corps to

undertake a study and make recommendations back to them

on the proportionate number of dredging vessels required in

both the Federal and private sectors. During the conduct of

this study, a moratorium was placed on any additions,

modifications or replacements to the Corps-owned dredge

fleet.

This moratorium came at a time when decisions were

needed to update a dredge fleet that had been in operation an

average of 30 years and was getting continuously more expensive to operate and maintain without extensive modifications or replacement. Private contractor-owned dredge

equipment was in much the same condition. In view of the

moratorium placed on the Federal sector, private contractors were unwilling to make large capital investments until

Congress reached some decisions.

While the Federal and private sector dredge-plant equipment has been capable of handling normal maintenance requirements, despite age and condition, emergency situations

have played havoc with that capability.

Last spring, for example, because of flooding, high waters

and extremely heavy silting in the Mississippi River, the

entrance channel to the Port of New Orleans was reduced in

depth from 40 to 34 feet. This required ships to sail in and

out with less than a full load, holding some $500 million in

imports and exports out of the world commerce market. To

meet this crisis, the Corps had to shift both federally-owned

and contractor plant equipment within the Gulf coast area

and from the entire East Coast just to dredge the New

Orleans channel back to normal project depth. As a result of

this emergency requirement, a dredging backlog was created

in other ports and harbors.

In addition to the inefficiencies of aging plant, and the

higher costs of labor and materials, there are increased costs

associated with more expensive disposal methods-such as

long-haul ocean disposal-in trying to use equipment which

is not well adapted to those methods.

Dredging costs, like the costs of all goods and services,

are steadily increasing. In 1967, the cost was less than 30

cents a cubic yard for the removal and disposal of dredged

material. By 1976, at the projected rate of increase indicated

by all economic factors, this cost will rise to almost 60 cents a

cubic yard.

At our peak in maintenance dredging we removed and disposed of 300 million cubic yards of dredged material. Compressed into one-yard cubes covering a mile square area, this

amount would grow skyward at the rate of one football field

length each year. Spread out, it would give Delaware a new

surface, a yard deep, every 20 years.

While our ability has been declining since that peak

period, the requirements have continued steadily upward

and at this point-in-time we should be at the 400 million


cubic yards a year stage for both maintenance and new construction dredging. With the current constraints our FY

1976 capability projection is just slightly above 200 million

cubic yards annually.

Had each issue-dredged material and its placement- EISrequirements-the dredge plant moratorium-arisen separately in time, each one could have been handled individually without a major impact on our waterways. Unfortunately, they surfaced almost simultaneously and, consequently, have seriously affected the Corps’ ability to maintain navigation. While the solutions have been slow in coming, the Corps is making progress.

On the first issue, the Corps initiated a two-pronged attack

several years ago. First, we started looking for new disposal

concepts and techniques which would convert dredged

material from a vexing problem into a valuable resource.

Our environmental and recreational staffs have been working with our engineers to develop beneficial ways to use

dredged material. In some areas we have created new wetlands, created water-based recreational areas, nourished

beaches, created wildlife habitat, and created or extended

highly attractive islands. (As the public and other agencies

become convinced that dredged material can serve useful,

beneficial purposes, the task will become easier.)

Second, we embarked last year on a 5-year, $30 million

research program being managed at the Waterways Experiment Station located in Vicksburg, Miss., by a staff of experts selected from the governmental, scientific, industrial

and academic communities. The object of this research is to

consider dredged material as a renewable, recyclable

resource and find ways to use it beneficially-develop

methods of on-site testing of dredged material to determine

quickly its degree of pollution, if any, and the origin of any

contaminates-determine the environmental impacts of

both water and land disposal-explore new disposal concepts-and to make use of improved dredging and disposal

equipment and techniques.

Out of all this we should learn where dredged material is

harmful and where it is not. We should learn what additional

costs are justified in the interests of environmental protection. And, equally as important, we must learn enough to

answer the kinds of questions that will make impact statements not only technically viable, but sufficiently authoritative to satisfy the public; a public that wants the assurance

that not only will there be an absolute minimum of environmental impact, but that any change required to maintain

navigation will also be mitigated as much as possible.

As to the second issue- the legal requirements- we have

taken the position that with the passage of NEPA, Congress

did not intend to halt all ongoing major Federal actions

which might significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Had this been the case, our entire transportation

network, from a maintenance viewpoint, would have

become a nightmare of economic chaos. Rather, the intent

was to comply as quickly as humanly possible while making

the necessary adjustments to maintain navigability of our

waterways in the interim. This is what the Corps is doing. We

have an intensive effort underway to insure full compliance

by no later than January 1976.

Our third issue-the status of the aging dredge fleet-has

now passed the study stage and the final report has been forwarded to the Secretary of the Army for subsequent

transmittal to the Congress. This study and our recommendations should greatly assist Congress in determining the

total plant required in both the Federal and private sectors

and in deciding under what conditions to lift the moratorium

on Federal plant improvement. Both the Federal GovernThe average age of the Federal dredge fleet is over 30 years. Congress will

soon be studying Corps recommendations on this problem.

ment and private industry should then be able to move forward in confidence with a modernization of the national

dredge fleet and with improvements in the operating characteristics of dredging, which are just as badly needed.

The Corps’ experience and organization make it well

suited to continue its job of maintaining the country’s

navigable waterways. During this period of constraints on

dredging, however, the adjustments being made will depend

upon the good will of the public and the cooperation of other

agencies.

The Nation needs our waterways; they are more vital to

our economic well-being now than perhaps ever before. The

Corps is convinced, however, that the challenge presented

by dredging constraints can be successfully resolved without

sacrificing environmental quality of life, in compliance with

public laws, and in a technological manner superior to

methods and equipment used in the past. The Corps is dedicated to pursuit of that challenge.=

10

A-10
Appendix B

“A Time for Reflection”

Water Spectrum

Fall 1975
Reprint of an interview with

Maj. Gen. J.W. Morris by the editor of

WATER SPECTRUM ,publ ished

quarterly by the

U S Army Corps of Eng in ee rs.

Maj. Gen. J. W. Morris

~___._..~~ .___.. _~.... - ..~~_.____.

In mid-September 1975 Major General J . W. Morris

relinquished his post as Director of Civil Works to become

Deputy Chief of Engineers. In doing so, he left behind a

, job and a challenge he had enjoyed more than any other

~ he had ever held. Since the spring of 1972 General Morris

: had been in a position that required him to lead the Corps

I of Engineers in coming to terms with the challenging

~ provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act

t_______ _~~ .._____.~__ ~.~...

Genera/ Morris, what exactly has the Corps done under

your direction regarding national issues of environmental

concern?

If I were to rank our efforts in accordance with their

relative importance to the environment, I would say the

policy organizational changes which have been made

from top to bottom are fundamental to all the rest.

These changes were made so that the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, in accomplishing its mission, could give

proper and full consideration to the environmental effects of proposed solutions to the Nation’s water problems. Few people realize that we have now augmented

our internal staffing so that decision makers at all levels

have full environmental advice available which can be

input into the decision making process.

Among our external activities, I would have to put

the regulatory, or permit, program high on the list of

things the Corps has done in recent years, particularly

where the program controls abuses to the Nation’s environmental assets.

We can put nonstructural approaches to solving flood

problems near the top of the list, too, since it was Corps

.__ ~.

(NEPA) of 1969 His tour of duty encompassed that period 1

when the Corps was hardest put to Implement through

action what NEPA requested in mere words. A task easier ’ talked about than done Wafer Spectrum, therefore, asked i

the out-going director to discuss the accomplishments

of the U S Army Corps of Engineers in overcoming some

of the major environmental problems faced during his

3-year tour __ -.. ._- _--.- ~_____ I - ~

initiative that unleashed the great potential that exists

here in dealing with flood control. Among other areas

in which we have made significant progress, I feel that

the Corps studies and the adjustments we are making in

our maintenance program, particularly the dredging portion, are important.

Which specific areas of environmental concern would you

say deserve the most attention at this particular time?

I think our efforts to protect the wetlands must continue

to get highest priority. We can approach this problem

from two directions. not only to protect the wetlands

we have, but also-which I think is completely reasonable to anticipate-being able to produce wetlands.

Our flood control problems also require a new look.

While I think there are probably going to be continuing

needs for structures to store excess waters, I would like

to see much more attention given to the nonstructural

solutions as the first option. We are moving that way

rapidly. A related area that needs a lot of attention, and

provides great opportunities for the future, is a full

analysis of flood plains throughout the country. We need

1
One method of flood p/ain management

complete identification of what is there now, an inventory of the environmental assets and development of

sufficient hydrologic data to identify the areas susceptible to flood damages. This information can then be

turned over to the local governments to keep our flood

plains from being unwisely developed and thereby minimize future problems.

A third area that still deserves a lot of attention is

water pollution. This is basically EPA’s (Environmental

Protection Agency) and not the Corps’ primary responsibility, but we certainly can help. The last, but not

necessarily the least important, problem requiring priority attention is our urban areas. We’ve allowed water

resources problems to develop where our people are

concentrated. We need to do a lot more work to be sure

we’re not encouraging unnecessary flood damages, to

provide energy where it’s needed, to keep water supply

available for our people, and to avoid building problems

for the long term.

Continuing in the environmental vein, the Corps also is

responsible for maintaining domestic waterways. What

happens when the Corps is instructed to stop dredging

at a particular location?

When the courts tell us to stop dredging we do as the

courts direct. Of course we are usually given such instruction on an injunctive or temporary basis either because, in the courts’ opinion, we’ve not fully complied

with or not satisfied some requirements of the law.

Therefore, the stoppage usually is dependent upon or

limited by certain actions which we are expected to take.

We then make adjustments and, hopefully, are able to

resolve the legal cause of the stoppage. The instructions

to stop dredging have been relatively few and, almost

always, we’ve been able to resolve the issues.

Suppose the Corps cannot resolve the issues and is to/d

to stop dredging. What alternitives are there?

There really aren’t too many alternatives since natural

processes tend to make the rivers shallower. The only

alternatives then would be less utilization of that waterway or port, or changes in the configuration of the shipping fleet that uses it. I really don’t feel the alternatives

need be that severe; I think the problem is finding alternative methods of dredging so that we can continue

to operate the waterways.

Besides dredging, are there other problems that affect

navigation?

Yes. We have a continuing problem concerning the efficiency of the existing structures, or locks. Many of our

locks are old and not as efficient as we would like to see

them. Some are inadequate for the volume of today’s

traffic, others are reaching the point in age where they

served their usefulness and need to be replaced for

safety reasons. So we have a continuing problem on our

waterways: not only in keeping channels at authorized

depths, but also in modernizing and replacing our locks

and, in some cases, maintaining channel alignment

through bank stabilization and control structures.

Such an extensive maintenance program implies outlay of

a large amount of dollars. Would it be feasible to lay user

charges on some of the waterway operators to he/p defray

the costs of some of these improvements?

That’s really not a matter in which I’ve been involved

officially, although I have been responsible for the operation of the waterways. I understand, however, that current administration policy favors some user fees or some

use charges to offset operation and maintenance costs.

My personal feeling is these charges will be passed on

directly to the consumers. Since the waterway operators

constitute a very competitive industry, there really isn’t

enough profit in their operations to allow them to absorb

the charges. Thus the charges must be added to the cost

of the products being transported, which means the consumer, in effect, will pay the user fees. Fees would

probably have some effect on our international trade

situation also, since our export costs would have to be

increased as well. I am inclined to think it would be to

B-2
the users’ advantage if they offered a proposal. I would

hope that whatever the alternate proposal would be, we

wouldn’t have to collect the money.

While NEPA introduced a national policy of concern for

the overall environment, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 was more specific in its requirements,

including nonstructural flood control measures. What

progress has the Corps made?

Both the policy and conception of nonstructural solution

are excellent. That message has been well distributed

throughout the Corps. From a practical standpoint,

though, we don’t seem to be getting very far because of

the cost sharing features. To date there’s been no national policy set on what the cost sharing should be on

nonstructural measures. Admittedly, the law sets forth

some limits, but the U.S. Water Resources Council has

the chore of coming up with a position which will be

applicable to all elements of the executive branch. As

far as I know, the Council has been unsuccessful in getting its recommendations approved. I’m disappointed

that progress has been so slow on this feature because

nonstructural measures are so important, but cannot be

implemented until the cost sharing problems are resolved.

The 1974 Act a/so directed the President to took into the

Princip/es and Standards applied to water resource projects, including the discount rates. What impact will this

have on Corps projects?

I don’t think the national Principles and Standards are

going to have any major impact. At first we thought

they would be more severe, but now that we’ve put

together our regulations on how to develop the two objectives of national economic development and environmental quality, we find we can adapt very nicely. One

of the things that’s attractive to me is that if we do the

environmental quality analysis properly then the need

for a separate environmental impact statement (EIS)

on the same project would be lessened. Even if we do

not eliminate the EIS itself, we should be able to make

the document which we’re now preparing much simpler

since we would save significant amounts of time and

money. Those people interested in the details of environmental assessments can go to the environmental

quality part of the project report document itself.

The Corps has traditionallyh made its flood plain management services, which are nonstructural available to individual communities upon request. Would this service not

become more effective on a regional /eve/?

Definitely, and we need to come to that soon. First, we

need the base data so that regional planners can have

the information at hand with which to make their plans.

The Corps can and should provide this service to the

States and other Federal, as well as local, planning

agencies. It’s important and we really ought to get on

with that.

While the public traditionally associates the Corps with

flood prevention, not many persons realize the extent of

Corps interest in supplying water to regions facing current

or future shortages.

There’s no question that many regions of the country

have potentially critical situations and when drought

conditions occur in these regions the problems will appear very rapidly. The most serious situation is right

here in Washington. It would be devastating if we had a

drought next year during the height of the Bicentennial.

Actually, the whole Northeast region of the United

States has a potential water shortage and the Southwest

already has its water problems. While there’s ample

water in the upper Missouri now, there’s no reason to

think that during a drought that area wouldn’t be short

3

B-3
Dredged material converted to manmade island

also. So you might say the United States has a pending

water crisis which would be much more difficult to handle than either the energy or the economic situation

which we now have. It’s pretty hard to negotiate with

Mother Nature when she decides to cut off the supply.

Would it be feasible to help Mother Nature by transporting

water from areas of abundance to those of needy

I suppose so, but this is a very complicated subject and

making it come true is probably more difficult than the

average person might think. For one thing, there’s the

question of who owns the water. Does it belong to the

States? Another problem is embargoes, some Federal,

on moving water from certain basins to others, and there

are even international agreements which preclude such

transbasin shipments. So while it would be feasible from

the engineering standpoint, there are political and regional constraints which, for a while at least, present

very difficult obstacles.

Besides providing drinking water, will the Corps be able

to increase the Nation's supply of electrical energy through

further development of hydropower?

Most definitely! A great amount of energy exists in our

rivers which could be converted into hydroelectric power. We need to take a hard look at the proper role of

hydroelectric power, including pumped storage, in meeting the Nation’s electric energy demands. We already

know that hydroelectric developments provide a clean

source of electric energy with little, if any, consumption

or degradation of the water resource itself. There are

great opportunities for hydroelectric power development in Alaska as well as the Pacific Northwest, some

potential on the Missouri River, and in some of the

existing facilities in the Southeast. Speaking comparatively, hydroelectric energy is a clean and nonconsumptive form of energy.

When construction projects disturb existing fish and wildlife habitat, what are the ecological results?

Generally speaking, the effect has been to change the

fish and wildlife populations which were in a region before the project was developed. That’s particularly true

with our lake projects. With the help of the Fish and

Wildlife Service we have replaced what was there with,

in many cases, a better fish and wildlife population. In

all cases that I’m aware of, once a project is in operation, the Corps has given constant attention to the

matter of the species of fish and wildlife which choose

to reside in that area.

On the human side how will growth in visitations be

managed?

We’ve learned an awful lot in the last 30 years or so

about operating reservoirs and what masses of people

can do to these pleasant and attractive areas. I think

4

B-4

A better fish and wi/d/ife population i s a major concern to the Corps.

allow most, if not all, of these to be deauthorized by Having briefly explored the major challenges you have

not overruling the recommendations. Next year there faced as Director of Civil Works if now seems appropriate

will be another list and the year after that and so forth. to ask for your impression of the Corps’ future Civil Works

So that’s working well. mission.

The 2-stage authorization procedure has many good

features to it. So far as we know, it’s also working well,

and I phrase it that way simply because we have not

yet had a project move all the way through the system

and back to the Congress under the 2-stage procedure.

We see no great problem once we get all the pieces

sorted out.

The third item is streambank and shoreline erosion,

and this one, I must say, has been fairly disappointing

to me because we’ve not had the funds to undertake

these research programs as we should have. In the

shoreline erosion area we have no money appropriated

to date, We do have an advisory panel appointed as

the law requires and we have taken $100,000 from

other sources just to keep that panel working. As far

as anything specific is concerned-such as picking a

demonstration site-no decision has been made. The

same thing is true, generally, with streambank erosion.

There just haven’t been any funds appropriated to

allow us to proceed with these new initiatives.

We should start with what we have as our current missions. Traditionally, that includes navigation, flood

control and hydroelectric power. Navigation, I feel

certain, will remain an integral part of the Nation’s

economic transportation system, but its place in the

system will depend upon the national transportation

policy and the relationship of water to other transportation modes. I think there’s a definite continuing

requirement here, so the Corps’ mission in the navigation field probably will stay pretty active.

Flood control, though, is to me the one area where

the changes in philosophy and approach have to be

most significant and perhaps the most immediate. I

feel that national attitudes no longer accept retention

structures as the singularly correct solution to flood

problems. Only after we have thoroughly exhausted

all other alternatives, in particular those labeled nonstructural solutions, will the public accept structural

solutions. This is quite a change in the national attitude which existed just 10 or 15 years ago. As a result,

I see the Corps role in flood control changing significantly.

Allied with flood control is hydroelectric power. That

seems to remain a priority issue because of the energy

6

B-6
shortage. I feel that we will be providing more hydroelectric power both in existing and new structures.

Hydroelectric power, like water supply, comes off a

little better in the area of structural solutions than

does flood control, simply because the water supply

obviously must be obtained by storing water and

hydroelectric power is most efficiently produced when

water is impounded for the purpose of generating great

amounts of energy during a release.

Looking beyond the structural areas, or what might

be called the traditional missions which involve structural work, I see a great opportunity and a need for

the Corps of Engineers to provide software service. By

that I mean engineering advice that will help States

develop their own State water plans. I’m particularly

concerned that we look at our capability to resolve the

quality of life issues, not only for today, but for the

long term; also that we use our talents in developing

flood plain data and environmental inventories, so

that planners on a national, regional and even local

basis have at hand good data on what’s out there in

order to make proper decisions in developing our

water resources.

This software service would have its first priority

input in urban areas, because there’s where the problems already exist. The urban areas are a particular

problem because our planning processes take so long

that by the time we get an answer the going-in situation

has changed. We have to be able to translate software

planning into action much quicker than we have in

the past. The next area where I see software service having immediate application is one I’ve already mentioned

-the flood plain information and environmental inventory arena.

Another area of great opportunity is using the maintenance of our waterways as a catalyst for proper development of our river basins, and particularly the water

courses themselves. I believe that working in conjunction with State and local fish and wildlife interests, the

Department of the Interior and others, our activities in

removing deposition from authorized waterways and

maintaining these waterways can lead to optimum development of the physical features adjacent to our waterways. There’s no reason why we cannot open up tributary areas in order to place the dredged material from

the waterways in preselected sites. This would not only

provide fish and wildlife habitat, but excellent recreation

areas, and generally raise the environmental, industrial
Meeting growing demands for recreational

facilities depends on cost-sharing.

Effective wafer supply

sometimes requires impoundment.

and social utilization of these water courses to their most ment in the Corps of Engineers a unique management

attractive and optimum levels. capability strong in experience and organization. I’d

What I’ve covered so far really are not new missions like to think these capacities are available to everyone

for the Corps. We are just approaching tomorrow from -other elements of Federal Government as well as

a better angle, using the authorities which the Congress the States and local agencies-to assist in resolving

already has given us for tending to our Nation’s water the Nation’s problems, whatever they may be, but

needs. Beyond that, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers especially those related to water. H

is available for a variety of future challenges, just as

it has been in the past. We can undertake additional

tasks with our existing field organization and our engineering and planning talents if, in the judgment of the

Congress and the executive branch, such use would

serve the national interest.

If I may be permitted an additional observation

along that theme, I see in the great planning, engineering and construction talents of the Civil Works eleB-8
Appendix C

“Maintaining Engineer Readiness”

The Military Engineer

January/February 1977
“To be prepared for war is the most effectual means of preserving the peace.”

George Washington

Maintaining

Engineer

Readiness

By Lt. Gen. J.W. Morris

Chief of Engineers, United States Army

In a future war, the United States probably will

not be afforded a lengthy mobilization period As a

result, the peacetime Armymust be ready to assume a wartime posture quickly and effectively. The Army

Corps of Engineers has a vital role in maintaining the national strength in war or peace This includes

the traditional combat engineering and construc- tion support provided to the Army by Engineer troop units. It also includes a lesser known, but nonetheless important, element-maintaining a nationwide construction organization that con be rapidly

mobilized to support a war effort. During peace- t

ime, much of the Corps’ effort is devoted to the

civil works program, In war, this engineering and

construction capability con be quickly and efficiently shifted to military projects, as was clearly

demonstrated during World War II and the Korean

War. Officers who had served in the civil works

program were well prepared to assume the complex

responsibilities of supporting a large Army in war.

Today, the Corps is dedicated to ensuring the

continuation of this unique mobilization capability. Lt. Gen. John W. Morris

T HROUGHOUT most of its history, the Corps has

been active in civil works construction. This mission

led to the establishment of a highly decentralized, nationwide organization capable of performing large-scale

construction projects. By 1939, the field organization

of the Corps had grown to 11 Divisions with 46 Districts, staffed by 225 officers and 49,000 civilians. The

primary missions were execution of the civil works

program and the construction of fortifications in the

United States. The Corps also had the wartime function of military engineering and construction in theaters of operation.

After the war began in Europe, the military construction program increased greatly. The Quartermaster

Corps, the agency responsible for military construction in the United States, was handicapped in its ability to expand with this program because its field organization and experience in large-scale construction were

limited. Meanwhile, Congressional appropriations for

civil works projects were lessening as preparations for

war assumed greater importance. To alleviate some of

the pressure on the Quartermaster and to take advantage of the existing Engineer capabilities of a skilled

work force and a nationwide organization, the Chief of

Staff of the Army assigned Army Air Corps construction to the Corps of Engineers in November 1940.

Within two weeks, the Corps began taking over projects already under way and by April 1941 had assumed

$200 million in Air Corps construction. A year after

the transfer, the Engineers had put in place $396 million in construction. The Corps’ outstanding performance led Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to write:

“It has performed these heavy tasks with its usual efficiency and thoroughness.”

Mission expanded

The total military construction mission was reassigned from the Quartermaster Corps to the Corps of

Engineers on December 16, 1941. The consolidation of

the Quartermaster’s Construction Division and the

Corps of Engineers brought together nearly 600,000

people, including contractor personnel, who formed

probably the world’s largest construction organization.

The Corps was quickly involved in a massive construction program to support the war effort. In the seven months following Pearl Harbor, Congress appropriated over $10 billion in construction funds. The civil

works structure was quickly adapted to absorb this

newly acquired workload. Division and District boundaries were redrawn and headquarters relocated to accommodate changing requirements. New Districts

were created and old ones abolished as dictated by the

volume and location of work. Prewar strength of

49,000 was expanded to 185,000 by mid-1942. On the

first anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the

war construction program, authorized at over $10 billion, was 85 percent complete.

The effect of this rapid expansion can be visualized

by examining a typical District. In December 1940, the

Tulsa District had 499 people engaged in civil works

programs. With the assignment of several Air Corps

projects, the District grew to 800 people in six months.

Growth increased significantly after Pearl Harbor, and

Reprinted from THE MILITARY ENGINEER for January-February 1977

Copyright by The Society of American Military Engineers

C-l
One of the elements of the Corps’ wartime Manhattan Project

the District reached a peak strength of 3,250 in 1942.

During the war years, the Tulsa District placed $800

million in military construction.

In January 1942, lines of communication across the

Pacific to Australia were threatened by the Japanese

advance. At this time, the civil works organization

based at Honolulu, working with American construction firms available in the area, was able to develop the

so-called Southwest Passage, a chain of airfields from

Hawaii, Canton Island, Fiji, and New Caledonia to

Australia and the Philippines. This combined organization also supervised construction projects in Australia

for the United States Army forces there.

The Corps’ most notable achievement during the

war was the creation of the atomic bomb. In August

1942, the Manhattan District was organized to design

and construct the facilities necessary to support the development of the bomb. Much of its staff was drawn

from existing Districts. In September 1942, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, an Engineer officer, was appointed the

director of the Manhattan Project, with the responsibility of creating the atomic bomb and directing all aspects of the project. This $2 billion effort included the

acquisition of over 530,000 acres of real estate, the construction of industrial facilities, and the direction of

45,000 military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

During World War II, the Corps executed an $11 billion domestic military construction program that was

instrumental in assuring victory in the war. With its

flexibility to adapt to changing missions, the Corps

was able to deliver the facilities needed to support a

four-million-man Army.

Mobilized again

At the end of World War II, the Corps briefly returned to its normal peacetime activities. Following the

invasion of South Korea in 1950, the Corps again undertook a massive military construction program by shifting its work force from civil works to military construc14

tion. By 1952, the program had grown to $2.8 billion.

This work included the construction of five Air Force

bases in Morocco. A new District was created and

staffed by personnel from existing Districts. It was given six months to bring these bases to a state of at least

minimum readiness. The deadline was met; in fact,

planes began landing at one of the bases only 64 days

after construction began.

The Tulsa and Mobile Districts, along with their sister Districts,,, again shifted their efforts from civil

works to military construction. The Tulsa District,

from a 1950 workload of $17 million in civil works and

$1 million in military construction, made a smooth

transition to a military construction program and placed

about $150 million in military construction contracts

during the war. The Mobile District underwent a similar transformation as its military program grew from $4

million to $100 million and its work force devoted to

the military construction effort expanded from 91 to

413.

Twice in less than 20 years, teams of military and civilian men and women had shifted their efforts from

civil works to military construction, thus showing the

value of having an existing engineering and construction organization that could be mobilized rapidly to

meet the nation’s military construction needs during

wartime.

Civil works training

The civil works program of the Corps of Engineers

provides unique training opportunities for officers. A

veteran of the 1927 Mississippi River flood said of the

experience: “In physical and mental strain, a prolonged

high-water fight on threatened levees can only be compared with real war.” In 1932, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was a Corps of Engineers officer, recognized

the importance of this training when he said that the

civil works program “furnishes officers of the Corps

with the finest possible peacetime training in the manifold construction, engineering, and procurement tasks

that devolve upon them in time of war.”

The Pentagon was completed by the Corps in 1943

The Military Engineer, January-February, 1977

c-2
The importance of this training was realized in

World War II. Many officers assumed positions where

their experience in civil works was invaluable. In 1947,

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “I

believe the rivers and harbors (program) does more to

train our Engineers in the large conceptions by which

they did their job in war than anything else they could

do.” General Eisenhower’s views were echoed by the

British Engineer-in-Chief who wrote: " I have always

been firmly of the opinion that this type of training is

not only desirable but essential, and my experience in

two large theaters during World War II most fully confirmed that view. There was no type of civil works project that did not have its counterpart in war, and often

on a huge scale.”

These views on the carryover of civil works experience into wartime situations are emphasized in the

words of Brig. Gen. B.L. Robinson, former Assistant

District Engineer in Honolulu.

On the morning of December 7, 1941, within less

than an hour after the Sunday attack on Pearl Harbor

by the Japanese, the District Engineer and I proceeded

to mobilize the District headquarters. A provisional regiment was formed of civilian District and

contractors’ employees. Arms and munitions were

procured and issued. The unit was assigned, under

military command. to a sector of Honolulu for beach

defense, at that time it being anticipated that a Japanese

force might attempt a landing.

Knowing that engineer material would be in short

supply and heavy demand, major construction materials such as lumber, cement and hardware in the hands

of commercial firms were Impounded by blanket purchase order for immediate use bv the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force. The District by-similar action impounded and rationed all fuel supplies. Contractors’

equipment and forces engaged on construction of

permanent buildings for army installations were

diverted to the construction of fortifications and other

facilities for troops. In fact, all construction activities

of a permanent nature were stopped and forces

instantly diverted to the active support of military

activities. This transition, maintaining orderly contractural relationships, was made possible by the fact

that the Engineer District, while essentially a civilian

organization, was under the control of the military.

The Cold War

The Corps has not been mobilized since the Korean

War, but it has taken on several large construction programs essential to the national interest in the interval.

The launching of Sputnik I in 1957 shocked the American people and focused attention on the serious gap

that existed between the American and Russian space

programs. In 19.58, the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) was created, and an urgent program for the early launching of American satellites was begun. The Corps was selected by NASA to

serve as its prime construction agent in the billion dollar program to build ground launch and support facilities. NASA’s reasons for selecting the Corps illustrate

the value of an existing engineering and construction

organization with capabilities for major construction.

The reasons include:

l The Corps was the largest federal agency possessing an engineering and construction organization with

a nationwide network of field offices. The power-generating capacity of the multipurpose Dworshak Dam in

Idaho is currently being expanded

The Military Engineer, No. 447 15

l It had demonstrated in two world wars and in

lesser conflicts its ability to organize, design, and effectively direct the construction of military and public

works programs.

l It enjoyed an excellent reputation and had earned

the respect of the engineering profession, the construction industry, and the scientific community.

l It had acquired extensive experience over the

years in the negotiation and administration of thousands of contracts annually.

l Its network of Division and District offices had accumulated an intimate working knowledge of local conditions, resources, and capabilities in each of the geographical areas assigned. It maintained excellent relations with local officials and governmental bodies.

l It was to a great extent self-sufficient in its operations in that it was organized so as to perform its own

fiscal, supply, legal, real estate, contract, and other administrative services without dependence on other

agencies.

l Timing and cost considerations made it impractical and uneconomical for NASA to attempt to develop

its own engineering and construction ability which

could have duplicated, at great cost, that ability already possessed by the Corps.

At the height of the construction program, five Divisions and eight Districts were participants. The Canaveral District was organized solely to support the space

program at the Kennedy Space Center. The program

included the construction of facilities at the Kennedy

Space Center, the Mississippi Test Facility, the

Manned Spacecraft Center at Houston, the Marshall

Space Flight Center at Huntsville, the White Sands

Missile Range, the NASA Flight Research Center at

Edwards Air Force Base, the Sacramento Test Facility, and the Electronic Research Center at Boston.

Similar large-scale construction efforts have since

been conducted in support of the ICBM and Safeguard

programs. These major peacetime efforts show the
Vertical Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center was 

largest building constructed in the world

Corps’ ability to respond effectively to major engineering challenges facing the nation. The fact that other

government agencies selected the Corps to perform

these projects demonstrates their recognition of the

Corps’ unique capabilities. In each instance, many key

engineers were transferred from other Corps Districts

and Divisions on short notice.

The Corps today

The missions of the Corps of Engineers are being

carried out by an organization consisting of a headquarters in Washington, D.C. and 14 Divisions, 39

Districts, and five Research and Development Laboratories throughout the United States and in selected

areas overseas. Eleven Divisions and 36 Districts are

involved in the civil works program, and 10 Divisions

and 14 Districts are engaged in military construction.

This organization is staffed by 860 military and 42,000

has shifted from structural to nonstructural alternatives

for flood damage prevention. The nonstructural solution provides for the preservation of the undeveloped

flood plain, or, if it is occupied, moving people and

buildings from the area subject to flooding. This allows

the flood plain to be retained as a recreation site or

green area that will not be adversely affected by periodic flooding. When a dam is required for flood protection, it is always developed as a multipurpose project

that provides other benefits such as water supply, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife enhancement, and

recreation.

One of the most complex aspects of the civil works

program is balancing developmental needs against environmental concerns. The Corps assesses the environmental impact of each project and incorporates methods of mitigating damage into the design. In addition, it

is actively engaged in protecting America’s valuable

wetlands and in regulating construction, discharges,

and dredging in the nation’s waters. The Corps is dedicated to preserving and protecting our natural resources for the use and enjoyment of future generations.

The civil works organization retains the same flexible, highly decentralized structure that has served our

nation so admirably in war and peace. It is staffed by

dedicated professionals possessing a wide range of

planning, engineering, and construction management

skills. The mobilization of manpower, materials, and

equipment for a major construction effort in peace involves many of the same problems and requires many

of the same skills needed to perform massive military

construction programs and to manage large-scale logistics efforts in wartime. The civil works program offers

a unique training opportunity for Engineer officers.

The civil works organization provides a rapid mobilization capability that may prove decisive in a future war.

If the need should arise, the Army Corps of Engineers

stands ready to switch from peacetime civil works activities to support of the National Defense in war and

to provide the engineering and construction base so

necessary for success on the modern battlefield.

civilian-personnel.

The civil works program is more comprehensive and

complex today than ever before. The FY 1977 program

is funded at $2.6 billion and is executed by three-quarters of the Corps’ work force. It focuses on the efficient development of the nation’s water resources.

Navigation is the oldest civil works function. Water

carriers, the major movers of energy supplies, fertilizers, and agricultural commodities, provide the least

expensive and least energy consumptive mode of transportation. The Corps is responsible for ensuring the orderly development of the inland waterways system as

an integral part of the over-ah transportation network.

This includes not only the construction of new facilities, but also the maintenance, operation, and improvement of existing locks and dams.

Through its nationwide organization, the Corps assists in recovery from various national disasters. More

importantly, preventive measures undertaken since

the 1930's have resulted in an estimated savings of $6 Diversion tunnel under construction at New Melones Dam, California,

for every dollar invested. In recent years, the emphasis another of the Corps’ multipurpose dams

16 The Military Engineer, January-February 1977

c-4
Appendix D

“The Corps of Engineers and the American Environment”

August 1978
The Corps of Engineers and

the American Environment:

Past, Present, and Future

By Lieutenant General J. W. Morris*

Chief of Engineers, United States Army

In Washington, D.C., my office desk sits between two livable environment, there can be little real value in an

framed quotations by two great Americans; each quota- ever-increasing Gross National Product. If the average

tion describes a representative mission of the Army American’s “quality of life” must deteriorate as our

Corps of Engineers. One of these is by Mark Twain, economy and population grow, then “growth” can hardly

who said, in 1882: be desirable.

The Military Engineers have taken upon

their shoulders the job of making the

Mississippi over again -a job transcended in

size only by the original job of creating it.

The other is an 1895 quotation from John Muir, the

famous turn of the century conservationist and founder

of the Sierra Club:

The best service in forest protection,

almost the only efficient service, is that rendered by the military. For many years they

have guarded the great Yellowstone Park,

and now they are guarding Yosemite. They

have found it a desert, as far as underbrush,

grass and flowers are concerned, but in two

years the skin of the mountains is healthy

again. Blessings on Uncle Sam’s soldiers as

they have done the job well, and every pine

tree is waving its arms for joy.

Because some degree of “environmental consciousness” has become commonplace, some of our citizens

find it hard to understand why many of our institutions

and government agencies have not always been closely

identified with these currently accepted environmental

policies. In fact, the more strident environmentalists do

not hide their distaste and contempt for large segments of

American industry and for many governmental agencies

which traditionally have emphasized economic development goals rather than environmental preservation.

To me, these two quotations represent the complementary missions of the Corps of Engineers in the past,

present and future to develop America’s water resources

and to perform engineering missions so as to contribute

to the nation’s economic well-being; and to preserve and

enhance the quality of our natural environment, ensuring

a more fulfilling life for every American. Because the

Corps’ *developmental mission is relatively well understood, I will here emphasize the Corps’ environmental

record and goals.

Although I think I understand such extreme views, I

would remind those who hold them that institutions,

economic systems, and agencies within democratic

governments almost always reflect the predominant

economic and social forces of their age; very rarely indeed can a government agency give complete deference

to the values of a future generation in preference to those

of the current generation. And the fact is that “environmentalism” has become a truly powerful force in the

United States only in relatively recent times.

A Brief History of America’s Environment

From the earliest years when European cultures came

In the United States today most of our citizens have

developed at least a degree of concern for environmental

quality. Public opinion polls regularly disclose that a majority of Americans want to breathe clean air, enjoy

waters free of pollutants, have access to parks and open

space, preserve wildlife, and control excess noise. We

want to balance economic development with environmental quality. These beliefs follow from our realization

that, if we cannot have both a functioning economy and a

General Morris r ’is expresses appreciation to Lance D. Wood ofthe

Office of the Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief of Engineers,

whose comprehensive research made this article possible.

to the New World until modern times, the primary

motivation of almost all of the new Euro-Americans was

to use, develop, and exploit the natural resources of a

virgin land. The settlers at Jamestown and the Pilgrim

Fathers and Puritans in New England generally regarded

America’s wilderness forests as “howling wastes*‘:

hostile, dangerous, and worthless until subdued and used

by farmers, woodcutters, and mill-operators. Thus from

the Europeans’ arrival in the 16th Century through the

middle of the 20th Century, the story of the American environment was the story of explosive human population

growth, conversion of wilderness into farms, towns, and

factories, and rapid development and consumption of

natural resources. The tragic examples of waste, greed,

and exploitation are well-known and do not need explanation: the extermination of immense numbers of

passenger pigeons, bison, and waterfowl; wasteful leveling of our virgin forests by fire and ax; wind and water

Based on an address prepared for presentation to the Class of 1978, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Washington, D.C.

1

D-l
erosion of millions of acres of once-fertile farmland;

thoughtless drainage or filling of productive wetlands;

the poisoning of our waters, air, and soil with industrial

and agricultural pollutants and raw sewage; the sprawl of

cities and suburbs over farmland and open space. The

list of historic environmental abuses is almost endless.

But despite the misuse of the American environment

from the earliest days onward, there was no significant

“environmental movement” in the United States until

very recently. One extraordinary indication of this is that

no really enforceable or effective Federal law was

enacted to deal with the national problems of water, air,

or noise pollution prior to the 1970’s. Similarly, preservation of the few remaining tracts of American wilderness

or wild rivers, and of endangered species of wildlife, was

not even a legally recognized objective until the late

1960’s.

It is true that a few highly exceptional individuals

spoke out during the 19th Century against the degradation and exploitation of the American environment; but

we remember those individuals today precisely because

their views were advanced far beyond their respective

eras. Henry David Th,oreau wrote eloquently of nature,

the wilderness, and an environmental ethic in the middle

of the 19th Century. But he and his works were generally

ignored or ridiculed during his own lifetime, while his

con temporaries settled the American West, cut anu

burned the remaining forests, and exterminated the

bison. John James Audubon painted wonderful pictures

of American wildlife in the early and middle 1800's But

the paying market for his pictures was largely that in

Europe, and practically none of his fellow Americans

gave a thought to preserving the continent’s disappearing

wildlife heritage, even as it was lost to market hunters

and destruction of habitat. A few 19th Century painters

admired and reproduced the scenic American landscape.

But the great majority of Americans apparently thought

that “appreciation of the landscape itself, apart from its

practical uses (was) pointless and effete." 1

The first modest, yet significant, achievements for

conservation were almost fortuitous developments. A few

extraordinary men, such as John Muir, convinced a few

enlightened Federal officials to set aside a few areas of

the public domain as our first national parks and monuments. Later, through the accident of President

McKinley’s assassination, the United States unexpectedly found itself with its first “conservationist” president-Theodore Roosevel t Despite ferocious opposi tion

from entrenched econo m ic interests, Roosevelt appointed officials with advanced conservationist ideas--

such as Gifford Pinchot of the Forest Service-and continued to set aside national monuments and parks.

From time to time thereafter the incipient U.S. conservation movement had modest periods of accomplishment -additional public lands were set aside. in every

president’s administration from Franklin Roosevelt’s onward; and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act expressed but did not effectuate a pro-wildlife policy. But

for the most part America continued throughout the 19th

and most of the 20th Centuries to do “business as usual,”

with our preeminent moving force being- that of

economic development. A tiny band of American conservationists did plead for anti-pollution laws, for preservaHenry David Thoreau was one of the few 19th Century Americans

to espouse an environmental ethic.

tion of wetlands, for control of urban sprawl. But they

were generally ignored and scorned by the American

macrocosm as cranks and eccentrics; most of their pleas

were drowned out by the roar of the American economy

in operation.

The dominant American ethic of economic growth

and development can be explained in many ways, of

course. As far back as the history of Western Man discloses, our culture has fostered acquisitiveness, a taste for

material comfort, an urge to master natural forces, and

relative unconcern about the well-being of wild animals,

trees, or even aboriginal men. The specific Western

civilization which evolved in North America has long

regarded the vast natural resources of this continent as

inexhaustible, and has used and wasted them accordingly. Only the long-delayed realization that these

resources are at last being outstripped by population

growth and our rate of consumption has led to the unwelcome and grudging recognition of “the limits to

growth.”

Emergence of the Environmental Movement

Not until the pollution of water, soil, and air

threatened literally to kill large numbers of Americans

with deadly poisons did the American public and their

governmental officials begin to give serious attention to

the state of our neglected environment. Perhaps the most

representative distress signal by which the new “environmentalists” captured the attention of the press, the

public, and then the government was that alarming book:

Silent Spring by the late Dr. Rachel Carson, first

published in 1962. That seminal publication inspired an

international uproar which grew in size and intensity

through the decade of the 1960's culminating in the

2

D-2
spirit of “Earth Day” observances. Agree or not with Dr.

Carson’s carefully-developed case against persistent

pesticides which accumulate in the environment, eventually her basic recommendations were accepted and

enacted into law by the Congress and EPA regulations.2

Silent Spring was an avant-courier of the great American

environmental movement of the 1970's which eventually

gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Environmental Policy Act.3 the Council on Environmental Quality, the Clean Air Act Amendments o f

1970,4 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,5 the Noise Control Act of 1972,6 and the

Endangered Species Act of 19737-to name the more

prominent ones.

Today the environmental movement is becoming institutionalized at all levels of American government and

in innumerable private organizations such as the National and State Audubon Societies, the Sierra Club, the

National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources

Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and

Zero Population Growth. Nevertheless, the battle to save

America’s remaining natural environment has only been

joined. We need more effective national programs in the

United States if we are to preserve our remaining farmland and natural habitats from sprawling suburbs and

recreational-home developments, to dampen the explosive population growth rate of the U.S.A. and the

world, to effect widespread conservation of energy, or to

solve other environmental problems. Reviewing the

history of the American environment from 1492 to the

present, one can only conclude that the American environmental movement has been "a long time coming”

and has by no means achieved its objectives to date.

A Brief History of the Corps’ Work in the

Environment

With the foregoing background in mind, I would like

now to assess the relationship which the Army Corps of

Engineers has had over the years with the American environment and the environmental movement. Rather

early in the Corps’ history, the Congress and a number of

presidents gave the Corps many and varied assignments

to help develop the newly-founded Republic. The Corps

was honored with weighty responsibilities, primarily

because its West Point-trained engineers constituted the

only U.S. governmental entity possessing the technical

competence to deal with many engineering problems in

the early 19th Century.

A few examples of 19th Century missions assigned to

the Corps suggest the national drive toward economic

development which determined priorities for both the

Corps and the young Republic which it served. In 1824,

Congress authorized President James Monroe to direct

Army engineers to survey roads and canals needed for

commerce or military purposes.8 In that same year Congress authorized the first civil works to improve navigation in the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers,9 under which

authority the Corps began an extensive program to clear

those rivers of snags, floating trees, and sandbars, all of

which impeded navigation. - -

The extermination of the bison is but one example ol rampant exploitation in America’s history.

D-3
Also in 1824, the Corps undertook its first assignments

to construct harbor improvements, such as breakwaters,

jetties and piers. During the following 30 years, the

Corps developed and used technology to deepen and

maintain harbor depths by dredging; Corps responsibility for harbors continues to the present day.

In 1825, the Corps was directed to improve the recently-constructed Cumberland Road and to extend it

into the new territories of Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana. In

1831, the Army Engineers began to supervise construction of lighthouses to aid navigation and commerce.

In 1837, Corps of Engineers officers studied the

navigation potential of the lower Mississippi and recommended deepening that river’s navigation channel

through dredging. The Corps continued to develop and

utilize dredging technology on the Mississippi up to the

outbreak of the Civil War.

In 1851, disastrous floods along the Mississippi River

led to congressional authorization of the first comprehensive topographic and hydrographic study of a major U.S.

river basin. In response, Corps of Engineers officers completed a remarkably advanced technical study of the

Mississippi, with recommended improvements for

navigation and flood control. The Corps’ work on the

Mississippi eventually led Congress, in 1879, to create

the Mississippi River Commission, which was constituted to include three Corps officers as members.

In 1874, Congress gave the Corps extensive responsibilities to modernize, restore, and maintain essential

services for the Federal District of Washington, D.C.

Among other projects, the Corps completed the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Tidal

Basin, and the Washington water supply system.

The Corps of Engineers began to implement major

flood control projects in 1882 when Congress authorized

the Mississippi River Commission to build flood control

levees along the river. In 1907, Army engineers were

assigned major responsibilities for construction of the

Panama Canal, which resulted in canal operations only

six years later, in 1913.

This sketchy outline of early Corps of Engineers

assignments rather accurately indicates the goals and

needs which motivated the American nation during the

19th and much of the 20th Centuries. Because our young

Republic was preoccupied with economic development

and growth, the Corps of Engineers carried out missions

which reflected those national objectives.

Early Corps Contributions to Environmental

Quality

Of course, the Corps did carry out some assignments

which clearly were “conservationist” in nature, even during the 19th Century. For example, Army engineers were

prime movers in exploring, mapping and convincing the

government to preserve a number of natural areas, the

most notable being Yellowstone, Yosemite and Sequoia

National Parks. Corps of Engineers officers were primarily responsible for protecting those parks from commercial exploitation and vandalism, and for designing

roads and bridges which blend harmoniously with their

natural settings,11 Furthermore, in the last decade of the

19th Century, Congress directed the Corps to perform a

few missions which had “environmental” spin-off

benefits. In 1893 Congress asked the Corps to control hydraulic mining abuses in California, where that goldmining technology threatened to ruin many rivers for

Army Engineers were among the first to explore the Yellowstone area and to urge that it be set aside and protected.
navigation, agriculture, and most other purposes. The

Corps officers composing the California Debris Commission regulated hydraulic mining effectively, thereby

saving California's rivers from being choked with sand

and gravel.12

In 1899, the River and Harbor Act authorized the

Corps to regulate activities which could obstruct U.S.

navigable waters. Although that statute was designed primarily to protect navigation from unregulated bridges,

piers, and filling, the broad language of that Act allowed

the Corps to control the degradation of U.S. waters from

refuse, oil, and other pollutants.13 One must recognize,

nonetheless, that these environmental accomplishments

of the Corps were “ahead of their time” in the sense that

they were atypical of the 19th Century. The Corps could

only carry out those missions which Congress and the

President prescribed, and most of those were intended to

“develop” rather than to “preserve” the nation’s natural

resources.

Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency elevated the conservationist ideas of the Progressive Movement to respectability within the Federal Government, so from his administration onward the Corps did at times find opportunities to incorporate conservationist objectives into its

projects. For example, the several projects which improved the upper Mississippi River for navigation during

the 1930's were carefully designed to create fish and

wildlife habitat and human recreation opportunities.

Congress had authorized development of the river’s 9-

foot navigation channel primarily to ensure new

economic growth for the region and to give work to many

unemployed persons. The project consisted of a series of

locks and dams, creating a series of navigation pools, and

other appropriate works to ensure a 9-foot channel.

While accomplishing the project’s economic goals,

the Corps designed the necessary large dams with great

The upper Mississippi River navigation project greatly benefited

waterfowl by stabilizing water levels during the nesting season and

by creating refuge areas.

5

care to stabilize water levels during waterfowl nesting

season, and to create 194,000 acres of wildlife refuges

from formerly-stagnant sloughs and backwaters. The

new water level greatly benefited the river’s fish resources

and many of the ducks, geese, and shorebirds of the

Mississippi wildfowl flyway. Furthermore, the Corps

built scenic drives and parks along the new lakes, and

planted dogwood, hawthorn, and redbud trees for their

beauty and wildlife food value. Famous conservationist

Ira Gabrielson said the Corps’ project benefited wildlife

in the region more than any conservation organization

could have, since the Corps had greatly increased

wildlife and recreation values along the upper Mississippi.14

Modern-Day Impacts on the Environment

One thus sees that the Corps’ conscientious engineering was assisting the conservation movement for many

years before the term “environmentalism” had even been

coined. Nevertheless, one must recognize that environmental preservation was never a dominant priority for

the United States for the first half of the 20th Century,

any more than it had been during the 19th; thus it was

not and could not be made a paramount mission of the

Corps. Instead, this nation concentrated far more of its

resources and attention to economic growth, the improvement of our citizens’ material standard of living,

and the development of our natural resources, in addition to defending itself during two World Wars, a number of smaller wars, and an uneasy peace. If one merely

calls to mind the more noteworthy events and trends of

each decade of the 20th Century prior to 1970, one must

agree that the economic values and concerns of the 19th

Century still predominated. Most of the century’s new

developments were hardly beneficial to environmental

preservation, since most entailed rapid and large-scale

application of new technologies which consumed energy

voraciously and polluted air, water, and the land itself.

The mechanization of transportation via trucks and private autos used up most of our petroleum reserves and inspired the mushrooming of suburbs which covered the

American countryside. The technological revolution in

American agriculture brought tractors, other extremely

costly machinery, and an “agribusiness” founded upon

chemical pesticides and massive consumption of energy.

American manufacturing industries began to use and

discard thousands of new chemicals which polluted our

water and air and used up our natural resources rapidly.

New packaging and marketing techniques, plus a growing population, led to problems in disposing of solid

wastes; and these are but a few examples of 20th Century

trends hostile to environmental preservation.

The Corps of Engineers carried out many vital missions from 1900 to 1970, but most of them were

“developmental” rather than “environmental” in nature.

From Corps efforts in World War II to Corps contributions to the U.S. space program; from continued work for

flood control, water supply, and navigation, to creation of

hydroelectric energy, the Corps helped build the U.S.

economy; but because the public interest priorities were

focused cm development, the Corps was less frequently

expected to preserve the American environment during

this period.

D-5
The Federal Government Accepts

Environmentalism

As already mentioned, the decade of the 1960's saw a

belated quickening of public and governmental concern

for the deteriorating American environment. In 1963

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, a statute that proved

less than effective in ending air pollution, but did reflect

Federal concern with the problem.15 Soon thereafter

Congress passed the Water Quality Act of 1965,16 a law

which did not reduce significantly the problem of water

pollution, but which was a trial-and-error attempt to improve water quality. In 1968 Congress adopted the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act,17 which required all Water

Resource Development Plans to consider setting aside

the river in question as a free-flowing, natural stream.

The growing “environmental movement” achieved a

signal victory in 1969 with the passage of the National

Environmental Policy Act-NEPA.18 That now-famous

statute also created the Council on Environmental

Quality and required preparation of a thorough environmental impact statement for every major Federal action

which could have a significant impact on the human

environment.

One can hardly overemphasize the value and importance of other environmental legislation which followed

NEPA. For example, Congress recognized the inadequacies of earlier statutes, and so adopted the 1970 Clean

Air Act Amendments 19 and the 1972 Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments;20 those acts finally

gave the Federal Government authority to act against air

and water pollution. Another example is the 1973 Endangered Species Act,21 which established an effective

Federal program to preserve species of animals and

plants threatened with extinction. In short, the national

movement which had been inspired by Carson’s Silent

Spring and by other environmental declarations of the

1960's actually did begin redirecting the course of

America’s government by the 1970's ensuring that all

Federal decision-makers would at last consider environmental quality as an important national gaol

An objective evaluation of the Corps of Engineers

record during the 1960's and '70's will, I think,

demonstrate conclusively that the Corps not only accepted the environmental policies adopted by the Federal

Government, but that it actually provided environmental

leadership. Before and after the enactment of these

Federal environmental laws, the Corps worked t o

redirect national attention to programs that seek to

balance the objectives of development and conservation,

rather than merely emphasizing development.

The Corps’ New Environmental Consciousness

In this brief article I cannot do more than begin to explain the many measures which the Corps has initiated

since the 1960's to elevate environmental quality to an

equal status with economic development as a Corps objective. An abbreviated summary must suffice.

One Activity which has led many environmentalists to

praise the Corps (and has led some land developers to

revile us) has been the Corps’ regulatory protection of

U.S. waters and wetlands against unjustifiable dredging,

filling, and polluting. The Corps has attempted to

safeguard U.S. navigable waters since passage of the

River and Harbor Act of 1899; however, before the

1960's court decisions and Attorney Generals’ opinions

restricted Corps regulations to protection of navigation.

Nevertheless, once a U.S. Supreme Court decision gave

us expanded authority in 1966,22 the Corps began to act

against water polluters even if their discharges would not

have hindered commercial navigation.

In 1967, the Corps expanded its efforts to stop

destructive dredging and filling of productive wetlands

and shallow water areas. We initiated a regular practice

of denying the "dredge and fill” permits requested by

land developers, who seemed intent upon eliminating all

our remaining marshes, and the fisheries, wildlife, and

clean water resources dependent on them. Under the

The Corps protects U.S. waters and wetlands against unjustifiable dredging and filling.

6

D-6
1967 Memorandum of Understanding between the Army We now advocate non-structural measures to prevent

and Interior Departments, both Federal agencies flood losses for all circumstances where flood control

have cooperated to preserve wetlands and estuarine dams are not essential-we thus hope to minimize flood

shallows, now recognized as invaluable public resources. damage by restricting development in flood plains. We

In 1968, well before enactment of NEPA, the Corps are studying intensively the traditional Corps practices of

issued formal regulationsz3 to restrict drastically the rate dredging navigation channels, and hope to use dredged

at which wetlands were being converted into parking lots, material as a useful resource to build new wetlands, to

recreational second home developments, condominium reclaim strip-mined areas, and to serve other beneficial

sites, and the like. When the Corps refused to permit purposes. We continue our efforts to prevent the destrucdredging and filling of a biologically productive Florida tion of marshes, swamps and shallow water areas by

marsh to make a commercial trailer park in 1969, the dredging or filling operations, an enlarged responsibility

developer sued us to obtain a permit. In the landmark under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Concase of Zabel v. Tabb, 24 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the trol Act Amendments of 1972. The few examples cited

Fifth Circuit upheld the Corps permit denial as a valid above at least show that the Corps has been profoundly

defense of the public interest in environmental conserva- influenced by the environmental movement which has

tion. spread across this country since the 1960’s.

The Corps was thus actively preserving the environ- The final and, in many ways, the most essential step has

ment even before the President signed NEPA into law in been the revision of the procedures by which policies and

1970. However, that statute reaffirmed the Corps’ programs are implemented. During the past six or seven

already-adopted goals redirecting our policies and years, we have established completely new guidelines and

programs to give due emphasis to environmental preser- procedures which now systematically relate all aspects of

vation. water resource planning to environmental criteria.

The mandates of NEPA and similar environmental

statutes encouraged the Corps to re-examine all of its

projects in the construction and design stages to seek

ways to accommodate environmental quality concerns

more effectively. A recent study of Corps civil works projects shows that one-third of the 500 projects under construction, or about to be constructed, were modified to

accommodate environmental considerations. Similarly,

of 200 studies investigated, about one-third of the final

alternatives proposed had been significantly changed

during the course of the study to minimize their impact

on the environment. In 43 percent of the 102 completed

projects investigated, the operators had adopted, new procedures to help protect the environment. . .-.*5

Corps implementation of NEPA also has been lauded

by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality,

which stated in its report on Environmental Impact

Statements of March 1976:

Environmentalism’s Recent Difficulties

An objective observer might say that American

environmentalism bloomed most luxuriantly from about

1970 until the autumn of 1973. But from the fall and winter

of 1973 onward, environmentalism has faced difficult

challenges spawned by the oil embargo, the energy crisis,

and years of inflation and relative economic stagnation. Not

that environmental policies and programs can legitimately

be blamed for America’s energy and economic troubles; but

certain interests in our country have tried to blame

environmentalists for obstructing solutions to many of

these problems.

The Corps dropped or abandoned work

on over a dozen proposed projects because its

NEPA process, (not litigation) . . . revealed

that significant environmental damage would

result. Eleven other projects were stopped

until environmental analysis could be completed. The Corps also modified or recommended for deauthorization many more projects, in large part because of NEPA and the

EIS requirement . . . . These actions have

resulted in widespread benefits which are

real and substantial but cannot be tallied in

monetary terms.

In the years since enactment of NEPA, environmentalism has become increasingly instutionalized as a key

component within the Corps of Engineers. The Corps

now employs a full array of environmental experts, including biologists, geologists, recreation specialists,

wildlife management authorities, hydrologists, and environmental lawyers. This staff and the Corps’ new environmental policies continue to generate valuable new

programs which will, we hope, benefit the Nation and

our environment.

Nevertheless, most of the American people maintain

faith in the basic environmental ideals conceived in the

1960’s and symbolized in the spirit of Earth Day

celebrations. Popular support for environmental quality

has registered high in public opinion surveys during every

year from the late 1960’s to the present, even in spite of some

economic woes. Perhaps the continuing commitment of so

many of our citizens to the environment was a significant

element in the election of an avowed environmentalist to

the White House, in the person of President Jimmy Carter.

Environmental Prospects for the Future

The administration of President Jimmy Carter already

has become a milestone in the history of America’s

environment. On February 21, 1977, President Carter asked

for a careful reappraisal of all water projects authorized for

the Corps, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley

Authority, and the Department of Agriculture. Beyond the

review of specific projects, a more fundamental goal was to

review and reform the standards which have traditionally

governed Federal investments in water resource projects.

The reappraisal was welcomed within the Corps of

Engineers for two reasons. A similar in-house review and

analysis, initiated in 1973, produced several environmentally or economically unsound projects which were

dropped from further funding while strengthening

confidence in those remaining underway. Also, the time

7

D-7
had come to complete the transition from criteria passed

into laws before 1969 to the priorities defined in NEPA and

more recent legislation. This Presidential updating did

help “clear the. air” on the many water resource projects

conceived, justified and authorized ten, twenty, or thirty

years earlier under different criteria. Unfortunately, so

much attention was paid to the few projects that were

deleted that the 98% which passed the review were obscured

from the public.

Over a year later, in June, 1978, the long awaited

Presidential water policy was announced and forwarded to

the Congress. Conservation has been added as a specific

component of both economic and environmental

objectives. Sensitivity to environmental protection is a key

element of the new water policy.

Thus, in total, President Carter’s project review, in

effect, dropped the curtain on pre-NEPA approaches to

project development and now his emerging national

policies will open the door to a new era of partnership

between environmental and conservation values on the one

hand and economic and developmental needs on the other.

The 1970’s could well be called the Decade-of the

Environment in water resource matters and, for that matter,

in the history of the Corps of Engineers. No one can argue

that this period brought an irreversible impact for change

on the direction this nation is to follow in managing its

water resources in the future-and, consequently, in the

role of the Corps of Engineers, not only as a manager of

America’s water resources but also as a steward of the

American environment. The effect of this change goes

beyond our own shores. Emerging nations have growing

needs to develop and use their water resources wisely as their

nation-building expands. The lessons learned at home

provide the Corps of Engineers excellent credentials to

export America’s experiences to foreign allies and thus

improve the welfare and quality of life of their people while

conserving and protecting their natural resources. The

look into the future may not be entirely clear, but we can be

sure that the road out of the Decade of the Environment and

into the 1980’s will lead in a different direction than theone

which the nation and the Corps of Engineers traveled into

the 1970’s.

We can also be sure that the Corps of Engineers stands

ready and is eager to devote itself to the emerging goals for

solving our nation’s water resource needs as an

environmentally conscious America moves into the future.

The Corps of Engineers -like the Army of which it is a

part-has a long and proud record of accomplishment and

service to the United States and its people.

THE CORPS CARES

Lieutenant General, USA

Chief of Engineers

‘David Lowenthal, “The American Scene,” The Geographical Review,

Vol. 58. No. 1 (Jan. 1968) p. 72.

*The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA), 7 U.S.C.

Section 135 et seq. (1970). as amended, 7 USCA Sections 136 et seq., and

E.P.A. Regulations thereunder.

‘P.L. No. 91-190, 42 U.S.C., Sections 4321 et sc9.

‘P.L. No. 91-604, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1857 et seq. (1970).

5P.L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C.A. Sections 1251 et seq.

6P.L. No. 92-574, 42 U.S.C.A. Sections 4901 d sc9.

‘16 U.S.C. Sections 688 et seq.

6Act of April 30, 1824.

gAct of May 24, 1824.

loSee generally, The Corps in Perspective Since 1775, Publication of U.S.

Dept. of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, WASH., D.C. (1976).

*‘Id. also see Baldwin, K.H., Enchanted Enclosure: the Army Engineers

and Yellovstone National Park, Wash., D.C. (1976).

‘*See 33 U.S.C. Sections 661-687, Act of March 1, 1893, 24 Stat. 507.

isSee Cowdrey, “Pioneering Environmental Law: The Army Corps of

Engineers and the Refuse Act,” Pacific Historical Review, Vol XLVI, No. 3

(August, 1975).

“See Gabrielson, WildlijeRejuges (New York, 1943). p. 193; “Floods and

Wildlife,” Scientijic American, CLVI (Feb. 1937) p. 101; St. Louis and Rock

Island District Histories, all developed by Corps oi Engineers Historical

Division.

i5P.L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392. %e Jorling, “The Federal Law of Air

Pollution Control,” pp. 1059-61 of Federal Environmental Law (ELI-West,

1974).

uP.L. 89-234.

“16 U.S.C. Sections 1271-1287 (1970).

*%ee n. 3, supra.

lgSupra n. 4.

*OSupra n. 5.

21Supra n. 7.

22cT.S. v. Standard Oil 384 U.S. 224 (1966).

2333 CFR 209,12O(d) ( 1968).

*‘Za6el v. Ta6b. 430 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1970). 401 U.S. 910 (1972).

*sAsh, “Three-Year Evolution,” Water Spectrum, Vol. 5. No. 5 at p. 33.

GPO 931-538
Appendix E

“Let% Get Back to Work”

Speech to Water Resources Congress

February 1980
John W. Morris

REMARKS BY

LTG J.W. MORRIS

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, US ARMY

WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

NEW ORLEANS, LA

15 FEBRUARY 1980

Let's Get Back to Work

The time has come for the Water Resource Developers of this country to start

rolling up their sleeves and getting back to work. We have been holding back long

enough. In fact, we have been resting so long that we have gotten somewhat out of

condition, and before we can truly get the machinery of water resource development

into high gear I expect we will have to go through a training period. Two years

ago-and even last year to some extent-I did not feel as optimistic or confident as I

do now that there will be a major upturn in the development of our nation’s water

resources. Today I will review with you some of the reasons for this change in attitude

and prospects for the years ahead.

In looking back over the resource development program in our country there are

several periods which seem to have clear identity and character and which we need to

recognize and understand -“Understand” because each has taken a logical place in the

process of adjustment associated with American Water Resource Development. These

periods are relatively short and generally quite recent.

Some here might be surprised to learn that several major Corps of Engineers

projects started as make-work projects in the depth of the Depression: Fort Peck in

Montana, Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River, Lake Texoma on the TexasOklahoma border and Conchas Dam in New Mexico, to name a few.

The 1927 flood on the Lower Mississippi took over 300 lives and drowned

thousands of miles from Cairo to the Gulf, and the hurricane-spawned flood at Lake

Okeechobee in 1928 took 1,836 lives. In the 1930s there were floods in Kansas and

Pennsylvania, California and Kentucky, New England and in the Ohio and Mississippi

Valleys. The latter alone left a million people homeless. At almost the same time our

prairies were stripped and dust filled the air and covered the earth over thousands of

square miles.

E-l
Engineer Memoirs

Consequently, from the mid 1930s to mid 1960s there was a strong national

movement to control the nation’s waters to recover from drought and also to prevent

loss of life and property from flooding. There was an equal enthusiasm to develop our

waterways and hydroelectric power productivity after World War II. Admittedly, there

were lulls during these periods such as the no-new-start policy of President Eisenhower

and a very strong opposition to “Pork Barrel” development such as expressed by

Harold Ickes and Justice Douglas.

Environmental Period

For a variety of reasons the steam began to go out of the development attitude in

the early 1960s. Some of the reasons included the growing competition for monies in

Southeast Asia, the national concern over the environment, the emerging

preservationist attitudes, and, probably of more importance, the complications of

economic analysis and over-emphasis of the value of benefit-cost ratios. In any event,

by the late 1960s the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act brought a

leave-it-alone philosophy based on a belief that only nature can improve on nature.

We can relate to the 1970s as the decade of the environment for the water

programs-a decade of diminishing investment, increased regulation and changing

methods of doing business. In my opinion, we have emerged from the 1970s with aa 10-

year record of lesser growth than our national interest in natural resources deserved. On

the positive side, we have accommodated the national environmental objectives in our

planning and project development to the point that a return to a period of development

could be accommodated with full and proper responsibility for the environmental

effects of such development. It was an interesting period. Some of you still remember

the Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Alaska Pipeline controversies; Judge Ritchey

and Lock and Dam 26; the issue of the constitutionality of the Appropriations

Committee authorizing construction; the struggles of Merrimac Park, and the Cache

River. And let’s not forget the Snail Darter and Mrs. Furbish’s Lousewort or some 85

lawsuits. As for regulation, I would guess we issued 175200,000 permits in the 1970s

and probably we spent well over $1 billion in writing EIS’s and in delays in projects

associated with NEPA.

Conservation Period

So you may ask are we ready now to embark upon a major investment program in

the water resources area? You and I may be, but I do not believe the Nation is ready.

E-2
John W. Morris

We could surely do it, but there seems to be yet another period through which we must

work our way before we have exhausted the alternatives to development, and also

learned how to develop our resources in a manner which truly best serves the national

interest and future generations. That period, and the one we are entering as we start the

decade of the 1980s is a period of conservation.

This new emphasis on conservation may turn out to be one of the most significant

features of water resources management and development in the decade ahead. I

believe we are going to see the conservation ethic dominate public policy in the

eighties as strongly as the environmental ethic dominated the seventies.

At present I cannot tell you how long this will last. However, it will take some

time to develop fully and define clearly President Carter’s national policy for

conservation and then to implement that policy within the Executive Branch.

What is conservation? This is the first question. We in the Corps of Engineers

have worked for two years to define conservation and with some success. It will take

at least that much longer to educate ourselves and the public even if we assume our

definition acceptable. To us, conservation is not merely using less. In the case of water,

it also means saving and conserving in an economical fashion. This view is not

unanimously accepted.

The conservation period will also involve new and modified activities including

a complete review of operating procedures, emergency planning for drought, reuse of

waste water, reevaluation of all consumptive uses of water, and others. Certainly, our

experiences with energy shortages should be ample cause to manage our water

efficiently.

Certainly, another water shortage is in the future. We should soon be able to

demonstrate that reductions of the total national need for water by conservation

measures, while quite valuable, will in themselves be insufficient to manage the

Nation’s water resources properly and prepare judiciously for times of shortage. We,

as a Nation, will have to do more to assure a good supply of water to all our people.

We will have to store during time of plenty, and to transport large quantities of water

during times of shortage. But first we must demonstrate that the need surpasses the

fruits of merely using less. Then the conservation period will be on its way into our

history and in proper balance with the environmental objectives.

E-3
Engineer Memoirs

Impediments to a Development Investment Program

Besides needing to resolve the requirement that a good national conservation

program must precede a new developmental program, there are several remnant

procedural problems which also must be solved before we could proceed rapidly with

a major investment program. Even if the green light came on tomorrow, we are not

ready. These procedural problems include cost sharing and our national policy and

review capability.

Cost Sharing: Most of the cost sharing decisions seem either to be behind

us or are now being considered by the Congress. After years of fighting, the

water resource operators have accepted, happily or otherwise, a waterways user

charge. That tough issue is no longer holding good navigation projects hostage.

This step alone should clear the way for much needed investments in the

Nation’s water transportation system. Other cost sharing issues remain. Perhaps

the most complicated and delaying is Section 221, which is presently causing

35 states difficulty in agreeing to formal cost sharing with the Federal

Government on recreation and water supply. Until this is relieved, we will

continue to have many investment opportunities beyond our reach.

National Policy and Review Capability: The water resources program has

been delayed all too often because of the absence of a strong decision-making

process at the Executive level of Government. The Water Resource Congress

has known for years what to do and that is to establish a National Water

Resource Council under a strong, separately-appointed leader, comprised of

agencies with principal interest in water resource development and which has

the responsibility and authority to review policy matters and make decisions.

We must be careful to keep project review separated from policy review or the

Water Resources Council, as I envision it, would become bogged down in detailed

engineering matters at the expense of policy decisions. Leave the engineering to the

agencies that will ultimately be responsible for building the project.

Prioritizing Investments

If we can remove cost sharing constraints and policy delays, then we are well on

our way to starting up the water resource development machinery.

But there does remain one additional and critical matter...in many ways the most

difficult to handle. It has to do with the credibility not only of the program but of the

E-4
John W. Morris

individual projects in the minds of the people of the country and, of course, the

Congress.

Before I start this, I would like to make it clear that I am not against benefit-cost

ratios, and I am certainly not advocating their abandonment.

In recent years I have gradually but surely reached the conclusion that as valuable

as the benefit-cost ratio may be, it has become an over-used and misused tool.

Its value in establishing investment priorities has been weakened because few

people really understand the details of deriving the benefit-cost ratio. It is a target for

attack by those who oppose the project...a target not only because of the arithmetic on

which it is based, but also as the symbol of indifference to environmental and other

non-computable costs and benefits.

Further, history has proven time and again that economic analyses are so

ultraconservative that the costs are invariably on the high side and the benefits; without

exception, on the low side.

Last year’s flood damage prevention record of $19.4 billion, compared to total

historical federal expenditures for our flood control program of $18.2 billion, supports

the view that we’ve been conservative overall in estimating the benefits which will be

achieved by our projects. Incidentally, that $18.2 billion expenditure figure includes

all design, construction, and operation and maintenance costs incurred through fiscal

year 1979.

The authorizing document for the St. Louis, MO, local flood protection project

was 1.07 to 1. The project, essentially complete in 1975, cost $81.3 million. Through

1978 the project had prevented $292.5 million, in damages over three times the cost

of the project.

Additionally, the benefit-cost ratio has led us to make some very serious mistakes.

Perhaps I am too hard on the benefit-cost ratio and should be speaking more about its

philosophy. Today, every functional element of a project has to be individually

supported economically and the last added increment must return greater benefits than

its cost. This latter view has frequently caused the head of navigation to be immediately

downstream from major man-made or natural obstacles, thereby assuring that any

extension of the waterway must first overcome a major cost.

, In another case, our economic analyses have forced us to define projects too

nanowly. In the Missouri River, the Pick Sloan Plan is really six separate projects

E-5
Engineer Memoirs

which go from the dam to the headwaters of each of the six reservoirs between Gavins

Point and Fort Peck. Initially, this seemed to make good sense. But, in fact, this

solution has left relatively short stretches below the dams which are subject to

extensive erosion problems and, unfortunately, benefits from the projects have already

been allocated. The value of the land eroded cannot offset the extremely high cost of

bank protection.

What all of this adds up to is my belief that with the environmental objectives and

the conservation objectives, economic analysis is only one part instead of the

whole...and, I believe, a less important part than we have allowed it to appear.

Having developed our water resources to the extent that we have, I strongly

advocate an approach which resolves problems based on national need rather than on

pure economics.

Had this approach been used on the Missouri River, we would have one project

from Gavins Point to the headwaters at Fort Peck. Thus the erosion problems, which

must now be addressed as individual problems, would have been part of the total

project and properly charged against total major project benefits.

Of immediate importance is the ongoing National Navigation Study. My hope is

that that study will identify the best water transportation system which the natural

features of this country can support. It should be a total system, and we should not

require that each and every segment, addition or improvement meet some arbitrary,

economic test. We need the entire system to be that which best serves the total national

interest.

Similarly, in the hydropower study, we should never repeat the serious errors of

the 1960s by failing to provide power because of an economic evaluation predicated

on such volatile data as the cost of alternative sources of fuel. This Nation needs all the

energy which can be reasonably obtained through competent engineering and design,

and we should provide that energy in the national interest. We need not be constrained

by economic evaluations other than to identify the least expensive investment to meet

the Nation’s needs.

In summary, I definitely believe and sense that there is an emerging national

attitude which, in due course, will lead us to another period of development of natural

resources and particularly water. However, before this attitude bears fruit, we must

wring out all of the water to be gained by a well thought out and mature national

conservation program. And equally important, we must get our act together on

identifying projects which will be developed. These projects will be of a character

E-6
John W. Morris

which will be fully compatible with the environmental objectives which were clearly

established in the 1970s and conservation objectives being developed in the 1980s.

There is important work to be done. And the way now, for the first time in years,

seems to be clear. We will get there by keeping our eyes on selected targets and by

working diligently within the mainstream of our national objectives. The logic of

proper development of our Nation’s water resources is now acceptable to most of

America. Still, the credibility of the program needs attention. Basically, the likelihood

of undertaking such a program will increase proportionately to its credibility...that is,

a program which conforms to environmental and conservation objectives and follows

an acceptable system for setting investment priorities. That is where the Water

Resource Congress can be most effective.

Happily, your efforts are already being felt in the cost sharing, project review and

priority-setting areas. I would suggest you keep up the good work to resolve those

procedural steps as soon as possible. Then you, as the leader in water resource

development undertakings, will be in a good position to roll up your sleeves and get

back to work.

Before concluding, I’d like to tell you about what Senator Bob Kerr of Oklahoma

said in a speech to the people at Wichita, Kansas, who were interested in extending

navigation on the Arkansas River from Tulsa to Wichita, Kansas. That was on 26

November 1962. At the conclusion of that speech he said something I will always

remember. He said, “Be careful what you dream...it might come true.”

I think that statement could apply today. I really do believe that the circumstances

that we now have in this country are encouraging. We are really conquering

environmental problems. We are willing to face the conservation ethic head-on. If we

get those two issues behind us and integrate them in our project planning, there is no

reason in the world why we cannot get back on a positive investment program in water

resource development.

In my judgment, it’s dreaming time again...but you’d better be careful.

Thank you very much.

E-7
Appendix F

“Reflections: An Interview with the Chief’

Water Spectrum

Fall 1980
F-1
Lieutenant General J. W. Morris retired in

September as Chief of the U. S. Army Corps

of Engineers. Ann Hoffnar of the Corps’

Civil Works Directorate talked with the

general for Water Spectrum readers prior to

his departure.

General Morris, from your days as Division Engineer,

Missouri River Division, through your days as Chief

of Engineers- this roughly corresponds to what you’ve

called the “decade of the environment”-what do you

see as the Corps’ greatest achievements in the area of

environmental protection?

Probably the greatest achievements are not as much

related to specific projects-although there are many

of those-as to our change in direction, so that we

could accommodate national environmental objectives.

Changing a large organization is always difficult but

we changed our policies and set up the mechanisms to

incorporate environmental law into our operations.

Environmental planning is now part of our daily

business. We have biologists, fish and wildlife experts

and scientists from other related fields on our team.

Without these changes we could never have moved in

the direction that the country wanted to go.

General Morris, in 1975 you told us at Waler In his water policy the President has stressed

Spectrum that protection of the wetlands must be conservation. I believe the Corps has now worked out

given high priority. Didn’t this turn out to be a bigger a plan of action to implement the President’s policy.

task than we anticipated? Can you tell me something about it?

The answer is generally yes. Of course, by 1975 we Yes, early in his tenure I had an interview with the

were pretty well aware of what this job was going to President. We talked about the future of the Corps

involve. When the Federal Water Pollution Control and its programs. One of the last things the President

Act Amendments passed in October 1972, we were said was “I wish you would develop a water

given increased responsibility, under Section 404, for conservation program.” This request was never put in

regulating construction or any other development of writing but when you get a request like that from the

the wetlands through a permit process. You may President it’s usually enough. So we have worked very

remember our traditional definition of navigable hard in this area since that conversation. First we

waters was quite restricted. The new law and surveyed the literature and then developed our

subsequent court cases broadened “navigable waters” definition of water conservation. We developed a plan

2

to include all the waters of the United States. This, in

effect, increased our authority to grant permits many

fold. At first we really didn’t anticipate the complexity

of the program. Its size-based on sheer numbers of

permit cases-is staggering and many of the cases are

quite controversial and complex. Among our most

difficult permit decisions were to deny the permit for

development on Marco Island, Florida and to approve

the permit for a refinery at Newport News, Virginia.

There have been many other difficult decisions.

It’s been a good program though; I wouldn’t want to

let the magnitude of the work be misconstrued. I think

we've handled it well. The Corps has earned a

reputation as fair and thorough throughout

government and private industry as well as the

environmental community.

You’ve said that the 80s are going to be a decade of

conservation. To our agency of course this primarily

means water conservation. I’ve heard several

definitions. Do you have one that’s really satisfactory?

Yes, my Civil Works staff has come up with a

definition which makes sense to me. It simply says that

water conservation is any beneficial reduction in water

use or in water losses. Both reduction in use and loss

make water for other uses. It’s a rather short and I

think useable definition.

F-2
Art Klein, a Permits investigator in Buffalo’s Regulatory Functions Branch, examines plant life in a Niagara

County, New York wetland.

of action for integrating conservation measures into

five Civil Works program areas: planning, design and

construction, reservoir regulation, operation and

maintenance, and regulatory activities. We sent the

plan to our field offices in May of 1979 and this May

we sent an updated version. Our water conservation

program is a solid one that addresses water

conservation as part of our own use of water and of

our planning for future water needs of the public. We

are drawing up contingency plans to make existing

Corps projects responsive to short-term water

shortages during droughts. We are also considering

water conservation in our permit program’s public

interest review.

Up to the present time the role of the Corps has been

limited primarily to water supply as a part of multiple

purpose Federal projects. In 1975 you talked about

planning for water supply. Will conservation be

enough? Do you see our role in water supply

increasing in the 80s?

WATER SPECTRUM, FALL 1980

I don’t think conservation will be enough. In my talk

down in New Orleans earlier this year I said that

developing a water conservation plan is just a first

step. That done, we will find that our needs still

exceed our present supply. Therefore, well need to

store excess water in time of plenty so that it will be

available for shortages. The question then becomes

“who’s going to develop water supply?” Congress has

already selected the Corps of Engineers to study water

supply in the northeast United States and I’m of the

view that the Corps is probably the best agency, but

not the only one, to do it nationwide. I’ve thought for

some years now that we should be given a charter by

the congressional authorization committees to

undertake a national water supply study. I believe the

appropriations committees would be willing to provide

the money, but there is a preceding question which

relates to authority to make the study. Water supply is

certainly in somebody’s future; I would hope it will be

the Corps’.

F-3
Corps park ranger talks with children.

You told the Water Resource Congress in New

Orleans in February-I think the same speech you just

referred to-thatit was time for water resources

developers to get back to work. How does this jibe

with today’s stress on conservation and our country’s

money problems?

It relates directly to conservation because in that

speech I said we can’t really get back to work until we

have integrated conservation into our water planning,

just as we integrated environmental criteria. We've got

to be able to demonstrate to the people that we've

observed conservation measures. The nation’s current

economic difficulties are another matter. I suspect that

we risk being delayed more by money than anything

else, but I foresee a fairly large investment in the water

program. There’s much to be done. I believe the

necessary conservation measures, and our economic

problems will affect when, not if, we resume

developing water resources.

Our decision to maintain a minimum fleet and

contract out some of our dredging marks a new era in

water resources development. It must have made you

nostalgic when the dredge Essayons was retired.

It did. The Essayons, though, was retired for two

reasons; one, she’s not really sea-worthy any more,

and the cost to fix her up was prohibitive. And two,

we do have a new larger dredge coming into service

very soon. Our fleet is changing though because the

dredging industry is putting the hopper dredge

business into the national private enterprise system.

I think the program that put dredging out into the

competitive arena is already proving to be a good idea

Though it was painful for our people to give up those

missions, the taxpayers are now getting a lot more

dredging for their money because of competition. The

government fleet wins some dredging contracts and the

private industry fleet wins some but in each case the

4

lowest price gets the job. The accumulated savings are

mounting every year by millions of dollars.

Energy is clearly a high priority. How do you expect

the new national emphasis on energy to affect Corps

programs.

It already has. We are fortunate that we were able to

get a couple of studies going four years ago-before

the energy crunch worsened. Those studies will soon

be available. One of them, the National Waterways

Study, has to do with water transportation, which

indirectly affects energy because so much of the cargo

transported is coal and other energy products. The

The Essayons.

other study is of hydropower, which of course has a

direct impact. We are looking at all the potential large

and small scale dam sites in the country. I think the

study is going to prove we can at least double our

hydropower output. We are assessing all forms of

hydropower potential: lowhead, pumpback, run-ofriver, major power projects, and additions to existing

projects. It's going to be a most helpful study.

The Corps has studied, as you said, the nation’s

waterways and its hydropower resources. Do we need

a national flood management study?

Well, we need to at least identify the major flood

problems in the United States. Some people seem to

F-4
Lock #1 on the Green River, Louisville District.

believe that there are few real flood problems left. This

is not the case, and a worthwhile effort could be made

to describe the extent of the major flood problem

areas and the best means to deal with them. We have

perhaps ten or twenty places in the country where

people are literally sitting on a powder keg, and they

are going to get hurt unless we do something about it.

We hear a lot about non-structural solutions to flood

problems now. Is this the solution of the future?

Non-structural measures alone cannot solve all our

problems. However, non-structural solutions are

considered in every situation we encounter-flood

control as well as other water resources projects. We

seldom develop a plan that is totally non-structural or

totally structural. We integrate both methods on a

case-by-case basis.

WATER SPECTRUM, FALL 1990

What about the results of our dredged material

research program? Did they provide the guidance you

expected and was it worth 30 million dollars?

It was worth $30 million; in fact it’s paid for itself

already. The study was targeted at a national attitude

that all dredged material is polluted and automatically

bad. This study was started back in the very early

70s and what it’s done, if it’s done nothing else, is

proven to the world that most dredged material is not

bad. As a matter of fact, a very high percentage of it is

useable material and really a national asset. If it did

nothing else, that valuable goal was accomplished. In

addition we learned some new techniques for storing

dredged material: how to handle it, what kind of

dredges to use and many other things. In the Great

Lakes alone we saved over $20 million right off the

bat since we didn’t have to build dikes to contain

dredged material.

5
C/ark Hill Dam, Savannah District, has a generating capacity of 280,000 kilowatts.

The Corps is involved in two major cooperative

programs: the National Program of Inspection of NonFederal Dams and EPA Construction Grants

Program. Is this team work approach working?

Well yes, of course we work with other agencies on

everything we do. In the EPA grants program our two

agencies are working together, using Corps talents in

construction management and EPA grants authority,

to provide the people water quality and pollution

control structures. It seems to be working quite well.

We have written a new agreement with EPA which

will give us more authority than in the past to manage

construction, but it’s still their program. I'm sure of

one thing, it’s certainly paid for itself and the public is

getting better facilities now that the Corps is involved.

We’re a lot more confident that the money is being

spent the way it was intended, too. The inspection of

non-Federal dams is primarily our program, though

we work cooperatively with state agencies. Some states

have more capability to do dam inspections than

others. The Corps has developed training programs to

assist states. There is no other way to go in

government except through cooperation between the

agencies which have interest and responsibility. If

we've learned one thing in the last ten years it is that

no agency can, by its own drive, push a project

through the system.

What about the Corps overseas activities? Do they

detact from our domestic programs? Are they really

an asset to the nation and the Corps?

Yes, they are. We wouldn’t be there if they weren’t.

We participate only at the State Department’s request,

and every place we've been we have made friends for

the Corps and the nation. Our involvement and

presence often serve to reduce tension. In our arena

we've improved our ability to do business. Benefits

come to us because overseas activities have allowed us

to keep some of our talents sharp. We’ve learned a

great deal. In addition, during a period of a somewhat

diminished public works program here in the United

States, overseas activities have assisted us in keeping

6

our work force stabilized. We attract better young

professionals to the Corps by the very fact we do the

overseas work. We are in tough competition for the

best talent, and our work in the Mideast, Israel, and

China is a drawing card. This is a hard point to sell

though; I'm chastised often by Congress because they

fear the foreign program is detracting from the

continental one. Really, though, there is very little

conflict between use of our manpower domestically

and overseas. When we take people out of jobs in the

United States and send them overseas, there is some

small, short-term adverse effect on the place they

leave. But they come back, armed with new

engineering experience and insight. So if you can

exclude the initial adverse impact, in the long run the

overseas program is good for us and for the nation.

I see that conservation will he in our future. And we

will probably see some changes in our navigation

programs and some increase in hydropower

production. It's likely that we will be given an

expanded mission in the area of water supply. Do you

see other changes in the 80s?

The major change I expect in the Corps in the near

future is improved planning of our operations and

maintenance work. We plan for water resources

development on a regional and even a national basisassessing present and future needs, costs, benefits, and

alternatives. Now we need to begin planning more

carefully for the operation and maintenance of our

established program. Planning for O&M we call it.

Half of the money appropriated to the Corps each

year is used for O&M, which covers managing

recreation sites, dredging rivers, disaster recoveries and

many other things.

Our planning needs to be broken down into our day

to day business of cutting grass and painting and our

long-term maintenance-major repairs to buildings,

locks and dams, replacement of generators. Our longterm maintenance costs can be forecast and need to be

planned.

F-6
Don’t our managers have to be pretty well versed in

the field of wildlife management?

Yes, We have developed reservoir management plans

aimed at maintaining the balance between use of the

land for recreation and preservation of land for

wildlife. This is an area in which we have done a great

deal of planning and have asked the help of other

agencies and the general public. We have not solved

all our problems. We still have things to learn about

habitat needs of some wildlife species. And, we are still

negotiating to insure public access to Corps land in

some projects. There are other management problems,

but viewed as a whole, we have a recreation/resource

management program of which we can be proud.

We’ve built quite a few visitor’s centers recently,

haven’t we? I’m sure these enhance our ability to greet

the public.

McDowe// Exhibit Plaza at Scottsdale, Arizona is part of

the Indian Bend Greenbelt floodway. The floodway

provides open space for recreation in non-flood times.

An important part of our O&M is our recreation

program. It involves both short and long-term

maintenance planning as well as planning for activities.

This program has been expanding rapidly in recent

years. We now host over 400 million visits each year at

our projects and we expect that number to grow in the

future. The expansion is partly due to the energy

crunch-many Corps lakes are located in areas of high

population density-and partly due to our increased

awareness of public needs. We now provide more

facilities, and ones which are more diversified, at our

projects than ever before. The atmosphere is a

reflection of our new management policies. The

managers we now put in charge are people who know

how to deal with the public. Some of them are Corpstrained, either at our new facility at Huntsville

Division or through a Huntsville-monitored University

program. Years ago, we weren’t so sophisticated. If

our construction engineer was nearing retirement we’d

say “Well, look Joe, why don’t you just stay here and

run the project? You built it so you know how it

works.” He did know how it worked and he could

keep it working, but he wasn’t necessarily good at

dealing with visitors. Our managers are a different sort

today; they are skilled at working with people.

WATER SPECTRUM. FALL 1980

Yes. I am very pleased with our visitor information

facilities. We have regional facilities located near

population centers which present regional and

history, depict local archaeological and wildlife

Corps

features, and show locations of projects in the area.

We also have smaller centers for individual projects

which explain the project and provide the visitors with

information about the recreation facilities available for

use.

We have a rather large emergency operations function

too. Is this function considered Corps operations and

maintenance work, or is our work now directed by the

new Federal Emergency Management Agency . . . FEMA?

Well, it’s a little of both. We don’t always work

through FEMA. If there is a flood, I have the

authority as Chief of Engineers to direct our people to

fight it. We don’t have to wait for anyone. In fact, the

Division Engineer in charge in the area of flooding has

the authority. We can divert funds from other public

works projects and then later go to Congress to

request their replacement. Once the flood is over, if

there has been a lot of damage, the governor can ask

7

F-7
Dredged material provides habitat for Royal and Sandwich tern colony, Cape Fear River North Carolina

the President to declare the area to be a national

disaster. If the President does so, the director of

FEMA has the responsibility to provide whatever

relief is needed. If the work requires engineers, FEMA

will pay us to do it. So the distinction is whether the

emergency is declared to be a national disaster by the

President.

California, and Mt. St. Helens we expect to spend

over $250 million.

It is our emergency operations functions which would

most closely align with our mobilization assignments

in case of war, is it not?

Our emergency work is not only with flood problems That’s true. In the final analysis the Corps of

but also with tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards-and Engineers is an Army unit which must support the

even volcanic eruptions. We enjoy a fine reputation for total Army during wartime. Our work during national

efficiency and responsiveness. Apart from money disasters keeps us in training. We are very serious

funded by FEMA the Corps spends about $44 million about our mobilization mission and are right now

annually on disaster relief. The year we had Agnes we evaluating our capabilities. If we are ever asked to

spent $80 million. This year, with Frederic, flooding in mobilize, we want to be ready.

Appendix G

“Construction Management Training:

An Industry/Academia Challenge”

The Military Engineer

November/December 1986
An Industry/Academia Challenge

By LTG John W. Morris

United States Army, Retired

0 VER the last couple of years, a continuing dialogue has been occurring throughout the United States

about “more construction for the money.” This is the

result of the work done by The Business Roundtable in

evaluating problems in the construction industry.

Many recommendations from these evaluations relate

to better leadership, safety, scheduling, and management. This brings us to the basic question: “Where do

managers come from to oversee today’s investment of

billions of dollars in construction?”

There are 325,000 people who manage construction

projects and the majority have learned or are learning

on the job. Many are good solid managers. A basic

concern, however, is the cost paid in mistakes, correcting errors, climbing the steep learning curve, and, to a

lesser degree, from a narrow perspective due to continued association with a specific type of work, often in

the same location.

Interestingly, there is no shortage of school-trained

business managers. The formal education systems in

the United States and throughout the world have long

produced bachelors and masters of business administration. This is not the case with construction engineering and management. Prior to 1960, management

courses relating to engineering and construction were

rare and, conversely, engineers were rarely found in

management.

In the absence of academia as a source, one of the

principal fields for training engineer managers has

been the military. The assignment and promotion

systems within the military move young men from job

to job to management. Consequently, he learns-and

expects to learn-to manage people after on-the-job

experience. Perhaps this is why so many chief executives or chief operating officers of large firms come

from the military.

Changes in Academia

The situation in education began to change in the

mid-1960’s. Courses in industrial engineering began to

appear and Stanford University started a construction

engineering program and offered a degree. These

events were regarded with some curiosity. In the late

1950's I was responsible for the assignments of Engineer officers below the grade of Colonel; and, at that

In selecting courses for our officers to attend, we

looked for civil, electrical, and mechanical. We considered industrial and construction engineering as peripheral and not mainstream types of education. This

concept continued for some years, so the problem was

not only a shortage of educational institutions which

provided training in management, but the profession

itself was not too concerned about the value of this

training.

Recently, however, changes have begun and today

60 universities include construction engineering management courses in their curricula. Of these, 44 have

courses at the graduate level; however, most of them

offer no degree program. Universities offering degrees

582 THE MILITARY ENGINEER, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1986

Many CEO's and other top managers of design and construction firms come from the military ranks. The assignment and promotion system moves young men and women from job to job and then into the managerial ranks. The

Engineer Officer’s Basic Course at Ft. Belvoir is often the

start of just such a career in construction management.

time, our Chief of Engineers’ policy was for 95 percent

of the Engineer officers to have bachelor degrees and

one-half to have graduate degrees.

G-l
often include courses in both engineering and business. Overall, however, there is no specified or basic

group of courses or standard for recipients of Construction Engineering Management degrees.

Other problems also exist, such as the lack of qualified teachers. This does not mean that those who are

teaching are not excellent people, but they have limited experience in construction engineering management. Also, teachers receive lower salaries than those

who use similar or the same talents on the job. There

are other problems in the universities, such as the

competition for the course offered by the College of

Business, College of Engineering, or the College of

Architecture.

Equally important are the industry’s lack of interest

in seeing that educational institutions do a good job

and a general lack of acceptance of construction management as a profession. Finally, there is a shortage of

dollars for research-research being the amount of

money universities need to supplement instructors’

pay and also to underwrite an investigation to solve

various problems related to management.

In the fall of 1982, I was asked to help the University

of Maryland set up a Construction and Entzineerine

Management course. Why they asked me is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, having had 40 years experience

in the field, I had many contacts and associates to call

on for help. In becoming involved in the situation, I

learned that some of the problems I just related had

been recognized and were being resolved at Maryland.

Most important, this course had been financed by the

generous donation by a Regent of the University of

Maryland, James A. Clark, of Hyman Construction

Company and Omni Construction. Also, the College of

Engineering took firm control by initiating and assuming responsibility for the program.

A committee was established (with Mr. Clark as

chairman and myself as vice chairman) to develop this

construction engineering and management program.

The committee also included individuals from Stanford

University, the Corps of Engineers, the University of

Maryland, and industry.

We began our work with a survey, by personal

contact and letter, of principal executives of some

major U.S. companies involved in engineering and

construction. We asked these leaders one fundamental

question: “If you were to receive a graduate from the

University of Maryland’s Construction Engineering

Management course, what would be the educational

assets that you would like him to bring to you?” From

THE MILITARY ENGINEER, NO. 511

Engineering teachers in academia generally receive lower

salaries than those in industry, contributing to a genera/

shortage of college teachers.

the responses to this survey, we developed a White

Paper, which included certain basic conclusions.

l The course would be a graduate-level program.

The committee, based on input from industry,

concluded that not all B.S. degree undergraduates knew if they were managerial material and if

they wanted to go into management.

l We felt that a strong B.S. degree program was

essential to developing good construction engineering managers. Consequently, we did not

wish to weaken the criteria and degree requirements in the basic fields of engineering.

l The graduate-level approach gave industry leaders the time to evaluate an individual’s potential

for growth as a manager.

The White Paper recommended 30 credit hours, of

which four courses (or 12 hours), would be from the

College of Business. The remaining six courses, or 18

credit hours, would be from the College of Engineering. This turned out to be a very good breakdown and

allowed us to start our course using available assets.

The industry responses were fairly clear as to the

subjects most valuable to them. The following were

mentioned in the industry leader responses in the

percentages shown:

Contractual Law . . . . . . . . 82%

Construction Methods... 82%

Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%

Financial Management... 75%

Managerial Systems..... 73%

Cost Control . . . . . . . . . . . 55%

Subjects mentioned less frequently included project

simulation, local relations, materials, mega-projects

statistics, and accounting.

The White Paper was approved by the appropriate

authorities and classes began in 1984. By 1985, a faculty

of four was established and hired, and the student load

had grown to be the second largest in the graduatelevel engineering course. A class on one subject was

attended by 40 students, of which half came from

industry.

583

G-2
The construction industry, which is served

by academia, should help evaluate university CM programs

and speak out on how well the universities are doing.

Evaluating the Program

Having been privileged to be the first Chair Professor

in charge of the graduate-level Construction Engineering and Management course and having overseen the

beginning of the instructions in the spring of 1984, I was interested to know how well our course correlated

with other university courses and also with the industry’s needs. An evaluation of the latter was based on

five inputs: the Associated General Contractors had

completed a study involving 431 responses; The Business Roundtable, 112; Project Management Institute,

59; Frederick Mueller’s independent study for a doctorate degree, 44; and the earlier mentioned University

of Maryland survey. By evaluating these data, we were

able to provide a list of sought-after skills in a single

industry.

educational system’s support of the industry’s needs:

To establish a core curriculum which would be adopted by all universities to serve more consistently the

industry and for the industry to express a stronger

voice in measuring academia.

We then surveyed the 44 universities mentioned

above. They were fairly well distributed geographically-8 in the far west; IO, mid-continent; II, midwest;

7, northeast; and 8 in the south. This distribution

meant that not only did we see what was happening in

that regard regionally, but we were also able to bring in

all major schools in the country that have construction

engineering and management programs. The courses

offered by these universities parallel quite closely the

industry’s needs. For example, among the IO courses

appearing most often in the university survey, seven of

them are mentioned in the broad industry survey

which differed somewhat from the more limited University of Maryland survey of industry leaders. We also

found that only four universities (9 percent) provided

all seven and about 30 percent offered at least six. (The

University of Maryland was one of the four universities

that provided all of the courses requested by industry

in the survey.)

The present perception of success at universities is

often based on the amount of research money collected and how they compare to other universities in their

peer group. This approach seems somewhat off target

because engineering is a science and management is

an art. It is not only difficult but also inappropriate for

engineering colleges to evaluate success and management training in the same way as they do engineering

education. Scientists are not necessarily good management teachers. Therefore, the industry served by academia should help evaluate university programs

through the quality of the product and speak out on

how well the universities are doing.

| Planning and Scheduling

| Contract Law

| Project Management

|Construction Methods

| Cost Estimating/Engineering

| Engineering Economics/Cost Control

| Decision Making

Four subjects on the industry list were not included

in the education institute survey results: Human relations-leadership; and financial, human resource, and

business management. These four courses would be

appropriate ones to be offered by the College of

Business.

Improving Support to the Industry

Besides learning about the close correlation between the needs of industry and the university offerings, we identified two opportunities to improve the

THE educational systems in the U.S. are steadily

expanding their programs for developing construction

engineering managers. This effort is timely-in fact,

overdue if the U.S. engineering and construction industries are to keep pace internationally and domestically by becoming more efficient at the project and

program levels. Even so, academia should not proceed

without carefully targeting their efforts at the needs of

the industry that their products will enter.

The trick to total success depends on close and

continuing relationships between the universities and

the engineering construction industries to develop a

core curriculum for construction engineering courses

and to establish, within industry, a mechanism to

evaluate how well the product being provided by our

universities meets their needs. Bringing these two

elements together will require co-ordination and planning. SAME, as part of its support of “More Construction for the Money” endeavor, seems a likely and

qualified candidate to guide and manage this muchneeded effort. 8

LTG John W. Morris, USA (Ret.), is Chairman and CEO of PRC Engineering Group,

McLean, VA. As a professor at the University

of Maryland, he developed a graduate

course and was designated to fill the Construction Engineering Management Chair.

He has extensive experience in contract administration, project control, and construction management. In 1980, Genera/ Morris

retired as Chief of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers. He has

received many awards, including a Presidential Citation for Management by President Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1977, he received the

“Construction Man of the Year Award” from Engineering NewsRecord and was inducted into the National Academy of Engineering.

General Morris is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and holds a

Master‘s degree in engineering from the University of Iowa.

584 THE MILITARY ENGINEER, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 1986

G-3
Appendix H

“Changing Role of the Corps of Engineers-1970-1980”

The Waterways Journal Weekly

29 June 1987
John W. Morris

27 May 1987

Changing Role of The Corps of Engineers-1970-1980

I was asked to write about the water resource program during my term as Chief of

Engineers 1976-1980. In a way, this is like discussing the last half of a one-mile

race-it overlooks the start. So, I will take some liberties and extend the period from

1970-1980 during which I became and remained involved daily in the Civil Program

and the Corps of Engineers as it accommodated itself to major shifts in national

policies toward environment cost-sharing, etc. The backdrop for measuring these

changes was my earlier experience in Savannah and Tulsa Districts during the

“heyday” of federal investment in water resource programs.

In the early sixties a good economic analysis and a strong benefit-to-cost ratio

were the best assurances of success in one of the bi-annual “omnibus” bills. These

successes were also the fruits of strong local support and powerful representation in the

U.S. Congress which were then in full bloom in many areas of the nation. None more

evident than in the region of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. As Tulsa District Engineer

at that time, there was a real challenge in meeting and fulfilling the federally legislated

project load and I suppose some people thought the program would last and last for

years if not forever. But soon thereafter the local support began to wane, congressional

power for water resource development weakened, and national priorities were modified

to the point that by 1980, U.S. Government’s investment in new water projects had

dried up and we were in the middle of a 15-year hiatus in the authorization process.

To understand the reasons for the “holiday” from new public works and the basis

for certain concurrent changes, we need to reflect briefly on the causes of weakened

local and national support for such investments. First, by 1970 the national water

program was well advanced toward realization. New projects were spottily scattered

across the country and, as a group, less attractive than the projects already authorized.

Next, much of all public works already in place was beginning to need major

rehabilitation. Also, growth and development were pressing against virgin America,

causing, in many areas, a reduced quality of life; and, the U.S. economic situation was

entering a tough period. But, whatever the reasons, the fact remains that the water

resource development program was an early casualty of new national priorities for

environmental and economic attention. The extent and seriousness of its wounds are

still being evaluated almost two decades later and as with most sudden and long term

illness, major adjustments in lifestyle occurred.

The first major impact came with the passage of the National Environmental

Policy Act in late 1969. This sweeping legislation was 10 years too late, in my opinion;

and, therefore, was imposed summarily rather than gradually and efficiently. In one

H-1
Engineer Memoirs

moment every project was in non-compliance, and new starts suddenly found

themselves at the foot of a steep climb which was obscured by the uncertainty of how

to proceed to the top. Seven years later President Carter announced his famous “hit

list” which, in spite of how it seemed to many, had the cleansing effect of forcing once

and for all a total review of every project. This review put to rest the many questions

about old projects and allowed attention to turn to newer problems. In the meantime,

several projects were stopped, to include the Cross Florida Barge Canal; scores

challenged, delayed and often changed, L&D 26, Truman, New Melones, TennTombigbee, Gallipolis, etc.; court cases flourished; EIS’s became a household word;

costs rose; and the decentralized character of doing business constrained as regulatory

and permit requirements grew. NEPA even spawned a Brookings Institute study of the

Federal activities to determine: “Can Organizations Change?” Since the programmatic

system had changed, the management had to adjust or lose. Gen. Fred Clarke, then

Chief of the Corps of Engineers, saw the need and, because of the unique

military/civilian organizational character of the Corps of Engineers, was able to

redirect policy and indoctrinate new Corps District and Division leaders quickly and

accordingly. The changes which ensued within the Army Corps of Engineers have

impacted the agency structure and procedures from top to bottom and these changes

have been felt and have left their imprint throughout the entire water resource

management scene both in the U.S. and, to some extent, worldwide.

Two side effects grew out of the NEPA.

b First was the flurry of effort to challenge the authority of the executive

agencies to proceed with various elements of the water program. Lock and Dam

26 was delayed on the authority issue as much as environmental; the final court

case on the Tennessee-Tombigbee was founded in the exercise of authority by

the Secretary of the Army; the Cross Florida Barge Canal provided the platform

for testing the President’s authority to impound congressionally appropriated

monies. These ordeals in themselves, while painful, have clarified the future of

using executive authority to implement certain existing water resource or

related laws.

. Second, the economic factors used to justify projects had a new

partner+nvironmental effects. These partners did not always get along too

well; however, what appeared to be an “unfriendly” takeover early in 1970’s

has evolved into a rather smooth affiliation in the mid-1980’s.

Environmental policy slowed water resource development, and the follow-on

attitudes toward traditional national economic policy for water programs stopped the

program cold. Only within the past year has legislation containing new investment

criteria given us reason to look for resumption of new water resource work.

H-2
John W. Morris

Cost sharing, which was at the heart of the economic issue, has been integral to

water resource development at least since the Flood Control Act was passed in 1927.

It has taken a variety forms and degrees ,as laws and policies were enacted for water

supply, recreation, hydropower, etc. Navigation’s particular exclusions came under

renewed assault in the mid-l 970’s and the attacks strengthened as the national

economic situation worsened and means were sought to transfer more costs from the

federal government to others, that is state and local governments and private business.

By 1972, “let the beneficiaries pay” had become a litmus test in the office of

Management and Budget and other places in the Federal arena. While this attitude had

little effect on water project formulation at the Corps field level, it became a true factor

for delay above the Office of the Chief of Engineers. For several years, new projects

which had passed all the tests and consequently were recommended for authorization

never made the trip up Capitol Hill to the Congressional Committees. Consequently,

the amount of new work declined and existing older projects continued to deteriorate

as they served out their programmed life. As 1980 arrived, the funding for the O&M

element of the budget passed the construction element for the first time and signalled

that the character of the Corps had become considerably different than in the glamour

days of the mid-1960’s.

Finding a way through this shelving process proved difficult and tedious and often

targeted on the tough issues of sharing costs for constructing and operating navigation

projects. As it turned out, well over a full decade was required to legislate the new cost

sharing rules. During this period other lesser changes were occurring under the banner

of “privatization.” The Corps looked to private enterprise to take over some portions

of traditional Corps workloads-hopper dredging became a new private investment,

more recreation activities and certain plant operations were contracted out, greater

percentages of engineering and design were passed to others, constructive management

contracts became acceptable, private investors were allowed to add power at existing

Corps of Engineers projects and federal lands, to name a few.

As already intimated, changes in national and economic policies and priorities had

major impacts on the Corps of Engineer procedures. More than that, however, were the

effects on the type of work itself. The decline in public works came at a time when

other engineering roles for the U.S. were rising at home and abroad. Some examples

include the growth in the U.S. Military program, the interest of other nations in U.S.

public works expertise, American at home concern for waste water, hazardous waste

and energy matters, infrastructure and safety problems.

The Corps of Engineers was called upon on numerous occasions to address the

engineering requirements of such programs. At the same time, the Corps did take time

to study comprehensively and report to the nation on the national hydropower potential

and the description of the first class water transportation system it needs and deserves.

H-3
Engineer Memoirs

As a consequence of these efforts, the capability and capacity of the Corps of Engineers

to return to active development of our water resources has remained intact and is ready

for the work which will appear rapidly as the new Water Resource Development Act

is implemented.

As in the past, the future will have its share of major issues. But unlike the recent

past, the immediate future will be one of getting back to work, of more activity, and of

“doing,” and that is exciting. For the longer view, a couple of presently suppressed

issues will surface and must be resolved.

. What is the role of the Federal Government in the Water Resource Field?

Should it not look to the long term needs of our people and development of our

resources? The current policies seem to be concentrated on short term matters.

. How can we upgrade the efficiency of the systems built piecemeal by both

federal and non-federal agencies over the past 50-60 years?

. What is our national water supply plan?

I’m sure more and possibly deeper issues than the above will emerge in the next

decade; however, I doubt that any issue, or combination of issues, will have greater

effect or a more far reaching impact than the environmental and economic concerns of

the public and the resulting national policies adopted by the U.S. government between

1970 and 1980. While the water resource program has been seriously ill during much

of the time since 1970, it has survived and has an excellent chance for full recovery and

good health as we look to the future.

The Corps of Engineers has experienced major changes right along with the water

resources program. The Corps similarly is also enjoying its best health of many years

and is ready and anxious to be a major player in Building Tomorrow-Today. One

thing is clear: The future of the Corps of Engineers and the national water program

continue to be interrelated as they have been for over 200 years of America’s growth

and strength. The Corps cares. Essayons!

H-4
Office of History

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers