interviews
Water and the American West
by Richard Frank
October 25, 2021
This interview with Richard Frank, professor of environmental practice at the UC Davis School of Law and Director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
frank | Can you tell me a little bit about the story of water and how it's tied to the West, and to California in particular?
Richard | A friend of mine who's a Court of Appeals Justice here in California wrote an opinion on a water law dispute and started it with the quote, "the history of California is written on its waters." And I think that the point is true of the entire American West.
Water policy and legal issues are inextricably tied to the development of the Western United States; water is the limiting factor in so many ways to settlement, to economic development, to prosperity, and to the environment and environmental preservation.
Can you talk about the difference between groundwater and surface water– and the policies that regulate each?
There are really two types of water when it comes to human consumption. There's surface water: that is the water that is transmitted by lakes, rivers, and streams. Then there is groundwater, and a substantial amount of water that Americans and the American West rely on is groundwater. That is water that is stored in groundwater aquifers, which are naturally occurring groundwater basins. Both groundwater and surface water are critical to the American West and its economy and its culture.
Traditionally a couple of things are important to note, first of all, water is finite. Second, water gets allocated in the Western United States generally at the state level. There's a limited federal role. Primarily, policy decisions about who gets how much water for what purpose are made state by state.
I think allocation is really interesting in that it's more state-level than federal. How was water and the allocation of water in California designed? Is it a public-private combination? What goes on in terms of the infrastructure of water?
Another very good question. The answer is it depends. Most of our water infrastructure is public in nature.
Again, in the American West, the regulation of water rights is generally done at the state level, but the federal government, historically, has a major water footprint in the American West because it has been federal dollars and federal design and management that really controlled much of the major water infrastructure in the American West — you know, Hoover Dam, and the complex system of dams and reservoirs on the Colorado River in California, with the Central Valley Project that was built and managed by the federal government with Shasta Dam on the upper Sacramento River as the centerpiece of that project. But we also have a California State Water Project, the key facility being the Oroville Dam and reservoir on the Southern River that is managed by state water managers. If we were starting over, that kind of parallel system would make no particular engineering or operational sense.
But, we are captive to our history.
And then you have these massive systems of aqueducts and canals that move water from one place to another throughout the American West. They are particularly responsible for moving water from surface water storage facilities to population centers. In the last 50 to 75 years, these population centers have really expanded dramatically, so you need massive infrastructure to deliver water from those storage facilities, the dams, and reservoirs, which generally are located in remote areas to the population centers. So it takes a lot of time and energy to transport the water, from where it is captured and stored to where it is needed for human use.
California has faced continuous drought – what measures is the state taking now to manage water?
Just to frame the issue a little bit — we have, as I mentioned, a growing population in the American Southwest at a time when the amount of available water is shrinking due to drought and due to the impacts of climate change. We have growing human demand for residential and commercial purposes and at the same time, we have a shrinking water supply. That is a huge looming crisis.
And it is beginning to play out in real-time. You see that playing out in real-time. For example, several different states and Mexico rely on Colorado River flows based on an allocation system that was created in the 1920s, which is overly optimistic about the amount of available water. From the 1920s until now, that water supply has decreased, and decreased, and decreased. Now you have interstate agreements, and in the case of Mexico, international agreements that allocate the finite Colorado river water supplies based on faulty, now obsolete, information. It is a real problem.
What measures do you take now, knowing this information?
If you look at the US Drought Monitor, it is obvious the problem is not limited to the Colorado River. We are in a mega-drought, so cutbacks are being imposed by federal and state water agencies to encourage agricultural, urban, and commercial water users to cut their water use and, and stretch finite supplies as much as possible through conservation efforts.
In California, we have the State Water Resources Control Board, the state water regulator in California, and they have issued curtailment orders. Meaning, they have told water rights holders, many of whom have had those water rights for over a hundred years, that, for the first time, the water that they feel they are entitled to, is not available. Local water districts are also issuing water conservation mandates; the San Francisco water department is doing that, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan water district, is urging urban users to curtail their efforts.
And then agriculture. Agricultural users — farmers and ranchers — have had to get water rights in many cases through the federal government, as the federal government is the operator of these water projects. They have contracts with water users, individual farmers, ranchers, or districts, and they are now issuing curtailment orders. They're saying, we know you contracted for X amount of water for this calendar year, but we are telling you because of the drought shortages we don't have that water to supply. Our reservoirs are low at Lake Shasta or at the Oroville Dam.
When you drive from San Francisco to LA on the five, you see a lot of signage from the agricultural farming community about water. There's apparently some frustration about this. What are the other options for them?
About 80% of all human consumed water goes to agriculture. That is by far the biggest component of water use, as opposed to 20% used for urban and commercial, and industrial purposes.
Over the years, ranchers and farmers, and agricultural water districts assumed that the water would always be there — as we all do.
And the farmers and ranchers have, in hindsight, exacerbated the problem by bringing more and more land into production. You see on those drives between San Francisco and Los Angeles, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, all these orchards are being planted. Orchards are more lucrative crops than row crops — cotton, alfalfa, and rice. But, if you are growing a row crop, you can leave the land fallow in times of drought.
We don't have to plant. If the water stopped there, or if it's too expensive to get, it may make economic sense, but if you have an orchard or a vineyard it's a high value, those are high value crops, you don't have that operational flexibility and they need to be irrigated in wet years and in dry years. Now, you see these orchards, which were only planted a few years ago, are now being uprooted because the farmers realized that they don't have the water necessary to keep those vineyards and orchards alive. For ranchers, the same thing is true with their herds. They don’t have enough water for their livestock.
The water shortage has never been drier than it is right now. Farmers and ranchers are being deprived of water that they traditionally believed was theirs and they're very understandably, very unhappy about it. They see it as a threat to their livelihood and to the livelihood of the folks who work for them. Their anger and frustration are to be expected, but it's nobody's fault.
To say, as some farmers do, that it is mismanagement by state and federal government officials, I think is overly simplistic and misplaced in the face of a mega-drought. Everybody's going to have to sacrifice. Everybody's going to have to be more efficient in how they use water. All sectors are going to need to be more efficient with the water that does exist.
Looking at this percentage breakdown of water use – is it actually important for individual users to change their water habits?
Well, every little bit helps. When you're talking about homeowners, about 70% of urban water use is for outdoor irrigation. So we're talking parks and cemeteries and golf courses and folks' yards. You know, that used to be considered part of that American dream and the California dream — you would have a big lawn in front of your house and behind your house. Truth be told, that has never made much sense in an arid environment. That's where the water savings in urban areas is critical in the way it really involves aesthetics rather than critical human needs, like water for drinking and bathing and sanitation purposes. There is a growing movement away from big lawns, and away from the type of landscaping that you see in the Eastern US — there is no drought in the Eastern United States. As Hurricane Ida and other recent storms have shown, the problem is too much water, or rather than too little in most of the Eastern United States. So it really is a tale of two countries.
We just need to recognize that the American West is an arid region. It has always been an arid region, we can't make the desert bloom with water that doesn't exist. We need to be more efficient in how we allocate those water supplies. And it seems to me in an urban area, the best way to conserve and most effective way is to reduce urban landscaping, which is the major component of urban water use.
You also write about water markets and making them better – for those who don’t know, what is the water market?
Water markets, that is, the voluntary transfer of water between water users, is more robust in some other Western states. Again Arizona and New Mexico come to mind. California somewhat surprisingly is behind the curve. We are in the dark ages compared to other states. Water markets are kind of anecdotal. There is not much of a statewide system. It is done at the local level, through individual transactions without much oversight and without much transparency. And I have concerns about all of those things.
I believe conceptually watermarks are a way to stretch scarce, finite water resources to make water use more efficient. I can, for example, allow farmers or ranchers to sell water to urban uses or commercial usage or factories in times of drought.
Farmers sometimes can make more money by farming water, than they can by farming crops.
There are efficiencies to be gained here.
The problem in my view is really one of transparency. The water markets are not publicly regulated, and some of the people who are engaging in water transactions like it that way, frankly, they want to operate under the radar.
In my opinion, water markets need to be overseen by a public entity rather than private or nonprofit entities. We need oversight and transparency, so that folks like you and myself can follow the markets to see who's selling water to whom, for what purpose, and make sure that those water transfers serve the public interests and not just the private interests.
There have been a number of stories in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Salt Lake City Tribune about efforts in some parts to privatize water transfer. Hedge fund managers are buying and selling water, as a means of profiting. And it strikes me that when you're talking about an essential public resource — and in California, it is embedded in the law that public water is an inherently public resource, that water is owned by the public and it can be used for private purposes, but it is an inherently public resource — the idea of commoditizing water through the private, opaque markets is very troublesome to me. I think it represents a very dangerous trend and one that needs to be corrected and avoided.
Why is California so behind?
There's no good reason for it. It's largely inexplicable that since the state was created on September 9th, 1860, we've been fighting over water. In the 19th century, it was miners versus farmers ranchers. In the 20th century, with the growth of urban communities, the evolution of California into one of the most populous states with 40 million Californians, it has been a struggle between urban and agricultural uses of water.
In the second half of the 20th century, there was a recognition that some component of water had to be left in streams to protect ecosystems, landscape, and wildlife, including the threatened and endangered wildlife. That suggestion has made agricultural users in California angry. You will see those signs that allude to the idea that food and farming are more important than environmental values. I don't happen to believe that's true. I believe both are critically important to our society. But the advocates for the environment have a proverbial seat at the water table. So that's another demand for water allocation that exists.
Do you maintain optimism?
Yes. I think it's human nature to look on the bright side. I try to do that through research scholarships and teaching. There are models for how we can do this better in the United States. Israel and Saudi Arabia and Singapore are far more efficient with their water policies and efforts. Australia went through a severe megadrought. They came out of it a few years ago, but they used that opportunity to dramatically reform their water allocation systems. That's an additional model. I think most people would agree in hindsight that their previous system was antiquated, and not able to meet the challenges of climate change and the growing water shortage in some parts of the world.
Here in the United States, we can learn from those efforts. There are also some ways to expand the water supply. Desalination for one. Again, Singapore and Saudi Arabia have led the world in terms of removing the salt content from ocean water and increasing water supply that way. In Carlsbad, California, north of San Diego, we have the biggest desalination plant in the United States right now, and that is currently satisfying a significant component of the San Diego metropolitan areas’ water needs. It's more expensive than other water supplies, but the technology is getting more refined, so the cost of desalinated water is coming down at a time when other water supplies, due to shortages and the workings of the free market are going up.
At some point, they're going to meet or get closer. Unlike some of my environmental colleagues, I think desalination is an important part of the equation.
In a proposal that came up in the recall election, one of the candidates was talking about how we just need to build a canal from the Mississippi River to California to take care of all our problems. That ignores political problems associated with that effort, as well as the massive infrastructure costs that would be required to build and maintain a major aqueduct for 2000 miles from the Mississippi to California. That's just not going to happen. Some of those pie in the sky thoughts of how we expand the water supply, I think, are unrealistic.
interviews
The Unlikely Combination of Comedy and Civics
by Caty Borum Chattoo
November 14, 2018
This interview with Caty Borum Chattoo, the Director of the Center for Media & Social Impact (CMSI) and Executive in Residence at the American University School of Communication in Washington, D.C., was conducted and condensed by frank news.
I've worked professionally for a number of years to engage people in serious social issues that matter. Over the years, that work has ranged from a research-based strategic communication approach to efforts focused on narrative and creativity, particularly documentary storytelling and comedy. At this point in my career, my work is deeply focused on understanding the role of creativity and culture in social change – in public engagement and civic practice. Over the years, I’ve worked on topics including environmental justice, H.I.V., reproductive health, global poverty, global development, maternal health, and others.
What I started to notice over the years of doing this work is that, while of course these serious issues require a serious approach, we also need to embrace entertaining and emotional routes to encouraging people to engage with tough topics.
With this in mind, my efforts most recently have focused explicitly on the role of creativity, mediated storytelling, documentary storytelling, and comedy. I'll talk about both of those separately. I place creativity and story and culture at the center of efforts for social change because I believe so strongly that if we don't let some light and optimism and entertainment and fun into these issues, we're just going to continue to only talk to people who are already believers, people who already care, people who are already doing things.
Do you think one can avoid screaming into the echo chamber? We are so in control of what we see it's inherently isolating. I do the scroll and see celebrities posting about civic engagement and I always pause and wonder who they're talking to.
I deeply appreciate that question. Part of my own journey about that question began when I looked at my own work. I was doing serious documentary work about some issues and serious strategic communication campaigns to get people to engage in issues like reproductive health and drug use. I sat back and said, "I am really worried that I am now only talking to people like myself," and “like myself” can mean a lot of different things about our own echo chambers. I could say similar educational background, similar perspective within a coastal city, similar socio-economic class, similar race, gender, age.
So, maybe I'm just talking to people who already agree with me. I wanted to dig much deeper. With that guiding question, I am interested in understanding more about how can we engage people who are not already thinking about these issues that matter or perhaps are thinking about these issues in ways that are damaging or harmful. How can we engage people differently?
When we look at documentaries about social issues, they are deep. This are not explanatory talking head documentaries, not true crime documentaries, but documentaries that deeply look at social issues. Generally speaking, those are character-driven narratives, which means they're really telling a human story about one person or several people as a way to illustrate how they're living their lives dealing with x-issue. So x-issue an environmental justice issue or racism or some other form of discrimination.
What we know about storytelling from a research perspective is that when we experience stories, we can be transported into them. We have an emotional experience with those stories, we identify and connect with characters. When we're deeply experiencing a human narrative that's told beautifully, and artfully, and creatively with music and editing and pacing, we have an opportunity to reach people in their emotional selves, which is incredibly important for persuasion and adoption of ideas.
Over the last decade and a half or so, there's been a big movement and an entire professional ecology that's built up around the idea of groups that drive civic practice and community engagement using documentary at the forefront of that work. My forthcoming documentary book is focused on this work and its influence. My book is telling the stories of the movies and the civic engagement groups that work with documentaries at the heart of them. For example, these groups and filmmakers seek out NGOs and organizations and community groups and business groups and leaders who are already thinking about or dealing with an issue in a way from all different vantage points, and this fabric strengthens their movement-building, if you will, with the use of storytelling.
Number two, the preaching beyond the choir question. Many times you reach people differently with this kind of storytelling. We can bypass some of these divides that we have. That's one thing. Storytelling lives as a really particular way that can help us transcend some of what we think of as tribal differences.
Comedy is this unique cultural place where we can meet and find laughter and commonality. There's so much research about comedy that shows what happens when we experience characters that aren't like us. For example, there is research that talks about gay and lesbian characters on television and people who have the least interaction with gay and lesbian characters in real life are the most moved by comedy portrayals that portray them as human.
When we do that repetitively, we definitely raise the alarm. We raise awareness with the public. But we might be encouraging public disengagement. We might be encouraging people to not be involved in civic practice because it seems so impossible to deal with these issues at all.
For this book I'm writing with my co-author, Lauren Feldman, we focus on comedy and social justice. A lot of what we're writing and thinking about is what happens when social justice groups, civic engagement groups, choose to work with comedy and why did they choose to do it. They do it to open up conversations to topics, to find areas of commonality, and to find areas for hope and optimism and a different kind of emotional response to issues. Comedy is a great cultural unifier and allows us to communicate about social issues that are pretty serious in a different way. But of course, comedy isn't for everything.
What do you view as the baseline responsibilities of the public?
In a really broad sense, the idea is of the public sphere is an underpinning to how democracy functions ideally. The idea is that we have these institutions of power and generally speaking, the most potent institutions of power are state power, or the government, and economic power, or the corporate/business sector. In the midst of that is the role of the people. The role of the people and the role of public discourse, our access to information, our ability to talk with one another, our ability in a public space to talk and deliberate and negotiate social challenges as both an activity we do with one another as citizens, and as people who are practicing civics. That's important. And the voices of the people in that regard are also a check on those very potent forms of institutional power.
We're people as publics – we can be engaged in working with one another for the public good. For common good: getting a stop sign on your street for example. It’s one of the classic examples of this idea, but of course it becomes much more nuanced when we consider more complex social challenges.
So, I would say at a really, really basic level of civic understanding is truly the idea that we are publics with some real power to make collective change.
It sounds so obvious, but we're in a moment where we're not even doing that very well. We're not even communicating with one another about our shared values. I think that's incredibly important as a certain basic minimum is just simply the reminder that we're not passive, we're not helpless, but that we must communicate with one another in order to solve our common challenges.
What role does education have in explaining civics and civic responsibility?
I love that question. At the risk of sounding like a real old-school person here, I think it's key. I think it is absolutely fundamental. We must, must, have strong civic practice and civic rights being taught in school.
Even this idea of the public sphere, the role of publics, all of that is actually really meaningful. The digital media age is deeply controlled advertising and brands and we could travel down this slippery slope to imagine that we are simply consumers – that we're just here to buy things and to accept information from brands.
I think civic education has to be taught in schools in a really strong way. The importance and the history of voting and frankly the importance and history of protest. Our country was created from protest. I think that kind of pride and responsibility, communal responsibility in civic practice is needed. But also, the tactical details of how to engage in behaviors like voting also needs to be taught. Let me give you an example.
In 2004, I was working for the TV producer and philanthropist Norman Lear. Norman Lear is also known as the guy who founded People For the American Way and has been a great and vocal supporter of civil engagement, particularly civic engagement for young people, for years.
I was working for Norman at the time as part of a youth civic engagement organization that he founded in 2002 called Declare Yourself. As a backdrop, young people as a cohort are historically are the least likely to register and least likely to vote. Rather than assume that young people were not voting or were going to vote if they cared enough about the issue, we facilitated research that revealed we the most important reason they were not voting, at that time, was because they did not know how to actually register in the first place. In a well-meaning social change effort, if we had created a whole campaign that was focused on motivating young people about issues along, we would have failed. The objective was to register young people to vote.
What we learned, back to your question, was that they actually didn't understand the mechanics of voter registration. By the way, voter registration. Super complicated. Because it differs state by state, as you know. The deadlines differ, whether you can do paper or online differs. If you can do it at the DMV or some other place differs by state. They're turning 18 when they finish high school. They need to learn this in school when they're 16.
That's profoundly important and goes back to the role of education that needs to be involved... education that needs to help young people learn about the institutions of democracy and civic practice. They need to learn about the philosophy of why it matters and how democracy works. They need to learn the tactical realities of how to actually do these things: how to vote, how to be involved in public comment periods, and regulatory actions and so on.
Yes, I think education is incredibly important. I don't think it just starts in middle school and high school, I think we need to do it in college which many of us do.
I work with young people, and I love young people. I teach college students and graduate students, and I hear their perspectives all the time. They know so much more about so many things than we Gen-Xers did at their age. But we are not absolved of our responsibility as their educators. We still have to teach how civic practice works and how to do it.