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
Impact Investment For The Circular Economy
by Rob Kaplan
January 31, 2019
Rob Kaplan is Founder and CEO of Circulate Capital, an impact-focused investment management firm dedicated to financing innovation, companies, and infrastructure that prevent the flow of plastic waste into the world's ocean while advancing the circular economy.
How do you define a circular economy?
I think a circular economy is one where commodities and resources are managed in perpetuity. So that there is no waste, but instead it's a resource for future innovation and product manufacturing.
In transitioning from a linear system to a circular one – who becomes responsible for the end of life? Especially in a time where goods are globally dispersed.
Well, I think the answer is that everybody's responsible. There's no single entity that is responsible for how it's managed at the end of its life, in my opinion. That's why this is a systems challenge that requires a systems solution.
Part of the challenge you're noting is the aspiration of a circular economy with the reality of where waste exists today. Because, circular economy in many ways is an aspirational concept. Especially within consumable products. It doesn't really exist. As we look to invest in companies that can prevent plastic pollution and instead drive towards more circular opportunities, it is a matter of degree. It's not, we'll get there tomorrow in that perfect ideal. It's more about, we've got a lot of waste that's not being managed appropriately. How do we improve that in a way that can create value for those communities? And also prevent the pollution at the same time.
What do some of those solutions look like in practice for you and the companies you work with?
We've been looking at how to invest in South and Southeast Asia for the last couple years. I'd say most of the opportunity that’s "shovel ready" today is in the waste and recycling sector. They are usually startup recycling companies that are generally the first line of formality. Where they're buying materials from waste pickers as well as municipalities in some cases. And then adding some kind of value to it. We also see a number of recycling facilities. They're a little bit further downstream from the collection aggregation. We have started to see a little bit of reusable and returnable systems, but they're in a very early stage at this time.
When you work with a large multi-national company, such as PepsiCo or Coca-Cola, what does their commitment to this process look like?
They have two different levels of commitment. The first is they are committing to improve their own operations and supply chains. Almost all of our investors have direct commitments about what they're doing to increase the amount of recycled materials they use in packaging and design for recyclability. Then, they are also committing capital to our strategy to allow us to invest in companies that can increase the amount of recycled material available for their use and the use of others.
They are also providing expertise and resources, and network. They are providing essential off-take and the ability to buy the material after it's collected and sorted. That's a big part of the challenge. The market that's available to buy this material. Needing that kind of surety of off-take.
We’ve discussed circular economies from a variety of perspectives and backgrounds. Science, academia, advocacy. You approach it as a business. Why is your work a necessary part of the puzzle?
The particular slice of the problem we are looking at is plastic pollution in Southeast Asia. We quickly realized it was going to take many billions of dollars of capital to build the infrastructure required to really stop the flow of plastic leaking into the environment and the ocean. We started to look at where would that capital come from? And we realized that it's not going to come from necessarily consumers or companies, but really, institutional investors that are financing the future of infrastructure in Asia. The only way to get those folks involved in this space is to show them that it's an investable marketplace. That there is a track record. That there is a pipeline of opportunity. And that you can make money doing this. We want to demonstrate that investing in waste recycling is as boring as investing in roads and bridges, for which there is a lot of capital allocated.
Our approach to this was “How do you turn this from a waste stream and a cost center into a profit center as a way to unlock that capital?”
When you say infrastructure, are you talking landfills, incinerators? What is that infrastructure?
Our focus is certainly on the recycling and reuse side. I think there is a reality that they need to have improved landfills in Southeast Asia too. But we're not particularly able or interested in financing landfills and incinerators are out of our scope.
Has the China recycling ban affected your day to day?
Oh yeah. I mean National Sword basically turned the entire recycling industry upside down globally. In the markets that we're particularly focused on, they were exporting waste to China too. They hadn't invested in their own domestic processing. That has caused big problems for them and has created great opportunities for investors, who are trying to build those companies within those countries, under those infrastructure projects.
I think most of the countries we're working in in Southeast Asia have also started to follow China's lead and stop accepting imported waste. The US and Europe are not contributing as much to ocean plastic these days as we used to. Because the exporting markets have dried up.
I think there's probably a shifting in the future where more of that will go to Africa, right? Because they haven't started those bans. But most of Southeast Asia has already either halted imports or is talking about halting imports.
Does all of this help move the agenda of circular economies further?
Absolutely. It was so cheap. No one had any incentive to invest in domestic circular economy opportunities because if you were in Los Angeles it was cheaper to ship a container of waste to China than it was to Chicago.
That's crazy.
One important point that I've been trying to communicate lately is that there is no silver bullet for these solutions. It's incredibly complex. People really look for elegant, simplified solutions. But a circular economy is complex. We're not going to be able to reduce our way out of this problem just like we're not going to be able to recycle our way out of this problem. You need both and many more solutions. I worry about absolutists that are trying to push agendas rather than really trying to drive environmental progress.
Our approach is very much, how do we deploy capital as much and as quickly as possible to stop this pollution and make triple bottom line in the process of doing it? Rather than, you know, any political perspective or point of view, it's really just the view of the investor that we're looking to bring to the conversation.
All or nothing doesn’t work here.
Yeah. It's really complex. How can anyone say that there's a single solution to something? If it were that easy, we would have figured it out already. And I think we're also starting to see, because of the topic getting so hot and everyone wanting a piece of it, they're all saying, “Well, what's my contribution?"
Right.
My contribution is activism. My contribution is lobbying or my contribution is X, Y, and Z. And so they're all sort of piling on without a really clear theory of change about where they think they're trying to drive the progress.
Has the re-upping of investment from petrochemical companies into the production of plastic affected your work?
Yeah. One of the interesting things about plastics and circular economies is you actually want that feed stock, right? If you start removing feed stock opportunities, like PET plastic, which is what most beverage bottles are made of, for example, that's really problematic from a circular economy and recycling perspective because PET is the most recyclable plastic that we have today. You'd want to see more of that recyclable material out there. Right now it's cheaper to make plastic out of petroleum or natural gas in the US. It could be cheap to make it out of old plastics. That's where I think the big unlock towards the circular economy comes in. How do you tap into those market forces of building massive chemical facilities and use that as your off take for recyclables? That's the opportunity to change the game and that's your supply and your demand.
Are you optimistic that that will start happening?
I think the petrochemical industry is starting to show that they're really interested in that idea. I think it's really complex and hard to do. There's a lot of barriers. But it's not a technology barrier necessarily.
Is it a political barrier?
It's not so much a political barrier, I think but... Why do you think it's a political barrier?
Because of the political and financial incentive to produce and frack natural gas. How do you switch where incentive lies?
Yeah. I think you're right there. Policy is a huge part of that. Especially in the US where natural gas is so cheap thanks to policy incentives and new technology. It's not so much the same thing in some of these emerging markets we're working in, which is where energy is very expensive and most of that additional capacity is coming online.