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
Cyber Security For The Future Grid
by Juliette Kayyem
February 25, 2019
This interview with Juliette Kayyem, CEO of Zemcar, President Obama’s Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, and Belfer Lecturer in International Security at Harvard Kennedy School, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
Part of the energy democracy definition has to do with decentralizing the grid. The criticism then comes from a security perspective, which says, decentralizing the grid increases cybersecurity risks. Is that a fair conclusion? What does mitigating these risks look like?
No one system of critical infrastructure and how it's built is better than another in terms of security. A singular unified system might be easier to protect, but it also means it's a single target that can bring a whole system down. It has no layers of defense. You basically have, what we call in the security space, a single point of failure.
Think about that in terms of the blowout preventer and the BP Oil Spill. We had a single point of failure. A two hundred thousand dollar mechanism that fails, becomes a 30 billion dollar accident. You want layered defenses so that diversification, and bifurcation, and diversity, actually become better because you're not going to have that single point of failure.
On the other hand, each of those things is a new vulnerability that has to be protected in its own way. The idea that diversification or multiplication is, in and of itself vulnerable, that's only half the statement. It just means, how do we make those vulnerabilities less vulnerable? Because obviously, you're going to have more access points.
That's how, on the security side, we tend to think about critical infrastructures. We tend to think about five key attributes of the system, and how do you make it more resilient? That could be a transportation system. It could be critical infrastructure. It could be cybersecurity. This is how I think about it and teach about it and write about it.
You can't have a single point of failure. You want to have layered defenses, back up systems, all that. The perfect example is it was a single system administrator who gave away his password thinking that it was password change, and it was not. It was a foreign entity. That got the foreign entity into the entire system. They just wouldn’t build a system that way anymore.
What that means is that if the system gets under stress, if there's a natural disaster or cyber attack, the system is able to protect itself. It has fail safe mechanisms so that the whole system doesn't go down, so you can stop what we call the cascading losses.
A great example is the Super Bowl that went in half dark in 2013. That actually was a pretty sophisticated fail safe system. The power structure in the Superdome during the Superbowl came under stress and it protected itself. It stopped the cascading losses.
Do you have people, rather than just technology, that actually are able to respond to get the system protected and get the system back up and running?
Those are the first three when you think about how to build a system that could respond quickly to an attack or prevent an attack. The other two have to do with resiliency. But those three key attributes are how we think about security rather than thinking, this one system is better than that system. All protective systems will have those three attributes.
Theoretically then, having a less centralized system is safer than having larger utility services in charge?
In theory, yup. Absolutely. But also, think about dams. That would be really hard to replace. A single dam provides a lot of important needs. In some instances you're going to need that one thing. You just figure out ways in which you can protect it. But the idea that diversification is inherently insecure sounds commonsensical – but it's actually not right. Because the single system could be insecure as well.
So then any company providing new energy services, whether it be solar or wind, would also be the service providing security for their customers.
Right, exactly.
What happens when we move beyond the private sector? Who in government is responsible for providing security for the new ways of creating and distributing clean energy?
It's going to depend. There are going to be guidelines and regulations depending on what the regulated industry is. Some of them are semi unregulated. With fracking, it took a couple years for the government to establish safety and security protocols. But most of them are regulations that fall on the private entity.
I think there's a general sense in the community that these companies are incentivized enough to be able to protect their systems. Unfortunately, if you read anything on critical infrastructure in the US, including voting and elections, a lot of that is dependent on either private, state, or local entities, and not demanded by the federal government. There's obviously exceptions to that, the nuclear realm is heavily regulated. Fracking is starting to get more regulated. But solar, not very much so.
It seems to be that energy at utility scale is very regulated, but when you move beyond utility and the grid, those regulations fall away. What that suggests to me is that technology is ahead of policy.
Oh, absolutely. Part of that is private entities don't like to get regulated. State and local entities don't like the federal government telling them what to do. Part of it is also a real tension between innovation and security, that I think is more in theory than in practice. There’s a sense that if we put too much regulation, too much security demands on this, there won't be as much creativity. That's what you hear about technology. You think about Facebook and Silicon Valley – government can't do anything because it will stifle innovation.
Do you feel it would be helpful for policy to support cyber security for specific purposes in the new energy realm?
Yes. I think you might have to start with best practices. It's really interesting to think about this. We tend to think of clean energy as benign to the bad industries of oil drilling and BP.
It is smart to start requiring them to build in a way that makes them more resilient, safe, and secure now. Rather than thinking, oh they’re nice and they’re innovative and they’re good. Facebook started off as good, right? It was just going to bring people together. When companies get bigger their incentive structure becomes different. You and I might be dead by then, but a hundred years from now the idea that we wouldn’t think about a green energy company the same way we think about Exxon and BP is ridiculous, of course we will, because they will be as big.
I do think it's a good time to start.
What language would be helpful?
It would have the attributes I just described. It would require building in redundancies, ensuring layered security, making sure that planning in response is done adequately and with state and local guidance. It would demand the things I told you in some ways.
In theory these things should be built into policy that dictates how we move forward on a large scale with clean energy. At the moment this looks like the Green New Deal. Should the GND incorporate security?
Yes. I have not looked at the specifics of the proposal that's out there, but I'm very curious. Does it actually have a resiliency or a safety and security component? I haven't heard anything, so I'm guessing no.
Remember the industry has an incentive to make it seem like these new industries are less safe. Now is the time because these companies, if you just look at the metrics, are going to be the BPs and Exxons of their day. Now is the time to begin to have these cyber protections, these safety and security protections in the green energy proposals, because if you don't do it now it's going to be almost impossible to do later.
We talked about Facebook two years ago the way we talk about green energy today. This is bringing us together. It's a brand new world. It's benign. Borders will be broken. That's how we talked about Facebook. It's a big company that didn't pay attention to its underbelly, to its vulnerability
Up until the last two years, any serious discussion about regulating a Facebook was met with, you can't stifle innovation, and we're just bringing people together. Well, you know what? Bringing people together can have its vulnerabilities.