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
What High School Debate Can Do For Gen Z
by David Muhammed
March 11, 2019
This interview with David Muhammad, an economics, international relations and world studies teacher at Shawnee Mission East, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
If you’re going to be a social studies teacher you have to be having tough conversations, or what's the point? History and everything else is debatable. It's all subjective to some extent. Who won and who lost. It's easy to be monotone in the voice because everybody is reading the same books. Sometimes they address things that are really prevalent, and we don't create space for kids to talk about it. We act like it's not as important as it is. Or that that energy doesn't exist. When we ignore those individuals, it boils over to physical or emotional acts, as opposed to intellectual.
The debates you saw for the Confederate Flag, that was actually a combination of myself and some of the journalism students wanting to have a debate over a hot button topic. Initially we wanted it to be a couple of students who were pro-Confederate Flag and a couple of students who were anti. They wanted a teacher who was pro-Confederate Flag and a teacher who was anti. They knew that I was anti.
When we had discussions to figure out how it was going to look, we came to the conclusion that it'd be more beneficial to have an open debate where anybody could come during the hall period, where students can travel and see teachers. We posted on social media that we were going to be having this discussion, got the word out, and they all showed up to my classroom. It wasn't like they were all my students.
I had questions I was going to ask to make sure to give a voice to both sides, and set some ground rules in regards to how we were going to act. It was just very organic. That was the first one we did. The next one after that we did for Kaepernick and the kneeling situation, we did one for gun rights.
It helped that it was in an academic environment, so there was already a level of respect for the space. Then, the fact that I was very conscious of giving each side a chance to speak, we looked for voices for both sides that were intelligent. Sometimes it's really easy to lean things one way and make the other side look bad, but we tried to actively find students who we knew for the Confederate Flag but had some intelligence about why they were supporting it.
It wasn't going to be an argument and to bring their friends – that was the goal. That's always been the goal, to try to highlight the intelligence on both sides and give them a chance to hear each other. It's been successful. I think people are uncomfortable being uncomfortable, but if you let them know that's how growth happens, a lot of times it's a very rewarding experience.
Do you watch political debates with your students?
It depends on the class. When I taught government, we did watch debates. We've watched State of the Union addresses in some of my classes. I teach an International Relations class and we watch the UN General Assembly. We get to current events and do current events research. I make them do a lot of understanding all sides of the argument. Unless it's a presidential season, we don't necessarily watch a lot of those debates – but we do discuss the divisiveness within our country right now. That comes up a lot.
It feels like every speech is trying to make the other side look bad. We discussed, in my International Relations class, the Cohen testimony that happened last week.
How do you teach productive debate? That's respectful but effective, and focused on the argument?
If you look at debate teams, they research. It's not about what they feel, it's about what side they chose to argue. It's their job to do as much research about that side as possible. When I first started, it was trial and error. I'd say "Okay. If you agree with this argument you're on this side. If you disagree, you're on this side." Often times it turned into one student who has a really strong opinion, and not everybody else's voices. Or scaring everybody else off. I thought "Okay, that's not very effective."
Now what I do, especially in my International Relations and US History classes, is start off by having them write down their feelings about a subject. I'll ask all the questions I'm going to ask initially, my big questions. I have them take some time to just write it out. That right there lowers the emotionalism of it, because they have to think. They have to be intellectual. If you just go right into the question and get them to try and argue, they're not going to have enough time to process their thoughts, and they're going to turn to emotionalism. Having them write has a really big effect.
Really all they have to do when it comes to the conversation is read out their points. Then I'll split them into small groups because it's less intimidating. I put them in small groups of four or five, and say "Okay, now discuss within your groups." Finally, by that point, their confidence is up, they've heard other people's arguments, they don't feel detracted or discouraged by having an opinion because they might have heard someone else validate their opinion, or they hear some more things they can think about and then we share out loud. It becomes more of a research conversation as opposed to a debate.
By making them do research and by making them write it out to get the emotions out of it, I think it creates a higher academic setting, and one that's a lot more respectable.
Do you feel teaching research and communication this way should be happening on a much larger scale? Your classroom is special, and students have a really unique response to you as a teacher.
I think it's necessary for the survival of our society, from an ethical standpoint. The whole point of democracy is being able to have the space for the citizens to say, "We don't like this" and knowing how to say it in a way where their voices can be heard respectfully.
I think that it's necessary if we want to have a society where we can challenge things that we don't feel stand up to our ethics, and challenge things that we feel like are not healthy for the greater good of humanity. We have to know how to speak our piece with intelligence and with intellect. We've got to get past this point where if I'm a Democrat, then I have to agree with everything all the Democrats say, and oppose everything Republicans say.
We have to create a higher standard. If you understand why you believe what you believe, it will be a lot easier for people to see it from the other side because you're strong in your faith. I'm a Muslim and sometimes I've met people that don't want to hear anything I have to say about Islam, almost like they're afraid that they hear it, I might try to convert them.
You should have your faith. I know what I believe, and me hearing about some other faith isn't going to shake my faith. It's just going to solidify what I already believe. You shouldn't be afraid. I think a lot of people are afraid of being exposed to what they don't know.
There is so much research and polling that goes into trying to understand what Millennials and Gen Z want. Adults are trying so hard to talk to young people. What’s your feeling about how your students see our current political climate?
You know what I mean? Honestly. You have to recognize with young people, they are in a snapshot portrait. All they see is the remnants of everything that happened. So for instance, with Cohen last week, most of the kids did not watch even an hour of that. They saw the five minute recap, or the headline on Twitter as they scrolled to watch some other crazy video. If all they're seeing is constant low intellect, high emotion, irrational remnants of this stuff, they don't want to be involved. They don't want to vote. They don't want to have anything to do with it, because to them it's like "Oh my God, what's the point? I'll just stick with whatever side my parents are already on." That's what we see, a detached society, because we're not modeling mature adult behavior.
Of course, you have kids who are really into politics and they're different, but the majority of these kids, they're just over it all. It gives them something to ignore. We, as a society, have to start looking at what example we are setting for them, because I think it does effect their subconscious and it makes them just say "Well, I'm just going to pick this side because it's easier that way. I'm already over here. I don't have to think. I'm just going to go with the flow because I don't want these problems. I don't want any drama." That's really what I've been feeling.
I was talking about Trudeau in Canada in my International Relations class, and I said to them "Do you guys understand why this could be a problem?" They're just looking at me like "No. Why should I care?" I'm like "Okay. Break it down. Now our country's a little bit unstable politically, the last thing we need is our neighbor to the north being politically unstable. Could you see a particular problem with that?" The look they gave me was like "Why are you talking to me about this?" I had an out-of-body experience. I'm so passionate about it, and they were like "This is stupid." I could see why though. I could see why they would feel that way because to them it's just more of the same. "Okay, another guy's going to resign. What's the difference between him and Cohen and everybody else resigning?"
What matters to them is that 21 Savage almost got deported. That's important. J Cole's new video just came out. That’s important.
Influence still rests on pop culture.
Absolutely. That's why it's so crucial we have voices like J Cole, because that's who they listen to. They barely listen to me. I get a lot of credit from teachers saying I got a way that appeals to kids, but I also understand it only goes so far. I'm still their teacher. One of the reasons I have been able to cross into their lane, where they feel like they can feel comfortable with me, is because I get the fact that their culture outweighs all this other stuff. The culture that they're in is much heavier. That's what they're watching, that's what they're paying attention to.
Oh my god.
The work is getting done, but it's not setting in because they're thinking about who's going to be kicked off.
It's just another thing because they're overly bombarded constantly. Twitter, Instagram, new this, new that. It's just constant. So they're like "Oh, you know. It's just another thing."
That's crazy.
Yeah. You can't really blame them though. We kind of created the monster.
You can't blame them. I was just thinking how much of this is unique to their generation? Because I guess I hated everything in high school too. But I was pretty much cooked before reality TV became a part of the culture I live in. I was already 18 when the Kardashians came on. I can enjoy it, but I'm not overwhelmed by it.
Yeah. I graduated high school in 2003, so that was before Facebook. I think our situation is really different because we didn't really know anything that was going on. You didn't have access. There were no cell phones, there wasn't a Twitter, you didn't really watch the news. I didn't even know what the World Trade Center was when 9/11 happened. I had no idea what it was.
Right.
Never heard of it. You know what I'm saying? These kids, they have more access, they're more knowledgeable about more things, I just think they don't care as much because we don't give them the space to have time to care. That's why the discussions are really important. When Eric Garner was choked out by the police, I remember showing my kids the video. They were like "Why are we not discussing this?" I realized in that moment it's because we don't give them the space to discuss it. Use the curriculum, keep moving, go to Chemistry class, do this, do that. They don't have space for it. I give them that space and when I do, some amazing things come out. A lot of people say it's like debate.
You were right to note that everything is sliced and repacked. They aren't watching one hour of the Cohen testimony, they're watching the highlight reel. That makes a lot of sense to me. There are entire companies whose business model is to distill news down into Instagramable, SnapChatable segments.
Yeah. Vox.
Totally. Are we supposed to say "oh, that's what you want, that's what we're going to give you" or should we challenge that and say "Well here's something educational that gives you more space, that gives you more time" and challenge them to rise and go deeper than what they're used to?
I think we do both. I do think it's a problem that we always cater to, "Well, this is what they want so this is how you have to give it to them."
At some point they're not going to want anything. We have to understand that some of what they want is only a product of what we created. My students in my school and my entire district, they all have MacBooks. They all have MacAirs. That's just part of the classes. They all have access to the computers, which is great because kids couldn't afford computers who now have access, I want them to research something very quickly they have access, but they also access Netflix and YouTube. That's just wasting their time. Before those came around, I didn't have the same focus level issues that I do now. It creates this access, but it came to a point that it drowned their minds and that’s hard to get around. I think what we're seeing is that part of the reason why they don't want to hear about it is because it's boring. When I was a kid, I was bored by it too. I think it's all about how it's presented. It's not sexy enough right now. You know what I mean?
We need a West Wing reality show.
Yeah. Absolutely. Or safe spaces for conversations that are led by athletes and entertainers and stop trying to have these old guys like me, I'm 34 but I'm becoming old to them. Imagine how effective it would be. I know he's not intellectually stimulating enough, but if Lil Pump was somewhat intellectual. You have Lil Pump and Blue Face and Taylor Swift all having a discussion about politics. Could you imagine how phenomenal that would be? Kendrick Lamar and J Cole. It would be so phenomenal. The impact that that would have.
We saw it with Obama. We had Diddy and Jay-Z saying "Get out and vote" and that was a very simple thing. It wasn't even having and intellectual conversation, but what turned me on to some of these higher level thinkers, was watching Lupe Fiasco on Instagram. It made me be like "okay I want to go read this book." But that's because I could see myself in them. I can kind of see myself in Cory Booker I guess, but beyond that some of these guys I wouldn't want to even hang out with. I don't want to hear what you have to say. I watch it because I'm interested in the conversation now, but I've evolved to that point.
What got me was seeing people who looked like me and spoke my language. It might come across cheeky at first, but empower the youth. Saying, "You know what, what do you think? We're going to put you in the space. We're going to empower you to figure it out for yourself. This is what I want you to research and we're not going to tell you how to do it, we want to see what you come up with. Show us the new way."
I think let the kids create what it looks like to them. I want you guys to learn about this, but I know I'm boring and I know that this way is boring, and you guys are telling me that you're bored. So you figure out how you want to learn it. What will work for you? Then see where they take us. Or we're going to lose them.
I can send out a tweet that can go viral in two minutes. How is it that we're not taking that and having a conversation? There is no reason in the world. Our president models the worst behavior, but you can't even blame him because CNN and Fox highlight everything he says. They're giving him credit. They give him the platform. The kids find out that scandal is what gets you on. By doing something shady or saying something controversial, you’re going to get more followers. “Even if people hate me, they still follow me, and I get money. I'm an Instagram influencer because I have a million followers for saying terrible things about people."
That's so disappointing and dark, but true.
On the other end, there's positive. There's good out there, we just have to find it. I've seen some amazing stuff getting out on social media that brings people together.
When the Confederate Flag debate went viral this summer, I went "Okay, let me take this platform and have them lead discussions." Some of the responses were amazing. Just to see when people have a chance to talk, they will say some beautiful things.
I think you're in an invaluable position to have influence over these kids, but also to be influenced by them and see what they're feeling and what they're thinking, and meeting them where they're at. We can talk to to them without it feeling like old people trying to be young.
We don't need Bernie Sanders to come out sagging. We need Bernie Sanders to find someone who looks like the kids who he wants to appeal to. I don't understand why Democrats and Republicans can be so stupid. They get up there and they try to be sociable. Nobody's going to believe this. Go find somebody in some of these kids' communities that speak their language and we will believe you. Stop trying so hard.
Stop trying so hard! We can tell.
It's disrespectful to kids' intellect. They think they’re stupid. Young people are so stupid that they're not going to see through it. But kids can spot real from fake a lot faster than adults can. They judge me every day. Like "What's wrong with you? What's up with your facial expression? Why you wearing that?" I'm like "Damn."
100 percent.
They see right through you. Stop trying to be cool. Sometimes I'll make a joke and they're like stop trying to be cool I'm like "Alright. You got me."