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 Great Debate
by Robert Gordon
March 12, 2019
This interview with Robert Gordon, director and producer of Best of Enemies, a behind-the-scenes account of the 1968 televised debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr., was conducted and condensed by frank news.
We're spending the month talking about American political debate. The Vidal / Buckley debates are such a huge part of that history. The film you made tells that story really well. What compelled you to make it?
My friend in Memphis named Tom Graves had gotten ahold of copies of some of the debates. I knew about these debates from childhood, but I had forgotten about them. When Tom shared them with me I immediately saw it as a documentary because of the inherent drama, honestly.
What’s not to love as a filmmaker?
It’s so fun to watch. What surprised you about debate after spending so much time with this material?
What I came away with, that most surprised me is probably this thing that first attracted me as well, which is that even these guys, as cultured as they were, as educated as they were, couldn't behave well around each other. It seemed to me a really good metaphor for the present political system. That was when I got the idea in 2010. I thought oh great, this is such an obviously great idea, I'll get funded immediately and have it out for the 2012 election – because the nation will never get more divided than this, I thought, in 2012. I partnered with Morgan Neville, whom I'd worked with before, and it took us four years to get funding. We got it out in time for the 2016 elections.
It's even more timely, unfortunately. It became even more relevant. ABC did this in a desperate move to cover the DNC.
Right.
It being so wildly successful then became the birth of punditry as we know it. Do you feel there’s a difference to the depth of debate between then and now?
It was put on because it was cheap. In a way that really anticipates reality TV. Reality TV has become very popular, it's very cheap compared to other things. Putting two guys on live TV and having them talk was much cheaper than losing advertisement.
Here was the difference. In 1968 ABC was a borderline successful operation and it could not afford to lose the advertising income of the day that normal coverage would have meant. Normal coverage was, you preempted all your programming and you showed this all day. There were only three networks and one educational network at the time. The other two networks devoted full day coverage to the conventions. ABC decided to reap the benefits of their advertising during the daytime and then in the evening present condensed coverage. Part of that coverage would be analysis made by these two guys [Vidal and Buckley].
I don't know what the truth is, but each one of them believed that ABC came to them first and each one of them said to ABC, “I'll do it with anybody, but not the other guy.” Vidal said he didn't want to do it with Buckley, Buckley didn't want to do it with Vidal. So, of course ABC went to the nemesis immediately and made arrangements. We found correspondence where ABC said we're going to hope that there's sparks. I think there was an interview with one of the producers who said, yeah we're going to put these guys out there and hope there's some sparks. They didn't know what was going on. ABC saw the tension between the two men increase night after night after night, and for the first half of that thought this is is great, great, great. For the second half, started going God, I hope they'll reign it in.
They don't. And it explodes. Which turns out to be really good for ABC.
It's really crazy how that model took off.
Yeah it's amazing. That it was all packed into that. When we set out, we did not know the backstory about ABC and this being a desperate move. In narrative film, you write the script, and then you go shoot what's written. In documentary you shoot everything and then you figure out what the story is.
Right.
And that's the beauty of what happened here. Our film changed as we got into it and learned more. As a filmmaker, you have to keep your eyes open for how the narrative is revealing itself.
What a dynamic thing to find.
Yes.
When you sat with the footage, you watched the exchange between the two of them multiple times, did you find that there was depth to their arguing? That it was educational beyond performance?
When we were working on this I developed a close relationship with the ABC archive, and I really pushed them hard to release the entire debates as a disk – as a package. They just didn't think there was interest. There's two and a half hours of debate. Our movie is only 90 minutes long and the debate probably occupies twenty-five or thirty minutes of screen time. What we could present had to be very cut down.
They did argue issues. I felt like we presented them arguing issues. Most people only remember them cutting each other down and going for the jugular.
They're public intellectuals, and they seem well-informed and their opinions seemed to be based in something, and they can defend them – which is different than preaching and screaming about an opinion.
Yes.
That’s to say this format could still function if you found the right people. Or do you feel they were special and able to carry this because of who they were?
Because of these two guys and who they are, and because of how they felt about each other, it's a Gladiator's fight to the death, and we're all packed in the Colosseum.
Right.
It is intellectual, and I'll come back to that in a second, but it's also because they are unable to prevent the personal from informing their dialogue, it becomes like Morton Downey. There's a freak show element to Vidal and Buckley's personal engagement, that makes people rubber neck. It makes them stick around and watch.
The difference between them and Morton Downey's show is that in the course of their dialogue, most of the founding fathers are cited. They talk about pollution, and they talk about the economy, and they bring an educated informed position to it, and the political position to it.
I don't know which way it goes. Do people come for the intellect and stay for the cat-fighting? Or do they come for the cat-fighting and stay for the intellectual content?
It's definitely interesting now when there's so many options for the cat fight, and we're fatigued from watching it. There's no real space for listening and then actually rebutting. Do you feel like there's an appetite for high level debate?
Yes, and I think it's out there. It's out there on podcasts now. When we were doing the film, I hoped that some failing cable enterprise, to save it's operation, realized how inexpensive it was to present that kind of programming, and they would do it as a last ditch effort to stay on TV and then it would become popular. I think what's happened is that you get it in podcasts. You can order it as specialized as you want it.
I listen to the KCRW program Left, Right, and Center. I listen to the New York Times, The Argument. I hear people from both sides making intellectual and informed arguments in a civil manner. I think it exists.
As soon as someone begins to become successful, as soon as they become noticeable, the system draws them to be more Howard Stern like, if you will. You're drawn to this base common denominator.
You asked about the first time I was watching this. I recall I was about four minutes into the first exchange and I just hit pause. I got up and got a dictionary. When you're making a film like this, you're committing to a solid year of your life, and in all probability it's almost three – this one was six! You want do something that you can learn from. Hell yeah I got the dictionary! One of the things I figured out Buckley did in debate, but I really parsed it with the help of Daniel Webster – is Buckley would use the most difficult word whenever possible. He was using them more as weaponry than as content. In the debate at one time he says, “axiomatic.” It's like, that's really not adding anything to the sentence or the point he's making. It's just to throw a javelin at the opponent.
I wonder if that sort of conversation and language would push people away now? Is there hunger for programming that does exactly what it did to you, which is make you pause to get a dictionary?
The nation's coverage, at least in 2016, was taken as far from that as possible. But that doesn't mean there's not an audience. Our movie did almost a million dollars at the box office, and on the one hand I was ecstatic about that. On the other hand, I was a little bit disappointed. I kind of thought we would tap into a deeper vein in America.
I don't know what to tell you. It's on Netflix now, but I don't follow the stats to know what it's done there. It's hard to gauge how large the national desire is with that. Who are the characters who could do this? So many people are polarizing already. We're talking about a higher level of intellectual debate. Who is out there now that brings the classical knowledge these guys had? Who can quote Pericles? Who is going to quote Pericles, in your eight minutes between commercial breaks?
I got to interview Noam Chomsky once, and he said that the night he got asked to be on Nightline, the Nightline producer explained concision to him. Noam Chomsky said I'll never be on Nightline, because I won't give answers that can fit within the confines of their commercial restrictions.
It's such a fascinating world you got to live in for six years. That is, in a way, a gateway to the landscape we live in now.
The past is present, you know, it's an intersection where change was happening, you could still see the mountains behind you and you got a chance to see the ocean in front of you. Whereas now it's all so far from us.
Is there anything from this experience you wish you could see now?
It's funny because another thread of our story is the atomization of information source. The three networks controlled what you knew. Now, you can't tell truth from that. Something may look like a network, but it may actually be a maniac in his basement, and you don't know whether up is down or down is up.
I feel like the benefits of that are specialized podcasts. You can go dig as deep as you want into the pursuit you want, but the downside, which is perhaps more powerful, is that you give up your factual basis, your reality, your shared reality.
Do you think there's a way to mitigate that problem?
I would think that education would help. I would think that if we treated teachers like we treated movie stars, let's say we treated teachers 1/100th as well as we treated movie stars, that would be a way to help our nation.
The way out is to enhance education.