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
In Conversation with Chancellor Oakley
by Chancellor Oakley
May 13, 2019
This interview with California Community Colleges Chancellor, Eloy Oakley, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
frank: What do you think the most serious barriers and challenges are for students trying to attend college today?
Chancellor Oakley: First, in California, we're fortunate that we have some of the most generous support for students in the country. The community colleges, the CSU, the UC - our students have some of the lowest debt levels in the country, which is good news.
In the California community colleges, we have the lowest tuition in the country, which is good news. The challenges students have today, is the cost of attending college, not the cost of tuition in California. The cost of living in California is high, whether that's housing, transportation, food. The cost of attending college is rising and creating a huge barrier for students. Particularly those students that have to leave their community to go off to college somewhere else.
Housing is very expensive. The amount of aid available, particularly to community college students, has not kept up with the pace of the cost of attending college.
Why is California an exemplar state?
I think most of it stems from the commitment we made in The Master Plan for Higher Education in California back in the early sixties. That commitment laid out clarity about how the state was going to invest in higher education, and support various levels of higher education, and ensure that they work together. That's been a big benefit - students in California have tremendous access to community colleges. We're the largest of higher education in the country, so that access allows many students to be able to transfer to a 4-year university right here in their home state and in many cases within their community.
The access to quality public higher education, is unrivaled in any other state. Of course, there has been a tremendous amount of investment to create that access in California. That certainly has set California apart, and the Cal Grant System in California, which is it's own financial leg commitment to students, also significantly benefits college students, particularly those in the CSU and the UC. It ensures that we have low debt levels. All that put together has been a major commitment that California has made to higher education. And, I think, in large part why California continues to be one of the largest economies in the world.
Does this set-up benefit out-of-state students in similar ways?
No, it does not. Out-of-state students pay higher tuition. They pay the cost of attendance, or the total cost of attendance. Other colleges and universities still benefit from federal financial aid, and there are certainty scholarship opportunities for out-of-state and international students. They do not benefit from the Cal Grant System, they do not benefit from the subsidized tuition that in-state students pay.
What is the breakdown of in-state vs. out-of-state students in California?
Community college, system wide, we have about 10% non-resident students. The CSU is a little higher, around 15%, and the UC is hovering around 18%. It's a little higher in the UC, particularly at the flagships like Berkeley, UCLA, and San Diego. Systemwide, it's still relatively low compared to other states. You have systems like the University of Michigan, which I believe, are above 30% out-of-state students.
You mentioned food and housing scarcity as major issues contributing to the cost of college. How can we structure a productive conversation about these issues?
First of all, we have to recognize that in this economy, and as the economy continues to evolve, the demand for workers with some sort of post-secondary credential is growing very quickly. California has been in studies that suggest that 65% of all of the new jobs being created are requiring a post- secondary credential. It's essential for California to find ways to educate a larger number of Californians, and provide them access to affordable higher education in order to ensure that we have a skilled workforce to meet the demands of our economy. That's strictly an economic argument.
We need to ensure that we are investing in communities that have historically been left behind, whether those be low-income communities or communities of color. We need to ensure that members of those communities are represented in those who are completing a higher education. We have to do everything possible to our investment strategy to ensure that we're doing that.
It's no secret in California that we have a housing crisis. That's certainly at the top of Governor Newsom's agenda. The top of the agenda of any municipality in California. This directly affects college students, they have to be able to afford housing – that causes them to work many more hours than is beneficial for their educational success, and the availability of residential housing at universities is bursting at the seams.
Are there specific plans to address the housing crisis?
This is the top of the governor's agenda, and from a policy perspective, there are a number of things they are working on to significantly increase the amount of housing being built in California. We are certainly in support of those efforts. There are also efforts in the legislature, like Senate Bill 291, that will increase the amount of aid available to community college students to help offset that growing cost. Both of those have to happen since we are not able to overnight build adequate housing. We have to continue to push for more housing, at the same time, we have to recognize that we have to invest more in student aid in order to cover those costs.
Where do you see California fitting into the national conversation around college affordability? We’re in the middle of a presidential primary – what would you like candidates to focus on?
California is critical to that conversation, since California educates a large share of undergraduates. In community colleges alone – we educate 1 in 4 community college students in the nation. We educate 10% of the undergraduates in the nation, couple that with the CSU, that's well over 25%. California needs to continue to lead the conversation around how to best support an agenda to ensure that quality and affordable higher education is made available to more people.
While California's system of higher education isn't perfect, there are a lot of great lessons for the rest of the country. One is our emphasis on access over the years – ensuring that students from all backgrounds have access to higher education through the Master Plan for Higher Education that we've established. There is a great emphasis on workforce training and job preparation focused in the community colleges. That's an important component going forward for the nation since we really have to do a better job of up scaling the nation's workforce.
There's a significant amount of innovation happening in California in terms of how do we better reach students, and how do we democratize higher education more to keep the costs down? All of those issues are important to put on the table.
There needs to be an emphasis on ensuring that we do everything possible to reduce the costs of education. Provide as much support as possible to as many Americans as possible, to access affordable higher education, and reward those states who keep their tuition low. At the end of the day, states have to be supported and held accountable to ensure that they're providing adequate access and affordable education.
The final thing I'd say, is that we need to continue to ensure that all colleges, particularly those in the private sector, have the accountability structure that ensures we are protecting students, so they are not going into debt and not receiving the benefits of quality higher education. We need to make sure that students' gain for higher education, and borrowing for higher education, that that higher education is going to deliver to them a return on their investment.
Is there a particular question you would like to see asked during these debates?
The one question that hasn't been fully discussed is, how are we going to re-skill and upscale America's workforce? Just in California alone, 8 million workers have nothing more than a high school diploma, and these are the most vulnerable to automation and to changes in workforce. We need to, this is my opinion, a national crisis that we need to address. We as higher education institutions and policy makers, need to address the challenges of up scaling America's workforce so they can be resilient in the face of huge changes in the workforce.
What do you feel is overlooked and important to focus on within this topic?
A greater emphasis on the debt crisis students are feeling. This is a national crisis. Students are positioned today with a very difficult for them to accumulate over their heads. That has to be addressed.
There has to be less emphasis on talking about free college, and more emphasis on ensuring that we have affordable higher education for all Americans, and that we're providing as much access to as many people as possible. The debate right now is focused on the headlines of who can provide free-er college - whose plan has more free college than the other. While it's certainly important for us to lower the cost of tuition, what's more important is that we lower the cost of attending college - because that's something that most candidates aren't talking about.
The cost of attending college is not just the cost of tuition – reducing and holding tuition down is important, but equally important is ensuring the students have the opportunity to attend college and be able to afford it, so they're not struggling to make choices because of their inability to pay for their housing, their ability to put food on the table, or their need to have to work two or three jobs just to get through college.
Thank you.