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
Crypto For The Cash Economy
by Daniel Polotsky
January 22, 2020
Daniel Polotsky is the CEO of CoinFlip, the leading Bitcoin ATM Operator in the US.
frank | How did you get into crypto?
DP | It was around 2013 that I found out about Bitcoin for the first time. It kept popping up in news articles. I wanted to buy some after it appeared on my feed for the fifth or sixth time. I thought, "I've read about Bitcoin, it seems like a cool thing, like a cool alternative money investment that's not issued by the government, decentralized, something that's never been done before," so I decided to purchase them.
I went to the first Bitcoin ATM in Chicago, it was at an empanada place called Cassava. I put in cash, received a coin, but I didn't like the process. The bills kept going in and out – it took a really long time to get the bitcoin. I didn't want to do it again when I bought it again. Instead, I went on a site called locabitcoins.com which back in the day, had these listings where you could meet people in person to purchase Bitcoin.
We met at a Starbucks. I'd put down cash and she would send me the Bitcoin. We kind of got to talking and eventually decided even though the Bitcoin ATM I had used back in the day wasn't super user friendly, it's still in theory a better idea than meeting people in person because it's not safe. It's not really scalable. A single person can't meet with 23,000 people a day. There's a limit.
So we decided to work on the ATM thing. I was a sophomore in college, I was 20 years old, I was at Northwestern and I kept working on it. By the time I was 22 and ready to start a full time job, the opportunity at CoinFlip was too good to pass up. We had just under 20 ATMs – that was two, three years ago.
Fast forward to today, we're the largest Bitcoin ATM company in the world by volume, with 420 locations across the United States. Obviously we're growing and I hope to be able to get Bitcoin in the hands of as many people as possible.
This is different from the other conversations we’ve had about Bitcoin so far, in that most people aren’t treating it like a currency but rather a stock, or investment. But a Bitcoin ATM is tangible, immediate, more cash oriented. Do you find that because there's a physical component to what you're doing it's easier to explain to people?
What you were saying about currency versus investment, I don't know if I agree with that. I think Bitcoin can be used as a currency eventually, but in first world countries like the United States, it is still more of an investment or means tool.
I definitely agree that the physical element makes it very easy to explain to somebody. Its familiar. Essentially all you're saying is, "Okay get some cash. You already have a phone number, download a Bitcoin wallet, you're going to put the cash in, you're will see the exchange rates, you're going to input your QR code which is that black and white square, and then you're going to receive the Bitcoin instantly."
That sense of instant gratification and the physical component definitely makes it accessible. Because the ATM is something in a convenience store that you see in real life. They're not just moving imaginary money around.
How do you interact with something like Coinbase?
Coinbase is an online exchange where the exchange actually holds your money. You wire money from your bank, they hold it, and then you trade on the exchange, using the dollars that you have on the account. We don't hold customer accounts.
So for example, we don't have an account where you can deposit money and then hold it and then trade it. You insert the cash, we immediately do a conversion of the Bitcoin and then you receive the Bitcoin, it's on your phone. You own it, we are not the custodians.
You're not a custodian or a wallet at all?
We are working on expanding into a wallet, but no, we are more like a currency exchange. You go to a currency exchange, you get quotes for an exchange rate that tells you, “it's this many euros for this many dollars.” That's more similar to the model I see us as, as opposed to a company with a mechanism that people use to trade and speculate with continuously on.
Other than speed, why would I do this in person and not online?
Not everyone has a bank account. It's 30 million people that can't afford bank accounts, don't trust banks, don't have banks, think banks are inconvenient, or say they don't want to use bank accounts. They might want to use cash. There's a bunch of workers that get paid in cash.
They only take a bank wire transfer or a ACH. So you literally cannot use cash there. It’s a quick, easy and convenient way to use a different payment method to get it.
Does it work in reverse? Can I cash in my cryptocurrency for U.S. Dollars?
It actually does. We have around 30, 40 units where you can do exactly that. You send us the Bitcoin. Once we get network confirmation, you scan your ticket at the ATM and then cash will come out. It does go both ways.
Do you have competitors? Are there other ATM options?
Yes, there are other Bitcoin ATM companies. None of them have the volume and the low fees that we do, but they do exist. Like I said, we're the number one Bitcoin ATM company by volume in the world, but we do have competitors and they tend to be in the United States, but there are probably in the world 5 to 6,000 Bitcoin ATMs.
Are most of them in the U.S?
A pretty big chunk are in the United States. That's typical. The United States is often a leader in emerging technologies because we have systems in place where people are entrepreneurial and whatnot. Plus we have a large cash economy.
What is the sale for the convenience store? Why would they want them?
The convenience store gets the best deal of anyone. I mean, they get a check, our ATMs are really small. They're probably one and a half or two square feet by five feet. So it's really easy to place them inside a convenience store. The convenience store is not going to be able to monetize that square foot any meaningful way other than receiving rent from us, and we also give them the option for a profit share. In addition, we bring in around 1,500 people a year to any given location. So it's absolutely free advertising for them. It's not like you just see a Bitcoin ATM and you use it. You're literally searching for it and then you go to where it is. So we drive traffic specifically to that store and they can always buy something when they are in there, chips, soda, whatever it is. So there's absolutely no drawback for the convenience store.
What excites you about Bitcoin?
The thing I like a lot about Bitcoin is, you know it's deflationary, right? I love Bitcoin because of that. The U.S. dollar loses 1% to 2% of its value per year because of inflation and the government printing more. Bitcoin itself is limited in numbers, so it's a better way to keep your money long term. The blockchain it's built on is fraud proof. It's public, everyone sees it, it's fast. You can send money halfway across the world in 10 to 15 minutes, it's borderless, it's cheap. The average fee to send is probably $2 to $3. What's cool is that there's no one single issuer.
So you can't turn off the coin.
You can't sue Bitcoin. There's no company responsible for Bitcoin. It’s all around the world. It's very resistant to being able to be stopped. It's kind of like digital gold I would say. That's what I like to say about Bitcoin, it combines characteristics of a commodity and a currency. It’s something that's never been done before. And I think it's very important to keep the centralized entities like banks and governments in check. If they ever go haywire, which they have in the past, there has to be some alternative. Some digital alternative that isn't as cumbersome as gold to obtain that the average person can get.
This decentralized economy is what I’m excited about. My goal with CoinFlip is to get Bitcoin into the hands of as many people as possible so that people see what is really so cool about this Bitcoin and why it really is the future.
Is your prediction that this becomes a widely used and accepted form of currency in the US?
Yeah, I could always see it in unstable countries, it could even be the number one currency. In stable countries, it might be number two currency or it could just be used as an investment vehicle. But I do see it as being perhaps the global reserve currency, within 10 to 20 years as people build trust on it. It makes sense for the countries of the world to not want the global reserve currency to be issued by one country. It used to be the pound, now it's the dollar, it makes sense for it to be decentralized and not one entity responsible for it. It makes a lot of sense in my opinion.
If it does go that direction what policy will come form around it or do you think it can exist as free as it is now?
I think it's actually one of the biggest myths that Bitcoin is not regulated. That's what everyone loves to say, but it's not true. Pretty much every applicable brand in the U.S. Government has come up with regulations regarding Bitcoin. The IRS came up with guidance for how to pay taxes on it. The SEC declared it as not a security and also declared guidance on how to determine whether or not projects that are Coinbase, like blockchain-based are securities or not. The CFTC has also regulated Bitcoin as a commodity and FinCEN, which is our regulator, is the financial crimes enforcement network and we're definitely heavily regulated by them. We're treated as a financial institution.
It's a great system and I think that it's come far from it's early days. But now I think that you still need some regulation, some basic rules to follow, even if it is a borderless, permissionless system and there are those in place in the United States.
I want to get Bitcoin again into the hands of as many people as possible and lead the financial revolution. I want to place 1,000 ATMs by the end of this year and hopefully 3,000 at the end of the next year. In addition, we're working on having an OTC desk. That would allow us to actually trade Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in exchange for wire transfers and vice versa, so that's something I want to expand into. And we're also working on a wallet and an app.
What is the app?
The wallet is the main component of the app but it's basically going to be an easier version of our website. You know, just the main parts, probably the map, customer service, or awards program, and obviously the wallet. So we're going to have our own wallet where people can purchase Bitcoin and that's something that's really cool because it's an additional service we can offer to our customers, an additional way we can communicate with them.
Amazing.