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
Blockchain Bonus | The Food Supply Chain
by Dr. Nir Kshetri
January 31, 2020
Dr. Nir Kshetri is a Professor at University of North Carolina-Greensboro. He holds a PhD from the University of Rhode Island. He has authored nine books, and about 140 articles. Dr. Kshetri has provided consulting services to Asian Development Bank and various UN agencies. In January 2019, his paper " Blockchain-Enabled E-voting " was awarded by the 2019 Blockchain Connect Conference as the top eight winners of the Most Influential Blockchain Research Papers.
This interview was conducted and condensed by frank news.
frank | What is your professional and academic background?
Dr. Kshetri | I'm a professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, in the Bryan School of Business and Economics. My research focuses on the newest information technology trends for initiatives within food distribution. In the space, there are two primary things that are important to focus on. The first is the quality and safety of the food and beverages people consume. The second is fairness, in the sense that this technology is enabling the farmers who grow the food to get a higher share of the profits that the companies make off their food.
The food distribution processes affected by blockchain spans from farming to purchasing power. How does blockchain work directly with farming technologies?
Let’s take China as an example, where food safety has been a huge concern. In 2008, 300,000 people in China became sick because after they consumed contaminated infant formula. Another example: if you buy Australian beef in China, there is actually only 50% probability that the packet you are buying is Australian beef. In many cases it may be things like rat meat, camel, or frog's meat. They sell a lot of these things. So the question is how to make sure the meat you're buying is not contaminated. Answering that question has become a priority in China.
Companies like Walmart and Alibaba currently use blockchain to track the product all the way from the food manufacturer to consumer. In the case of Walmart, in June of 2019, they started implementing the blockchain project in tracking seafood, meat, vegetables, all these things in China.
This change goes all the way back to the farmer's side. The farmers can scan all the things, the meat or details of the pigs that they are growing. If they have organic certification, they upload organic certification on the blockchain system. The transport companies put all the data on the blockchain, how the food is being transported. The consumer can scan in the packet that they are buying in the Walmart store. And they can know where exactly food originated from. However, most of the farmers in China are poor with no internet connectivity and cannot do all these things. So doesn't really go to the smallest farmer, but it goes to more organized farms right now, the big farms.
Focusing on the consumer side of that process, does having all this information on the blockchain present a solution to messy FDA rules and guidelines for what can be labeled organic? If we start looking at that information directly and don't go through a vague regulatory process, is that better? Can you trust the information more or is it equally confusing?
That is a very important point.
Blockchain definitely poses the ability to help with the process, as the certification would be identified on the blockchain. At the end of the day, the issue lies in the trust of the food manufacturer and the third party certification organizations.
The idea is that different parties can post the information, and the information is accessible to everyone else in the system. Normally we would see these third parties, such as organic certification companies, food manufacturers, food retailers, posting certification. But, specifically in China, there were a lot of reports published a few years back in the news that the labels on the organic food were not accurate or that you could bribe these people a few dollars, and you can get organic certification. The point is the organic certification companies aren’t reliable. And that is one of the fears in the blockchain system.
What about order of operations? How do you see this being implemented?
Right. So first of all the idea isn’t for this system to be on a public blockchain like bitcoin, they are private individual blockchain with one manager. Using Walmart again as an example, they would be that manager. They then go on to decide the peers, the nodes in the system, who will get access to the system.
Then the mango farmer can enter all the details in the blockchain. Then the transportation company brings the transportation from Mexico to the US. During the transportation, the information again goes to all the parties including the farmer. Now it gets to US Customs. And US Customs conduct an inspection, they give certification, and they upload the certification.
And if Walmart, for example, wants to make sure that the meat products are transported under whatever system pressure, humidity, all the conditions, and it is possible to measure, they can monitor the information all the time, and it will be available to all parties.
All the information that every entity is entering on the blockchain is available. It cannot be deleted. It cannot be modified. And blockchain makes that. That is inimitable. Walmart gets its say in which entities have access to the system.
How does blockchain address environmental concerns and the impact of farming on the environment?
If we talk about the environment, in coffee, for example, there are all types of certifications. Coffee companies claim to be bird-friendly coffee, environmental-friendly coffee, or companies that do not consume a lot of water, but really, there is no way to verify that. No way to verify for us as consumers.
As far as I know, at this point, the blockchain performance has not reached the stage to measure all the environmental concerns you have. Rght now, we have to start with the farm and the products, to make sure what manufacturers claim, are literally that type of product. In the future, it might be possible to continuously measure the water consumed by coffee or things like that. It may be possible to measure with sensors which are becoming cheaper and cheaper. If all those things can be measured and can be entered into blockchain and all of that have access to that, that concern might be addressed.
If you look at China and Africa, food products are grown by small farmers, and they are not at the point to implement blockchain. If you link that blockchain system with the farm, and if there is any type of problem with the system, they cannot fix the system. So we cannot really use that system currently in small farms and to address all the environment. So again, right now, only more organized, big farms that are currently using the system because of lot of cost, lack of connectivity in the poor farmers' farms, and all those problems there are right now.
What advancements in this space are we seeing already right now?
Technology right now is using the private blockchain. The public blockchain like Bitcoin is very insignificant, and it is not possible to process a lot of information. It is very small. It is very costly. It is possible to use that system at a lower cost and fast also.
What issues do you foresee in the adoption of this technology?
One thing is that these are private blockchains, and there will be a few. I can give you an example of a Chinese company, JD.com, which is the second biggest retailer in China, they have a system developed with the Inner Mongolia in China, the food company they call Kerchin, K-E-R-C-H-I-N, a big farming company with $300 million dollar annual revenue. They track food. Only two parties are in that transaction, JD and Kerchin. Consumers buy food with more confidence.
If these two companies decide to collude and sell consumers low quality food, consumers have no way to know that. This is the disadvantage with the private blockchain that if there is enough benefit, these parties collude and write false information, and provide tracking QR, and consumers track, but there might be false information.
So if there are few parties, that means the risk of collusion. Except for the collusion problem, blockchain is probably more secure than any other system. I'm not worried too much about the cyber security part. It is more secure definitely than anything else. The only thing I would worry about is this potential collusion – because there are such a few number of players in this private blockchain system, which are not public like Bitcoin. That is the only concern that I would have.