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
Righteous, Eloquent Rage
by Reverend Dr. Cassandra Gould
June 10, 2020
This interview with Reverend Dr. Cassandra Gould, the Executive Director of Missouri Faith Voices, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Reverend Gould | We are an unapologetically black woman led organization. We're a statewide, nonpartisan, multifaith, multi-racial grassroots organization. We engage in the intersection of faith and justice, faith and politics. Our main objective is to help build up ordinary people's power to make change in their communities. In partnership with other grassroots organizations, we have been able to get an increase in minimum wage, get fair legislative maps, and put Medicaid expansion on the ballot in Missouri.
I'm from Alabama. I am the daughter of a civil rights worker. My mother was there on the bridge on Bloody Sunday. My hometown is 47 miles west of Selma. I have spent 35 years of my life in St. Louis. I raised my children here. When Ferguson happened, I could not, not show up. Ferguson was just several miles from my home in St. Louis. My children's grandmother, who's now deceased, lived in that very same apartment complex, my children played there. They were much older than Mike Brown, but I was really drawn to this space in understanding that it easily could have been one of my children, had it been a different time or different space.
I was not the Executive Director of Missouri Faith Voices at the time– I was just a clergy whose mantle was always to speak truth to power, and to always be in proximity to wherever the pain of the people was.
frank | How did you get involved with Missouri Faith Voices?
I called them the day after Mike Brown was murdered because I knew we needed organizing help and I knew we needed people who could help us imagine a different day. We needed people who could actually be thought partners in helping us get past the pain in the streets and figure out how to amplify that pain in a way that could lead to strategic change.
I was deeply impacted by the hopelessness articulated by the young people who shared their experiences with being over-policed. Young people who lived in a community where most of the people looked like them, but had no sense of governance than the community. I felt it myself. I remember on the night of the non-indictment, standing in the street in tears and saying to a colleague that as long as I had breath left in my body, I was going to be fighting towards having a different prosecutor in office and seeing a change of leadership in Ferguson.
Which culminates today, with your work and the election of Ella Jones, Ferguson’s first black female mayor. What’s changed since the first nights of protest in Ferguson?
Our understanding of what our stake is and what the communities stake is where we are different in this moment. When I came on board in 2015, we didn't have a chapter in St. Louis. I thought, we can't consider ourselves to be statewide and not be in what was then in the largest city in the state. Every hegemonic narrative around blackness plays out in St. Louis. It's the place of Dred Scott, the place of Mike Brown's murder.
So we brought clergy out to start listening to people. Not just to hear their pain, but to begin to ask how we actually change lives.
One of the best ways to become involved in democracy is to become politically educated. Ferguson impacted the urgency of political education, and advanced the understanding as to why the average person needs to understand some basic tenants of government functions.
I think the pain point for our organization now is the question of how to make the information that we have more accessible to people. For young people, like those who are in the streets of Ferguson. How do we actually bring people what they need? We really look at what it looks like to include the people who have been excluded. What is it like to talk to African-Americans, other people of color, and immigrants who historically are not being contacted by campaigns. No one is knocking on their door with literature, but they have perhaps the biggest stake in the game, as bad policies are going to affect them first. The organizing model of our organization has changed because we focus on and invest in the leadership of ordinary citizens who are trying to figure out what to do in this moment.
And so here we are now in a pandemic, that has disproportionately impacted people who look like me, and we have another Ferguson on our hands. I've heard people saying, "Oh my God, I’ve never seen this before I've never seen multiple cities protest." The history books show that it was really Ferguson that re-sparked an era of protest. We were in those streets for more than a year. The consistent, organized protesting was highly effective. We were making demands, and we became a public witness to organizations who had been fighting for things like community police models for 45 years.
My mother was at Bloody Sunday in 1965. When I stood in the streets of Ferguson less than a foot away from those tanks, I felt as if everything had changed and nothing had changed since my mother was beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
How do you think faith leaders fill a space non-faith based organizers can’t?
To me, Jesus was a revolutionary. Jesus goes into the church and kicks the tables over. Jesus is crucified. That was state sanctioned murder. We live under those same optics, right? Jesus is hanging on that cross, not able to breathe either. Depending on where you are in society, we all have a lane and all of the lanes look different, but for me, people of faith don't get to sit it out. They don't get to be silent. There has to be the space that we're showing up to make a difference.
Faith and organizing really go together. In the sixties, many of those meetings were held in church basements. Oftentimes the critique is, where is the church? Sometimes the church is in the background actually getting the work done. Not always, but sometimes. I think that the results of these elections show just that.
Certainly we cannot take credit for the election. Mayor-elect Jones has not stopped campaigning since the day she lost the last election. But I do think being intentional about organizing, making sure that there was additional voter registration, making sure that there were phone calls made a difference. Reminding people, especially in a pandemic, to go out and vote. We are encouraging everybody that puts their feet in the street to also put your feet in the street and go to the polls for fall primaries as well as the general election.
People will feel the way they feel about faith. Some people have no faith. Church attendance, Christian church attendance, was already down prior to COVID-19. But churches, mosques, synagogues are still the place where, no matter what, someone will show up. There's always an audience. That is the way in which faith leaders, good and bad, have the opportunity to shape narratives, to create narratives and to influence how people think and certainly how they vote.
The conservative components of faith based organizations have been extremely loud.
Conservative evangelicals tend to get more air time. Sometimes it's because they own our waves. Or it's picked up by Fox news, and then it is picked up by the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania. Reverend Al Sharpton said yesterday, Trump was using the Bible and the church as a prop and as propaganda. It was a political message more than it was a faith message.
I do believe that those of us who understand our faith, who understand that it's synonymous with justice for all, need to do a better job of amplifying that. We need to not just talk to the people in our pulpits, but we need to also make sure that those messages are in the public square. Or else people are going to be left with those who spew political propaganda in the name of God. They might call themselves Christian, but we are not praying to the same God, and we're not preaching about the same God. If you can actually still support the kind of reckless, racist rhetoric, then you are bowing at the altar of white supremacy. And that's not the God that I believe in.
The manipulation of Christianity in politics is so completely interesting and bizarre, but also so effective.
It is also the reason so many people turn away from the church.
I've had the opportunity to be in Ghana, and I had the poignant experience of being in the castles that enslaved my ancestors. Above those dungeons of inhumanity were churches. The church, specifically in the United States and Britain, has turned to the anti-blackness that has been a key tenant of some religious practitioners. I think that's something that the church needs to grapple with.
Hopefully we'll keep this conversation about anti-blackness in the public square, and in the minds and miles of those who get to have microphones and platforms and interviews, so that we can deal with this. We've not dealt with it for 401 years, not adequately, which is why it just keeps returning. It never really goes anywhere. It's Mike Brown. It's Breonna Taylor, whose birthday is today. A close sibling of racism and white supremacy, is genderism. It comes out of the same patriarchal systems. And when black women are killed, there is not that much focus on them.
I was speaking to someone this morning about the lingering effects that police violence has on women. The way in which they are physically and emotionally harmed by the trauma of police brutality, and how that trauma is often left out of the conversation.
In many of our households, black men are extracted, whether that is through the pipeline to prison or though state sanctioned violence. We live in a carceral state and that model extracts resources from us.
If my black son or husband or significant other is incarcerated and there's a bail or a bond, I am left to make that happen. So even if black men are incarcerated at a higher level than black women, and if they are killed at a level that's higher than black women, black women are still left with the burden of either bailing or burying them, and then trying to go on and continue to create life. It is a necessary conversation. In 1962, during a speech, Malcolm X said that the most neglected person in America was a black woman.
While I'm so excited about the election of Ella Jones to the mayorship, I also worry about the attacks that she will be subjected to from white people in society. There was a pet shop owner in Ferguson that immediately after the election said that he would be closing the store and moving on due to the election. It is that kind of racist, reckless rhetoric that fuels fires of people who would actually seek to do harm to black women in leadership harm. Sometimes that harm is done by tears. It is the white fragility. It is the white women who undermine your leadership, your authority, or your intellect. I have certainly lived through that. And sometimes the harm is actually directed at your humanity, at your very being. As a faith leader, I'm certainly also covering her in prayer because there will be people in Ferguson who will not be happy that there is a black female mayor.
How can we better include women in the conversation about police brutality?
Women are raped, harassed, physically threatened by law enforcement officers. Especially black trans women. This goes back to my conversation around how we haven't grappled with the guilt and the sin of the church and faith communities.
The constitution was written to say that a black man is three fifths of a human, a black woman is less than that. We actually have to deal with the historical ideology and the psychological impact of that, which has made women invisible. I love the Bible, but the Bible is a document that was also written by patriarchal misogynistic men.
As a grassroots leader, I know that even as we critique outside systems, no system can actually escape the same critique. What is the rubric that we use to ensure that whether it is in the church or in a protest space, that there is equity. Having racial and gender equity conversations in training and understanding around that is really going to be key. You know, if you can't protest all of the dead black bodies, then don't don't protest any of them.
We have a tendency to make ourselves feel better, by saying, oh thats not us. It's easy to say that the issues are stemming from law enforcement. We shift the blame away from ourselves. But every system, every institution in America needs to actually examine themselves.
People are still doing diversity training, I'm not really sure why. I guess it makes them feel better, and they check off a box to say that they did something. There needs to be a system of accountability after you sit on that Zoom training for two hours. How are we actually assessing its impact? What is the assessment of the black people who work with you and their interactions with you? The law enforcement officer who was responsible for George Floyd's murder had 18 instances of misconduct. How do you have that many instances and still have a job, any job?