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 Rep. Al Lawson
by Representative Al Lawson
September 21, 2020
This interview with Representative Lawson, who represents the 5th congressional district in Florida and authored the Student Opportunity Act, to provide economic relief for those who have student loans, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Representative Lawson | I represent the 5th congressional district in Florida. It is about 206 miles that runs from the Chattahoochee River in Gadsden County to the St. Johns River in Howell County, which is in Jacksonville. You have two major cities and everything else in between. It's a rural area. I am very familiar with this area after many years of serving in the Florida legislature in the House and the Senate.
frank | How long have you been a congressman?
I've been a congressman for three and a half years, coming up on four years. I'm getting used to it. It's something that I had always aspired to do, to go to Congress, and I was fortunate to get elected.
I had to make adjustments when I first arrived. Everything is based on seniority. You have to pay your dues in order to gain power in Congress and move up, unlike the Florida legislature. I've adjusted to my colleagues and adjusted to the leadership in Congress.
I want to talk about H.R.5287 - which focuses on fair student loan collection practices. Why this bill specifically important to you?
I have a large number of students in my area. Between the several colleges and universities across the district, I have over a hundred thousand students. One of the critical issues students face is the debt they have from taking out student loans in order to go to school.
It has become even more important to address this issue during the pandemic. People are coming out of school while the economy is going down and job growth is slow to come back. There is even more pressure on students who are coming out of school.
Debt collectors keep tabs on the students because they are so worried about them paying. The students who have loans from the federal government should not be pushed so hard by debt collectors. It just does not make sense for the federal government to benefit off the backs of students.
Florida, of all the states, has had the largest recent increase in student debt. How does that affect your state's economy?
It is causing young people in my state to possibly not want to go to college in Florida. We definitely need to turn our situation around. I hear from parents all the time -- when I filed this bill, they got in contact with me and said, what can we do to help? It is a large consumer issue.
I had a sister that went to school late, and when she retired from teaching she was, and is, still paying off student loans. That's one of the things that I think about and say, eventually, we are going to need to examine this system.
At the federal level, due to the Department of Education's Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) federal employees who have student loans and work in Congress can have their loan amount reduced. The states should be doing the same thing, especially the state of Florida.
What push back do you get?
We were able to pass the bill out of the financial services committee but it's sitting in the judiciary.
Some of the pushback comes from Republican members. I continue to try to work with them.
The philosophy around student debt should be that we represent the same kind of student.
We shouldn't be hung up on whether they need to pay this or they need to pay that or if they defaulted on their loans. They don't want to default on their loans, it's just that they don't have jobs. We need to be more considerate and make sure we continue to reduce interest rates so that it is more feasible for students to pay their loans, still make a living, and still buy a home or a car.
Why do you feel like income-based repayment plans are important?
I think that the flexibility that it gives them in payment is important. That's what it's all about. I think it is critical to credit health to allow students flexibility. I think most people can agree that income-based payment plans are great for college students. I have spoken to many students and students seem to really like that idea.
I think it is important to add nuance around jobs and projected incomes to payment plans. If you get a certain degree that has a certain level of projected income, I think that is important information to have in the conversation around income-based repayment plans. I think it's critically important.
Should student loan debt be canceled, in your opinion?
I don't think it should be canceled. I know during this presidential election that some candidates were for canceling student loan debt, but at this moment I would say no.
There are some grey areas. I'll give an example. With this pandemic, you have nurses and doctors on front lines who just came out of medical school. I think in that case their debt should be canceled. This is one way the government and society can pay them back for putting their lives on the line every day.
But generally speaking, I think we just need to have flexibility in payment. We need to allow students to transition in and out of payment if they don't have jobs so that penalties don’t rack up against them.
Do you feel like it's politically feasible to change how student loan debt works?
I think it is. I think that's one thing we have to embrace because society benefits so much from a trained and educated workforce. We have to be more flexible.
We have a different student population now. Universities have been increasing and increasing tuition, and requiring students and their parents to pay more and more money. It was not like this 30 years ago. We have increased the amount of money that students need in order to attend universities. The government has not been flexible in embracing and understanding what is happening to many students.
Have you found an angle in terms of talking about student debt that is most effective when working across the aisle?
Yes. In the past three years, I have been able to engage many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Once you are able to talk to them for a while, they start to see things a little bit differently. Many of them had issues when they were in school. In fact, some of them were even on food stamps while they were in college. They don't talk about that.
I found that as a result of this communication, I've been able to have good conversations and come to the conclusion that we have to do something about student loans to help the economic progress that we are making as a society. I mean, we want smart people. That is what is needed to sustain our economy.
I think what is still critical and important to this conversation is the idea that we provide students with financial counseling only at the very end when they are released into the world with all of this debt. They don't know what all the debt is going to do to them. We need to fix that. We also need to make sure, unless students are in some sort of professional school, that they aren't in school for longer than five years. It shouldn't take longer than that for them to complete all their requirements while at the same time racking up more and more student debt. We need to fix that also.