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
If You Don't Do Politics, Politics is Going to Do You
by LaKeshia Myers
October 29, 2020
This interview with Wisconsin State Representative LaKeshia Myers was conducted and condensed by franknews.
LaKeshia | I'm State Representative LaKeshia Myers from the 12th assembly district in Wisconsin. My district encompasses the far Northwest corner of the city of Milwaukee and a small portion of the city of Wauwatosa.
frank | What concerns do you have in the days moving into this election — in terms of the area that you live in and that you represent?
Not in my area. I'm more concerned about other districts where, in the past, there have been efforts to sway the vote by distributing false information. People would put up signs in the central city of Milwaukee saying to vote the day after the election. Fake notices would be sent to people's mailboxes that their vote wouldn't count for one reason or another. We've seen those things in the past, but I've not heard of anything happening this particular election cycle.
In fact, turnout has been very good at the early voting locations across the city. There is an early voting location in my district, and I've helped many constituents apply for and turn in absentee ballots. We have secure drop boxes that are located at each of the public libraries. I've seen people take advantage of those capabilities.
In addition, we have done large scale campaigns and worked with other organizations to ensure that individuals know how to fill out their ballot, that they have a witness, that they know where to drop off your ballot, and that they know how to track their ballots online. All of these things have been going on for months.
There was some contention surrounding the Wisconsin elections during the primary, and around the decision to keep voting in person despite the threat of COVID. Do you feel like the state learned from that and do you feel like the changes were significant enough moving into the general election?
I think the state did learn from that experience. I also think that they received such backlash that they would dare not repeat that again.
That is ridiculous. That fell squarely on the shoulders of our city election commissioner and the mayor of the city. And at the state level, there was the bantering back and forth about whether to cancel the election or to postpone it. It was going to take an act of the legislature to postpone the election, yet the individuals in leadership in the state legislature refused to act on it.
As a result, when the election came in April, we had to do whatever we could to keep people in line in those five polling locations. I was there, I witnessed it. I was out there handing out cheeseburgers so people would stay in line because they had been there for hours. I had so many elders in the community that contacted me saying I have never missed an election, but I am too afraid to vote this time. There were people who couldn't find the correct polling location. The actual city election website would tell them they needed to go to one location, and when they arrived at that location, poll workers would send them to another.
A recent Supreme Court decision said that ballots received after election day in Wisconsin would not be counted despite the date of their mail-in. What do you think about that?
I disagree with the decision. Especially with everything that's going on with the postal service. Ballots that were postmarked by election day should be accepted. If people are trying to get their ballot in on time, who is to say that with more postal resources or employees the ballots wouldn’t have gotten there before election day?
Are there other policies specific to Wisconsin, or even to Milwaukee, that try to limit the ability to vote?
Absolutely there are other policies. The Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty challenged the elections process in the state of Wisconsin and wanted to throw people off the voter rolls.
There were elected officials, Black elected officials, whose names were on that list. The County Executive's name was on the list. Board members' names were on that list. These are people who we know to vote in every election, but yet they were going to be tossed off the voter rolls when they released that list.
Hillary Clinton was pretty vocal about feeling like her loss in Wisconsin was due to voter suppression in 2016. Do you think that's a fair accusation?
I do think that is a valid assessment from Secretary Clinton. That was part of it, but it wasn’t the only part of it. The fact that she did not come to Wisconsin still plays heavily in my mind as a campaign error. I would have expected that she would mandate that from her campaign. I know they work off of metrics and polling a lot of the time, but, in my opinion, boutique politics still works.
There was also a massive misinformation campaign in Wisconsin. We saw Black radio, Latino radio, and newspapers, oversaturated with hit pieces on Clinton. Whether that was from Russia or from domestic strife, I don’t know, but it had a huge impact. That was a concerted effort to limit the number of people who voted. If you look at the numbers, you see that there was a huge under vote — meaning people would vote for local and statewide offices, but would not for a president.
In Milwaukee, the Black vote dipped about 19% from 2012 to 2016. Causality is a hard thing to nail down in politics. It is hard to say that it was ads that they heard on the radio or targeted ads or disinterest in the candidate themselves. Do you feel like there's a difference in momentum, especially among the Black community in Milwaukee, in this election — compared to 2016?
I have seen a lot of postings about how much the Black vote dropped, especially in the city of Milwaukee and other swing states like Michigan. But when you talk about Milwaukee or Wisconsin, it was way more than just the African-American population that impacted the outcome. We were a part of it, but when you look at 6 million people living in the state of Wisconsin, African-Americans only make up 7% of the total state's population, and Latinos only make up another 6% of that population. Altogether we are less than 14% of the state's population. I think it is important to understand the larger demographics of these states.
But going back to your question, I think there was disinterest in the candidates in 2016. But I think that has totally changed this year because people understand what is at stake. People understand what it looks like to have a volatile person as president.
We are the number one manufacturers of cheese. We are the number one manufacturer of cranberries. A lot of farmers have lost their farm due to the volatile trade decisions coming from the president.
Milwaukee used to be known as the "Machine Shop of the World." The policies that have shrunk our manufacturing base have been in the works for the last 40 years — people are working two jobs and still don't have the ability to make ends meet. And now there are even more people in that situation. People are out of work and we are still tying healthcare to employment. Wisconsin refused to take Medicare expansion. These policy decisions are becoming a lot more real to a lot of people now.
If you were to ask most working-class people or middle-class people, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” The answer would be no, and it would probably be an emphatic no. I think that matters. And I think people have realized that they cannot sit at home and that it is not enough to vote third party. I think a lot of people will participate in this election. I'm expecting in-person turnout to still be high on November 3rd in Wisconsin.
Do you think this tangible feeling of policy you’re describing is at a rare high because COVID is so widespread?
Absolutely. The one blessing with COVID is the fact that everybody can see exactly how policy impacts their life. When you have a large scale pandemic like this, you get to see the priorities of your government in action. You get to see really up close and personal where we are.
Of course, there is still vitriolic rhetoric that exists to heighten people's fears. When Donald Trump says that he is “here for suburban housewives," that is a dog whistle meant to stir up racial animosities. But I think these circumstances are offering people the opportunity to get out and vote from the economic perspective.
The fact that our minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation is asinine. The fact that you are still paying people $7.25 is ridiculous when a gallon of milk costs $3. Does a person really have to work for half an hour to pay for a gallon of milk?
People are able to understand policy in terms of dollars and cents. We no longer have the ability to say, "Oh, I don't want to be engaged in politics", because right now, if you don't do politics, politics is going to do you.
COVID has grounded the way government impacts our lives.
Exactly. I mean, look at the way this has been handled. We are still arguing about whether or not to wear masks. We never activated the Defense Production Act to the extent that it needed to be enacted. Mom and pop skilled nursing facilities in my district were competing with major hospitals for PPE at exorbitant prices. The public was being lied to for months on end.
And on top of all of that, when people in April went to go protest at the Capital with guns and no masks, they were allowed to do so freely. Not one ticket was given. On the other hand, we have had protesters who have been out for over a hundred nights straight protesting police misconduct, and these people are being taken to jail. The federal government is says, "lock them up." The president is saying that we need to have “law and order.” I'm not that old, but I have read enough history books to know that that was what Richard Nixon said and to know that he used it as a racist dog whistle. I think people have had enough. This is not going to be the way in which this country proceeds. I think that this election is going to surprise a lot of people.