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're Not at the Table, You're on the Menu
by Michael Malbin
December 7, 2020
This interview with Michael Malbin, professor of political science at the University at Albany, State University of New York and co-founder of the Campaign Finance Institute was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Michael | My name is Michael Malbin. I've been writing about and following the issue of campaign finance since I covered the decision of Buckley v. Valeo in the 1970s as a journalist. In 1999, I co-founded the Campaign Finance Institute, which is now part of the National Institute on Money in Politics. Both are strictly non-partisan providers of information, data, and analysis. In recent years, I have focused on the role of small donors and done a number of analyses of small-donor public financing.
frank | Can you walk us through the landscape of public financing initiatives at a state and city level?
Public financing provisions have been adopted by various levels of governments in three different waves. Immediately after Watergate, the federal government adopted a basic flat grant system for presidential general elections, with a one-to-one match in the primaries.
Basically, if you agreed to limit your spending, and a few other requirements, you could receive public money. The federal system stimulated a number of outsider candidates to participate in the run for the presidency. It was important in the success of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and a number of other candidates. Jesse Jackson would not have been the force he was without public financing. In the 2000s most of those systems fell into disuse because candidates began saying that they didn't want to abide by the spending limits.
A second wave came, starting in the 1990s, that didn't merely try to match public money, but instead tried to replace all private money with public. These are called Clean Election systems. Three states use them for state legislative races, but, again, candidates felt fenced in by a spending limit. These systems were also stymied by a Supreme Court decision that said that you cannot give extra money to a candidate when the candidate is faced with opposition independent spending. While the programs are still used in Connecticut and Maine and Arizona, they have come into declining use and new jurisdictions stopped looking at them.
The newest wave of reforms involves trying to stimulate the role of small donors. The goal is not to replace all private money with public money, but to heighten the role of small donors.
The New York City system is included in that wave. The New York City system was started in the 1980s, but in 2000 it moved to a multiple-matching system. It started as a 4:1 match, then moved to a 6:1 match in 2017, and is moving to an 8:1 match in the next election cycle.
Can you go into more detail on how a multiple matching system operates and what the different ratios mean and change?
In a multiple matching system, donations are matched by city funding, up to a certain amount. In New York City, for every dollar of the first $175, the city will put in an additional $8. For example, if I were to go to a city-run website to give $25 to a neighbor trying to qualify to run for a city council next year, the site will tell me immediately that my money is now worth $225 to the candidate.
Typically it is not cost-effective for candidates to go for small donors unless they have the kind of campaign that can take off on Act Blue or WinRed. The most precious thing that a candidate has is time. The campaign will go where the money is, and money is raised most easily from people who give large amounts. The small-donor programs change the incentives for the candidates to reach out to small donors.
That has radically changed the donor pool in city elections. Small donors usually account for around 15% of the money that a state assembly or city council candidate raises. In the last election, candidates running for city council who participated in the matching program raised well over half of their money from small donors or from the public fund matches that those small donors generated. Financially, these were the most important constituents for them as opposed to large donors. Our studies have also shown that not only are there more small donors, but they are more geographically dispersed, more economically diverse, and more racially diverse. Donors come from neighborhoods that looked much more like the city as a whole. It has been a very significant change.
What might future innovations look like?
I think we can see the start of a fourth wave among the laws that New York State just enacted. The commissioners charged with revising the law started off wanting to imitate the New York City system, but they also looked at what is going on nationally. Candidates are able to raise their money all over the place with internet fundraising tools. In this past election, we saw massive amounts of money going across state lines to Senate races in South Carolina or Kentucky. These commissioners said it's good to have more small money in the system, but is this the kind of national fundraising that public money should be used to enhance? They didn't think so.
They thought that public money should be used specifically to enhance greater participation by constituents and to enhance a stronger connection between representatives and their constituents.
By focusing on within-district donations, it heightened the racial and economic composition of the pool. I think that is a model that other jurisdictions should want to look at.
It's important to emphasize what is the real driving force here.
There are things we could try to do, but if you want to change the system, you have to expand it. You have to get people to become players — not just voters, but players in a significant way. Therefore the emphasis in these new systems is on expanding the base: building up the bottom to promote pluralism and diversity by bringing people in who haven't participated before. Focusing on building the base is fundamentally different from the idea of let's get all money out of politics. And the evidence so far is positive, though it is not settled because these new programs have not all had time to undergo a review.
What is the evidence that points to how people are brought into the fold? Has there been empirical research or anecdotal evidence that points to people's relationship to politics and continued civic engagement beyond donating?
There were no systematic studies yet of the causal relationships between civic participation and donating. We know that people who give are more likely to participate, but what we don't know is to what extent giving produces more participation. There is anecdotal evidence based on the behavior of candidates. If they get a donor to give $5 or $10, the donor’s name and email address is in the candidate's database, and the candidate uses that to recruit the donor for volunteer behavior activities. That is the prime recruiting ground for volunteers who make phone calls or knock on doors. The candidates behave as if the donor is likely to pass an email around, to recruit friends. While there are no systematic social science studies on that relationship, the behavior of candidates tells us that they think this is a two-way street — you are engaging somebody to be part of your team. That was what the whole Obama database was built around, and campaigns since have learned from that.
There is one theory that suggests that small donors are more extreme and increases the chances of us ending up with more ideologically extreme candidates. Do you think this a credible theory?
A few scholars have put out studies that are being cited by a large number of other scholars to suggest two things. One, that small-dollar donors are more extreme than people that give more money. And two, that the candidates they support are likely to be more extreme than the candidates supported by large amounts. Those two ideas are widely accepted among many of my colleagues in political science, I should say that. But these claims are without basis.
We do have some studies comparing state donors, including one that shows just the opposite — that the small donors tend to be more moderate. But the studies are old, so I'm not going to rest on those. The two federal studies we have that are able to sort out the small and the large donors, both come to the same conclusion; there's no difference in ideology between the people who give smaller amounts and the people who give the larger amounts, and there is no evidence that they support candidates who are more extreme.
In fact, in 2018, more of the small donor money went to more moderate candidates. Why?
They will give to candidates in moderate swing districts because they want their side to be in the majority. And that's being done by both parties. While the question of extremism is a legitimate and understandable concern and something that any responsible policymaker should consider, there's no basis for it.
Is there any evidence that, more broadly, there’s an ideological difference between people who give money to political campaigns and those who don’t?
Fewer than 10% of people give. The people who give tend to be activists and people who are activists tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the average voter. There's something to that, but that's true of all donors, not just small donors.
It is also true that individuals tend to be more ideological than political action committees. If you think it's great that politics is controlled by economic interests and political action committees, go ahead and make that argument. I don't. But, there's no evidence that these small individual donors are more extreme than the individual mega-donors that fuel the system right now. And, no matter what reforms you implement in the public financing realm, those players are going to continue. The Kochs will be there as long as they remain healthy enough to be there. Same with the Adelsons. Same with big Democratic donors. The locally-based multiple match system gives the candidate an incentive to look for a different kind of source by going into people's living rooms or meeting halls and bringing them into the system.
Do you think we should be thinking about campaign finance differently?
Let me start at the beginning: I favor a system of government that requires legislators to talk to each other and bargain with each other and reach compromises that work for most of the people. That is, I favor Madisonian pluralism.
There is a quote, “If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.” That is true in this case. You will be eaten alive. I think the big issue relating to equality is not whether rich people play, because they will. Rich people will always find a way to play. I think the big problem is making sure that those who play include a larger and more diverse set of constituents.
It's valuable to worry about corruption. It's valuable to make sure to get disclosure of dark money. It is valuable to make sure that the party leaders cannot go to million-dollar donors and say, give me money, and we'll make sure bad things don't happen to you. That is all fair enough, but that's only a small part of the bigger problem of democracy. The bigger problem is all of those people who are not participating. In 2020, we had a larger voting turnout than we've had in the century. But, there's still a very large number who do not do anything more than vote. They vote, and then they check out for four years. A fully vibrant democracy requires citizens to stay involved to whatever extent they can. Most people cannot be full-time political interest group actors and earn a living at the same time, but people can be better informed than they are. This is part of a rubric of ideas that has to do with the positive goal of growing participation, as opposed to that part of the reform agenda that is about restrictions and restraints.