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
The Struggle Continues
by Derrick Knox Jr.
February 8, 2021
This interview with Derrick Knox Jr., Chair of the Michigan Poor People's Campaign, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Derrick | The Poor People's Campaign was started in 1968 by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with the goal to eradicate poverty.
The campaign focused on improved housing and living wages.
He started this campaign in what would become the last two months of his life. And actually, he was in Memphis, where he was assassinated, because he was marching for living wages for the sanitation workers during the Poor People’s Campaign.
Fast forward to 2018, Reverend Dr. William Barber II and the Reverend Dr. Liz Theo Harris reignited the Poor People's Campaign. I got involved with the Michigan chapter in 2019, and specifically in Lansing, where I live.
frank | What are the parallels between the original movement and this newest iteration?
The same things Dr. King was fighting for in 1968 are the same things we're fighting for today: for a living wage, healthy affordable housing, an economy not driven by war, and equity. King started the Poor People's Campaign because he saw that even though there are civil rights issues, the root of the issue was capitalistic greed. Racism is an issue, and greed is what helps drive racism in this country.
He was about pursuing community over capitalism because ultimately, we are social beings. In our essence, we are not materialistic beings, but we've gotten to a point where that is what a good portion of our politics have become. We, the Poor People’s Campaign, are focused on building power from the ground up. We're not trying to be just spokespeople for poor people, but rather, advocating and organizing resources and movement for the poor.
We want to use any and every resource that we have to amplify the voices of the people that are directly affected by the abuse of our countries economic realities. Too often institutional plans don't involve the people that they're actually meant for.
We think, if I made it in life, I must know what you have to do in order to succeed. We end up with these monolithic plans that fail to take into account sustainable plans for things like mental health, childcare, employment, education, food assistance, and community.
What do your local initiatives look like?
I’ll give you a few examples. For one, the standards for affordable housing are very low. In Lansing, there are 98 families that live in a low-income development that is infested with bed bugs, roaches, rats, mikes. They've been living in those conditions for over eight years. They've gone to the city, they have reached out to other municipalities, and yet they have received no help. We have been advocating for them, organizing residents, and holding meetings with HUD all in an effort to get them some type of relief.
We literally had pictures of residents with hundreds of bites on their backs, on their arms, and on their hands, and the city still says, well that is not a health issue, so we can’t help. That makes no sense. We invited the inspectors and city officials to spend the night there for a couple of months. They have yet to respond or accept that invitation. People will force the poor to live in conditions that they themselves wouldn't want to live in, as long as they're getting paid. That sounds pretty mercenary to me.
If you go into any urban neighborhood in America, I bet you can count on both hands how many liquor stores you can find in that neighborhood while struggling to find a fresh market with healthy food. Here on a local level, we implemented a plan for a full lifecycle urban gardening program. Where we employ the people from the neighborhood to work in our healthy food markets, to do packaging, distribution, shipping, etc. It's also a cooperative where we invite other gardeners to grow on our land and a percentage of their proceeds or crop go to the Poor People's Campaign so we can offer free foods to those that need it the most.
And I'm sure you're aware of the Flint water crisis. The settlement that went down gave pennies on the dollar of what these people have dealt with and will continue to deal with, via lead poisoning for generations. But, the water company continued to charge residents for poisonous water.
Here in Michigan, they were cutting people's utilities and water off during the pandemic. The Fall and Winter seasons in Michigan can be extremely cold. To cut people's water or utilities off during those months because they can't afford it is almost essentially a death sentence. And if they survive that, by the time they can get their water back on, the pipes are now frozen and will burst, which causes even more damage and cost to the home. Then slap on a pandemic, unemployment, death, and burials of loved ones. More cost, stress, and anxiety on already overwhelming circumstances.
There is a story about a nurse who has low-income, living paycheck to paycheck, and her car broke down. She couldn't afford to pay all of her utilities because she had to prioritize getting her car fixed in order to continue going to work. She was behind just a few hundred dollars while continuing to pay it off, and the local utility company shut her utilities off in addition to charging her reconnection fees. We are talking about essential workers, not being taken care of during a pandemic. Capitalistic greed has so poisoned this country that the practices of these organizations have become so inhumane that they would cut an essential worker's power off in the middle of winter, in the middle of the pandemic?
I mean, I could go on all day long. We fight in all of these areas that relate to systemic racism and systemic classism.
You call your proposed national budget a “moral budget,” and your policy proposals are called “moral initiatives.” What role does religion and morality play on a wider level within the campaign?
We call The Poor People's Campaign an interfaith fusion movement. There are basic human necessities that are needed to live: a healthy place to live, access to food, access to healthcare. In any religion, from Christianity to Buddhism to Islam, there is some type of moral code as it relates to the needs of the less fortunate.
From a National Poor People's Campaign level we are pushing for comprehensive free and just COVID relief. Quality healthcare for all. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 dollars, and to update the poverty measure. Guaranteed quality housing for all. An acting federal jobs program to build investments in. We want a guarantee of a safe and equitable public education. We want comprehensive and just immigration reform. We want to ensure the rights of our indigenous folks. We want a fair tax structure. And we want the administration to use the power of executive orders to redirect the bloated Pentagon budget towards these priorities. We want to work to establish a permanent presidential council to advocate this bold initiative.
These goals should be ingrained within religion.
You mention creating a role within the White House – because there’s this back and forth that happens at the transition of presidents via executive order, it makes an impact over a long period of time difficult. It does seem critical to have sustained pressure from the public. How does your organization look to aggregate that sort of power and momentum?
Well, June 2020 was supposed to be when we set up camp at The Capitol to draw attention to the things that need to change in this country. COVID, obviously, disrupted that.
But since, we have done a lot of other action-focused work'. On July 11th, 2020, we had hundreds of cars converge onto the Michigan State Capitol. We had representatives from the community speak to things like utility cutoffs, unhealthy housing conditions, and lack of healthcare access, and homelessness. We wanted to raise awareness about the fierce urgency of these needs.
Another thing that we called to attention, in particular, was police violence against unarmed citizens. In Lansing, in April of 2020, there was a gentleman named Anthony Hulon that was suffocated the similarity to the way George Floyd was jusI one month later. There is a video of officers kneeling on him and suffocating him to death. He died right there in the city jail. However, neither our community nor his family knew what had happened until October. But the mayor of our city knew this happened in April and then the following month marched with the Lansing NAACP around the George Floyd in May.
But this isn't unique to just Michigan. That's the unfortunate thing. These are the injustices that people deal with in this country every day. And these injustices often don't see the light of day.
How can people get involved?
You can go to the website, poorpeoplescampaign.org, to sign up for updates.
There is also a Michigan specific website with a list of local demands. You can get involved in different projects that we have set up like phone banking, or letter writing for specific legislation that we are pushing through city council and state congress. We have many ways to get people involved anywhere they are.