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
Cancel It
by Jonathan Elwell
February 22, 2021
This interview with Jonathan Elwell, a participant in The Debt Collective's 100-day debt strike, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Jonathan | My name's Jonathan. I grew up in South Florida and now live in Brattleboro, Vermont. I work for a restorative justice organization that helps people address harm and conflict and assist folks as they transition back into the community after being incarcerated. I'm on strike with the Debt Collective.
When I was looking at colleges, I had a pretty open mind. I basically just thought I would go to as good of a school as I can and figure out some niche that works for me. I ended up going to a four-year private college in Minnesota. I graduated in 2019, with $22,000 of debt. My parents have about the same amount in loans taken out in their name. In total it is about $45,000 of debt.
I had followed the Debt Collective's work for a few years. Early on in my college experience, I got really concerned about and interested in climate change. The more I learned about climate change, the more I realized what was inhibiting effective action came down to our economic systems and to capitalism and to colonialism. In thinking about economic systems and how we can change them, I thought that the Debt Collective had a really compelling analysis of why we are in these relationships.
When I heard about the strike, I was very supportive, but I wasn't quite sure if there was a place for me in it. I felt like I had chosen to go to a private four-year university. I knew that there were cheaper options. But, after a couple of conversations with folks, I realized that there's something really important about my participation in the strike because we have reached a moment where student debt strikes are no longer focused only on predatory for-profit colleges.
The only way that tuition at a private college can balloon to the extent that it has is the same reason that predatory for-profit colleges can even exist — the defunding of public education. I think there is something really important about this strike about the whole system.
frank | The focus of their first strike was targeted specifically towards for-profit colleges, correct?
Yeah, the first strike was focused on the Corinthian college system, a for-profit college system.
So what does this 100-day strike look like and what are its goals?
Ultimately, as 100 people, we are not possessing material leverage that's going to compel the federal government. But, we believe that we can use our stories and bring attention to this cause in a way that makes the argument and the necessity of this action really clear. We can put pressure on legislators to be vocal about this, and to put pressure on Biden, ourselves. We can get people talking about and thinking about student debt, and debt in general, in a really different way.
How should we be thinking about debt?
This is a moment where yes, we want to accomplish one clear policy goal, but it also is about promoting a different way of thinking that we think is really crucial for this movement and for economic justice movements going forward.
What does the organizing look like?
The organizing looks really different than it would if we were not in a pandemic, which is true of anything these days. Of course, it is a lot of social media, but we are also trying to do some direct actions. I actually just had a conversation earlier today with staffers of my representative in Congress talking about what we're doing and how we could potentially collaborate and what we might ask from legislators. We are planning things like banner drops, dropping legislative materials at people's offices, and thinking of creative ways to connect with people.
Have you seen any movement from legislators from this campaign?
I don't know if folks like Chuck Schumer really had student debt on their radar at all before the pandemic. Now, he is calling for $50,000 of cancellation. Again, that's not what the Debt Collective is calling for — we want complete cancellation — but it's a huge step. To have moved the needle that drastically is really important. You can look all the way back to Occupy when people were first starting to float the idea of student debt cancellation, and people basically just got laughed away. The center has definitely moved on on this issue, which is really exciting and we hope to move it even further.
It is more clear now than ever that the federal government has the money to fund programs. The money is there, it is about the political power to make them fund the programs we want. For too long, that's been corporations, that's been Wall Street. This is a moment where we are trying to shift the power.
How do you understand this movement in the broader history of anti-poverty movements?
Thinking broadly about carrying on the legacy of previous anti-poverty movements, I think what's really clear here is that there is no single issue that you can focus on as part of an anti-poverty movement. Poverty is systemic. It is clear that the way to deal with this exploitation is collective power, collective power we haven't had in this country as workers.
It is clear that traditional unions in the workplace are still crucial, but workplaces and people are so divided, and we have so many different identities and pieces of ourselves, that it's hard to pull that into a more conventional labor movement.
Building a model of a union where people work together and strike collectively, if need be, to stop the craziness can be really effective. I mean, look what some people on a subreddit can do. Imagine what a mass debt strike could do. Game Stop craziness. Of course, right now we are just a few students, but think about what striking on mortgage payments could look like. The power is there. The potential is huge.
Looking at the 1968 Poor People's Campaign, the specific demands were higher wages and better housing. Maybe there is no silver bullet for poverty, but, wages and housing are a good, broad-based start, and some of the pushback for college debt cancellation is that it is focusing on an elite subsect of people.
Yeah, I definitely hear that and I think there are a couple of different responses. One, this has economic benefits for everyone. This means that there is more money staying in communities, being used beyond servicing debt. The impacts are immediate and widespread.
The other part is that a large majority of student debt is held by people who did not graduate college. In Vermont, 50% of borrowers who still hold debt over the age of 26, have less than a bachelor's degree. Either just community college or no degree at all. And often those are the people who are hit the hardest by economic collapse. I think that's an important point.
But, I also think that that is why it is so crucial to make it clear that this is an abolitionist movement. This is not about debt forgiveness or debt relief, which plays into the tropes of, "Oh, you poor debtor. You've made a mistake. You've been irresponsible." No. This is about abolition. This is about not just canceling the debt, but abolishing the systems and the conditions that force us into debt in the first place, and that profit off that debt.
By abolishing people's debt, we open up so much more space. For me personally, I would have so much more time and energy to commit to my community, to the causes that matter to me, to building a more just world. I think there's so much transformative potential when we see debt as a mechanism of social control and that by canceling this debt, we free people from that and free people to pursue whatever is important to them.
Something we talked about a lot in our month focused on debt was the element of shame, and how that's so controlling. Anti-poverty movements feel like the antithesis of that. It is literally people coming together saying, I am poor, I am struggling, listen to my demands.
In this age of exacerbated finance capitalism to retake power is so humanizing because other struggles people see are very public and external and people don't see other people struggling with debt, even though a million people default on their student loans every year. There are 45 million student debtors in this country. All of those people are struggling with it. To make these struggles public is so humanizing.
People truly believe that their irresponsibility or lack of effort is the cause of their problems. They internalize it and don’t talk about it. But when they understand these problems to be products of a racist, patriarchal, misogynist system, that shame goes away and it becomes possible to reassert what we deserve as people.
And I think that is what is potentially really transformative about what the Debt Collective is doing. By pushing back on the conventional wisdom of how we understand these things we can get so much more. We are in debt because of policy failures that require collective action and structural solutions. That’s why we strike.