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
It's Bigger than the South
by Morris Mock
March 7, 2021
This interview with Morris Mock, who helped lead the unsuccessful union drive at Nissan in Mississippi in 2017, was conducted and condensed by Payday Report and franknews.
Morris | My name is Morris Mock. I've been working at Nissan now for around 18 years. Back in 2017, we had a union campaign with the UAW. It was an aggressive campaign.
Everybody understands that we don’t have a strong union culture in the South, so we were having to educate workers from the ground up. People don't know what a right-to-work state is. We had to explain that. We had to explain what a union is. We had to explain what a union can do and what it can't do. There is a learning curve in the South.
I've been doing this for quite a bit now. I've traveled to Brazil. I've traveled to Paris. I've met with delegates in these countries about labor rights.
Why was it so difficult to organize at Nissan?
My factory is an 85% African American factory. When you look at the Amazon factory in Bessemer, and even when you look at the chicken factories across Alabama, you have predominately African-American or Latino groups. So now you ask, why can't they come together and get organized?
The fear of termination and the threat of the plant closing play a major role. These companies have the right to fire you for anything. And the company's tactics have evolved. They have gotten specialists out there to fight us in organizing campaigns. We can no longer organize the exact same way that we have been because if we do, we are going to keep getting the same results.
Can you describe what the captive audience meetings look like?
They will show a video of a factory closing down. Though they will never directly say that the factory closed down because of the unions, they imply it through these videos.
They never tell the truth that a lot of these factories closed down not because of labor unions, but because it cost way too much to retool these factories. You can't compare a factory that was built back in the 40s and 50s to factories now. Oftentimes, it is just cheaper to tear it down and rebuild it.
I mean, to be honest, the National Labor Relations Board is weak as a hell man. Nissan threatened workers, and all Nissan had to do was publicly apologize. This is a billion-dollar factory, and when they were accused of threatening workers, the only thing they had to do was write an apology and post it up.
We can't sit here and think that we can form a union and have the protection of the federal government. The only way to actually fix that this if people in the community stick together and boycott or strike the factories when they threaten workers.
Is there any correlation between union presence and factories closing down?
Unions don't close factories down. We don't have the power to close them down. All we have the power to do is to negotiate a contract that is agreed upon by two parties. The union has the ability to do is look at a contract and say, “Hey, look, this contract does not fit the needs of the workers.” And the company has the same right to say “Hey, this contract does not fit the needs of the business.” If they can’t agree, then we go back to the negotiating table until we can come up with a solution together.
You mentioned at the beginning you think this is a global issue. Can you elaborate on what that means?
I remember when there were workers here in the US that were going to be terminated and factories in Brazil and a few in one of the factories in France did a major protest.
The Brazilian unions went out and protested in solidarity with the Mississippi unions?
Yes. They protested in solidarity. They shut the factory down. It was really amazing how Brazilian unions reach out.
They are having the same problems that we are having here in the South. It's important that unions hear the stories of factories that are non-union. It's important that we keep sharing stories. That's why I'm always in contact with the people in Brazil. That is why I'm in continuous contact with the people in France.
I've met with President Lula three times. The last time that I met with Lula, he said, "If they pick on you again, fly back and we will protest and help you fight." We have had amazing conversations. He doesn't see himself as a former president or whatever. He looks at himself as a factory worker. The culture of organizing is much different in the US than in Brazil.
I feel like the big difference between the US and Brazil is that there seems to be empathy for business over empathy for the people in the US. Do you see a difference in how citizens respond to organizing in the two places?
When it comes to American culture, especially in the South, organizing is made to be a Black issue. There is a racial divide. when it comes to thinking about the welfare system. There is a lot of history in Bessemer, and to have a majority Black workforce, and a majority Black female workforce, leading this push is really something.
Do you see pitting people against immigrants and immigration as part of the tactics used as well?
Yeah. I mean, that's politics. That’s American politics. That’s Southern politics. That is the way we treat immigrants.
It's a hard question to answer because I am the guy who, when they do a raid, is going out to look for these people on the side of the road to give them a safe house.
These actions make it seem as though, even though you didn't win the union vote, you are moving and acting as a union because there's really no one else looking out the workers except each other.
Yes. Right before I called you we picked up seven pallets of water, with 48 cases of water on a pallet, that we're going to bring out into different rural areas.
One of the areas that we're going to go to today is a chicken factory that has been closed for a whole week. These workers don't have power, and they don't have water. These are people who haven't taken a bath in probably three or four days. But these corporations, the Walmarts and the Nissans, constantly have power. They are allowed to use up all the power. You have people who can't even take a bath, but they're asking them to come to work. And if they don't come to work, they will be terminated.
I'm sitting here in Mississippi and I'm off really pissed of about it, man. Just yesterday I found out that a friend's brother froze to death. Right. It's just this the sad thing here, man, that's going on here in the South, it's sad.
A lot of people claim socialism is a bad thing. People are naive to think that.
We need to have a culture of thinking, I am my brother's keeper. We need this union. I'm hoping that Bessemer is victorious because that will be a huge deal here in the South.
Is there anything about the coverage of these things that frustrates you? Do you think media coverage perpetuates this sort of false debate about whether unions are good or bad?
On a local level, it is very hard to get anything positive said about the union. Why? Follow the money. Local companies have a constant flow of money into the newspapers.
I don't take it personally. These outlets not for the people. Certain outlets are for a certain class of people, right? The working class that is out here every single day busting their ass, knows that these outlets are not for them. Half the people that I work with don't even watch the local news. They work with their heads down, and they hope for the best. They hope that the company treats them right. That is the mentality.
I don't really think anything of these one-sided news stories. I think that we need to knock on doors. I think we need to have a direct conversation with workers to tell them what's going on in the community.
The thing that struck me when I covered Chattanooga, was that not only are there flashing, anti-union billboards throughout the plant but when you drive through the community there are anti-union signs in front yards. What does that feel like?
Inside the factory, you had managers and human resource reps with “union, no” shirts on. Nissan says that they are going to remain neutral and allow the workers to make these decisions, but the same people that you are supposed to tell your problems to are against you. It feels like the whole world is against you.
And it goes deeper. The South is probably the most religious area in the United States. In the Jackson-Kent area, we probably have roughly around 800 to 900 churches. They start bringing in pastors and ministers. They had a mandatory event with some of the most charismatic preachers in the area. And later, you find out that they were paying preachers thousands of dollars just to go out and say the Lord’s Prayer.
When I was there, I know $17 million was spent on TV ads, and every 10 minutes they had commercials running. You couldn't go anywhere in that part of Mississippi without seeing anti-union ads.
Well, you know, then you look to the Labor Board. How far can a company go when it comes to fear, threats and intimidation? The Labor Board is supposed to make the rules of what's fair and what's not fair. We pay our taxes to them so that they can draw the line.
If I find out that Nissan has sponsored an ad of threats and intimidation, that is a Labor Board violation. But, they are allowing companies to just do whatever the hell they want.
They are taking advantage of people here in the South. They feel like they can juice us because they have the protection of the local government. A few years back they passed bills that we can’t protest in the state of Mississippi. It feels like you are being trapped in a box and it feels like they feel they can threaten us as much as they want.
Especially if you were pro-union. One time I was run off the road. I mean people are just really…
You were run off the road?
Yeah. I mean people are really mad. Imagine you're working a job and you are told that you're not going to be able to feed your family if the union comes in. And this guy, Morris, is the one who is going to keep you from feeding your family. Can you imagine how upset these workers would be at me every single day? They are looking at me thinking, “My family is going to starve to death and die if the union comes in.” They turn these workers against you. You have to very fucking tough skin to organize here.
Can you speak more to how you have continued to operate as a union after the election?
Yes. We formed our own association — Nissan Organized Workers, N.O.W. It is a little nonprofit thing that we do. We have our own private webpage with about 2000 Nissan workers on it.
If a manager tries to come on it, we say that we're gonna look at that as spying on your workers. We may report you to the Labor Board.
We needed a safe space where workers can have a comfortable dialogue about what is going on. Because of the anti-union workers and anti-union sentiment, many workers were too afraid to go to the union hall in person. We needed our own safe space to have a private conversation with workers.
Its been really powerful, particularly among women, There were so many managers that have sexually harassed women, but when women talk among themselves about sexual harassment, things change. The culture of sexual harassment has decreased quite a bit because of this space.
A lot of people say the South isn't organized, but it seems that there is a lot of organizing going on already.
Yeah. That's just like saying slaves, weren't organized. If you start abusing your workers enough, the only thing they can do is stick together.
In the African-American community, often, something drastic happens that brings people together. I think that what is going on in Bessemer, like the fact that it takes them 15 minutes to walk to the bathroom, could be that spark.
Bessemer reminded me of what a worker told me in Brazil. This worker told me that that they weren’t allowed to use the bathroom unless it was on break. So, the company took all the tissue out of the bathroom and only put it back in during the break. You have workers looking for anything to wipe their ass with.
Even at Nissan, there were workers who would go to the bathroom on themselves because they were too afraid to leave the assembly line. One of my buddies has done it twice. It's like, wow. I mean this is really something man, it's really something.