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
Reclaiming Our History
by Eric Hall
March 16, 2021
This interview with Eric Hall, chair of Our Revolution, Birmingham and the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Birmingham chapter, was conducted and condensed by Payday and franknews.
Eric | I am the chair of Our Revolution, Birmingham. I am 38.
Payday x frank | Do you work somewhere else as well?
I'm a community organizer and activist. That's the passion, but, to be honest, that is my free work. I am also the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Birmingham chapter. As far as my full-time job, I work for Social Security Administration.
Wow. You do a lot of work.
I know, right?
It's interesting because I always say to people union organizing is fundamentally about respect. Do you think having Black Lives Matter at the forefront speaks to that?
Part of the reason why Black Lives Matter has joined this fight is because we realized there is a strong connection between social injustice and economic injustice. This Amazon facility literally sits in a poor Black city. The majority of the workers at the Amazon facility are Black.
That's why we're joining this fight.
How do you think the Black Lives Matter movement gives the union drive energy?
I think Black Lives Matter joining in sends a clear message to those systems of power and those who have influence, people like Jeff Bezos and other billionaires. We are saying enough is enough and that we're tired. We are saying that we want to be seen as human. We're not just laborers, we want to be seen as partners, and we're going to demand that type of respect. I tell people often that Black Lives Matter is more than an organization, it's also an affirmation to Black lives. That's why we're in this fight. I think momentum is building around the country because Black people are really tired of the social and economic injustices that exist in America. Just to be honest with you, that's how it is.
What do you think it means to young folks, many of whom have never been part of a union drive before, to see BLM getting involved?
I think it goes a long way for them to be able to see that. For the most part, they've always seen BLM fight against police terrorism. We have to make the connection that economic injustice is just as real as police violence. If a Black family cannot sustain itself, if a Black family cannot provide, if a Black family has to worry about where their next meal is going to come from, if Black families have to continue to live in poverty, this is also violence. These are issues that have to be addressed.
It's not just happenstance that it's mostly Black and Brown people who live under the umbrella of poverty. We have poor policies in place. Those with political power have failed to invest in Black education, in Black workforce development programs, and in Black communities. That's what our conversations with a lot of these young employees are like. We just try to make that connection. BLM has invested in billboards, we've invested in radio advertisements, we've invested in TV commercials. We are literally going all in just to show that BLM stand in solidarity with Amazon workers. We understand that we know what struggle is, but we also know that when we fight together, we win together.
Angela Davis said it best when she said that freedom is a constant struggle. We are going to continue to fight for liberation and for dignity until we are seen as human and are valued.
How do you think about the education piece?
I think it's important that we educate people on the role that unions play. I often try to let them know that having a union is like having an insurance plan in your career. It is an assurance that you will be protected if something happens to you. I also tell people, you know, it's unions and their collective bargaining power that is the reason we have benefits and things like a five-day workweek, paid holidays, breaks, and time off. These are wins that the unions have brought us. We have a long way to go, and having a union would put us in a position where we can continue to challenge systems of power.
What was the ask of and what was the meeting like with the congressional delegation?
One of the main focuses of the delegation meeting was to just hear from Amazon workers on their experiences. Our Revolution, we were glad that we were extended an invitation because of our community support that we provide to RWDSU on the ground. We were glad to be engaged. Most of the delegation members that were present were endorsed by Our Revolution, with the exception of our own congressional leader, Terri Sewell.
She's more of a moderate Democrat, but from what I have seen, more progressive voices in Congress and in the House have swing-out more moderate people to become more progressive in their policy status.
When we had conversations about stopping the federal contracts, the conversation immediately was like, "Can you tell us what corporations are investigating union busters?" "Can you have us a one-page sent over to our office?" Of course, we were prepared to do that.
These big corporations are all investing in union-busting. Amazon got one of the top firms, Morgan Lewis. That is probably $10,000 hours a day, and they have probably been running this Amazon campaign for about two months. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of taxpayer dollars that is going into union-busting. That is a lot of dollars that could be used elsewhere, especially when there's a struggle for Medicare and Medicaid expansion, especially when there's a struggle for infrastructure, especially with all of the issues related to education. That is money being spent to silence people. That should not be tolerated. We need an administration that's strong, that's bold, that's courageous, and that's willing to take a stand and say enough is enough.
Obviously, as an Our Revolution guy, I am assuming you didn’t back Biden in the primary?
I did not.
What was it like for you to see Biden get involved?
It was powerful. I have a degree in political science and I understand the dynamics of politics. For him to take the stance that he took, means a lot. I think they have a lot to do with what I was referencing earlier, having a more progressive base in the ear of the moderate Democrats. Somebody had to go to him and have that conversation, right? I'm sure that it was someone who was more progressive that said that the time is now, that this is literally the third most important election in this country, that the world is watching, and that we need to take a stance.
I think he partly did that to cover for the Fight for $15 since he failed on that end. I'm glad that he took the stance to support the working families here. Now we have to hold them accountable as we fight for a livable wage. You know, $15 is a good start, but it's not necessarily a livable wage, especially when you look at the cost of living in America today. $15 is okay.
When the congressional delegation came to the Amazon facility, Jeff Bezos’ message to the congressional delegation was for them to increase the federal minimum wage and match Amazon's wage. They had a sign up that basically said, "match what I am giving." My response to that is that if you think that your employees are only worth a minimum wage, that shows what type of person that you are, especially when you've earned billions of dollars during a global pandemic.
They were getting a 2 dollar hazard pay but that was cut back in the summer. You know, it is just a disgrace for a company that could be doing much more.
I was kind of shocked to learn that this will literally be the first union for an Amazon facility in the United States. I feel confident that this will encourage other unions to come and for other facilities to organize. There need to be some accountability measures in place, and there needs to someone who represents those who fulfill Amazon's mission day after day.
Do you think that this has brought forth a new era of political awakening in the South?
It feels that there is an awakening in the South. We are seeing the South show the rest of the world that we have something to say. We see that with Stacey Abrams. We see that with what happened in Georgia, where we're seeing that with like what's happening here in Alabama.
In my conversations with union members, they have literally said that this is the first time in a long time that grassroots organizations and activist community folks are working with politicians, working with faith-based leaders, working with union organizers to really have this strong push to have a union. This is a new era.
People in the South are tired, and now they are at a point where the South is fighting back and they are fighting hard.
We are dealing with a whole unique set of circumstances because many Southern states have these different policies in place that say that they can fire you at will, and your employer doesn't have to give any explanation. If you have a protest, you can’t run for political office or you might be held in jail. So we are also fighting these crazy, crazy, crazy-ass laws people put in place.
Yeah. Do you feel that Amazon people are winning and moving the ball forward?
Yes I do. But, with the hiring of one of the country's largest and most expensive union-avoidance law firms, Morgan Lewis, Amazon has guilefully attracted the attention of its younger employers who aren’t as thoroughly engaged with having a union. In addition, Amazon has mandated employees attend classes centered on why they shouldn’t have a union. Preventing employees from being able to formalize their own opinions on the values of having or not having a union.
Where do you think that sense of feeling disaffected from society and potential change comes from?
Essentially you are dealing with a lot of people who may have lived in poverty for most of their life, and they probably come from a situation where they worked at Walmart were making 10 dollars an hour. Now they feel like they are making five dollars more. Their thing is, and I am going to use the language that young people use, “I am going to get my bag”. I'm not gonna let anybody interrupt me or stop me from getting my bag. That's is just the mindset of a lot of young folks. That is why the education piece is so important.
The scary thing is that I don't know if we have covered enough space. We have tried to put out that message. We have purchased the billboards. We have put commercials on the air. We put out radio ads. We can only hope that it sticks and wait and see how these votes turn out.
Right. What does the energy feel like?
We are literally fighting the world's largest corporation.
And it's a two-way street between the city and Amazon. You know, this poor city was receiving Amazon's support and taxes not just from Amazon itself, but from all 6,000 employees that work there. We have seen instances where as soon as we put campaign signs down, local municipalities pick the signs up.
This city is a struggling city and right now they need all they can get in order to sustain and survive and so I think Amazon literally takes advantage of that because they know the city is struggling and that the population is struggling.
I know from covering a lot of union campaigns it feels like pushing a boulder up the hill. Do you feel like you are reaching the top of the hill?
Yeah, but it gets heavy.
Especially dealing with a generation that really doesn't understand the history. Birmingham in general and Bessemer, in particular, are cities that were built off of laborers who understood what unions were. It is a steel city. You know, my grandfather worked in the steel plant and they had unions and they had protections and all of that. I don know what happened but it dropped off.
It's a trauma on a community when that kind of thing happens, you know? It seems like a big part of this is about relearning our history.
Yeah.
We have to relearn that history. It's very important. We know the history, we know the struggle, we know the wins. You can fight a little bit better when you can make that connection. If you don't know your history, then it's much harder to fight.