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
In Conversation With Alabama's Striking Coal Miners
by Larry Spencer and Mike Wright
March 31, 2021
These interviews with Mike Wright, a striking coal miner at Warrior Met Inc, and Larry Spencer, the Vice President of United Mine Workers District 20, were conducted and condensed by franknews and Payday Report.
I.
frank | Can you tell us about what's going on here?
Mike Wright | We are on an unfair labor practice strike with Warrior Met Coal Inc, which we work for. That's why we're here.
Basically, five years ago, the company went into bankruptcy. And we were presented with a contract five years ago in which a lot of things were subpar and below the standards that we were used to. But, that is what was offered to us and we had to take it in order to keep the union.
We basically worked for five years under that contract and brought this company out of bankruptcy. We brought them back into a competitive place in the coal market.
And now, we are out of that old contract and trying to get a new one. But, they are not offering what we want. Actually, we don't even have a contract right now. We are in negotiations right now. We basically just want the company to take care of us.
What do you want?
Me, personally, I want 100% insurance coverage. We had 100% insurance in the old contract back in 2011. When I went to the doctor, I only had to pay $20 for a copay. My youngest daughter, who is 13 years old, was born under that insurance, and all I paid was $12. I paid $5 for a prescription. I would go to CVS and that's all I paid.
Now, under our current insurance, I will go to the doctor and pay a deductible. I still get bills in the mail. Every time I go to the doctor, they draw blood, and I still have to pay for those. I'm still behind on that.
We need full coverage because when you go into the ground, you're inhaling all these diesel fumes. You're gonna get sick. It happens. Even though we wear personal protective equipment, you're still gonna get sick.
Another thing is that we are penalized for going to the doctor. AAt most companies, you can just bring in a doctor's note as an excuse. Here, they want to give us a strike or penalize us. A doctor's excuse is not enough. I think that's wrong. I mean, you got to you can't take the human element out of this.
We deserve time and a half after we work eight hours. We deserve holiday pay. When we work on holidays right now, we get paid straight time. And I think that's just absolutely ridiculous. I just think the company should understand that we're people and that we have families we want to spend time with.
We've done a great job by getting this company back to where they need to be. It's our time now, to be paid what we're supposed to be paid. And to have great health insurance. I just think it's time for that man. And that's why we're here today striking.
How do you feel?
I guess the exciting part of it is that you don't really know what's gonna happen. We are here to make a statement, and to let them know that we mean business. They know that we mean business now. I think they knew this day was going to come, but I don't think they knew just how big this gonna be. We got a lot of people that are on our team.
We just want to be treated like we're supposed to be and get what we deserve. I think we deserve the best. We're coal miners, It takes a special person to be a coal miner. We do something that nobody does. We go on the ground, we get resources for energy. I mean, this is our resource for energy today. I think that coal is always going to be here. I know, they are trying to go to another type of resource, but I think cold is always going to be around. I mean, God blessed us and put it here for us to go down there to get it to provide for our families. And so that's what we do. And I think we do a great job at it.
I have met some of the greatest people in my life here at this place. I've met some great friends. Especially the older guys that were here that have now retired. With those guys, you were basically laughing and enjoying your work all day long. We got a lot of pride in ourselves. I think everybody would go to bat for you at the end of the day. If something happens, we all gonna come together. That is just the type of people we are man.
It's a great place to work. I just think we just need to be treated and paid and compensated for what we've done. The people that are on the executive board and are in these higher-up positions are there because of what we've done. And they're getting paid and living the life that they're living because of us. If we don't go out and do what we do, they can't live the way they live. So that's just the way I feel about it.
What does it feel like to be a part of the union?
It's just a special bond. When you are part of this union, you can meet somebody in a totally different part of the country who is in the union, and there is an automatic bond. You feel that connection because this a brotherhood.
Coal miners are just a totally different breed of a person. Two coal miners could be having a conversation and it sounds like two engineers or two doctors sitting there talking. Nobody knows what you're talking about. You can't understand unless you've been there and done it. We have this bond because we know what it feels like when you go down there that you're breathing coal dust and all that stuff change here and changes when you go down.
But being a part of the union is a great thing. I love being a part of this thing. And I just believe in my heart that we're gonna get what we want. I believe God is going to bless us to have what we are supposed to have. That's it in a nutshell, man.
II.
Larry | Unions always help out with the health and safety aspect of a job. With coal mining, we keep a watch on coal dust, we keep a watch on methane levels and we try to make sure that companies are following the law. Most companies, if they can cut corners, will cut corners. We try to make sure they don't cut that corner, and that they keep all the people safe — not just the union guys.
When you go down the hill, and you'll go across railroad tracks back up, you'll see a church. On the left-hand side, there's a monument. There was a coal mine there, but it blew up back in 2001 and it killed 13 people. It was devastating for the whole community. When we're fighting for our people's safety, we're fighting to make it safe for everybody.
Every year in September, we try to remember those coal miners and all coal miners who have lost their lives, by putting on a pretty large memorial service. It reaches beyond just our community. And it's just … it's something that you have to be there to understand.
But I am concerned about some of the people that we have working in this area right now. I'm just not too sure if they learned anything. I see things that are happening that scare me. I see some unsafe things going on. You know, this could happen again.
frank | Where do most of the folks that work here come from?
Some of them come from right around here and some come from other states. This company tends to go out to other states first. It's not that we don't want people from other states, but we would like them to hire from Alabama first. But people come in from all areas and they are good people. Off the top of my head, we've got some from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois. The big majority are from Alabama. Yeah.
Does it feel like a learning curve or a struggle to get solidarity and to get interest in a union?
Yeah. There is. I don't think they know the importance of union, some of them. Some of them do. Some of them grew up in union families. Times have changed so much that it's hard to show as much solidarity.
But, when it comes right down to it, solidarity is there. You can go up that road and look at that picket line and you will see the solidarity. We are talking about 15 different locations. Some places have 15 to 20 people striking, some places have 30 to 40.
Why do you think more and more people, especially young people, are interested in unions?
Well, to put it bluntly, I think because the management treats them like crap. A lot of the management teams at these mines treat you like a substandard person. These young guys are realizing, I don't have to live like that, I can do better than that. People are starting to realize that there's something better. These supervisors don't talk to these young guys like men, they talk down to them. They treat you like a machine. They demand you to do things with no consideration to whether that thing is safe.
Some of this is similar to what I have heard from people at Amazon in terms of bullying and that sort of thing.
There's a point in your life where you realize you're not a teenager anymore, you're not a child anymore. You realize that you are a man and that you have to take your destiny into your own hands. I think that a lot of these guys are getting to that stage. When these young men come in here, they know that they have responsibility. They know that they have a family to take care of. When they go underground with a supervisor that screams and hollers at him, that is, first of all, dangerous. When you put someone in that type of position, it causes mistakes. It is never good for these supervisors to be harassing and intimidating their employees.
But, the supervisor gets away with being intimidating because these young guys are worried about going back home to their family and supplying them with a house and a car and food and clothes.
So what we do is try to get them with an older hand. We let them see how that guy handles himself when the supervisor is trying to intimidate him. Eventually, those guys start realizing, “Hey, he doesn't have to put up with that kind of treatment, so I don't have to either.”