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
Legislating to Save Local Journalism
by Representative Dan Newhouse
July 15, 2021
This interview with Representative Dan Newhouse, the U.S. Representative for Washington's 4th congressional district and co-sponsor of the Local Journalism Sustainability Act, was conducted and condensed by franknews.
Rep. Newhouse | I'm in my fourth term in Congress. I represent Washington's 4th congressional district, which essentially is the central third of the state — east of the Cascade Mountains from Canada to Oregon. My district is largely agricultural — there are forestry farms and ranches. We have some varied industries, but we are largely a rural district. My largest community city is just under a hundred thousand people. I have a larger metropolitan area of the Tri-Cities, but that is still the case that Yakima is my largest city.
This issue of local journalism truly resonates with central Washington. I think a lot of rural districts around the country feel the plight that the journalism industry finds itself in today. It truly does have an impact on communities.
frank | How have newspapers fared in your communities? What kind of shutdowns have you seen over the years?
Some of the smaller town’s newspapers have shuttered over the last several years. More importantly, even the major newspapers in my district are truly struggling. This has been happening even before the pandemic, but over the last year and a half, advertising dollars have almost evaporated totally, exacerbating the existing problem. We are trying to be as proactive as possible and be helpful to them so that closed doors is not the eventual outcome.
Can you talk about the Local Journalism Sustainability Act?
The basic premise of the Local Journalism Sustainability Act is that it helps provide a bridge for the business model of journalism media. Journalism has historically relied primarily on advertising revenue, with only some subscription revenue. The goal is to flip that model around to be more reliant on the subscription side and less on the advertising side. As they are making that transition, this will help give them a little more time by providing them with various tax credits.
There are three main tax credits. The subscription tax credit allows an individual who buys a subscription to get a tax credit. There are also advertisers who can get trapped tax credits for advertising in the print media. And for hiring local journalists, companies can also get a tax credit for them for doing that. These credits are temporary — there is a five-year timeline.
The reason for this is that I have seen and heard many stories around the country of communities losing their local source for news. That leaves people to rely primarily on national outlets. To some extent that is fine. There's certainly a lot of good information to get from national outlets, but it has an impact on people's ability to stay current on what's happening in their own community. I think that it is really important for communities to have good sources of local news in their hometowns.
The nationalization of news is something we have spoken about with many experts over the past two months. It seems that not only do you lose information about what's going on in your own community, but also local races then become so hinged upon national stakes and opinions. Do you see a shift in the way candidates run or act with the collapse of local news?
Well, just the nature of all news, in general, is that there's always some monster to feed. There is always a demand for information. And so what do you fill that up with? You're right. I think that many of the things that people hear on a regular basis are more national in scope. What is lost in that is some things that are important to local areas. I can certainly see the logic behind the theory that local political races — city council, county commission, state representatives — tend to then focus more on things that maybe are outside influence or control of the individual office that's being considered. Being informed of local issues is very important to those kinds of local political races, for sure.
Anecdotally, is there a change in communicating with constituents or what your constituents are interested in hearing?
I guess I could tell you that what we try to do here is boil down what's happening here in Washington, DC and how it impacts people in my district. Certainly, there are a host of things that people are interested in on a national level, but we try to spend a lot of time focusing on things happening in central Washington, both in our communication and what we do here.
That's where I can have an impact and where I can most represent our best represent the people in central Washington. In a town hall, people might be really focused on, just as an example, a Supreme Court vacancy or international trade disputes, which are all important things for sure, and we want to hear from people on it, but we focus a lot of our time on local issues. We focus a lot of our time on the agricultural water situation or the dams along the state river and the salmon migration — you know, things that are truly of high interest to my constituents.
Have you been able to find bipartisan support for the Local Journalism Sustainability Act?
Certainly. The two main co-sponsors are me, a Republican, and Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat. We had 78 co-sponsors in the last Congress. I anticipate that we will have similar bipartisanship in the co-sponsors we can get this year, and we are actually looking to increase the number of Republican sponsors.
I think we had over 20 Republican co-sponsors last year. We are continuing to talk to more folks. These bills, like any legislative effort, evolve. It takes time to educate people. It takes time to help them be aware of not only the issue but also the solution that's being proposed.
I think over time, what we've been able to see in conversations with people is that they're recognizing that this is an issue in their districts too and that now that they're aware of the conversation of how to address it, we're getting a lot more interest from members of Congress.
What, if any, pushback do you hear?
Well, you are probably aware of this, but there's been a lot of criticism about the media in general. There has been conversation about whether we can believe the media or not, and whether it's fake or not. Certainly, you can seek almost any perspective you want, depending on which news source you go to. The question is, I guess, why would you want to help that industry if they're saying bad things about us? If they're wrong, why would anybody want to consolidate that? That is the key critique: why should we even step up to help the news media at all?
How do you respond to that?
My response is that if you're complaining about fake news in the national media, then it is a great thing to be sure that we have strong local media. It is a great thing to make sure that we're not being fed just what people in New York City or whatever the mainstream news in print or television or radio tell us. As a community, as a region, as a state, we should develop our own perspectives to better understand what is important to us. I think it's absolutely critical that we don't rely just on national sources of information.
Are people open to that argument of local news being a non-partisan or less partisan antidote?
Yes. I don’t know if I would classify them as non-partisan, certainly, there's going to be a philosophical bent no matter where you are. But, one of the things that media fosters is conversation and debate. If there is an article that my local paper prints, there are always opportunities for people to write in letters to the editor or comment. I think that local debate is very helpful.