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 Colonel Dillon: Part 2
by Colonel Ryan Dillon
April 12, 2018
This interview with Colonel Ryan Dillon, the official Spokesman of Operation Inherent Resolve, was conducted and condensed by frank news. It took place March 21, 2018. This is part two of an ongoing conversation between frank and Colonel Dillon.
I was warned you’d have a very limited response — but I wanted to ask about the upcoming elections and what you anticipate the changes on your end to be.
Well really, quite frankly I don’t think that there will be much change at all in what the coalition is doing, you know, what the CJTF is doing with our Iraqi partners. Everything that we do is at the request or at the approval of the government of Iraq. What is important to the Iraqi Security Forces, or the government in Iraq, is important to us.
We're going to make sure that whatever the Iraqis do, we are supporting them in those efforts. That largely right now has a lot to do with providing them intelligence through some of the platforms and some of the things that they don't have. But quite frankly the Iraqis are, when it comes to gathering intelligence, that comes from on the ground, the Iraqis are far better at that than we are at identifying those threats and are aggressively going after those threats before they become a problem.
And that really goes, not just to any particular cohort of the Iraqi security forces, it’s really integrated throughout all of them. So the Border Guard Force, is so that ISIS elements that do remain in Syria cannot infiltrate or bring weapons or other things. Then you have layered defenses as you get to these poling stations and cities where the elections will occur. So there are many different ways and nets to catch terrorists that are attempting to do something to disrupt or to stop the elections.
Do you anticipate any problems on Election Day?
We are doing our job, and the Iraqi Security Forces are doing their job to make sure that we identify all these threats, every way that we can. The Iraqis have all the proper forces, quick reaction forces, to be able to interdict, or stop, or react, to anything that does happen. The biggest thing is to make sure the Iraqis are in a place where security is established at these locations so that elections can go off as planned.
Has campaigning gone smoothly so far, for the civilians at least?
The one way I will address that is that I know,
But even if they cannot, if their homes are still destroyed, or if there are essential services that are still not functioning because of ISIS's destruction of these, then there are opportunities to conduct elections in these IDP camps as well. But the intent is to get as many people back to their homes so that they can vote. And I just want to highlight that that is voluntary returns to get them back.
Iraqis have not taken their foot off the gas. So even after major combat operations have ceased, there are no large columns of Iraqi military formations going after territory or ISIS held ground they did not stop. And they made a very quick transition to continue to conduct patrols, and conduct operations in these traditional hiding spots where ISIS started, before they came on the scene in 2014 in these traditionally very remote rural areas. The Iraqi Security Forces are continuing to go after ISIS remnants relentlessly. And they're doing a phenomenal job of this, and it shows that they are professionalizing and getting much better at what they do. Just recently at a very long distance, in Western Anbar Province, intelligence fed to the operations command, they flew both with helicopters supported by Iraqi Air Force and counterterrorism service, all these elements were able to come together and conduct an operation simultaneously, to not just kill, but capture ISIS leaders, that were in the desert, that were planning to conduct terror operations in Iraq. So it just goes to show that they are very capable of identifying, going after, and not just killing, but also detaining ISIS threats and ISIS remnants that remain in Iraq.
How much of this action is supported by Americans?
Well that's a great question because as the Iraqi Security Forces continue to demonstrate and increase capacity and capability to do these types of operations, the fewer American and or coalition forces are going to be required to assist them. In many cases, in almost all cases in Iraq right now, our coalition support to Iraqi Security Forces is largely through advisors. We’re talking about the level that is at brigade or higher division level. So you have a Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel that is advising a two-star or three-star general.
So I just want to make sure that people in your audience know and understand that you do not have coalition forces, U.S. forces, that are on the ground. No front man a in an operation kicking down the doors, and you know, leading the charge. It is very much Iraqis who are doing this, and we are merely advising, and providing intelligence, and also training and equipping.
And finally, we have really limited the amount of strikes, precision strikes, that we have provided in support of the Iraqi Security Forces. Iraqi Air Force are very much capable of conducting these operations, and conducting these strikes on their own.
How many Americans are in serving in Iraq right now?
That number is put out by the Pentagon. I think it was December when they put that out. That is about 5000 U.S. service members, that are serving in Iraq. But what I’ll say is, there will be, and there has been, a gradual decrease in the footprint of U.S. forces, and coalition forces here in Iraq. We will continue, and we expect to see that continue, to gradually go down over time.
Is there a number you’re trying to get to this year?
I would say no, not necessarily. We will not keep one more person than necessary to accomplish our mission. Also, this is very important, we are still here at the request of the government of Iraq. As long as they want us here, we will continue to work with them to provide them the support we think they need to be successful in fighting DAESH and in stabilizing the country.
Let’s move to Syria. I woke up this morning to news that there was an airstrike over eastern Ghouta that left a number of school children dead. I know there are no troops there —
I need to make it very clear that coalition forces are not in eastern Ghouta, they’re not in Damascus, there not in places like Idlib, or in Afrin, which are places that you hear about regularly now for the last several months.
Why?
Because our number one reason for being in both Iraq and Syria is on defeating ISIS. And that has always been the case still holds true today. We have supported our partners, which is the Syrian Democratic Forces, in the eastern part of Syria. So as you look at the Euphrates River, and if you use that as an indicator, all of the forces that we support are on the eastern side of the Euphrates River, all the way to the border with Iraq, and then going up north it includes Raqqa and Manbij.
Is there any chance that expands?
I do not anticipate that. That particular area that I just described has been where we have been operating with our partners for the 3 years that we’ve been conducting this mission. The Assad regime, backed by the Russians, have been in the areas that are west of Euphrates River, and unfortunately they have not had the same amount of success that we have, and our partners have, where every single inch of territory that our partners have retaken from ISIS, not an inch of it has ever been retaken. Because of this we've seen this as a blueprint for success all throughout eastern Syria.
The Russians, and the regime, they have taken locations, cities, they have paraded in and touted their success, just to see weeks later, it retaken by ISIS. And this isn’t just one instance. It happens pretty regularly. News over the last 24 hours is ISIS has retaken neighborhoods and have killed, reportedly, up to 40 regime fighters in a neighborhood in Southern Damascus.
We are true to our word. We are here to defeat ISIS, not just push them around, or give it lip service. We're very serious about defeating ISIS and making sure that our partners are successful.
Colonel Dillon referred frank news to a speech by H.R. McMaster on Syria which we have embedded below.