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 LANDING STUDIO
by LANDING STUDIO
May 9, 2018
This interview with Marie Law Adams and Dan Adams, the founding principals of LANDING STUDIO, was conducted and condensed by frank news. This is part one of an ongoing conversation between frank and LANDING STUDIO.
Let's just jump into it.
MARIE: Our practice started right out of projects we did in graduate school. Margaret Crawford was quite influential. Dan was taking a course with her at the Harvard GSD.
DAN: While you were studying with Krzysztof [Wodiczko] at MIT.
MARIE: At the same time. I think our first work was a little bit of a hybrid of Krzysztof and Margaret, or at least our perception of their work at the time.
DAN: Planning and installation art.
MARIE: Our first intervention in the real world as a practice was a series of light installations on a salt pile in Chelsea, Massachusetts. It was an environment we thought was visually and formally fascinating, and sort of industrial heavy - they were receiving global shipments of road salt. These huge salt mountains were kinetic: rising and falling with all of the shipments and storms. Our first project was to cast light on that, literally, with a series of theater stage lights that we installed along the public roadway, and then projected text and images on them.
Chelsea, MA | 2005 courtesy of LANDING STUDIO
DAN: It was a strange situation, an industrial facility in the city, that had been there for a half century. On one hand everybody knew of it. They even sort of identified their town with it. They would talk about flying into the Boston Airport, and how it was like a monument of their local community. Oftentimes they had family members who had worked there, or not worked there, but then they also talked about it in a negative way. It seemed in some ways like those weren't even necessarily their own thoughts. We've been trained to think of certain things as ugly, and certain things as all right. It seemed like a strange dynamic. We started talking with the owners of that facility, and it became clear that in many ways, what was missing was any form of a designed relationship between the city and the industry. It was maybe a default relationship, or relationship that had come to be, but wasn't something that was consciously choreographed.
Chelsea, MA | 2005 courtesy of LANDING STUDIO
MARIE: These things were very close to each other. You had single family homes right across the street from a very major industrial operation, and nothing to reconcile those two things in space. The first thought we had was, how do you generate dialogue between those communities?
DAN: And design a relationship.
I think architects focus so much on a singular design, of a single object, at a single moment in time, for even a single client. And what became clear in this may be a reason why industries so often aren't designed, and fall outside of the purview of the typical design realm: that it is much more designing in the life of something, than designing for the life of something. We've been working with this client now for nearly 15 years, just constantly working through the design. In the life of the industry, not of the industry. Which I think is a big difference.
Were neighborhood opinions part of the design process?
MARIE: Yes, it became very apparent to us the first day we went there. We saw the facility, we thought it was very interesting and walked in, and met with the terminal manager the first day. He said they had a lot of challenges communicating with the local community. We said that we were design students, and he was like, well maybe you can help us think —
DAN: They basically hired us that day. We just started designing with them on ways to engage with the community, and actually transform their terminal to be both an industrial resource, and a local recreation resource. What became an absurdity is, you're talking about a type of facility that completely serves the public good. That is it's reason. That's what it does. It provides an infrastructural service to a regional-scale community — but then in the local community, it was seen as a burden. So often what happens in cities like New York and Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, you know, wealthy cities, is that those types of facilities get displaced from the city due to local pressure that then undermines regional resilience.
MARIE: Because goods are going to come from further away, and then go to truck shipping rather than water-based freight, an option with less environmental impact.
DAN: Every time you displace a ship from a city you're bringing in 1,600 trucks. People don't see that because it gets dissipated across the road. On a particulate matter, ecology, road congestion, and cost of goods provided, the environmental and cost impact is enormous. But you don't see it. There isn't a local community that has to receive those 1,600 trucks. There is one community that has to receive the ship. And that's where that battle between local and regional planning comes in.
MARIE: This is a byproduct of a lot of industrial displacement from the center of Boston and Boston Harbor itself. Many of the industries that support that region in Boston have moved up the Boston Harbor and into areas like Everett and Chelsea. These small cities now have to support all of that bulk, and plan in coordination with massive, global-scale systems. They don't have the same kind of advocacy that the city of Boston does to negotiate with industry. So you have these smaller communities that are dealing with the whole burden of industrial imports (like petroleum for home heating, jet fuel for the airport, road salt). The state-designated port area is meant to preserve industrial waterways for those uses. They happened to be in communities like Chelsea. We started to see this as a really important place to design.
We were approached by the Rotel Facility who were looking for ways to expand their operation. We started with the demolition of an asphalt batching terminal. Due to conflicts between local and state-level regulations, this was the only grandfathered allowable use. City zoning says the waterfront can only be used for community-based programs: recreation and open space. But the state zoning says it can only be used for marine industrial functions. There was a total conflict between the two things. Our first project was trying to develop a shared use, or mixed use, of the industrial waterfront so we could satisfy both state and local zoning within the same parcel.
That became the basis of our work with them: how you could seasonally share space on an industrial working waterfront. In the summertime, you could have recreational space, and in the wintertime, it becomes more industrial.
DAN: This is where these questions get interesting to us.
On one end you're dealing with a very large, global or regional-scale issue. But on the other, the local wants and needs of a place.
It comes down to pretty specific little design things.
I think we've found too often that these facilities are treated very generically. People think of an industrial facility and just call it an industrial facility. But an oil terminal is very different than a fishing pier or a salt pile. In New England, parks aren't used a lot in the winter because it's just cold and crappy. But then in the summer they’re used a lot. But in maritime industry, things like a salt operation only function in the winter.
That's what became the focus area of our firm. Think at a regional scale, but act at a micro-design scale.
DAN: In the last decade or so there's been a pretty big awakening of rethinking of our infrastructure systems. It used to be that you would put water off of a highway into a pipe where it gets contaminated, and discharge contaminated water into a river, that ultimately kills the ocean. Then in recent years we've realized that same sort of infrastructural purpose could be served by giving the water to a tree that filters the water, and produces oxygen and shade. That tree becomes a fundamental piece of a park. What used to be heavy infrastructure can quickly become a reparations space in a city.
MARIE: These are not new ideas at all. They were most obviously present in Frederick Law Olmsted's work.
How have you seen client relationships change as sustainability becomes more important?
DAN: It's a huge opportunity. To be honest, I often find there's a lot of critique of the word sustainability, I don't have any problem with that term. We have to start using some sort of language to describe these greater pursuits. We have to preserve the water quality of the ocean as a communal resource. When you follow that all the way back into the city, you realize that the damage to the ocean is being done at little catch basins on streets. If you want to fix the chemistry of the ocean, you have to act very locally in small ways.
Fundamentally changing the way we build every piece of infrastructure. In some ways, the biggest challenge is how to deal with all the bad fabric that we've built. The things we've built in the last 100 years now stand in the way of doing it the way we know we should. In many ways it's an adaptation project for the next generation.
Are things fixable? Or do they need to be eliminated and rebuilt?
DAN: That's a very good question. We grapple with that a lot.
MARIE: We tend to work on projects where they stay in place, and try to figure out ways to adapt.
DAN:
But then what's the other scenario? The other scenario is to let it be so bad that it crashes and burns, and self-extinguishes, which can be very detrimental to a community. It becomes frustrating at times when we collectively see a situation and know that it's wrong. We know that the infrastructure system we're supporting is bad. We know that there's many ways to do it better, and yet it can take so long. Within a lot of our work, we ask how much do we fundamentally question the system versus try and fix the performance of the system as it is. And it doesn't always mean you agree with the system that you're trying to remedy. That raises moral and political questions that are difficult to negotiate with.
To be honest I think one problem with planning today is we often tend to identify things we don't like and push them away, outside of cities, and then pretend they don't exist. It's a form of global environmental justice and inequity. We don't like it in New York, we put it in Yemen, or in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s an unacceptable solution. To accept the convenience of putting your burden onto another community.
How do you design within your own, local environment? And within this self-regulating context of your own urban environment?
A lot of what you’re saying seems like an obvious fix when you say it, but I would never have thought of them before. How are citizens meant to push for these options if they’re not already immersed in the planning world?
DAN: I think there is a problem in the way architects and planners often work. It is built into the business and enterprise of these industries. You get hired to do discrete projects, for discrete clients, for discrete amounts of time.
MARIE: Some of the fundamental ideas that came from our first project in Chelsea, came from the client.
Until recently there haven't been many designers working with transportation agencies. We have some evidence that it was happening in the 1950’s and 60’s. It went away for a long time, and now it's coming back again. But with industry, there is almost no role for a designer.