Running head: URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST

T WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA

Spenser Dill

Proseminar in Applied American Politics

University of San Francisco

November 2, 2012

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA For over thirty years, environmentalists have been battling with state and federal institutions in the effort to create a more balanced and sustainable approach to the use of water in California. Beginning at the turn of the 20th century, the diversion of water away from rural areas drove the growth of major urban areas, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, and fueled the states rapid economic development. Since then, both federal and state institutions have generated policies that allocate the lions share of water to larger cities (and the private industries that require it) at the expense of both rural communities and the environment. The diversion of water to the cities had the long-term effect of stagnating rural economies and impoverishing local families. Today we know that climate change is likely to exacerbate the already worrisome desertification process in these same areas. The future of California as a state with a healthy and productive citizenry depends in large part on our governments ability to establish water allocation systems that are environmentally sustainable and promote the redevelopment of local, rural economies. In this paper, I (1) showcase the example of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir project to explain how the influence of pro-development economic interests on state and federal government can result in development projects that damage Californias environment, (2) discuss how language in Californias codes have ensured the diversion of water to urban areas at the expense of rural ones, and (3) consider how the resulting inequality of water allocation has disproportionately affected poor and minority families in rural communities. I conclude with suggestions for policies that would support environmentally sustainable and just water allocation in California.

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA Development, Government & the Environment The history of the Hetch Hetchy reservoir project provides an example of how economic and political interests at the state and federal levels, specifically in regards to urban demands for water rights, can result in environmentally damaging outcomes in California. In the early 1900s John Muir, environmentalist and President of the Sierra Club, was caught in a battle with the city of San Francisco because he opposed the construction of the O'Shaughnessy Dam in Yosemite National Park (Shores, 2006). The plan to dam the Tuolumne River and flood the Hetch Hetchy Valley located within the Park, would create a massive water source for the City, so the stakes were high. An influential environmental advocate, Muir was instrumental in Congresss creation of Yosemite Park in 1890, and he later became a close friend and advisor to President Theodore Roosevelt. During Roosevelts presidency, his administration created the National Forest System, which protects more than 148 million acres of public land. However, Roosevelts conservationist policies soon came into conflict with prodevelopment forces. Ensuring that Californias policies advance the well being of the U.S. is a function of the federal government that can often contradict policies that best suit the state (Glicksman, 2008). Thus, a few years after the creation of Yosemite National Park, President Roosevelt relented to pressure from both public opinion and the majority of members of his own administration, and gave up on his opposition to the Hetch Hetchy project (Shores, 2006). Previously, in 1903 and 1905, Roosevelts administration tried to push legislation through Congress that would have prevented the City from gaining rights to a water source located on federally protected land. But Ethan Hitchcock, the Secretary to the Interior, rejected the bill.

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA Hitchcock was able to impede the passage of the bill because under the terms of the provision, San Francisco had to apply to the Department of the Interior (Shores, 2006). Ten years later, during the Woodrow Wilson administration, the new Secretary to the Interior Franklin K. Lane, who was the Attorney General in San Francisco prior to becoming Secretary, approved the Raker Act of 1913 (Shores, 2006). The Raker Act stated that because the water from the reservoir was on public land, despite the fact that San Francisco had successfully lobbied for the water rights, the City could not privately use it. However, San Francisco was able to circumvent that public safeguard by selling the water rights to PG&E who then sold it back to the public for a profit. In an unprecedented political maneuver, the City of San Francisco was able to convince Congress to allow it to construct the O'Shaughnessy Dam on federal land, which the city still owns today (Shores, 2006). Thus, San Francisco bypassed laws intended to protect federal lands in order to gain access to energy production and clean drinking water, which was necessary to advance the citys development. The leaders of San Francisco recognized the need to put forward pro-development policies as the population grew at the turn of the 20th century. Their position as managers of urban economic development gave them significant political power at the federal level, which they exercised to accomplish their goals (Peterson, 1981). Rural leaders, however, do not often have the political power to influence such decisions and therefore are at a great disadvantage in their efforts to develop the economic infrastructure of their communities. The example of Hetch Hetchy illustrates how pro-development forces influence the federal government and affect how the state of California manages its waterways. Even Roosevelt backed down when it became clear that his position, which conflicted with pro-

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA development forces, was politically untenable. In their drive to promote economic development, state and federal government leaders accessed natural resources on federally protected lands and failed to address how the dam would affect the regions natural ecosystems and wildlife habitats. Water Distribution & Californias Codes The current language of Californias codes has ensured the diversion of water to urban areas at the expense of rural ones. Californias response to the handling of Hetch Hetchy was that it would be beneficial to address these issues by controlling its own water rights without having to appeal to Congress. California established the right to manage the states water resources as a constitutional authority and began to create state and local boards to execute water management, infrastructure, and water quality policies. In 1956 and 1967 respectively, the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board were two departments created with the intention of designing a unified statewide agenda toward water policy. However, the two departments have since then transformed into cumbersome agencies that often clash and do not perform in the ways initially intended (Pannu, 2012). This has lead to a convoluted system that creates priorities for those who have power in the political process, such as lobbyists, big money interest groups, and leaders of urban areas. Rural communities, for the most part, do not participate in the level of political process that is needed to attain influence (Balazs, MorelloFrosch, Hubbard, and Ray, 2011). In addition, rural citizens elect no members of the statewide water management boards. Rather, board members are political appointees who are usually selected by the Governor and in some cases, the federal government. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place to remove any of the members once appointed, which leads to an antidemocratic culture in which members are not being held accountable (Pannu, 2012).

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA Clearly, the provision of safe drinking water has not been one that has been pursued with the care and recognition that is needed to allow these communities to thrive. In the case of the Hetch Hetchy project, the federal government took action largely because of the influence of pro-development forces in the nation and specifically the political clout of San Franciscos leaders. The federal government disregarded the potential harm to the environment, and created policy without including dissenting opinions. In short, the federal government in partnership with the officials in San Francisco, prioritized the water needs of the city over the environmental concerns. Similarly within California, influenced by corporate interests, the water boards and state run organizations prioritize the water needs of the agricultural industry over the needs of rural communities to have access to clean drinking water. Water & Inequality The inequality of water allocation has disproportionately affected poor and minority families in rural communities. As part of the constitutional mandate, the states water resources were to be allocated for reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare (Pannu, 2012, p. 239). However, the definition of reasonable and beneficial use of water has been prioritized to major California cities and has not addressed the needs of rural communities. Moreover, within the major cities, the courts define reasonable and beneficial use of water as activities such as gardening and bathing (Pannu, 2012). As part of developmental policies in the major cities of California, uses of water such as gardening and bathing are essential to creating a desirable area for businesses and residents to create a thriving economy. Conversely, rural communities without access to water, detrimentally circumscribes the boundaries of economic development for unincorporated communities by limiting the size of

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA these communities and by limiting residents' ability to invest in local business enterprises or lot improvements (Pannu, 2012, p. 236). If rural communities are unable to produce a strong tax base by increasing investment to the local economy, the community will struggle to improve living conditions. The federal government in 1976 passed the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act and California followed with the passage of a similar bill in 1986 titled Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 or Proposition 65. Both aimed to reduce the toxins in the drinking water, however neither truly addressed the needs of rural communities. Furthermore, California water is allocated to agricultural centers in the Central Valley, which is subsidized by both California and the federal government (Pannu, 2012). Studies have shown that these areas do not have access to clean drinking water and are home to impoverished communities of color. In other words, there is a link between impoverished minority communities and higher levels of contamination in their drinking water (Balazs, Morello-Frosch, Hubbard, and Ray, 2011). California and the federal government supply funding for agricultural purposes, yet fail to supply those rural, agricultural communities with clean drinking water. The health implications for the rural areas are a deterrent for the wellbeing and potential growth of those agricultural communities (Pannu, 2012). At present, the state government is not equipped to properly handle this issue.

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA Policy Recommendations In conclusion, I offer a few simple policies recommendations that would support sustainable and just water allocation in California. The current state agency requires reform to create enduring rules that ensure the representation of rural communities. As mentioned before, the state agencies are too cumbersome, which creates an unproductive model of addressing the states needs. The failure of interagency communication, competing agendas, and misuse of state funds produce inefficiencies. Therefore, establishing a singular agency to provide for the entire state creates unity within the same organization. Within the agency, there would be water districts run by local leaders who would in turn be advocates for their communities (Pannu, 2012). In this model, local districts would have the freedom to address the local requests under their supervision. Within the newly formed agency, local branches including those in rural communities or environmentally conscience populations who are not currently represented would have an arena in which they can voice their concerns. In the current model, those communities do not have a representative voice within the state decision-making structure. Also, it would benefit the institution itself by reducing the cost of the agencies and decrease the risk of outside interests affecting the policy within the state. Furthermore, there would be more efficient communication with the federal government where federal legislation, like in the Hetch Hetchy case, could be vetting in a process that would be able to address local concerns. Conversely, the federal government could communicate directly with a single agency while holding them accountable and in accordance with federal policy (Pannu, 2012).

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA The federal governments interests are that of the union and can circumstantially affect policy that is contrary to the needs of the state, especially when constructing environmental policy. Therefore, as a mechanism to combat such a scenario, the single agency approach would ensure the federal government does not preempt state regulations or legislation toward policies it does not see fit (Glicksman, 2008). In addition, a statewide water commissioner should be elected to serve as the executive to the non-partisan water agency. Electing a commissioner would not only create a more transparent agency but also more importantly hold the agency accountable for it actions and inactions (Pannu, 2012). The current system of government is structured with too many agencies, elected officials, and federal bureaucracies at the institutional level to effectively address the needs of underrepresented communities. Through consolidating and micro-targeting policy areas on a localized level, the federal and state institutions together can achieve a fair and balanced approach within environmental and water rights issues. By creating more accountable, transparent, and efficient mechanisms in the different levels of government, local communities can be justly represented in the policy making process.

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA References

Balazs, C & Morello-Frosch, R & Hubbard, A & Ray, I (2011). Social Disparities in NitrateContaminated Drinking Water in Californias San Joaquin Valley. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230390/ Glicksman, R. L. (2008). Nothing is real: protecting the regulatory void through federal preemption by inaction. Retrieved from http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ae3d6990-40834945-b58d-dcc21bfa8448%40sessionmgr13&vid=12&hid=5 Pannu, C (2012). Drinking Water and Exclusion: A case study from California's central valley. Retrieved from http://0ehis.ebscohost.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/eds/detail?vid=11&hid=23&sid=ae3d6990-40834945b58ddcc21bfa8448%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l 0ZQ%3d%3d#db=lft&AN=502591797 Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Shores, J W (2006), A win-lose situation: historical context, ethos, and rhetorical choices in John Muirs Hetch Hetchy Valley Article. Retrieved from http://0-ehis.ebscohost.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/eds/detail?vid=3&hid=1&sid=046fc7aa-592b4f3dae05c352d072d69f@sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0Z Q==#db=aph&AN=20696631

10

URBAN THIRST HOW STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES HAVE FAILED TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE AND JUST WATER ALLOCATION IN CALIFORNIA

11