Watering down our political agenda

Here, Kehl speaks exclusively to the Washington Examiner about what needs to happen in consumer awareness, private sector initiatives, governmental regulation and targeted investments to move our country and the world toward sustainable water use.

Washington Examiner: What does the average American understand about the projected water shortages and where water belongs on our nation’s political agenda?

Kehl: People know that there are water shortages in different parts of the world, but most people don’t realize how close to home and how urgent those water problems are. They think they are far in distance and far in time — and neither of those is true.

One thing I like about the water issue politically is that it’s not a partisan issue. People recognize how crucial water is in their lives and their businesses and their recreation. Policymakers realize that there are a few areas where we can establish common ground, and water is one of them.

Examiner: Where are the water issues close to home?

Kehl: We have some very extreme water crises in the U.S. Most people are aware of the water crisis in California and how serious that is. Most are aware of the crisis in Texas, and I think they recognize its effect on agriculture, which is one of our largest industries. But I don’t think they know the seriousness of the financial impact, and I worry that in areas where we don’t have water scarcity — such as the Great Lakes — there’s a perception that we don’t have water stress in this region, and that’s not true. The Great Lakes region doesn’t have the scarcity they have in California, but we are stressing our water system there by using more water than the Great Lakes can re-generate, and that will make it difficult to produce agriculture and energy.

Examiner: Where is water on the U.S. political agenda now?

Kehl: So far, water has been taken for granted as a natural asset — similar to air — but people are beginning to see what the consequences of water stress will be without a reduction in consumption. It’s still a pretty new realization though. The average American is just starting to hear a few things about the water crisis.

Examiner: In terms of time, how urgent of an issue is our nation’s water shortage?

Kehl: It is already urgent. Part of what makes it urgent is that in most areas in our country, we’re already using more than the water system can regenerate. We’re already at that threshold where you’re using more than the system can renew. It depends on the water source; some sources like the Colorado and Rio Grande are long past, while the Great Lakes still has a viable system.

But the Great Lakes are a good example because they are so abundant and so vital to our economy for things like agriculture, energy, production, shipping, transportation and recreation. That system is abundant, but it’s also very fragile from an ecological perspective, so even small disruptions to that large system can cause very serious problems such as the algal bloom that affected drinking water this past year.

Examiner: You mentioned that water is a bipartisan issue on which everyone can agree. What makes water so clear-cut — or are there gray areas where politicians still disagree on certain things?

Kehl: Water is more clear politically than something like global warming. Climate change is already having great effects on our water systems, and we can measure those effects. We can see evidence of it, so it’s not really a debate.

The debate comes in what we should do about it and what the water is worth. They say if you charge more for water, people will use less, which is true. Some say if you charge more for water, it will increase the price of food. The political contention comes in how we address the problems, but there is a lot of agreement that we do have a problem and that it’s a worthy problem, a worthy political endeavor that we need to address.

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the money that was recently committed is a great example of being able to get something done. Both sides of the aisle recognized how critical this issue is. But after those major decisions are reached, it becomes a little more contentious on the local level. Localized disputes are centered on who should have to pay more for water. Do you charge the agriculture industry more for water or do you charge less? The price of water is where the debate comes in.

Examiner: How do you figure out a price for water?

Kehl: The problem is that people take water for granted, and they’re wasteful with it. The reason for the price mechanism is to encourage conservation. The price mechanism helps people realize what amount of water they need and what it’s worth, and it reduces waste considerably in some cases.

From a human rights perspective, it’s very important that the basic minimal functions that we need for health and human safety and sanitation be met, so that first unit of water has to be very affordable. That’s part of why we have public water systems and municipalities manage water, and the federal government has standards for it.

Once that basic amount of water needed for health and human safety and sanitation is met at an affordable rate, anything that is a more ostentatious use of water becomes much more expensive. I can still wash my dishes and take a shower and do laundry, but the price mechanism should kick in if I want to fill a swimming pool or water a golf course in Arizona, or have inefficient water practices in agriculture. There should be a cost to water waste, and the price mechanism can indicate to people when they’re being wasteful and what it’s going to cost them.

Examiner: Is this a political discussion or a free enterprise discussion?

Kehl: I think both have to be involved. I think democratically elected leadership has to be involved in the discussion because that’s part of the responsibility and trust we place in them to make sure we have affordable, safe, clean drinking water.

It’s important that there’s a clear regulatory framework in place and that it protects the basic human right to water for our basic functions. Once that right is actualized, then it’s appropriate for the market aspect to kick in for anything above and beyond that. After your basic human need is met, if you want to build a fountain, you have to pay for that. We have to indicate to people what the water is worth, and they can decide whether they want to pay for it or not.

Examiner: If you were in charge of putting water on the political agenda, what would you like to see Washington doing with regards to our water?

Kehl: I would like to see some of the standards in the Clean Water Act upheld. For example, we’re not supposed to see any toxic releases into — or even close to — our water systems. We already have a policy in place that says if it’s toxic, we shouldn’t put it in the water. So I would like to see better enforcement of the protections we have.

Examiner: Why aren’t we enforcing the policies we already have?

Kehl: The Clean Water Act has done a lot of good, and we’ve cleaned up many of our lakes and rivers, but it has two deficiencies that the government could improve upon. One is that they aren’t enforcing the standard of releasing zero toxic emissions into our water systems. The second is that as good as the Clean Water Act is, it’s 40 years old. We’re addressing a lot of problems now that weren’t present at that time, and thousands of chemicals have been introduced that didn’t exist when we wrote the Clean Water Act. It needs to be updated to address the newer problems we’re facing.

Examiner: Is there recognition in Washington that it needs to be updated?

Kehl: I’ve been really looking for them to pay greater attention to it. They just had the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, and I saw some attention around the anniversary. I thought this would build a huge amount of momentum to talk about how much more important it is now than when it was first drafted and to get some energy behind updating and improving it to be even more beneficial. I did see some attention around the anniversary, but no really serious conversations. So it was a PR event rather than an opportunity to really improve it.

Examiner: Why do you think the government is not enforcing the standard better?

Kehl: I think it’s a lack of perception of the severity and urgency of the problem. I think they believe we still have a lot of time and a lot of space in which to do this, and that’s just not accurate any longer. Not every legislator or every decision maker can be an expert in water resources, and those of us who spend all day, every day fighting for our water resources realize that there’s a lack of information about the urgency of the issue. From a policy position, it’s hard to get anything done unless there’s a crisis, and there are a lot of other problems, too. We see a lack of attention to the problem because it’s not perceived as urgent.

Examiner: If you could get law and policymakers in a room together, what would you say to help them understand the urgency of the situation?

Kehl: First, I would say, “If it’s toxic, don’t put it in the water.” If everybody could just hear it that clearly, maybe it would stick.

The second thing I would tell them is that there are tens of millions of people in the U.S. who are already affected by water scarcity and water stress, and it’s affecting their quality of life, their businesses, agriculture, energy production and consumption. I would stress that this is an issue that is starting to have an impact and is only expected to get worse. Some problems get a little worse, then get a little better — but it’s not going to go that way with water. It’s only going to get more intense.

Another thing I’d like to explain is how closely environmental sustainability is linked to economic viability because some people perceive them in opposition to each other — that you either have environmental sustainability or you have economic viability, and they work against each other. But the truth is that if we’re not environmentally sustainable, we’re not going to be economically viable either. The systems, the natural resources, the ecosystems, the agriculture and energy are so interdependent that if we disrupt one, we’re going to disrupt the others.

Agriculture is a great example because there’s such an obvious link between environmental sustainability and economic viability. If agriculture doesn’t have good quality soil and a reasonable quantity of water, it will fail and that will be catastrophic economically, as well. People say it’s so expensive to be environmentally sustainable, and that’s no longer an accurate representation. Now it’s really about getting people to understand how close the environment and the economy actually are.

Examiner: How close are we to seeing water issues seriously impact the quality of the soil and the quality of our agriculture?

Kehl: We’ve already seen it in the California drought. I was in California in the fall — and it’s gotten much worse since then — and people were saying, “We aren’t going to be able to grow anything here in 20 years. What do we do?” Their economy is so largely based on agricultural production, and their water is closely linked with their energy production.

Texas has seen the same thing with its extended drought. In 2012 and 2013, they lost 85 percent of their agricultural output. That’s extremely expensive. We’re talking about billions and billions of dollars in agricultural production that was not possible because of the drought. Better water management processes, better disaster management practices, water efficiency and restructuring agriculture are all going to be necessary for us to continue to produce the amount of food we need.

Examiner: How did the situation in Texas impact the average American?

Kehl: It increased food prices, but you had to listen for it to hear it on the news. Of course, the Texans lost a pillar of their economy, so the effect on them was huge. The rest of Americans just didn’t like the higher food prices.

Americans have to understand that what happened in Texas could happen next year and the following year, and it’s going to grow. It’s going to happen in Oklahoma and Colorado, and the California drought may spread to Oregon and Washington this summer. The more people realize that their energy and their food are closely related to the availability or scarcity of their water resources, the more they will see the value of managing that resource more effectively.

Examiner: When it comes to droughts, we obviously can’t control Mother Nature, so is the best solution conservation?

Kehl: The first thing we need to do is pay great attention to improving water efficiency. We’re so wasteful with water in this country, particularly in agriculture and energy, and we’ve gotten away with that for decades. Now, we’re having our comeuppance because we’re not able to get along with that inefficiency. It’s going to disrupt the ecosystem, or prices, or the energy supply or the food supply. Something is going to be disrupted unless we greatly increase water efficiency.

Increasing our water efficiency would have such a great conservation effect that it would reduce water stress considerably. Then, when you decrease water stress, it’s easier to promote conservation because people aren’t stressed out about water.

Most policymakers are going to first say conservation comes first, and I don’t think they’re wrong. I study water efficiency in agriculture, so I know how much potential we have and what a tremendous savings that would be, and how much it would reduce water stress for us. I first would like them to look at that, without putting agriculture out of business — just work on making it more efficient so prices of food don’t skyrocket and so we can continue to produce food into the coming decade.

Examiner: In your writings, you talk about virtual water. What is that?

Kehl: Virtual water is the amount of water it takes to produce a product or a service. It basically is how water-intensive a product is. A very water-intensive product would have high virtual water content. So if it’s water-intensive, we shouldn’t be growing it in a water-stressed area — we should grow it somewhere else. If a product is water-efficient, we can grow it in Arizona. But there’s no reason we should grow cotton in California or rice in Arizona; it just doesn’t make any sense.

Examiner: How does that impact international food trade?

Kehl: Water-scarce countries shouldn’t be growing and exporting water-intensive crops. They don’t have a comparative advantage. Water-wealthy countries like Canada and Brazil could be producing water-intensive crops and trading them on the international food crop trade to regions that are water-scarce. It’s trying to improve global water efficiency by saying that countries should grow what they have a comparative advantage in.

If they don’t have a comparative advantage in water, they shouldn’t be exporting water-intensive crops. They should be exporting water-efficient crops or higher-value technology crops or something else they can produce without water. The countries that do have a comparative advantage in water could use the international crop trade to assert their comparative advantage. It would create much more water efficiency overall.

Examiner: How do you get water-poor countries that are already dependent on a water-intensive crop to leave that for something else?

Kehl: You have to facilitate the transition, even though they have to do the transition themselves. The first thing they need to know is how expensive and inefficient it is for them to grow that crop in that region. In some cases — except for water and energy subsidies — it wouldn’t even be economically viable. So it’s costing their government a lot in food and energy subsidies to grow a product that’s very expensive to produce, and then they sell it to a wealthy country for almost nothing.

So you point out those distortions as a first step. Then you give them an alternative: We know you’re used to growing these things for export, but these are more water-efficient things you could grow instead, and you would save a lot of money in the end because you wouldn’t need all these water and energy subsidies to make it profitable. It’s just undoing the reason agriculture developed in those areas, which was to take advantage of the subsidies. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been growing that crop there anyway. At some point, countries are going to have to do this, so they might as well do it early and save money.

Examiner: Whose role is it to shepherd those discussions and lead the change?

Kehl: There is some room for country-to-country or multilateral talks between countries to work out some of those problems. You say, “We’re exporting a lot of this crop to you, but we’d like to export this other crop to you. There’s demand for it, and you can help facilitate the transition, and here’s how much you would benefit from it.”

Negotiations between countries that use the international food trade could make the correction by looking at what is produced where and why. Global organizations like the United Nations, the USDA, Oxfam and the World Food Program could help by looking at what desert countries could produce themselves that would decrease their need for food aid.

Examiner: So sum up your overall message to the American people and policymakers regarding water.

Kehl: Here is the bottom line: If it’s toxic, don’t put it in the water. Recognize that there’s a close link between environmental sustainability and economic viability. Understand that water needs to be a much higher priority on the political agenda. And be encouraged because water is not a partisan issue. Finding solutions for our water problem is feasible because there’s a lot of room for common ground.