ESPM 50: Final exam review

Fall 2015

The final exam primarily addresses material from Units III-V. But you are responsible for
concepts and themes from other units. The exam is 23% of your final grade, and you will
have three hours to complete it. Bring a blue or green book to the exam. The format is as
follows:
1 essay on Unit III (2 choices, 25 points)
1 essay on Unit IV (2 choices, 25 points)
1 essay on Unit V (2 choices, 25 points)
Multiple Choice (10 x 2.5 points each)
Extra credit

Unit III
Hispano culture, social organization and landscapes
Geography and climate:
Sangre de Cristos
the blood of Christ because of the reddening sunsets
High elevations are free from human impact, lower elevation filled with small farming and
ranching communities
Mountain ranges that divide up water river sources play a pivotal role in human affairs and
natural history of the region (creates land below with eroded wastes, changes the weather, a
communication and conquest barrier, source of raw goods, etc.)
Ecological and cultural diversity: home to Pueblo Indians, Spanish speaking pioneers and
Hispanic pobladores (settlers); in near-desert and tundra, 9-10 ecological zones
Shows that a societys relationship to the environment is reciprocal
Rio Grande
Northern New Mexico; base elevation of 3000ft
Semi-Arid; snow in high country in winter; runoff in spring time
Aridity
Hispano culture:
Culture
a filter where people perceive the environmental and relations to it
intermixing with other tribes, specifically Pueblo Indians
Communalism
ideals of community over individual (Catholic)
Community-based decision making because in a landscape of seasonal risks so it reduced risk of
market-based decisions for short term individual gains
great emphasis on family culture
Verguenza:
shame ideal civic virtue grounded in the idea of humility and constraint from exploiting
others, dependent on each other, very limited distinction between each other
Reflects intergenerational responsibility, reflects value of place and traditional and peace with
nature; LONG TERM thinking
Cultural reverence and modesty in regard to human relations with nature and the land
intimate connection with nature
Land grants: community & private grazing
1

Private rights = gets rights to the common lands (usufruct rights)

Pueblo community grant
Crown will recognize the land which they already live on
Can have usufruct rights on un-granted lands
Private grazing grant
Given to one person for grazing livestock
Large parcels to second sons of the elite in Mexico to keep out of the hands of Americans
Community grant
Individuals (from around 10-15 families) represented villages received grants from the crown
(local governor), normally to establish a community
Get private land for homestead and field, can be sold after four year
Individuals name is on the grant but is understood that it is part of the community
Encomienda system:
social and agricultural production system of forced labor system on small plantations owned by
elites
Land Grant from the Spanish Crown to an encomendero (land owner):
Watershed-based natural resource management
grants were often here
adapted to spatial and temporal diversity that was shaped by the hydrological cycle in mountain
watersheds
Property, identity, land use, cultural heritage

European American conquest, the state and economic development.

Commercial revolution in northern NM
Involved conquest, continued economic denomination, contest over land ownership, racial
oppression
Capitalist MoP: capitalist class seeks to realize a profit by controlling the means of production
and purchasing labor to produce goods and services in the market to realize a profit to reinvest in
labor and means
MoP: Education, etc. materials needed for production Goal: make a profit
Values of individualism, rational self-interest is a means of achieving a greater good as the
invisible hand will allocate goods in a way that is the best
Social organization, division of labor based on class, low key gov profile
Enclosure
privatization
Depriving people of access to community resources
dispossession
free wage labor
people can no longer find subsistence in farming

Common pool resource management

Garret Hardins argument regarding Tragedy of the commons
argues that common pool resource systems (CPRs) tend toward degradation and ultimately
collapse unless some authority allocates and enforces property
assumes that all resource users are rational actors in a competitive marketplace with only self
interest in mind
CPRs have core resource system which produces and reproduces a limited quantity of extractable
fringe resources that can reproduce from the core resources
core resources
2

everything that needs to be there for the ecosystem to survive

fringe resources
everything that can be extracted from the ecosystem and it can survive
When you remove too much of the fringe, you reach the core resources
Elinor Ostroms CPR management systems model
Based on rules/prohibitions, incentives and trust/co-operation

Range management
Hispano transhumance pastoralism
Raising sheep, cattle and growing crops
Allows people to exploit temporal and spatial diversity
Division of labor is largely gender based
System of government is based on mesta (government in Spain)
Mainly for subsistence, not for market-based farming
Anglo commercial ranching
Great deal of capital investment from European countries and east coast
The many animals are pushed west and do not have access to the land
Extensive cattle ranching: (all over the landscapes and new places with thousands of animals);
follows transhumance but no rules in place, very hard to enforce property/lease rights so cattle =
the property rights since easier to control
Intensive grazing: keeping them in large pens in lowlands so need to develop feed for cattle
(conversion of lands)
Blue grama is outlasted by cheap grass from cattle poop
Grazing regimes and ecological change
primary productivity
resilience
biodiversity
cattle spread seeds to different places
soil aridification
fire regimes
every year, they would burn the grasses to refresh them
accumulation of fuel, so there would be a terrible and intense fire
3

Unit IV
Chinese migration
Rural migration
going from rural to urban; 60% of the migrants are from the Guangdong province
Sojourn / Settlement
sojourn - round trip
settlement- going to a new country and establish a new colony there
Intentions are different: acculturation and establishing self in the political sense is of less
importance, focused more on back home conditions and sending money
Chain migration
immigration where people follow one another from one city to another, in this case from a
Chinese city like Guangzhou to an American city like San Francisco
people from a village/family go establish a community, then send money and information back to
home, and then more people come join from that region into the newly established community
Push, pull, means
Push: floods, war and famine; social instability, poverty (overpopulation on certain lands because
of divisible inheritance), chaos, insecurity, starvation, British domination of trade and colonial
activities (trying to open up Chinese markets and get involved in the opium trade, Opium Wars
again in 1850s), lessened authority of Chinese Emperor chaos; Treaty of Nanking had to pay
British back for the war expensive, taxes imposed on peasant farmers
Pull: (illegal to migrant to US but unenforceable) economic opportunity, political & religious
freedom; labor shortage, highest wage level in the world; even if you cant get gold can be an
entrepreneur
Means: technology, transportation, financing, policy
Chain Migration - communities, economic and social networks and opportunity in the US
through kinship and village relationships; agents recruit for people to come, get to US with set up
job & work for 6(?) months to pay for price of journey then free
Financing: $50 passage; Loans = clan-based rotating credit associations, short
term loans work for a bit, send money back, loan goes to next person =
cyclic; Credit ticket system = form of debt bondage to Chinese labor brokers;
Labor recruitment networks
Policy: pre-1882; No formal restrictions on male Chinese immigration into US; No enforceable
restrictions on emigration in China; 1868: Technology: Clipper ships = 2-3 months; Steamships:
3 weeks
Mining and the gold rush
Gold rush mythology
lone prospector - rugged individualist
compared to Jeffersonian farmer and notion that American democracy is based on agrarian myth
no stake in society and not equitable distribution of resources so does not speak well to
Democracy
Gold Mountain
Ruthless male population, very few women and families
Temporary status of labors
Placer mining / Hydraulic mining / Hard rock mining: cycle of T, K, L, N
exploiting a resource and applying a certain technology
4

 Placer mining - placer deposits in the bottom of the river - using shovel, pickaxe, etc. Deposits at
the bottom of river, easily extracted; runs out by 1852 basically with simple technologies of
shovels
Once placer mining was finished, the only way to get to more gold was through more
technologies
Hydraulic mining: tremendous destruction to create infrastructure; floods of silt
Hard Rock Mining: digging shafts into mountains and extracting gold
Gold mining ecology in California

Transcontinental railroad
Central Pacific RR / Union Pacific RR
Central Pacific Railroad - from Sacramento all across the Sierra Nevada mountains to Utah
Union Pacific Railroad - from Utah to western Iowa
CP had the barrier of Sierra Nevada (Sacramento to Omaha)
engine of economic development; consumed timber, coal and gave growth to industries, jobs and
settlers;
central to development of mining regions in other states and to agricultural reclamations
Financial paradox of RR building
no return on investment in railroad building until the railroad actually starts running and shipping
things
had to turn to the federal government as a result
Land loans bonds but no one buying the land cause middle of nowhere
lol aka useless
Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864
Land around the railroads are given to the owners to sell in order to give some initial financial
return
Race and labor in building the transcontinental RR: Chinese & Irish workers
Irish were an unreliable workforce and not very productive
Americans found the reliable and productive workers in Chinese, started recruiting Chinese in
China as well
segmentation in the labor force, different people would do different things
Chinese and Irish looked at each other as enemies because of competition for railroad jobs
The Errand into the Wilderness (Ronald Takaki)
natural resource development took a particular form, which shows the romantic ideal of progress
Innovations in labor and the necessity of capitalist investment and minimize the risks involved
the aftermath of Manifest Destiny
ideology of colonial control and development
tend to be concentrated and remote, requires large scale
concentrated ownership of the means of production
Labor first and capital will follow
Anti-Chinese policy & resistance
14 & 15th Amendments
citizenship clause - everyone born in the United States are citizens
applications of Bill of Rights to the states, everyone has life, liberty, and property
equal protection clause - state has to provide each person with equal protection no matter the
ethnicity
th

every citizen has the right to vote

Naturalization Act of 1870: aliens, ineligible for citizenship
all foreign born Chinese (mainly Asians) are labeled aliens, ineligible for citizenship
some have become citizens through being born here, working in Union army, etc.
Denis Kearney: Workingmans Party
mainly the alienated Irish class of San Francisco
motto was that the Chinese must go
emergence of the anti-Chinese movement, pressure is building at the national level
Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
born in the US, child of a citizen, or their relatives could come
No foreign Chinese can immigrate legally into the United States
was initially opposed by the east until the Workingmans Party gained traction in the east
Resistance strategies:
Niche production
Social resources
Notion of communalism and mutual aid societies
places where white workers would not want to be; minorities supplemented rather than competed
w/ other producers
Enclavement
Where people are safe, where there is opportunity
Extending Democracys Reach
clarified the 14th amendment and gave Chinese Americans rights
series of court cases
By fighting for their rights, extended Democracy to other marginalized groups
Chinese = a positive role in economic contributions, sought assimilation by still exerting rights
and keep cultural aspects through these court cases (lay down foundation for civil rights
movements)
California Delta reclamation and farming
Delta ecology:
inverted deltaic fan - inverted triangle
tule grass - incredible reed, very fertile soil
peat soil
floods - annual
levees
Risky investment because needed levees to make it productive for agriculture
subjected to runoff from hydraulic mining and flooding and subsidence
Reclamation: geography, technology, labor, financing, means of entry into tenancy
risky to invest in this place because you needed to place money
a lot of damage from hydraulic mining in this area
Salt water comes in from the bay and can ruin the delta
Chinese only can own land in these areas, no possible place for them to own anywhere else
large groups of Chinese workers along with Portuguese and Italian workers
Developmental tenancy
Chinese acquired leases but land gets more and more expensive because made them plant trees
so as the plants get mature, increases price of the land

Japanese immigration and farming

Meiji Japan: modernization, industrialization, militarism

era with graphic modernization, while industrialization and urbanization was more western
mass education
reaching out to the west to bring technology over, great degree of population growth and
militarism
Leads to dispossession
Establish communities, make money, send it back
controlled system where Japanese people who could best represent Japan are sent
Push, pull, means
Push: Come to US through controlled system of immigration as government decides on who can
come and go; based on education levels and can establish settlement communities and send
knowledge back to government
Means: a strong government, representing Japan in settlement community
Pull: labor, chain migration, need for agricultural labor
Gentlemens Agreement (1907)
many more people who are coming are women, ends in 1921 with the Ladys Agreement
Not Chinese Exclusion Act; diplomatic agreement between US and Japan = agreed that Japanese
government will no longer issue exit visas = Japanese population doubles and then families
established, more women (picture brides)
Alien Land Act (1913 & 1920) / means of circumvention
Set up to prevent Japanese from acquiring lease land
ineligible for citizenship too (along with Chinese) are barred from owning/leasing land for over 3
years
has loopholes so has another act to say cant have it at all
Japanese ethnic solidarity (Ronald Takaki) lead to
rotating credit association
mutual support system
farmer association, offering technical support
having nurseries for ethnically Japanese communities, buy seeds
enclave economy
Japanese vs. Chinese: immigration, agriculture, policy, social construction, upward mobility
Unit V
Four periods of Water management: Key characteristics and contexts
Laissez-Faire Era
Private control of water: The control, distribution, and consumption of water was
controlled by private interests - mining and farmers.
Miners practices: first in time, first in right

Riparian and appropriative rights

Riparian rights: English and American common
Source: English Common Law
Land ownership: Rights derive from ownership of property abutting natural watercourse
Shared rights: Riparian rights are shared with all other riparians
7

 Use restrictions: Water may be used only on riparian land and within the watershed of the river
from which it is diverted.
Scarcity & reasonable use: In times of shortage, water is apportioned among riparians on the
basis of reasonable use.
Correlative rights: Rights are senior to appropriators and correlative to other riparians
Title: Title cannot be lost due to non-use
Suitability: The riparian system is ill-suited to the hydrology of the American West.
Appropriative rights:
Use: Right to water based on actual use, not ownership of land
Use restrictions: no place-of-use restrictions.
Scarcity & Priority: apportionment by seniority of appropriation - first-in-time, first-in-right.
Not based on reasonable use.
Transfer: Appropriative rights may be sold or transferred
Title: can be lost through nonuse
California Doctrine Dual rights:
Riparians generally have first claim
After riparian use, water goes to appropriators in order of priority of appropriation
Originally, appropriators could not challenge a riparians use as wasteful or unreasonable.
However, after several decades of lawsuits, voters amended the CA constitution in 1928 to make
all water rights subject to the requirement of reasonable useincluding rights of riparians
competing with appropriative rights.
The public trust doctrine
People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co (1884): the California attorney general brought suit in
CA Supreme Court to prevent hydraulic mining along the N Fork of American River.
Context: Hydraulic mining caused flooding, water quality problems, and risks to commerce and
navigation
PTD: Court drew on the public trust doctrine (PTD) to resolve the case
Common law: Under English common law, the Crown held particular resources in trust for use
by all of the people (e.g., navigable waters).
Private landowners could not exclude the public from using rivers for navigation, commerce, and
fishing, nor could landowners develop or alter lands to impair public trust uses.
Government had the duty to administer resources to the highest public interest.
California incorporated the public trust into state law in 1850.
Expanded scope to environment: Over the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries, the
California Supreme Court applied the public trust doctrine to preserve public rights of
navigation, fishing, and recreation along the states beaches, the San Francisco Bay waterfront,
and inland waters including the American and Sacramento Rivers and Lake Tahoe.
Lux v. Haggin (1886): California Supreme Court
Key case concerning riparian versus appropriation rights
California recognized both riparian and appropriative systems of water rights, but these were at
odds with one another
Plaintiffs: Henry Miller and Charles Lux
Charles Lux and Henry Miller: German immigrants with riparian land in Kern County along
Buena Vista Slough, fed by the Kern River.
8

 Developed an extensive canal system to irrigate their lands from the slough.
Defendant: James Ben-Ali Haggin
Wealthy lawyer and business man
Kern County Land and Canal Company, on Kern River upstream from Miller and Lux's property.
Haggin used appropriative water rights to divert water from the Kern River for agricultural
irrigation of his large landholdings in Kern County.
By 1877, Haggin had diverted so much water from the Kern River that it no longer flowed to
Buena Vista Slough.
Close to 10,000 head of Miller and Lux's cattle perished that year as a result
Lux v. Haggin (1884)
Argument: Miller and Lux suggested a violation of their property rights, in that they had
purchased land naturally containing water, and Haggin's upstream diversions had caused the
water on their land to dry up.
Decision: The court upheld the validity and primacy of riparian rights
The California Supreme Court agreed with Miller and Lux's appeal for riparian rights and
overturned the lower court's ruling by a four to three decision
Implications:
Court recognized both water rights systems
Appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights
In cases of conflict, riparians would be entitled to the natural flow of the watercourse
undiminished except by its reasonable consumption by upper [riparian] proprietors.
Created chaos for the state with two incompatible water allocation systems.
1) Priority: Millions of acres of arable land in the Central Valley has no riparian rights, and
their water rights were now effectively subordinate to those of riparians. This meant that:
Agriculture: Downstream riparians could claim the full, unencumbered flow despite the burdens
on upstream appropriators.
Cities: Riparian rights became an obstacle to developing water supplies for Cas cities
2) Reasonable Use: disputes between riparians would be decided on the basis of reasonable
use.
Riparians must exercise their rights in a manner that did not result in waste, was reasonably
efficient under existing conditions, and account for reasonable demands of competing riparian
users.
III. The Hydraulic Era

Context:
California had the nations fastest-growing economy and population.
Continued growth in agricultural and urban water demands
Progressive Era ideology
Public versus private utility ownership
Such growth required a shift in water and flood policy from local to interregional, state, and
federal projects that could manage water over much larger distances.
9

Characteristics:
Shift in water and flood policy from local to interregional projects that could manage water over
much larger distances.
Large regional, interregional, and statewide water management schemes
Involvement of state and federal agencies, as well as existing and new local authorities.

Newlands Reclamation Act, (1902)

Created the U.S. Reclamation Service.
Federal Government to construct dams, reservoirs, and canals - to irrigate the West.
Reclamation projects were intended to encourage the establishment of family farms.
Federal lands that could be sold for funding
Those who developed farms on Reclamation projects were limited to 160 acres, required to
reside on the property, and use at least half of the property for agriculture.
This served as the basis for funding the Central Valley Project.
Water Commission Act of 1913: first comprehensive regulatory system to administer new
surface water rights.
State Water Commission (established): issues permits and licenses to govern water rights
Exemptions: Riparian rights and groundwater rights were exempt
Referendum: passed by state election, December 19, 1914
Permitting/licensing:
surface water appropriations initiated after this date must be authorized by a water rights permit
Appropriations existing before this date require no permit or license and are commonly known as
pre-1914 rights.
Limits to jurisdiction: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) - the successor to the
Water Commission - regulates through the permit and license system less than half of the water
used by agricultural and urban interests in California today.
Foundational: laid foundation for modern regulation of water rights and use in California
^ Authority: Over time
Today the SWRCB also has the power to enforce reasonable use and the public trust on all water
users regardless of the type or source of their water rights.
Los Angeles and Owens Valley See Hanak et al.
San Francisco and Hetch Hetchy Valley See Hanak et al.

The reasonable use doctrine in the CA Constitution

1928 CA Constitutional amendment:
Intended to repair the breach between the riparian and appropriative rights systems that the
Supreme Court left open in Lux v. Haggin
established reasonable use doctrine as the foundation of California water resources law.
Following Lux v. Haggin, the California Supreme Court employed the doctrine of reasonable
use as a fundamental limitation on the exercise of water rights. However, it failed to
address disputes between a riparian and an appropriator in a way that would allow for
cities to acquire superior rights to riparians on the basis of reasonable use. Instead, in a
number of cases, the court held that the doctrine of reasonable use was inapplicable
10

because riparian rights were categorically superior to appropriative rights. The

constitutional amendment was intended to address this, and expand for the development
of municipal and surface water irrigation water systems based on appropriative rights that
were superior to those held by riparians.
Key changes:
1) Doctrine of reasonable use was now to be the foundation of all water rights in California.
2) All branches of government were invested with significant authority to implement the
mandates of reasonable use.
Outcome: The enactment of the 1928 constitutional amendment facilitated expansion of the
hydraulic society that would take place during the middle of the 20th century.
*For an extensive discussion of the reasonable use doctrine, see Brian Grey article in Lassiter
ed. (2015).
Central Valley Project (CVP) See Hanak et al.
State Water Project (SWP)
Worsters argument See Hydraulic Society in California
IV. Era of Conflict (1970s - present)

Context:
Emergence of environmental movement
Shift in social consciousness
Federal level legislation: NEPA, CWA, ETC.
State environmental legislation: CEQA, etc
Key court decisions
Population growth
Economy: declining importance of agriculture
Labor movement in Ag: UFW
Characteristics
End of water development era
Conflict between interest groups
Agencies as Stakeholders tied to interests > turf wars
Declining role of federal (and state) govt in infrast development
Increased regulatory power of EPA, etc
Political deadlock
Litigation as a means of resolving conflict around environmental quality, conservation and
management
National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983): California Supreme Court held that,
although the public trust does not trump other uses of water, the state has an obligation to
protect public trust uses "whenever feasible" in planning and allocating water.

11

 Ruled that the state has a continuing responsibility to protect the public trust uses of Mono Lake
and is not bound by past water allocation decisions that "may be incorrect in light of current
knowledge or inconsistent with current needs."
Forced Los Angeles to release water from its dams on tributaries to Mono Lake to protect trout in
the river, and eventually forced the city to bypass sufficient water to protect the public trust in
Mono Lake and to establish minimum stream flows in the tributaries.
Thereafter, neither water administrators nor water users could ignore the needs of the ecosystems
that are the sources of the states developed water supplies.
Moreover, the courts recognition that protection of the public trust requires regulatory flexibility
to respond to ecological changes significantly strengthened the legal authority of the courts and
the legislature to continue their efforts to rebalance economic and environmental uses of the
states rivers and estuaries.
Furthermore, Brian Grey (2015) argues that the case resulted in the public trust doctrine being
integrated with the reasonable use doctrine for the first time.
Bay Delta Conservation plan (2012):
Proposed by Jerry Brown
$25BN - $15BN for 2 tunnels under the Delta and $10BN for wetland restoration
Opposition to the BDCP:
Local motto: Stop the Tunnels! Save the Delta!
Tunnels will drain the Delta's fresh water, and allow salt water to infiltrate the Delta.
*See notes on Atlantic Article for further details and overview of Delta politics, etc.
VI. Key questions to consider
1) What are the most important / intractable issues faced by water managers today in
California?
2) What do you think are the key means of moving forward in resolving the problems
discussed in your presentation? What are the barriers to moving forward?
3) Trade-offs solutions?
a. What should be the key priorities in water allocation: agriculture, urban users, manufacturing,
environment?
4) What are some of the promises and potential problems with the solutions offered in the
article Contemporary Issues Related to California's Water regarding?
a. Agriculture?
b. Flood control?
c. Urban consumers?
5) What policy directions are most important? How can we best achieve them?
a. Conservation: Cutting demand and increasing supply
i.
Behavioral changes / education?
ii.
Technical innovations?
iii.
Policy: market-based incentives / mandates / state funding
b. Systematic changes in allocating water?
i.
Changes in priorities? Who decides?
c. Changes in governance structures
d. Innovative uses of the reasonable use and public trust doctrines?
e. What are some of the barriers to policy innovations?
f. Revolutionary change versus incremental change?
6) Are you optimistic, pessimistic, or ambivalent about the future?
7) How can a social justice agenda be integrated into water policy? Does this make sense?
12

8) Can the reasonable use doctrine (perhaps in combination wit the Public Trust doctrine) be
understood as a means of managing water as a common pool resource, as defined earlier
in the semester?
9) Can reasonable use be used as the basis of regulating pollutants? Public access to
resources that are affected by water (green spaces, etc.)? Deciding which industries
and/or crops should be allocated water rights?

VI. Alternatives identified in Contemporary Issues Related to California's Water

Urban water conservation

Agricultural Water Conservation
Increase surface storage by building dams and reservoirs
Dam Removal
We must solve the Delta issues
Water Recycling
Agricultural to Urban Water Transfers
Desalination
Capture and retain stormwater and urban runoff

ESPM 50AC Readings Importance:

10/12
DuBuys 1A
Ernest 2
Groefeldt 2
Handout 3
10/14
Robbins 1A
Handout 2
10/16
Film 3
Dubuys 3
Handout
10/19
Hardin 1
Berkes 1
Handout 1
10/21
Correia 1A
Dubuys 1A
Handout 1A
13

10/23
Pulida 3
Matthews 3
Handout 3
UNIT 4:
Film 2
10/26
Takaki 1A
Saxton 2
10/28
Chang 1
Rohe 2
11/2
Limerick 1A
Okihiro 1
11/4
Chan 1A
11/6
Takaki 1A
11/9
Limerick 3
UNIT 5
11/13
Hannah 1
Austin 1
11/16
11/18
Madrigal 1A
Water Blog 2
11/20
Gray 1
11/23
Price 3
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS + POEM
14

M/C FAIR GAME

15