By Audrey Cho 

This blog post highlights my undergraduate thesis at UC Davis titled Water, Land, and Power: The Legacy of Asian American Exclusion in the California Water Rights System. This blog post sheds light on historical injustices perpetuated by systems of state water management. Its content is informed by interviews with Japanese farmers as well as professionals in the fields of water and immigration law, environmental advocacy, and local water governance.

The system of water rights in California is dauntingly complex. It consists of various types of water rights, methods of water distribution, and challenges regarding quality and availability, which are exacerbated by global climate change. From a historical perspective, water rights are even more complicated than they initially appear. Notably, there is a fraught history of systematic exclusion of Asian American immigrants, among many other marginalized groups, from property ownership and, by extension, water rights.

Water Rights Overview

A water right indicates the ability to use but not own state water resources for certain purposes, such as irrigation, municipal uses, and domestic uses. California recognizes a dual system of riparian and appropriative rights. Riparian rights allow a landowner to use the natural flow of a watercourse adjacent to their property. Appropriative rights, independent of property ownership, allow for water diversion based on who claimed the water first. If obtained after 1914, appropriative rights holders must have a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. These two doctrines serve as the backbone for the state’s allocation and use of water. 

Restrictions on the Rights of Asians

This dual riparian–appropriative system interacts with efforts to restrict the rights of Asian American immigrants throughout California’s history. The Alien Land Law, passed in 1913, aimed to prevent primarily first-generation Japanese immigrants from owning property in the state. This was California’s first state statute depriving “noncitizens of other races of the ability to hold land title.” Discriminatory laws at the federal level, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, worked alongside this state legislation to exclude Asians from land access. In particular, these restrictions inhibited Asians from acquiring small farms through the Homestead Act, which was a major driver of land ownership for their white counterparts. Moreover, Executive Order 9066 authorized the forced removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans beginning in 1942. Under this order, government agencies forced Japanese individuals to give up their hard-earned possessions and property. These two targeted efforts had deliberate, long-term effects on Japanese Americans, and particularly those working in California agriculture. For example, the Legislature stated that the Alien Land Law was enacted to explicitly prevent “Orientals, specifically Japanese, from owning agricultural land in California.”

To investigate the links between racially exclusionary legislation and access to water rights, my work highlighted documentary data and the stories of multigenerational Japanese American farmers through interviews. 

Exclusion in the Water Landscape 

• Asian exclusion in matters of California water finds expression in the Reclamation Act of 1902, which funded irrigation projects in the American West but prohibited “Mongolian labor” on the projects. The literature also shows a clear connection between efforts to develop irrigation infrastructure in the American West and the oppression of Japanese immigrants. During incarceration, “three of the ten concentration camps were built on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation irrigation projects.” Japanese forced labor was then used to further develop water infrastructure on those lands. 

Impacts of the Alien Land Law 

• Interviewees shared that the Alien Land Law was a generational setback, as it restricted property ownership for the first generation of their families. This law impacted the types of land Japanese farmers could obtain and their access to water. This is because perfecting a water right in California often relies on property ownership, which the Alien Land Law restricted. They also reported that land purchased by Japanese farmers was typically of lower quality. Interviewees shared accounts of the substantial, expensive, and sometimes dangerous labor required to bring this land into productivity.

Ongoing water challenges 

• Interviewees noted various concerns regarding water supply, quality, and cost. These challenges were echoed by the State Water Resources Control Board, which acknowledged the negative impact of race-based restrictions, land seizures, and the incarceration of Japanese Americans. Impacts included “the loss of the associated water rights and other natural resources of value…and forced relocation to areas with fewer or lower quality natural resources.” This demonstrates a direct link between California’s exclusionary legal landscape and Japanese Americans’ water rights and land access. 

What does this history mean for water rights now? Legislative, administrative, and community-based interventions could help advance equity within California’s water governance system. Here are a few examples: 

Implementing Time Limits to Verify Senior Water Rights

• The appropriative water rights system has been criticized for favoring a select few, particularly those who obtained their rights before 1914 when permits became officially required. Time limits to verify water rights are not new and have been utilized throughout the country. California’s Legislature could also require all pre-1914 appropriative rights holders to file a claim of water right with the Board within a specified period. After this period, the Board could identify unclaimed rights and consider reallocating them, especially to communities facing water insecurity.

Reviewing Equity in the Water District System 

• Water districts such as irrigation districts and water agencies play key roles in water governance across the state. Many water districts require landowners in their service area to participate in decision-making, often giving more voting power to those large landholdings. Scholars suggest interventions such as prohibiting water districts with non-representative voting structures from receiving government grant funding. This could encourage water districts to adopt more democratic and equitable governance structures. 

Addressing Equity at the Board Level 

• The State Water Resources Control Board comprises five members appointed by the Governor, each with a different required skillset. Scholars have recommended that one of these members be qualified in the fields of environmental and water justice. Adequate inclusion of water justice concerns is essential given the role of the State Water Resources Control Board in administering such an extensive water rights program. 

Supporting Community Education 

• Many interviewees noted a lack of conversation within the Japanese community about incarceration and other historical inequities. Kansha Open History is a community research effort working to digitize records of farm transfers out of Japanese hands that the federal government orchestrated during World War II. Efforts like this help shed light on such inequities and increase conversations within the Japanese community. 

Drawing attention to the intersection between Asian American exclusion and water rights reveals key power structures embedded within state water processes. Ultimately, racial equity and water resources management must work hand in hand to truly protect the environment and all those who depend on it. 

Further Reading 

Fencl, Amanda. “Will California Take This Small, but Important Step Toward a More Equitable Water Rights System?” The Equation. September 26, 2023. https://blog.ucsusa.org/amanda-fencl/more-equitable-water-rights-system/.

Chin, Gabriel “Jack,” and Anna Ratner. “The End of California’s Anti-Asian Alien Land Law: A Case Study in Reparations and Transitional Justice.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, January 1, 2023. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4327938.

Gaffney, Mason, and Merrill Goodall. “New Life for the Octopus: How Voting Rules Sustain the Power of California’s Big Landowners.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 75, no. 3 (2016): 649–80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45129316.

Hinnershitz, Stephanie. “The Economics of Incarceration and the Blueprint for Japanese American Labor.” In Japanese American Incarceration: The Camps and Coerced Labor during World War II, 23–56. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1f45qjt.4.

Lee, Clifford, Jennifer Harder, Richard Frank, Barton Thompson, Tam Doduc, Holly Doremus, and Camille Pannu. “Updating California Water Laws to Address Drought and Climate Change,” February 3, 2022. https://www.pcl.org/media/2022/02/Updating-California-Water-Laws-to-Address-with-Drought-and-Climate-Change.pdf.

Owen, Dave. “The Water District and the State.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY, February 7, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4720026.

State Water Resources Control Board. “Condemning Racism, Xenophobia, Bigotry, and Racial Injustice and Strengthening Commitment to Racial Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, Access, and Anti-Racism,” November 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2021/rs2021_0050.pdf.

Wilson, Robert. “Landscapes of Promise and Betrayal: Reclamation, Homesteading, and Japanese American Incarceration.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101, no. 2 (March 16, 2011): 424–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.545291.