thenation--2020-04-21--The Extinction Crisis Devastating San Francisco Bay

Larry Collins is a big , gregarious man with tobacco-stained teeth , a salty tongue , and the commanding presence of a sea captain .
For 40 years he has earned his living as a commercial fisherman , slinging wild-caught seafood from a bustling warehouse on Fisherman ’ s Wharf in San Francisco .
Collins loves his profession ; it has put enough money in his pocket to raise kids , buy a home , and save up for retirement in one of the most expensive cities in America .
Sitting in his cramped office , with the smell of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he talked about the days when more than 4,000 boats would head out from California ’ s ports each season and ply the waters of the Pacific Coast , trapping crabs and netting huge runs of Chinook salmon.1 “ I will give you the best salmon year in my whole career .
It was 1988 .
We caught 1.4 million salmon in California , and another 800,000 escaped up the river , ” he said with obvious nostalgia.2 That era , though , is long gone .
These days , the local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its former self .
In 2018 “ we caught maybe 175,000 salmon , and 80,000 went up the river , ” Collins told me .
“ Fifty-three boats delivered 50 percent of what was caught.
” While some salmon seasons have been much better than others , such as the robust 2019 season , “ the fishery has probably been reduced to 5 or 10 percent of what it used to be.
” Cut off from their ancestral breeding grounds by enormous dams , preyed on by invasive species , and deprived of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustaining their populations , the salmon have suffered long-term decline and face an increasingly grim future.3 “ They are in terrible condition , ” Collins said , his voice rising .
“ And no one seems to give a fuck !
” 4 But it ’ s not just the salmon that are suffering .
The whole San Francisco Bay ecosystem—that enormous estuary with its maze of bays , rich delta , and associated rivers and streams—is in the midst of an ecological calamity .
Decades of dam building and water extraction to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing population and the needs of its mighty agriculture industry have starved the state ’ s waterways , as well as the bay itself , of crucial freshwater supplies .
As a result , the entire estuary is under enormous stress .
Its water quality is dicey , in some places too stagnant or too saline or beset by algal blooms .
Its aquatic food web is fraying , threatening bird species and marine mammals , including orcas .
And its fish populations , from the imperiled salmon to tiny smelt , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ salmon , starry flounder , and other species are collapsing , ” said Jon Rosenfield , a senior scientist at San Francisco Baykeeper , a water quality organization.5 The Bay Area , in other words , is grappling with a local manifestation of our global mass extinction crisis.6 “ We have pillaged that ecosystem , ” said Felicia Marcus , a former chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board .
“ We have diverted more water from the ecosystem than any estuary that has survived .
We are on the brink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it.
” 7 There is much at stake .
San Francisco ’ s estuary , one of the largest in North America , is an ecological mixing bowl where Pacific saltwater meets the freshwater runoff that flows from the Sierra Nevada through the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers into San Francisco Bay and on to the ocean .
The blending of these waters produces rich habitat for salmon , smelt , shrimp , crabs , pelicans , cormorants , ducks , whales , seals , and humans .
If it continues its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourist businesses to tribal food security and the general economic stability of Northern California could go with it.8 But there are ways to abate this crisis .
In 2018 , California water officials took strides to ease the strain on San Francisco ’ s estuary by moving to update and strengthen a body of regulations known as the Bay-Delta Plan .
The amendments , which get made every couple of decades , seek to restrict the quantity of water that cities and agricultural operators can divert from the bay ’ s tributaries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bay-Delta Plan is meant to help save the bay , its watershed , and its wildlife , so one might assume it would have widespread support among the region ’ s politicians .
But that ’ s not the way water politics works in big , dry , crowded California .
The plan ’ s new mandates are facing staunch opposition from a host of powerful antagonists , including the city of San Francisco , that glittering capital of left coast liberalism .
Mayor London Breed , the city ’ s attorney , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oppose the updated plan .
The city ’ s political establishment is in the midst of a legal battle to block stronger environmental protections for the San Francisco Bay ecosystem .
The establishment ’ s allies in this fight : the state ’ s industrial agriculture interests and the federal government under President Donald Trump.10 “ I am profoundly disappointed in San Francisco , ” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla , the executive director of the conservation group Restore the Delta and a veteran of California ’ s water wars .
“ Everyone is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the water , and they don ’ t understand that if you can ’ t keep your water systems alive and healthy , then we are going to end up in a very bad place .
They are interested in short-term gain instead of long-term strategy.
” 11 In May of last year , a United Nations–backed panel of scientists and policy experts released an alarming report stating that the world is in the grip of an “ unprecedented ” and “ accelerating ” biodiversity crisis .
The panel found that 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of extinction , many within the coming decades .
“ The essential , interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed , ” warned Josef Settele , a research scientist who cochaired the panel , upon the report ’ s release .
“ This loss is a direct result of human activity.
” 12 The story of San Francisco Bay is a case study in how such destructive human activity manifests at the local level and wreaks havoc on prized natural resources .
It ’ s an object @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farming , urban growth , climate change—scramble ecosystems and push species to the brink of collapse .
But it ’ s also a California story , featuring the powerful industries and particular environmental conditions that have shaped the destiny of the Golden State.13 Much of California is semidesert .
While the state boasts mighty rivers , a snow-capped sierra , and the lush Bay Area estuary , its cities are often parched .
“ Los Angeles is drier than Beirut ; Sacramento is as dry as the Sahel ; San Francisco is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marc Reisner in Cadillac Desert , his magisterial book on the history of water development in the American West .
And California ’ s Central Valley , the heart of the state ’ s $ 50 billion–a–year agriculture industry , is a place where “ rainless summers ” mean that “ no important crop except wheat [ can ] be raised without irrigation.
” Yet this semidesert is home today to nearly 40 million people and one of the largest agriculture industries on the planet.14 The Road to the Green New Deal Lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Establishment Is Desperate to Stop Chesa Boudin This Son of the Left Could Become San Francisco ’ s Next District Attorney The only way this paradox is possible is through overwhelming human intervention , specifically by the federal government .
Starting in the New Deal era , under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation , the US government embarked on a massive water development spree that saw it build huge dams across the West to trap , store , and divert water from rivers to cities , farms , and ranches in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes , California .
It was water welfare on a massive scale , meant to support small farmers and growing towns across the region , and for a while it enchanted the American imagination .
Who hasn ’ t heard of the Hoover Dam , completed in 1936 on the Colorado River , which still supplies huge quantities of water to Los Angeles and Arizona , among other places ?
15 In California the Bureau of Reclamation ’ s enormous water development efforts were known as the Central Valley Project , or CVP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dams , reservoirs , and canals that sucks up the state ’ s river water and supplies it at heavily subsidized rates to Central Valley farmers and to residents of Los Angeles and other Southern California cities .
A second development , called the State Water Project , or SWP , was initiated in the early 1960s to dam even more rivers and provide the water to California ’ s farmers.16 In many ways , these two projects , which primarily draw water from tributaries that feed San Francisco Bay , made modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created the state ’ s agriculture industry , saving it from impending groundwater depletion and providing it with a constant supply of publicly subsidized water .
And while the CVP and the SWP were conceived to support small farmers and promote a sort of Jeffersonian ideal , they ultimately sparked the rise of the Big Agriculture empires that have enriched land-owning elites.17 These projects , Reisner writes in Cadillac Desert , ended up being “ one of the country ’ s foremost examples of socialism for the rich.
” Today , California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as 80 percent of water use in the state.18 The projects also rained misery on some of the state ’ s Indigenous tribes , including the Winnemem Wintu .
The 1945 completion of the Shasta Dam , a centerpiece of the CVP , inundated the land on which the majority of Winnemem Wintu villages stood .
“ The tribe was moved out of their villages , ” said Mark Miyoshi , its historic preservation officer .
“ They didn ’ t have anything .
They were made homeless .
We were the sacrifice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be constructed.
” 19 The CVP and the SWP devastated the state ’ s natural environment , too , wrecking streams , rivers , estuaries , wetlands , and wildlife .
Intensive water diversions by agricultural and urban water users result in San Francisco Bay ’ s being deprived , on average , of approximately 50 percent of its annual freshwater inflow .
Sometimes that figure reaches as high as 70 percent.20 These water diversions have created a kind of permanent drought for the bay .
Among other negative effects , this has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmed species like the endangered delta smelt , a tiny iridescent fish that once numbered in the millions .
In 2018 and 2019 , after decades of decline , a thorough survey of the waters failed to turn up a single smelt.21 Meanwhile , the dams cut off Chinook salmon—the state ’ s most iconic fish species—from their ancient spawning grounds high in Northern California ’ s mountains .
Along with industrial pollution and mining , the dams have led to the long-term decline of the winter-run Chinooks , which are currently listed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinooks once came in droves each year from the Pacific Ocean , swimming through San Francisco Bay and up into the California highland interior .
These days , only a few hundred to a few thousand return to spawn beneath a giant dam on the Sacramento River .
The Central Valley ’ s unique spring run of Chinook salmon is also listed under the Endangered Species Act.22 This shocking decline has contributed , in turn , to the collapse of the orca populations that depend on Pacific Coast salmon for their survival .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has dropped from a high of 98 in 1995 to just 73 as of August 2019 .
The population of these majestic animals is now at a 30-year low.23 San Francisco Bay , like most ecosystems , exists in a delicate balance , the fate of its species intertwined , their lives dependent on one another .
But as in many ecosystems , some species exert more influence than others , their presence holding the system together like a keystone in an arch .
California ’ s Chinook salmon is one of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the multitudes of Chinook traveling between sea and river have delivered vast loads of rich ocean nutrients to inland California , all while providing sustenance to whales , seals , birds , bears , wolves , coyotes , humans , and even shrubs and trees .
Now , as salmon numbers dwindle , other species are suffering too .
Should the Chinook disappear , it ’ s unlikely that San Francisco Bay will ever really recover.24 To get a look at the current state of this keystone species , I took a short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmentalist with the Golden State Salmon Association and a dogged defender of California ’ s fisheries .
I met him on a drizzly morning last May in Daly City , south of San Francisco .
He wheeled up in an old gray Toyota minivan , and we hit the road , crossing the Bay Bridge and winding through dense traffic until we arrived at the San Francisco Bay delta , where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers merge .
Once a wild landscape with some of the best soil on earth , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisscrossed by canals and levees .
It is also sinking below sea level as a result of groundwater depletion.25 On the drive , McManus filled my brain with facts about dams , farms , and fish .
“ We really messed things up .
This was such rich habitat once upon a time , ” he said .
“ We lost about 80 or 90 percent of the historic salmon habitat when they dammed all the Central Valley rivers.
” 26 The problem , he explained , begins at the very start of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nowadays , the salmon that manage to hatch have a tough time making it out to the sea , where they grow into adulthood .
When the tiny salmon swim down from the mountains , the low and irregular flow in the region ’ s rivers and streams causes lots of baby fish to get trapped in the delta ’ s artificial canals , where they ’ re preyed on by invasive species , like hungry striped bass , or sucked into irrigation pumps.27 “ If you ’ re a baby salmon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re coming down the Sacramento River trying to get to the ocean , if you get pulled into that delta cross channel , you will never be seen again .
It ’ s curtains.
” 28 About an hour into our drive , we pulled into a small gravel parking lot in the town of Woodbridge , where two hulking tanker trucks were idling near the edge of the Mokelumne River .
Inside each truck , swimming around in the pitch black , were approximately 100,000 baby salmon from a nearby hatchery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total collapse of the salmon populations , the state and federal governments maintain about a dozen hatcheries across California that raise salmon and then release them into the wild.29 We watched as a crew of technicians from the state ’ s Department of Fish and Wildlife pieced together a long metal pipe and lowered it slowly into the fast-moving river .
Then they pulled a lever .
There was a soft rushing sound , followed by a burst of water from the end of the pipe , and a flurry of tiny fish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a small fraction of the many millions that California ’ s hatcheries raise each year.30 Rethinking Our Relationship to the Natural World After Covid-19 This is what it takes to keep the salmon populations from crashing even further below their historical levels .
“ Without the hatcheries , you would see some salmon persist in small numbers , I ’ m guessing , ” McManus said .
But “ some might blink out .
We would have lost winter-run Chinook salmon… .
We would have lost them in the last drought without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept pouring out of the trucks , and soon they were churning the water into whorls of glinting silver .
Most of them , I soon learned , weren ’ t likely to survive .
They were an experimental group meant to determine whether any of them could make the perilous trip through the delta.32 Bill Smith , a state employee in charge of the Mokelumne River Hatchery , wasn ’ t optimistic .
He said most of the baby fish would likely perish on their way to sea .
Invasive predators “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the [ irrigation ] pumps will take the rest , ” he said.33 To save San Francisco ’ s threatened estuary , to really restore it , is a herculean task—one that , in a perfect world , would include stalling climate change ; reining in urban growth , industrial agriculture , and pollution ; and demolishing the dams that have devastated the landscape .
But few hold out hope for such ambitious measures .
Instead , most conservationists in the Bay Area are focused on a more pragmatic and immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that agricultural operators and cities are allowed to pull out of the delta ’ s tributaries , thereby alleviating the human-made drought that has done so much damage to the region ’ s watershed.34 This is precisely what the state ’ s water regulators sought to accomplish in December 2018 , when , after a long and painstaking process , they finalized the first of two updates to the Bay-Delta Plan ’ s water quality standards .
The amendments , which were crafted by the California State Water Resources Control Board , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city agencies to leave more water in certain key tributaries that sustain the bay and its many species.35 In the case of San Francisco and nearby irrigation districts , the revised Bay-Delta Plan requires them to leave 30 to 50 percent of the water that would naturally flow through the Tuolumne , Stanislaus , and Merced rivers in the winter , spring , and early summer .
The Tuolumne is the city ’ s main source of drinking water and an important conveyor of fresh water from the Sierra Nevada to the San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes divert as much as 90 percent of its flow during the winter and spring snowmelt.36 Some high-profile San Franciscans back the new regulations .
Aaron Peskin , who represents District 3 on the city ’ s Board of Supervisors , is a supporter of the updated Bay-Delta Plan .
“ San Francisco , I think , needs to be part of the solution as the stresses on the Tuolumne system and on the bay and delta become more profound and as our fisheries are on the verge of collapse , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political and social and environmental responsibility to do our part.
” 37 To that end , in the fall of 2018 , as the regulators were finalizing the first phase of the new Bay-Delta Plan , Peskin introduced a resolution to signal the city ’ s support for the move .
The resolution , which was passed by the Board of Supervisors , barred the city attorney from pursuing any litigation meant to block the new regulations .
“ I thought we could establish that our policy was to adhere to what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate , ” Peskin said.38 But then higher powers intervened .
In November 2018 , allegedly under pressure from Senator Dianne Feinstein , a key player in California water politics , Breed vetoed Peskin ’ s resolution .
( A spokesperson for Feinstein asserted that “ she didn ’ t directly weigh in ” with the mayor about the matter . )
“ San Francisco , despite all of its left-leaning and environmentally inclined self-image , is in the midst of a huge growth spurt , as is Silicon Valley , ” Peskin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions in general were “ seen as being a threat to the long-term economic viability of San Francisco and the peninsula.
” 39 Shortly after his resolution was vetoed , San Francisco joined a lawsuit to block the first phase of the Bay-Delta Plan update .
That lawsuit is ongoing , and the city has some strange bedfellows in its effort to stymie the new protections .
A slurry of influential agriculture interests—including “ Republican ranchers from the central part of our state , ” Peskin said—are suing to block the updated plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight over the Bay-Delta Plan , it is important to note , is unfolding in the midst of a broader legal and political struggle over environmental protections in California .
The Trump administration is also working in lockstep with powerful agricultural interests to roll back the Endangered Species Act ’ s protections for California ’ s salmon , smelt , and orcas .
Tellingly , the federal official orchestrating this pro-industry blitz is David Bernhardt , Trump ’ s secretary of the interior and a former lobbyist for some of Big Ag ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state.41 In their defense of San Francisco ’ s lawsuit , city officials say they are merely trying to rein in overzealous regulators .
“ This [ legal action ] is an unfortunate but necessary step to preserve the rights of the 2.7 million Bay Area customers who rely on [ the city ’ s ] water system , ” a spokesperson for the city attorney ’ s office said last year.42 Environmental leaders disagree with that claim .
“ To suggest the Bay-Delta Plan would somehow cause hardships for San Franciscans doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sejal Choksi-Chugh , the executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper .
“ I ’ m fairly certain most San Franciscans would choose to protect our beautiful bay over the interests of industrial agriculture .
When it comes to water conservation , San Francisco ’ s city government needs…to catch up with cities like Los Angeles that require everyone who uses water to enact conservation measures—ratepayers and industrial clients alike.
” 43 So far , though , San Francisco appears determined to prevent the updated protections for its namesake waterway .
Instead of complying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its allies in the agriculture industry hope to persuade state officials to allow them to hammer out a series of less-stringent voluntary agreements governing diversions from the San Francisco Bay delta and its watershed .
These groups say they seek a compromise that will protect fish while preserving access to plentiful drinking water supplies .
But many conservation groups , including Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Defense Fund , have expressed deep concern about this so-called compromise.44 The voluntary agreements “ will not adequately improve conditions in the Bay-Delta estuary and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conservation community wrote in a September 2019 letter to Governor Gavin Newsom , whose administration is presiding over the matter .
“ Furthermore , the ongoing process is flawed and not on course to produce an agreement that is legally , scientifically , and biologically adequate to survive environmental review and legal challenge.
” 45 Despite these warnings , Newsom ’ s administration seems keen to move forward with the process .
Along with influential figures like Feinstein , the governor has praised the voluntary agreement negotiations , calling them “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past the old water binaries and set us up for a secure and prosperous water future.
” He declined to reappoint Felicia Marcus as chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board , despite ( or perhaps because of ) her critical role in developing the Bay-Delta Plan update .
And while he has pledged to double the state ’ s salmon population by 2050 , environmentalists are increasingly displeased with his approach to the bay and its watershed .
Newsom “ is ignoring science and looking to cut deals ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Delta ’ s Barrigan-Parrilla.46 City officials in San Francisco and their allies appear to be in no hurry to change the status quo .
One key official was loath even to acknowledge the severity of the regional problems .
When I asked Michael Carlin , the deputy general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission , whether he thought the salmon in the Tuolumne River were in good condition , he grew irritated .
“ No , I am not going to say whether they are in good condition or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we sat in the headquarters of the commission , which oversees the city ’ s water supply and has been leading its opposition to the updated Bay-Delta Plan .
“ You are asking a very loaded question , ” he added , “ and a very unfair question , to tell you the truth.
” 47 Fair question or not , the situation today in San Francisco Bay is troubling .
It ’ s troubling for salmon and smelt , for orcas and seabirds , and for humans too .
An entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our eyes .
Northern California is a microcosm of the global biodiversity crisis .
The threat of mass extinction isn ’ t just happening in far-off lands or confined to some distant future .
It is happening in the United States , right now.48 Peskin , speaking from his office in San Francisco ’ s City Hall , boiled the crisis down to its grim essence .
“ I don ’ t want to be the purveyor of doom and gloom , ” he said , “ but we are kind of fucked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weather patterns and fire becoming the new normal and fish die-offs and ecosystem collapse , it is really not a pretty picture.
” 49

This article appears in the May 4/11, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Larry Collins is a big, gregarious man with tobacco-stained teeth, a salty tongue, and the commanding presence of a sea captain. For 40 years he has earned his living as a commercial fisherman, slinging wild-caught seafood from a bustling warehouse on Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. Collins loves his profession; it has put enough money in his pocket to raise kids, buy a home, and save up for retirement in one of the most expensive cities in America. Sitting in his cramped office, with the smell of fresh fish wafting in from the docks, he talked about the days when more than 4,000 boats would head out from California’s ports each season and ply the waters of the Pacific Coast, trapping crabs and netting huge runs of Chinook salmon.1
“I will give you the best salmon year in my whole career. It was 1988. We caught 1.4 million salmon in California, and another 800,000 escaped up the river,” he said with obvious nostalgia.2
That era, though, is long gone. These days, the local fishing industry is a withered remnant of its former self. In 2018 “we caught maybe 175,000 salmon, and 80,000 went up the river,” Collins told me. “Fifty-three boats delivered 50 percent of what was caught.” While some salmon seasons have been much better than others, such as the robust 2019 season, “the fishery has probably been reduced to 5 or 10 percent of what it used to be.” Cut off from their ancestral breeding grounds by enormous dams, preyed on by invasive species, and deprived of the freshwater flows that are crucial to sustaining their populations, the salmon have suffered long-term decline and face an increasingly grim future.3
“They are in terrible condition,” Collins said, his voice rising. “And no one seems to give a fuck!”4
But it’s not just the salmon that are suffering. The whole San Francisco Bay ecosystem—that enormous estuary with its maze of bays, rich delta, and associated rivers and streams—is in the midst of an ecological calamity. Decades of dam building and water extraction to quench the thirst of California’s growing population and the needs of its mighty agriculture industry have starved the state’s waterways, as well as the bay itself, of crucial freshwater supplies. As a result, the entire estuary is under enormous stress. Its water quality is dicey, in some places too stagnant or too saline or beset by algal blooms. Its aquatic food web is fraying, threatening bird species and marine mammals, including orcas. And its fish populations, from the imperiled salmon to tiny smelt, have plummeted. “The fisheries for Chinook salmon, starry flounder, and other species are collapsing,” said Jon Rosenfield, a senior scientist at San Francisco Baykeeper, a water quality organization.5
The Bay Area, in other words, is grappling with a local manifestation of our global mass extinction crisis.6
“We have pillaged that ecosystem,” said Felicia Marcus, a former chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board. “We have diverted more water from the ecosystem than any estuary that has survived. We are on the brink of losing the salmon, the smelt—all of it.”7 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
There is much at stake. San Francisco’s estuary, one of the largest in North America, is an ecological mixing bowl where Pacific saltwater meets the freshwater runoff that flows from the Sierra Nevada through the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers into San Francisco Bay and on to the ocean. The blending of these waters produces rich habitat for salmon, smelt, shrimp, crabs, pelicans, cormorants, ducks, whales, seals, and humans. If it continues its decline, everything from fishing jobs and tourist businesses to tribal food security and the general economic stability of Northern California could go with it.8
But there are ways to abate this crisis. In 2018, California water officials took strides to ease the strain on San Francisco’s estuary by moving to update and strengthen a body of regulations known as the Bay-Delta Plan. The amendments, which get made every couple of decades, seek to restrict the quantity of water that cities and agricultural operators can divert from the bay’s tributaries and thereby restore the ailing ecosystem.9
The updated Bay-Delta Plan is meant to help save the bay, its watershed, and its wildlife, so one might assume it would have widespread support among the region’s politicians. But that’s not the way water politics works in big, dry, crowded California. The plan’s new mandates are facing staunch opposition from a host of powerful antagonists, including the city of San Francisco, that glittering capital of left coast liberalism. Mayor London Breed, the city’s attorney, and its water utility have taken steps to oppose the updated plan. The city’s political establishment is in the midst of a legal battle to block stronger environmental protections for the San Francisco Bay ecosystem. The establishment’s allies in this fight: the state’s industrial agriculture interests and the federal government under President Donald Trump.10
“I am profoundly disappointed in San Francisco,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, the executive director of the conservation group Restore the Delta and a veteran of California’s water wars. “Everyone is worried about fighting and protecting their share of the water, and they don’t understand that if you can’t keep your water systems alive and healthy, then we are going to end up in a very bad place. They are interested in short-term gain instead of long-term strategy.”11
The tide is low: San Francisco Bay tidelands and waterway tributaries. (Steve Proehl / The Image Bank)
In May of last year, a United Nations–backed panel of scientists and policy experts released an alarming report stating that the world is in the grip of an “unprecedented” and “accelerating” biodiversity crisis. The panel found that 1 million species around the globe are at risk of extinction, many within the coming decades. “The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed,” warned Josef Settele, a research scientist who cochaired the panel, upon the report’s release. “This loss is a direct result of human activity.”12
The story of San Francisco Bay is a case study in how such destructive human activity manifests at the local level and wreaks havoc on prized natural resources. It’s an object lesson in the way widespread global forces—industrial farming, urban growth, climate change—scramble ecosystems and push species to the brink of collapse. But it’s also a California story, featuring the powerful industries and particular environmental conditions that have shaped the destiny of the Golden State.13
Much of California is semidesert. While the state boasts mighty rivers, a snow-capped sierra, and the lush Bay Area estuary, its cities are often parched. “Los Angeles is drier than Beirut; Sacramento is as dry as the Sahel; San Francisco is just slightly rainier than Chihuahua,” writes Marc Reisner in Cadillac Desert, his magisterial book on the history of water development in the American West. And California’s Central Valley, the heart of the state’s $50 billion–a–year agriculture industry, is a place where “rainless summers” mean that “no important crop except wheat [can] be raised without irrigation.” Yet this semidesert is home today to nearly 40 million people and one of the largest agriculture industries on the planet.14 More From Jimmy Tobias Amid Partisan Politicking, Revelations on a Covid Origins Article July 12, 2023 Exclusive: A House Subcommittee Releases Key Documents on the Pandemic Origin Paper April 10, 2023 Unredacted NIH E-mails Show Efforts to Rule Out a Lab Origin of Covid January 19, 2023
The only way this paradox is possible is through overwhelming human intervention, specifically by the federal government. Starting in the New Deal era, under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation, the US government embarked on a massive water development spree that saw it build huge dams across the West to trap, store, and divert water from rivers to cities, farms, and ranches in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and yes, California. It was water welfare on a massive scale, meant to support small farmers and growing towns across the region, and for a while it enchanted the American imagination. Who hasn’t heard of the Hoover Dam, completed in 1936 on the Colorado River, which still supplies huge quantities of water to Los Angeles and Arizona, among other places?15
In California the Bureau of Reclamation’s enormous water development efforts were known as the Central Valley Project, or CVP. It created a sprawling network of dams, reservoirs, and canals that sucks up the state’s river water and supplies it at heavily subsidized rates to Central Valley farmers and to residents of Los Angeles and other Southern California cities. A second development, called the State Water Project, or SWP, was initiated in the early 1960s to dam even more rivers and provide the water to California’s farmers.16
In many ways, these two projects, which primarily draw water from tributaries that feed San Francisco Bay, made modern California possible. Above all, they created the state’s agriculture industry, saving it from impending groundwater depletion and providing it with a constant supply of publicly subsidized water. And while the CVP and the SWP were conceived to support small farmers and promote a sort of Jeffersonian ideal, they ultimately sparked the rise of the Big Agriculture empires that have enriched land-owning elites.17
These projects, Reisner writes in Cadillac Desert, ended up being “one of the country’s foremost examples of socialism for the rich.” Today, California’s agriculture industry accounts for as much as 80 percent of water use in the state.18
Keeping California green: One of the vast irrigation systems that helps the dry Gold State bloom. (Citizens of the Planet / Education Images / Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
The projects also rained misery on some of the state’s Indigenous tribes, including the Winnemem Wintu. The 1945 completion of the Shasta Dam, a centerpiece of the CVP, inundated the land on which the majority of Winnemem Wintu villages stood. “The tribe was moved out of their villages,” said Mark Miyoshi, its historic preservation officer. “They didn’t have anything. They were made homeless. We were the sacrifice that allowed the Central Valley Project to be constructed.”19
The CVP and the SWP devastated the state’s natural environment, too, wrecking streams, rivers, estuaries, wetlands, and wildlife. Intensive water diversions by agricultural and urban water users result in San Francisco Bay’s being deprived, on average, of approximately 50 percent of its annual freshwater inflow. Sometimes that figure reaches as high as 70 percent.20
These water diversions have created a kind of permanent drought for the bay. Among other negative effects, this has heightened salinity levels in the estuary and harmed species like the endangered delta smelt, a tiny iridescent fish that once numbered in the millions. In 2018 and 2019, after decades of decline, a thorough survey of the waters failed to turn up a single smelt.21
Meanwhile, the dams cut off Chinook salmon—the state’s most iconic fish species—from their ancient spawning grounds high in Northern California’s mountains. Along with industrial pollution and mining, the dams have led to the long-term decline of the winter-run Chinooks, which are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. Winter-run Chinooks once came in droves each year from the Pacific Ocean, swimming through San Francisco Bay and up into the California highland interior. These days, only a few hundred to a few thousand return to spawn beneath a giant dam on the Sacramento River. The Central Valley’s unique spring run of Chinook salmon is also listed under the Endangered Species Act.22
This shocking decline has contributed, in turn, to the collapse of the orca populations that depend on Pacific Coast salmon for their survival. The number of so-called southern resident orcas has dropped from a high of 98 in 1995 to just 73 as of August 2019. The population of these majestic animals is now at a 30-year low.23
Endangered: An orca speeds through the water, one of many species threatened by the collapse of the San Francisco Bay. (Francois Gohier / VW Pics / Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
San Francisco Bay, like most ecosystems, exists in a delicate balance, the fate of its species intertwined, their lives dependent on one another. But as in many ecosystems, some species exert more influence than others, their presence holding the system together like a keystone in an arch. California’s Chinook salmon is one of these essential species. Over the millennia, the multitudes of Chinook traveling between sea and river have delivered vast loads of rich ocean nutrients to inland California, all while providing sustenance to whales, seals, birds, bears, wolves, coyotes, humans, and even shrubs and trees. Now, as salmon numbers dwindle, other species are suffering too. Should the Chinook disappear, it’s unlikely that San Francisco Bay will ever really recover.24
To get a look at the current state of this keystone species, I took a short trip with John McManus, a veteran environmentalist with the Golden State Salmon Association and a dogged defender of California’s fisheries. I met him on a drizzly morning last May in Daly City, south of San Francisco. He wheeled up in an old gray Toyota minivan, and we hit the road, crossing the Bay Bridge and winding through dense traffic until we arrived at the San Francisco Bay delta, where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers merge. Once a wild landscape with some of the best soil on earth, the delta is now blanketed with farms and crisscrossed by canals and levees. It is also sinking below sea level as a result of groundwater depletion.25
On the drive, McManus filled my brain with facts about dams, farms, and fish. “We really messed things up. This was such rich habitat once upon a time,” he said. “We lost about 80 or 90 percent of the historic salmon habitat when they dammed all the Central Valley rivers.”26
The problem, he explained, begins at the very start of the salmon’s life cycle. Nowadays, the salmon that manage to hatch have a tough time making it out to the sea, where they grow into adulthood. When the tiny salmon swim down from the mountains, the low and irregular flow in the region’s rivers and streams causes lots of baby fish to get trapped in the delta’s artificial canals, where they’re preyed on by invasive species, like hungry striped bass, or sucked into irrigation pumps.27
“If you’re a baby salmon,” McManus said, “and you’re coming down the Sacramento River trying to get to the ocean, if you get pulled into that delta cross channel, you will never be seen again. It’s curtains.”28
About an hour into our drive, we pulled into a small gravel parking lot in the town of Woodbridge, where two hulking tanker trucks were idling near the edge of the Mokelumne River. Inside each truck, swimming around in the pitch black, were approximately 100,000 baby salmon from a nearby hatchery. In an effort to prevent a total collapse of the salmon populations, the state and federal governments maintain about a dozen hatcheries across California that raise salmon and then release them into the wild.29
We watched as a crew of technicians from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife pieced together a long metal pipe and lowered it slowly into the fast-moving river. Then they pulled a lever. There was a soft rushing sound, followed by a burst of water from the end of the pipe, and a flurry of tiny fish gushed into the river. They were just a small fraction of the many millions that California’s hatcheries raise each year.30 Related Article Rethinking Our Relationship to the Natural World After Covid-19 Michael T. Klare
This is what it takes to keep the salmon populations from crashing even further below their historical levels. “Without the hatcheries, you would see some salmon persist in small numbers, I’m guessing,” McManus said. But “some might blink out. We would have lost winter-run Chinook salmon…. We would have lost them in the last drought without the hatcheries.”31
The baby fish kept pouring out of the trucks, and soon they were churning the water into whorls of glinting silver. Most of them, I soon learned, weren’t likely to survive. They were an experimental group meant to determine whether any of them could make the perilous trip through the delta.32
Bill Smith, a state employee in charge of the Mokelumne River Hatchery, wasn’t optimistic. He said most of the baby fish would likely perish on their way to sea. Invasive predators “will take more than their fair share, and the [irrigation] pumps will take the rest,” he said.33
Hatched and ready: Truckloads of fingerling Chinook salmon are pumped into floating holding pens. (Kim Kulish / Corbis via Getty Images )
To save San Francisco’s threatened estuary, to really restore it, is a herculean task—one that, in a perfect world, would include stalling climate change; reining in urban growth, industrial agriculture, and pollution; and demolishing the dams that have devastated the landscape. But few hold out hope for such ambitious measures. Instead, most conservationists in the Bay Area are focused on a more pragmatic and immediate solution: restricting the amount of water that agricultural operators and cities are allowed to pull out of the delta’s tributaries, thereby alleviating the human-made drought that has done so much damage to the region’s watershed.34
This is precisely what the state’s water regulators sought to accomplish in December 2018, when, after a long and painstaking process, they finalized the first of two updates to the Bay-Delta Plan’s water quality standards. The amendments, which were crafted by the California State Water Resources Control Board, a powerful independent agency, require irrigators and city agencies to leave more water in certain key tributaries that sustain the bay and its many species.35
In the case of San Francisco and nearby irrigation districts, the revised Bay-Delta Plan requires them to leave 30 to 50 percent of the water that would naturally flow through the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and Merced rivers in the winter, spring, and early summer. The Tuolumne is the city’s main source of drinking water and an important conveyor of fresh water from the Sierra Nevada to the San Francisco Bay delta; these days humans sometimes divert as much as 90 percent of its flow during the winter and spring snowmelt.36
Some high-profile San Franciscans back the new regulations. Aaron Peskin, who represents District 3 on the city’s Board of Supervisors, is a supporter of the updated Bay-Delta Plan. “San Francisco, I think, needs to be part of the solution as the stresses on the Tuolumne system and on the bay and delta become more profound and as our fisheries are on the verge of collapse,” he said. “I think we have a political and social and environmental responsibility to do our part.”37
To that end, in the fall of 2018, as the regulators were finalizing the first phase of the new Bay-Delta Plan, Peskin introduced a resolution to signal the city’s support for the move. The resolution, which was passed by the Board of Supervisors, barred the city attorney from pursuing any litigation meant to block the new regulations. “I thought we could establish that our policy was to adhere to what the state water board was going to mandate,” Peskin said.38
But then higher powers intervened. In November 2018, allegedly under pressure from Senator Dianne Feinstein, a key player in California water politics, Breed vetoed Peskin’s resolution. (A spokesperson for Feinstein asserted that “she didn’t directly weigh in” with the mayor about the matter.) “San Francisco, despite all of its left-leaning and environmentally inclined self-image, is in the midst of a huge growth spurt, as is Silicon Valley,” Peskin said. His resolution and water use restrictions in general were “seen as being a threat to the long-term economic viability of San Francisco and the peninsula.”39
Shortly after his resolution was vetoed, San Francisco joined a lawsuit to block the first phase of the Bay-Delta Plan update. That lawsuit is ongoing, and the city has some strange bedfellows in its effort to stymie the new protections. A slurry of influential agriculture interests—including “Republican ranchers from the central part of our state,” Peskin said—are suing to block the updated plan; so is the Trump administration.40
The fight over the Bay-Delta Plan, it is important to note, is unfolding in the midst of a broader legal and political struggle over environmental protections in California. The Trump administration is also working in lockstep with powerful agricultural interests to roll back the Endangered Species Act’s protections for California’s salmon, smelt, and orcas. Tellingly, the federal official orchestrating this pro-industry blitz is David Bernhardt, Trump’s secretary of the interior and a former lobbyist for some of Big Ag’s most influential water users in the state.41
The water stops here: The Shasta Dam is one of the tallest in the United States and a centerpiece of the Central Valley Project.
In their defense of San Francisco’s lawsuit, city officials say they are merely trying to rein in overzealous regulators. “This [legal action] is an unfortunate but necessary step to preserve the rights of the 2.7 million Bay Area customers who rely on [the city’s] water system,” a spokesperson for the city attorney’s office said last year.42
Environmental leaders disagree with that claim. “To suggest the Bay-Delta Plan would somehow cause hardships for San Franciscans doesn’t ring true,” said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, the executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper. “I’m fairly certain most San Franciscans would choose to protect our beautiful bay over the interests of industrial agriculture. When it comes to water conservation, San Francisco’s city government needs…to catch up with cities like Los Angeles that require everyone who uses water to enact conservation measures—ratepayers and industrial clients alike.”43
So far, though, San Francisco appears determined to prevent the updated protections for its namesake waterway. Instead of complying with new regulations, the city and its allies in the agriculture industry hope to persuade state officials to allow them to hammer out a series of less-stringent voluntary agreements governing diversions from the San Francisco Bay delta and its watershed. These groups say they seek a compromise that will protect fish while preserving access to plentiful drinking water supplies. But many conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Defense Fund, have expressed deep concern about this so-called compromise.44
The voluntary agreements “will not adequately improve conditions in the Bay-Delta estuary and its Central Valley watershed,” members of the conservation community wrote in a September 2019 letter to Governor Gavin Newsom, whose administration is presiding over the matter. “Furthermore, the ongoing process is flawed and not on course to produce an agreement that is legally, scientifically, and biologically adequate to survive environmental review and legal challenge.”45
Despite these warnings, Newsom’s administration seems keen to move forward with the process. Along with influential figures like Feinstein, the governor has praised the voluntary agreement negotiations, calling them “a path forward” that will “move past the old water binaries and set us up for a secure and prosperous water future.” He declined to reappoint Felicia Marcus as chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board, despite (or perhaps because of) her critical role in developing the Bay-Delta Plan update. And while he has pledged to double the state’s salmon population by 2050, environmentalists are increasingly displeased with his approach to the bay and its watershed. Newsom “is ignoring science and looking to cut deals” with the big water users, said Restore the Delta’s Barrigan-Parrilla.46
City officials in San Francisco and their allies appear to be in no hurry to change the status quo. One key official was loath even to acknowledge the severity of the regional problems. When I asked Michael Carlin, the deputy general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, whether he thought the salmon in the Tuolumne River were in good condition, he grew irritated. “No, I am not going to say whether they are in good condition or not in good condition,” he said as we sat in the headquarters of the commission, which oversees the city’s water supply and has been leading its opposition to the updated Bay-Delta Plan. “You are asking a very loaded question,” he added, “and a very unfair question, to tell you the truth.”47
Fair question or not, the situation today in San Francisco Bay is troubling. It’s troubling for salmon and smelt, for orcas and seabirds, and for humans too. An entire ecosystem is unraveling bit by bit before our eyes. Northern California is a microcosm of the global biodiversity crisis. The threat of mass extinction isn’t just happening in far-off lands or confined to some distant future. It is happening in the United States, right now.48
Peskin, speaking from his office in San Francisco’s City Hall, boiled the crisis down to its grim essence. “I don’t want to be the purveyor of doom and gloom,” he said, “but we are kind of fucked. Between sea level rise and changing weather patterns and fire becoming the new normal and fish die-offs and ecosystem collapse, it is really not a pretty picture.”49


thenation--2020-04-21--The Radical Idea That Undergirds Our Postal System

With Covid-19 confining most Americans to their homes , many of us have become reliant on mail delivery for everything from toiletries to toys for our out-of-school children .
Yet , as businesses cut back on advertisements and solicitations , mail volume has dropped by 30 percent compared with this time last year , and the agency projects that it will lose $ 13 billion this fiscal year and $ 22 billion over the next 18 months .
The United States Postal Service could be financially insolvent by October .
President Donald Trump has insisted that there will be no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cover its costs by raising rates on Amazon , FedEx , and UPS .
He appears happy to let the agency sputter and to favor the long-held conservative dream of privatization .
We have decades ’ worth of experience with industries such as phone companies and British rail lines to know that privatization almost never leads to more efficient or affordable service .
But we must look earlier to the last major reorganization of postal services—the British and American postal reforms of the 1840s and ’ 50s—to understand just how crucial a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a modern society .
Postal reform institutionalized and enshrined the principle of equal access to the mail , precisely the principle that is now under threat .
The Victorian transformation of the post also points to how we can reimagine the USPS so it can face its post-pandemic challenges .
We can turn the postal service into an engine of equality .
Before the 19th century postal reform , there was technically a British state postal system , but it was expensive and cumbersome .
The recipient paid the postage upon delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical cost for a single-sheet letter was three or four pence—the cost of three or four loaves of bread .
The price doubled for a second sheet of paper , tripled for a third , and also increased based on distance .
That distance was deceptive , because mail often had to travel first to the General Post Office in London before heading back out of town to its destination .
The GPO featured a Secret Office for surveillance , where letters were opened , read , and resealed .
Abuse and graft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reform , approximately 12.5 percent of the 82 million pieces of mail sent each year was “ franked , ” or mailed for free using a member of Parliament ’ s privileges .
This widespread mail fraud led to millions of pounds in lost revenue .
Others avoided postage by sending blank letters that indicated “ I am well ” whose recipients would simply refuse to pay after they saw the outside of the letter .
More on the USPS How to Save the Postal Service The Postal Service Is Breaking Down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Already Collapsing In colonial America and the early United States , a postal system likewise existed , but its primary purpose was to deliver newspapers—which traveled at low rates—not personal letters .
As in the United Kingdom , regular people did not receive mail at home ; instead , they had to go to a post office to send and retrieve letters , making the process more public and thus less accessible to women .
Letters often waited at the post office for days , weeks , or even months for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US and UK , the systems were notorious for slow delivery times and lost or stolen letters ; in the late 17th century , author Charles Gildon published a series of books titled The Post-Boy Rob ’ d of His Mail ; or , The Pacquet Broke Open riffing on the common experience of intercepted mail .
The elite turned to private couriers , creating a two-tiered system .
Sending letters was the only long-distance form of communication at the time .
As urbanization accelerated in the 17th and 18th centuries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting to lose contact with loved ones .
In the 1830s , a postal official named Rowland Hill began advocating a series of reforms .
The most famous and significant of these were introducing prepaid postage and reducing the cost of a standard letter to one penny .
Hill ’ s reforms were implemented in 1839–40 and the world ’ s first postage stamp , the Penny Black featuring an engraving of the 21-year-old Queen Victoria , appeared in 1840 .
Supposedly , Hill got the idea for postal reform after seeing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiancé because she could not afford the postage .
Proponents popularized his plan with sensational stories of siblings separated for decades and young women losing their virtue because family members could not pay to receive their letters with pleas for assistance .
In his pamphlet Post Office Reform ; Its Importance and Practicability , Hill asked Britons to imagine what a world of universal and accessible mails would look like .
He dwelled on the benefits to the poor and working classes , who would no longer have to choose between meeting daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatives .
After the reforms , people totally changed how they used the mail .
The first self-sealing envelopes appeared , negating the need for accessories like stamps and sealing wax .
Letter boxes—generally attributed to novelist and postal official Anthony Trollope—also appeared , allowing people to mail letters without going to the post office .
And home addresses as we know them , with number and street name , became systematized .
( Previously , directions such as “ over against the Flag and Lamb ” had been common , leading to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these changes made the post both more accessible and more private , allowing regular people to easily send and receive letters .
In the first year after postal reform , the volume of mail doubled , and it doubled again by the end of the decade , more than making up for the reduction in rates .
Hill had been right that there was a pent-up demand for a modern , convenient mail service .
The series of American reforms in the 1840s and ’ 50s that standardized and reduced postage costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delivery of newspapers and business letters—which worked best in urban areas—into a single , nationwide network .
A letter to any place in the country cost the same as to anyplace else , creating a bureaucracy that collapsed distances across the expanding nation .
Even before the arrival in 1860 of the famous Pony Express ( a private , short-lived experiment ) , postal reform made interaction with the post an everyday occurrence .
Between 1840 and 1860 , the annual volume of letters more than quintupled , from 27 million to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came to see a reliable postal system as a key aspect of modern living .
Letter writers were all equal : If you could afford a stamp , your piece of mail was as valuable as anyone else ’ s .
Now , without such a national system , rural communities will likely lose postal services , just as they lag behind in acquiring broadband access .
The image of postal workers across the nation deterred by “ neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night ” —nor global pandemic—encapsulates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the mail .
In fact , as we defend the USPS in the face of Covid-19 and Trump ’ s opposition , we have the opportunity not only to maintain the status quo but also to envision a new set of postal reforms that would extend this principle and secure the agency ’ s finances into the future .
Most obviously , Congress must end the requirement , passed by a lame-duck Republican Congress in 2006 , that the USPS prefund its retirees ’ pensions through the year 2056 , a stipulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private business .
The demand purposefully undermined the service so that Republicans could later claim the USPS was insolvent—exactly the situation in which it now finds itself .
Removing this burden would avoid moves such as ending most Saturday delivery , as the agency threatened to do in 2013 .
More dramatically , postal banking could provide bank accounts and small loans to underserved communities , a service already available in 139 other countries .
Postal banking would help end the predatory payday loan industry and serve as a check on big banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as overdraft fees and pressure to open new accounts .
Postal banking could step into minority and low-income communities , which are disproportionately likely to lack access to banks and to use expensive check-cashing facilities instead .
The service would be particularly useful during a financial crisis like the current one , because it would allow the government to simply deposit funds in Americans ’ accounts rather than delaying payments for weeks or months .
It is not enough to maintain the USPS .
To continue the legacy of postal reform , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and accessibility .
The pandemic only underscores how dependent we are upon the service , and a new era of reform would ensure that we do not return to an expensive , tiered mail system that would result in millions of Americans ’ losing access to a vital form of connectivity .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
With Covid-19 confining most Americans to their homes, many of us have become reliant on mail delivery for everything from toiletries to toys for our out-of-school children. Yet, as businesses cut back on advertisements and solicitations, mail volume has dropped by 30 percent compared with this time last year, and the United States Postal Service projects that it will lose $13 billion this fiscal year and $22 billion over the next 18 months. The agency could be financially insolvent by October.
President Donald Trump has insisted that there will be no bailout, falsely claiming that the USPS could cover its costs by raising rates on Amazon, FedEx, and UPS. He appears happy to let the postal service sputter and to favor the long-held conservative dream of privatization.
We have decades’ worth of experience with industries such as phone companies and British rail lines to know that privatization almost never leads to more efficient or affordable service. But we must look earlier to the last major reorganization of postal services—the British and American postal reforms of the 1840s and ’50s—to understand just how crucial a cheap, accessible national mail system is to a modern society. Postal reform institutionalized and enshrined the principle of equal access to the mail, precisely the principle that is now under threat. The Victorian transformation of the post also points to how we can reimagine the USPS so it can face its post-pandemic challenges. We can turn the postal service into an engine of equality.
Before the 19th century postal reform, there was technically a British state postal system, but it was expensive and cumbersome. The recipient paid the postage upon delivery, and in the 18th century a typical cost for a single-sheet letter was three or four pence—the cost of three or four loaves of bread. The price doubled for a second sheet of paper, tripled for a third, and also increased based on distance. That distance was deceptive, because mail often had to travel first to the General Post Office in London before heading back out of town to its destination. The GPO surveilled mail in a secret office, where letters were opened, read, and resealed.
Abuse and graft also hobbled the system. Just prior to reform, approximately 12.5 percent of the 82 million pieces of mail sent each year was “franked,” or mailed for free using a member of Parliament’s privileges. This widespread mail fraud led to millions of pounds in lost revenue. Others avoided postage by sending blank letters that indicated “I am well” to recipients who would simply refuse to pay after they saw the outside of the letter. More on the USPS How to Save the Postal Service Mike Davis The Postal Service Is Breaking Down Jake Bittle In Rural America, the Postal Service Is Already Collapsing Jake Bittle
In colonial America and the early United States, a postal system likewise existed, but its primary purpose was to deliver newspapers—which traveled at low rates—not personal letters. As in the United Kingdom, ordinary people did not receive mail at home; instead, they had to go to a post office to send and retrieve letters, making the process more public and thus less accessible to women. Letters often waited at the post office for days, weeks, or even months for their addressees to claim them. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In both the US and UK, the systems were notorious for slow delivery times and lost or stolen letters; in the late 17th century, author Charles Gildon published a series of books titled The Post-Boy Rob’d of His Mail; or, The Pacquet Broke Open, which riffed on the common experience of intercepted mail. The elite turned to private couriers, creating a two-tiered system. Current Issue View our current issue
Sending letters was the only long-distance form of communication at the time. As urbanization accelerated in the 17th and 18th centuries and the post remained unreliable, people started to lose contact with loved ones.
In the 1830s, a postal official named Rowland Hill began advocating a series of reforms. The most famous and significant of these were introducing prepaid postage and reducing the cost of a standard letter to one penny. Hill’s reforms were implemented in 1839–40 and the world’s first postage stamp, the Penny Black, featuring an engraving of the 21-year-old Queen Victoria, appeared in 1840.
Supposedly, Hill got the idea for postal reform after seeing a young woman refuse a letter from her fiancé because she could not afford the postage. Proponents popularized his plan with sensational stories of siblings separated for decades and young women losing their virtue because family members could not pay to receive their letters of pleas for assistance. In his pamphlet Post Office Reform; Its Importance and Practicability, Hill asked Britons to imagine what a world of universal and accessible mail would look like. He dwelled on the benefits to the poor and working classes, who would no longer have to choose between meeting daily needs and staying connected to friends and relatives.
After the reforms, people totally changed how they used the mail. The first self-sealing envelopes appeared, negating the need for accessories like stamps and sealing wax. Letter boxes also appeared—generally attributed to novelist and postal official Anthony Trollope—allowing people to mail letters without going to the post office. And home addresses as we know them, with number and street name, became systematized. (Previously, directions such as “over against the Flag and Lamb” had been common, leading to yet more lost mail.) All of these changes made the post both more accessible and more private, allowing ordinary people to easily send and receive letters.
In the first year after postal reform, the volume of mail doubled, and it doubled again by the end of the decade, more than making up for the reduction in rates. Hill had been right that there was a pent-up demand for a modern, convenient mail service.
The series of American reforms in the 1840s and ’50s that standardized and reduced postage costs transformed what had been a system for the delivery of newspapers and business letters—which worked best in urban areas—into a single, nationwide network. A letter to any place in the country cost the same as to anyplace else, creating a bureaucracy that collapsed distances across the expanding nation. Even before the arrival in 1860 of the famous Pony Express (a private, short-lived experiment), postal reform made interaction with the post an everyday occurrence. Between 1840 and 1860, the annual volume of letters more than quintupled, from 27 million to 161 million.
After reform, people came to see a reliable postal system as a key aspect of modern living. Letter writers were all equal: If you could afford a stamp, your piece of mail was as valuable as anyone else’s. Now, without such a national system, rural communities will likely lose postal services, just as they lag behind in acquiring broadband access. The image of postal workers across the nation deterred by “neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night”—nor global pandemic—encapsulates the assumption that everyone must have equal access to the mail.
In fact, as we defend the USPS in the face of Covid-19 and Trump’s opposition, we have the opportunity not just to maintain the status quo but to envision a new set of postal reforms that would extend this principle and secure the agency’s finances into the future. Most obviously, Congress must end the requirement, passed by a lame-duck Republican Congress in 2006, that the USPS prefund its retirees’ pensions through the year 2056, a stipulation imposed on no other federal agency or private business. The demand purposefully undermined the service so that Republicans could later claim the USPS was insolvent—exactly the situation in which it now finds itself. Removing this burden would avoid moves such as ending most Saturday delivery, as the agency threatened to do in 2013.
More dramatically, postal banking could provide bank accounts and small loans to underserved communities, a service already available in 139 other countries. Postal banking would help end the predatory payday loan industry and serve as a check on big banks by offering an alternative to commercial practices such as overdraft fees and pressure to open new accounts. Postal banking could step into minority and low-income communities, which are disproportionately likely to lack access to banks and to use expensive check-cashing facilities instead. The service would be particularly useful during a financial crisis like the current one, because it would allow the government to simply deposit funds in Americans’ accounts rather than delaying payments for weeks or months.
It is not enough to maintain the USPS. To continue the legacy of postal reform, we must expand its principles of equality and accessibility. The pandemic only underscores how dependent we are upon the service. A new era of reform would ensure that we do not return to an expensive, tiered mail system that would result in millions of Americans’ losing access to a vital form of connectivity.