This Arbor Day, as drought and wildfire fears spread from Southern California to South Carolina, the tree you plant carries hidden importance. While many Americans view trees as sources of shade, beauty, or a habitat for birds, they're actually essential to something even more precious: our drinking water. With experts warning of "aridification" across the West, water fights across the South, and just 2.5% of Earth's water being freshwater, the link between forests and water security has never been more vital.
This link between forests and water wasn't always overlooked. In fact, it was the primary reason the U.S. Forest Service was established. Gifford Pinchot, who was the first leader of the agency in 1905, recognized the foundational legislation, explicitly citing "securing favorable conditions of water flows" as its central purpose. Though now remembered largely as a champion of sustainable forestry, Pinchot's greater vision recognized that America's expanding nation required healthy forests to safeguard its water supplies for growing communities and agriculture.
This water-focused mission wasn't accidental. It reflected an understanding that healthy forests serve as nature's most efficient water infrastructure—capturing snowmelt and rainfall, filtering contaminants, regulating seasonal flows, and delivering clean water downstream to communities, farms, and industries. And there had been vivid proof that early forest management in the Northeast had devastated the water supplies for many towns and communities across the region. The U.S. Forest Service was founded to both protect watersheds and ensure they were not indiscriminately clear-cut.
This vital connection between forests and water security is something most Americans overlook. Few consider that about half of our drinking water originates in forests that filter, regulate, and store the water we depend on every day. Even more concerning, over 60% of our nation's forests are on private lands, with nearly a third of these watersheds facing high risks from development, unsustainable management, or climate impacts.
Today, this forest-water connection faces unprecedented threats. Climate change is altering precipitation patterns and increasing drought severity nationwide. Forest fragmentation from development cuts natural water systems into disconnected pieces. Catastrophic wildfires, often in watersheds that haven't been properly managed, damage water quality for decades afterward.
The stakes couldn't be higher. For example, recent research shows climate change could shrink California's water supply by up to 23% in just two decades—a warning that resonates across the country as water security becomes an increasingly urgent priority.
Fortunately, proven solutions exist and they're finding support across the political spectrum.
Look no further than last week's bipartisan legislation, introduced by Democrat John Garamendi and Republican Ken Calvert from California, that would help permanently conserve privately owned working forestlands. This cross-party effort would give states the flexibility to partner with nonprofit land trusts on forest conservation easements, extending limited conservation dollars further while respecting private ownership.
Conservation easements on private forests have emerged as powerful tools for watershed protection that transcend partisan divides. These permanent legal agreements respect property rights while achieving conservation goals—a balance that appeals to landowners and environmentalists alike. By maintaining forests' water-filtering capabilities while allowing sustainable management and economic returns, they keep forests in private hands and on local tax rolls while securing their public benefits forever.
We're seeing these solutions work in both red and blue states. Arkansas has implemented forest conservation programs protecting the headwaters flowing into the Mississippi Delta. Utah pioneered public-private partnerships for financing forest restoration in watersheds critical to Salt Lake City's water supply. New York's protection program for the Catskills demonstrates how investing in forest watersheds can save billions in built infrastructure costs.
The recent protection of California's Trinity River Headwaters offers another inspiring model. This innovative project safeguards 11,000 acres of critical watershed—an area one-third the size of San Francisco—that supplies water to millions of acres of farmland and cities as far south as San Diego. Beyond securing water supplies, the project delivers multiple benefits: climate resilience, carbon storage, wildfire risk reduction, habitat for over 230 species, and economic opportunities for rural communities.
The wildfire connection is particularly urgent. Unsustainable forest management has left many watersheds vulnerable to catastrophic fires, which subsequently lead to flash flooding and mudslides during heavy rainfall events. When forests burn severely, their soil can become water-repellent, unable to absorb the precipitation that once filtered through them. Working forest conservation easements demonstrate how watershed conservation can simultaneously reduce wildfire risk and enhance water retention—one of the least expensive climate adaptation strategies, compared to engineering solutions like dams and underground storage systems.
What makes these approaches particularly valuable is their cost-effectiveness. Dollar for dollar, protecting and restoring forest watersheds delivers more water security benefits than many engineered alternatives. Yet, our policies and funding systems still overwhelmingly favor gray infrastructure over these natural solutions.
It's time for policies that recognize forests' true value to our water security. Federal agencies should align management investments to benefit water, climate, wildlife, and sustaining rural economies simultaneously. States should finance natural water infrastructure by using the same tools—bonds, revolving funds, and public-private partnerships—employed for built systems. California, facing both wildfires and flooding, has a particular opportunity to lead by investing in watershed restoration that regulates water flow.
Most importantly, we must reimagine infrastructure. Forests securing our water supplies aren't merely amenities—they're essential systems deserving equal investment priority as dams, treatment plants, and pipelines.
As we face another summer of water restrictions, intensifying aridification, and fires, this season calls us to look beyond symbolic tree planting and toward protecting existing forests. While planting matters, restoring watersheds that provide water security to millions matters more.
This Arbor Day, let's reconnect with Pinchot's century-old wisdom: in a world where only 2.5% of water is freshwater and increasingly precious, protecting and restoring forest watersheds is our most crucial investment that communities will depend on for generations.
Laurie Wayburn is the co-founder and president of Pacific Forest Trust.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.