Month: December 2016

A Water Sector Energy Hog

When we use water, we’re also using energy—sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Overall, water use accounts for about 20 percent of California’s electricity use and 30 percent of natural gas used by businesses and homes. This energy is used to supply, convey, treat, and heat water.

Where does it all go, and more importantly, how can we best save both water and energy?

You might guess that our long-distance transport of water through the state’s network of canals and pumping stations is a big energy hog. The federal and state water projects combined move about a quarter of all water used in California. The State Water Project—which conveys water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta to cities and farms in the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California—is the largest single user of electricity. But even so, the state’s water conveyance system is something of an energy sipper, accounting for just 4 percent of the sector’s total energy use.

Or maybe you’d assume that California farmers—who use about four times more water than the state’s urban areas—use the most water-related energy. But even though farmers pump some 10 million acre-feet of water in an average year, they use just 5 percent of California’s water-related energy.

Have you guessed it yet? Hint: The state’s cities, especially California households and industries, use by far the most water-related energy—and much of it goes down the drain.

Heating water is the most energy-intensive water-related activity. Some residential “end uses” of water—faucets, showers, and clothes washers—are energy hogs, accounting for 42 percent of all energy used in the water cycle. And in total, the residential, industrial, and commercial end uses of water account for more than 85 percent of energy used in the water sector. By comparison, supplying, pumping, and treating urban water make up about 5 percent. 

Reducing the energy footprint of the state’s water cycle will require more reductions in hot water use.

A recent study, which looked at the energy use of supplying, pumping, and treating water, estimated that the energy savings resulting from drought-related urban water conservation to date has equaled the combined savings of all energy efficiency programs offered by the state’s major energy utilities. The study did not account for water heating or other energy-intensive uses of water.

California has been a leader in energy efficiency for many years. Its efforts include reducing energy use of washing machines and dishwashers—which together still use less energy than showers. Last year, the state’s energy commission adopted new standards (which went into effect this summer) that will cut water flow in showerheads by 20 percent. The move is expected to save more than 2.4 billion gallons a year in the first year—and enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes for a year.

To further reduce the energy footprint of the state’s water cycle, it would be most effective to continue to target reductions in hot water use. This can be done by changing our habits (such as decreasing water heater temperatures), improving water-heating efficiency, and reducing the energy intensity of some industrial processes.

Saving energy in the water sector also reduces greenhouse gas emissions—nearly 10 percent of the state’s emissions are directly associated with water use. California plans to reduce its emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and the water sector can provide some of the most cost-effective ways to meet that goal.

But as always in California’s water management, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Local assessments—with state agencies’ support—are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of various solutions locally and across regions. The state could then use these assessments to devise a statewide plan for reducing the water sector’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Energy and Water (from the California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

The Turnout Turnaround

Voter turnout in California was dismal in 2014—record lows in the primary and general elections prompted serious concern about how to turn the problem around. The state has been aggressive in adopting reforms to promote turnout—including a system for registering online, “conditional” registration, which allows people to vote after registering as late as election day, and a system to register voters mostly by default via the DMV.

The Secretary of State recently certified the vote count for the November election, and the results suggest the state is heading in the right direction. Turnout was 58.7% among those eligible to vote, easily higher than the 30.9% showing in the midterm election two years ago, but also higher than the presidential election four years ago (55.5%) and almost as high as the notably high-turnout election in 2008 (59.2%).

In fact, while low turnout in the 2014 general election put California farther behind other states, this year’s turnout almost brought the state up to the national average. As the graph shows, turnout in presidential elections has been climbing in all states since about 2000. But this is the first time that the upward trend has been stronger in California than elsewhere.

Some of this upward surge may reflect higher registration rates: the share of eligible residents who are registered rose this election year to a 20-year high. The state’s recent reforms can’t explain this increase because most of them have not been implemented yet. The exception is online registration, which went live during the 2012 presidential election cycle and has proved popular. Early evidence suggested that the new system’s overall impact on registration was small, but this could have changed over time. In any case, the higher registration rate this year might lead to higher levels of participation in the future.

There are reasons to think that the higher turnout and registration were driven by a more mobilized Latino population. Certainly, Latino registration increased this year, perhaps in response to the tone and content of the presidential campaign. And Californians voted at even higher rates for Hillary Clinton than they did for Barack Obama, something many have also attributed to increased Latino engagement. However, there is little support for this story in the county-level results. The size of each county’s eligible Latino population explains almost none of the variation in turnout this year. In fact, the higher turnout this year was evenly distributed across the state.

Despite the signs of increased engagement, it is too early to say the state has come out of its turnout slump. As the figure makes clear, turnout in presidential elections is not the state’s biggest problem. The challenge is and has been midterm turnout. A growing share of the voters who participate in presidential elections do not vote in the gubernatorial election two years later. The last two election cycles—which have seen exceptionally high presidential turnout and exceptionally low midterm turnout—have not departed from this pattern but exemplified it.

The state should be proud of the progress made this election, and there are grounds for optimism as the state rolls out its election reforms over the next few years. But the positive signs from this election cycle should not make policymakers complacent about the challenges that lie ahead.

California’s Marijuana Majority


Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, spoke at the Pacific Chapter of the American Association of Public Opinion Research annual conference in San Francisco today, December 16, 2016. Here are his prepared remarks for a post-election panel discussion.

One of the most historic turnarounds in California initiative history has been largely overlooked in the wake of the stunning presidential election results. Californians passed a recreational marijuana initiative this fall after rejecting a similar effort six years ago. The 2010 initiative, Proposition 19, failed with 46.5 percent of the vote. This year, Proposition 64 passed with 57.1 percent. How did support grow by 10.6 points, allowing this controversial policy to move into the victory column? The answers are found in both national and state trends.

First, Americans’ views on marijuana legalization have shifted in recent years. When asked in Pew Research Center national surveys, “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal or not,” fewer than 50 percent said “yes” in 2010 and 2011 while a majority have said “yes” since 2013. Two key events happened in 2012: Washington and Colorado voters passed initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana. Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, DC, voters followed in 2014. This November, Massachusetts and Nevada—and perhaps Maine, depending on a recount underway—joined California voters in legalizing recreational marijuana.

California public opinion mirrors these changing national attitudes. PPIC surveys have been repeating the Pew Research Center’s question for six years. In our surveys, the percent of adults saying “yes” to legalizing marijuana was below 50 percent before November 2010, when Proposition 19 failed. Support for legalization edged up to the majority in 2013. Some Californians apparently changed their minds about marijuana legalization after other states passed initiatives.

Did California’s marijuana legalization pass because its base of support grew stronger? Or because its appeal expanded to more demographic groups? The answer is “both” when we analyze the final PPIC surveys before the November 2010 and November 2016 elections. These surveys were within close range of the election results (44% Proposition 19, 55% Proposition 64) with a comparable 11-point difference between 2010 and 2016. We compare the likely voters who said “yes” to Propositions 19 and 64 across parties, political, and demographic groups.

The only majority supporters of Proposition 19 in 2010 were Democrats, liberals, and Californians under 35 years old. This fall, there were double-digit increases in the yes vote for Proposition 64 among Democrats, liberals, and residents under age 35. The consolidation of support in these groups was important in the 2016 California election context. This presidential election attracted a larger electorate with liberal leanings than the 2010 gubernatorial election did. That is reflected in the passage of several progressive reform and tax initiatives this November, as noted in an earlier PPIC blog post.

Significantly, there were also double-digit increases in the yes vote for Proposition 64 in likely voter groups where Proposition 19 had previously fallen short. Notably, independents, moderates, and 35- to 54-year-olds joined Democrats, liberals, and younger voters to form a broader political and demographic coalition of Proposition 64 supporters this fall. Moreover, support grew from less than 50 percent in 2010 to include solid majorities in 2016 among men (47% to 64%), college graduates (47% to 61%), those earning $80,000 or more (46% to 60%), and whites (44% to 55%). In sum, Proposition 64 attracted more of a political mainstream following than Proposition 19 did.

Proposition 64 still did not win by a landslide even with these impressive gains in the depth and breadth of support. Fewer than 50 percent in key demographic groups supported the initiative. They include Republicans (33%), conservatives (31%), Californians age 55 and older (45%), Latinos (47%), women (48%), and the non-college educated (49%). Obviously, many Californians did not jump on the bandwagon and vote for marijuana legalization this year.

Finally, it is worth noting that when we asked voters if the outcome of the vote on Proposition 64 was very important to them, opponents of legalization were more likely to say “yes” than supporters were (60% to 50%). These views could play a critical role because marijuana legalization still faces many hurdles. Will the deep divisions among political and demographic groups surface in local communities when it’s time to implement the new law? Will California lawmakers side with the voters who passed marijuana legalization if the Republican president and Congress change direction on federal enforcement? As always in the initiative process, voters were the deciders but they are not the last word. Now many issues are left to local, state, and federal government officials to sort out.

Learn more

Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Making the Groundwater Law Work

California was one of the last western states to regulate the use of groundwater. Now, the state’s landmark law mandating sustainable use of this critical resource is significantly changing how communities manage it. We talked to Thomas Harter—a groundwater expert at UC Davis and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network—about implementing the 2014 law, which he calls “the most important water legislation in 50 years.”

PPIC: What are the key components of groundwater sustainability?

Thomas Harter: The state law is based on six “commandments” that interpret what groundwater sustainability means: thou shall not draw down water levels too far, deplete storage in the aquifer, degrade water quality, allow seawater intrusion, cause land to subside, or use groundwater in ways that reduces other people’s surface water or harms ecosystems.

The law mandates that groundwater must be sustainably managed for the long run. It’s not an option. Another critical piece of the law is that it be managed locally. This is an opportunity for local agencies, water districts, and stakeholders to take charge of whatever needs to be done.

Another important aspect is having everyone around the table who’s benefiting from, using, or concerned about groundwater. Stakeholders may have to make decisions on how to augment their groundwater supplies or how to reduce demand to make local use sustainable. People are going to come to the table with different core issues—for example, some will be more concerned about protecting domestic water users, while others will be focused on the economic impacts of using less groundwater.

PPIC: What more do we need to know about our groundwater basins to better manage them?

TH: We have to understand the resource, and how our uses affect it. What are water levels doing? Are we degrading the quality of groundwater? Is it being used or managed in ways that harm surface water uses and users? That kind of basic understanding is really important.

There are some important things we need to know about the state of our groundwater that the state could play a role in, which would help locals bring their basins to sustainability.

First, the state has a responsibility to monitor land subsidence across California, as sinking land is one of the key indicators of unsustainable conditions. We need more consistent measurements to determine how fast land is subsiding. The state would be in the best position to collect this data, and make it useable and accessible to local groundwater sustainability agencies.

The state is also in the best position to collect data on land use and evapotranspiration, which is a measure of how much water plants use. Evapotranspiration is one of the biggest water budget components in the state and the largest single consumptive use. In other words, it is water that is removed from the water system through use or evaporation by plants, consumed by people or animals, or incorporated into products or crops. Having a high-resolution understanding of evapotranspiration and how it changes over time and across years will be critical to ensure we have accurate water budgets.

California also needs to get back to more frequently mapping land use across the state and make that data available. Land use is closely related to evapotranspiration. To devise an accurate water budget, you need to know which field is planted in which crop at which time of year, which areas are being urbanized, and where other changes in land use are occurring.

The state’s system for gauging streamflow also needs work. To make good decisions, locals need a better understanding of the contributions of groundwater to their tributary streams. The US Geological Survey and the Department of Water Resources, which manage these gauges, are struggling to keep up with the network they have, and many gauges have been discontinued due to lack of funding. We need to fund ongoing maintenance of this water-monitoring network so we don’t lose a legacy of valuable information. And we need to expand it in areas where groundwater and surface water are closely connected.

PPIC: What changes do you expect to see as communities move to implement the groundwater law?

TH: I think the biggest thing is that, at the local level, we’ll have a much broader stakeholder group informed about and engaged in their groundwater system. There will be greater understanding about the interconnections between land use, groundwater, surface water, and water supply and quality, and about the kinds of projects we can do to address sustainability issues. I hope that in 10 years we’ll have a better understanding of how we can transition to sustainable resource management with the least amount of economic pain. I think there are opportunities for creative solutions that are win-wins for the environment and people dependent on groundwater resources. I also think that having a better understanding across stakeholder groups will lead to increased cooperation, which will be important for implementing and funding solutions.

Learn more

Watch “Implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act” (PPIC event video, Oct. 18, 2016)
Read “Reforming California’s Groundwater Management” (PPIC fact sheet)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

Video: Grading the Higher Education System

Californians give positive grades to the three branches of the state’s public higher education system—the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California. But the PPIC Statewide Survey on higher education shows that they have big concerns about affordability. Most California adults—regardless of political party, income, or age—see it as a big problem. And when Californians are asked to name the most important issue facing the state’s public colleges and universities, affordability leads the list.

“This is really the issue that’s at the forefront of people’s minds when you’re talking about higher education,” said PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes, who presented the findings at a Sacramento briefing last week.

Two out of three Californians say state funding of public colleges and universities is inadequate. While most would support a state construction bond to fund higher education projects, there is much less consensus on other ideas to increase revenue.

Learn more

Read the December PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Commentary: Boosting Success in Community College


This commentary was published in EdSource on December 8, 2016

Most students entering California’s community colleges – especially Latino, African American and low-income students – start their college journey in remedial courses in math, English or both. These courses seek to prepare students for college-level work. But remedial education, also known as developmental education, is lengthy, attrition is high and outcomes are poor.

Read the full commentary on edsource.org.

Video: Strengthening Pathways to Health Careers

Health programs at California’s community colleges hold particular promise for helping students enter in-demand careers and addressing the state’s workforce needs, new PPIC research shows. These career technical education (CTE) programs, also known as vocational education, attract a large and diverse set of students. The state’s community colleges offer a broad range of programs—including nursing, respiratory therapy, medical and dental assisting, and health IT—that are linked to growing job opportunities in health services, a generally well-paying industry for Californians without a bachelor’s degree.

PPIC researchers presented two reports on the topic in Sacramento. Among the key findings summarized by report coauthor Shannon McConville: many students who have earned career tech credentials in health care have seen sizeable wage gains, and completion rates in these programs are relatively high. More than 70 percent of students who begin a program either obtain a degree or transfer to a four-year college within six years, while only about half of the overall CTE student population obtains a credential within six years.

But there is room for improvement. Completion rates vary substantially across health programs, ranging from 93% in dental hygienist programs to 44% in emergency medical services. And there are racial and ethnic achievement gaps across programs.

After the research presentation, an expert panel took up the topic. Anette Smith-Dohring, manager for workforce development at Sutter Health, underscored the need to diversify the health care workforce.

“We want our front-line health care providers to reflect the communities we serve because those are our patients,” she said. “We want them to come from [the] communities we serve—we don’t want to import health care providers.”

Linda Collins, executive director of the Career Ladders Project, which has worked with community colleges, said it is important both to expand career awareness of the range of allied health professions and to improve science proficiency in middle and high school. If a student has “a basic grounding in math and science from the high school level, that will allow a student to take almost any allied health occupation program and be successful,” she said.

All of the speakers provided examples of small-scale programs in community colleges that have improved student success rates—and expressed frustration that the funding has not been consistent enough to expand them.

Linda Zorn, statewide director of the California Community Colleges Health Workforce Initiative, summed up: “Programs that provide structure and clarity about what students need to take, and integrate both proactive and embedded student supports in the instructional experience, are critical.”

Learn more

Read Career Technical Education in Health: An Overview of Student Success at California’s Community Colleges
Read Health Training Pathways at California’s Community Colleges
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Medi-Cal and the Fall Election

Lost in the sound and fury of the national election are the results of four statewide ballot initiatives that aimed to bolster financing of the Medi-Cal program. Medi-Cal is California’s version of Medicaid, which pays for the health care of low-income families, many elderly who live in nursing homes, and—with the passage of the Affordable Care Act—single low-income adults. The state spends nearly $19 billion annually from the General Fund (and $87 billion from all sources) to provide medical coverage for 13.5 million Californians through Medi-Cal.

Three of the four initiatives passed on November 8, providing up to $3 billion in additional funds for Medi-Cal each year. But it will take a while for Californians to see the concrete outcomes of their votes. And, as is often the case with initiatives, the impact of these measures will depend on questions that have yet to be answered. The three measures that passed include:

  • Proposition 52: This initiative permanently extends the fees hospitals pay to the state, which the state then uses to get federal matching funds to support Medi-Cal. This translates to about $1 billion in state General Fund savings annually – providing this system continues to be allowed under federal law. There wasn’t much doubt that the state would seek to extend these fees past the sunset date of January 1, 2018, since they reduce pressure on the General Fund. But the initiative makes it more difficult for the legislature to modify the hospital fee program.
  • Proposition 55: Extending the tax on high-income earners will generate between $4 billion and $9 billion each year to pay for K–12 education and community colleges, Medi-Cal, and other budget priorities. For Medi-Cal, this is expected to provide up to $2 billion annually starting in 2018. But the amount may vary significantly from year to year for several reasons. First, K–12 education gets first call on the new revenue. In addition, the amount of new revenue will be affected by the volatility in what high-income taxpayers earn. Thus, the governor and legislature will have to learn to cope with an undependable funding source for Medi-Cal.
  • Proposition 56: Higher tobacco taxes will generate up to $1 billion for Medi-Cal in 2017–18. Revenue from tobacco taxes has generally fallen each year as the number of smokers in California has declined, and the new tax may accelerate that trend. While building these funds into the Medi-Cal budget may strengthen the program now, the state’s General Fund could face increasing pressure in the future if this source of funding declines. The state legislature and governor will determine how to use these funds as part of budget discussions next spring.

The fourth initiative affecting the Medi-Cal program, Proposition 61, failed to garner a majority of votes. Perhaps not surprisingly, more questions were raised about the impact of this initiative than the other three. Proposition 61 prohibited the state from paying more for prescription drugs than the federal US Department of Veterans Affairs, which typically pays the lowest prices of any public or private entity. The measure’s intent was to reduce the cost of prescription drugs in California, but the fiscal analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office suggested that the savings were uncertain.

While the new funds for Medi-Cal will be welcome, it remains to be seen whether they will provide reliable support for the program. Plus, there are questions about how the new president and Congress will alter the Affordable Care Act and how that will affect the state’s program. For instance, the law allowed California to extend Medi-Cal coverage to single low-income adults. In the 2016–17 state budget, coverage for this group cost about $15 billion annually, with the federal government picking up 95% of the tab. If the federal government significantly reduces or eliminates this enhanced funding rate, the $3 billion in new revenues generated by the three initiatives will not be enough to operate California’s expanded Medi-Cal program without other fiscal support.

Funding Special Education

California’s special education system serves almost 12% of public school students with yearly allocations of more than $12 billion from local, state, and federal funding sources. Despite changes in the numbers of students served and the nature of their disabilities, its finance system has not been addressed in a comprehensive way for more than two decades.

PPIC recently released Special Education Finance in California, a report examining the system in light of the principles that underlie the Local Control Funding Formula. These principles—which determine how K–12 funds are allocated—are local control and accountability, transparency, and equity. The PPIC report also draws on the 2015 Statewide Special Education Task Force, which envisioned a seamless program of student services that is part of a unified system of general and special education. The PPIC authors recommend changes that can help achieve this vision.

At a well-attended Sacramento event held in conjunction with the release of the PPIC report, coauthor Paul Warren summarized the way the special education finance system works now and outlined PPIC’s recommendations to change it. A panel of education experts then took up the issue. They concurred that it is time for a change.

“The kids can’t wait,” said Kim Conner, whose experience includes being the parent of a child with special needs. “We’ve waited a long time. It’s easy for us to say from a fiscal standpoint, we don’t have money, we don’t know enough . . . But we know so much. We can do this.”

Michael Kirst, president of the California State Board of Education, said the PPIC report is helpful in understanding the current system, which “has some underlying rationales but no overall rationale. It is an accretion of different things.”

“It is very hard to understand, how the money flows, who makes decisions, he said. “It is not adjusted sufficiently for student needs . . . It is inequitable.” Calling the PPIC report “bold and provocative,” he said it “should certainly should kick off a really deep discussion on change.”

Mary Samples, assistant superintendent of the Special Education Local Plan Area in Ventura County, said a key topic in the discussion of change needs whether enough funding is allocated for special education. Samples, who served as chair of the finance subcommittee of the Statewide Special Education Task Force, said, “I don’t think that moving the money from one bucket to another solves the problem. The problem is adequacy of funding.”

Commentary: A Grand Compromise for the Delta


This commentary was published in the Sacramento Bee on December 2, 2016

Conflict over water allocations from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most intractable water management problem in California. The sources of contention are many, but three interrelated issues dominate the debate: whether to build two tunnels that divert water from the Sacramento River, how much water to allocate to endangered fish species, and what to do about the 1,100 miles of Delta levees that are essential to the local economy. Here we outline a potential “grand compromise” for the Delta that meets the co-equal goals of water supply reliability and ecosystem health prescribed by the 2009 Delta Reform Act.

Read the full commentary on sacbee.com.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (from the California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)

Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s Delta resource page