Author: admin

A Pragmatic Reason to Protect Freshwater Fish

California’s freshwater fish are in trouble. The causes are many and include the way we manage water and land as well as this unusually warm drought. The decline of these fishes can lead to broader consequences, particularly if they are declared threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

There are pragmatic reasons to avoid this outcome. Listings under the ESA lead to “emergency room” actions to prevent extinctions, often reducing flexibility for water management and bringing significant economic consequences. Of the 30 California freshwater fishes now designated as threatened or endangered, 14 have affected local and regional water supply management. Three—delta smelt, winter-run Chinook, and spring-run Chinook—are a dominant constraint on the Brown administration’s proposal for new water conveyance in the Delta (California WaterFix).

To illustrate the scope of the problem, here are some examples of fish that are in decline but are not yet federally listed. If listed, the measures needed to protect them will have significant effects on the water supply:

  • Central Valley late-fall- and fall-run Chinook salmon. These are the last unlisted salmon runs in the Central Valley. Both—particularly the late fall-run—may be future candidates for listing. Fall-run Chinook are the basis of the state’s salmon fishing industry. Federal listing would add new restrictions, ensuring year-round constraints on water supply operations in the Central Valley and the Delta.
  • Upper Klamath–Trinity fall- and spring-run Chinook salmon. Both runs are increasingly at risk within the Klamath Basin, with the potential to complicate efforts to complete the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s effort to improve habitat on Klamath River tributaries such as the Scott and Shasta Rivers, and operations of the Central Valley Project, which diverts water from the Trinity River to the Sacramento River.
  • North Coast steelhead. Two populations of steelhead—Northern California and Klamath Mountains Province—have been in decline at least partly from the effects of dams. The expansion of marijuana farms and the drought have increased stress on these populations. Federal listing would complicate recently launched efforts of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the State Water Board to license medical marijuana farms and better manage water resources in this region.

Improving the way California manages water for environmental purposes is key to preventing new ESA listings. The development of environmental water budgets would create an opportunity to more flexibly and effectively manage the aquatic environment. The details of this proposal are contained in the PPIC Water Policy Center report Allocating California’s Water: Directions for Reform.

Although establishing environmental water budgets would often require setting aside more water than we do now to protect at-risk species, this approach is likely to be more flexible and less disruptive than regulations arising from ESA listings. California needs new tools, such as environmental water budgets and the willingness to take proactive steps to keep species out of the emergency room.

SOURCE: US Fish & Wildlife, ECOS Database Species Search.

Learn More

Read the report Fish Species of Special Concern (Moyle et al., July 2015)

California’s Environment Needs a Water Budget

Allocating water for environmental needs has been one of the more controversial, and perhaps most misunderstood, aspects of water management during this drought. The aquatic environment has been particularly hard hit, with many fish species close to extinction.

California needs to change course to prevent extinctions and further declines in our river and wetland ecosystems. Our recent report Allocating Water in California: Directions for Reform calls for modest changes in how we manage water in times of scarcity that could significantly reduce the social, environmental and economic costs of drought. A practical solution to the aquatic ecosystem crisis is to establish “environmental water budgets” (EWBs) for priority watersheds where threats to ecosystem health and native species are high.

It would work like this: the State Water Board, in partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies, would use available information to prescribe the water needed to maintain fish and other species in good condition. Local water users would help develop procedures for meeting these requirements (much as they are now required to do under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act). As part of this effort, local stakeholders—with state support—would be encouraged to improve the scientific basis for setting these allocations and propose alternative ways to meet environmental needs.

A novel principle is that this baseline water budget would belong to the environment and be managed by a designated environmental water manager. The manager could purchase, trade, and even sell water to best serve environmental needs. Surplus water sales would raise funds for other environmental uses, such as habitat improvements, or for water purchases during dry times. This system would provide greater flexibility and security than the current approach of setting minimum environmental flow and water quality standards (which are often relaxed when times get tough for other water users).

There are two ways to implement this idea. The water board could establish the EWB as a regulatory set-aside—which would ensure that the EWB water could not be diverted by other water right-holders. Or, similar to the Australian approach, the water board could define the EWB as a water right—one that would have top priority within the water rights system, with the exception of emergency public health and safety needs.

Some existing water right-holders may be resistant to the environment leap-frogging ahead of them in seniority. But the environment already effectively has the senior right under a variety of laws protecting water quality, critical habitat, and endangered species. The problem is that these regulatory standards are often ignored or too easily modified when water is scarce.

The EWB approach offers value for water right-holders. It reduces regulatory uncertainty by giving the environment a water budget that it has to operate within. It provides flexibility in managing environmental water. And it encourages cooperation with local water users, who have a stake in its successful implementation.

This proposal makes the environment a cooperating partner in water management—one that sits at the table when tough decisions are being made. Partnerships, rather than competing interests, are a more effective approach to managing water during challenging times.

Learn More

Read our policy brief California’s Water: Water for the Environment (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015)

Read our report What If California’s Drought Continues? (August 2015)

Good Timing for New Federal Education Law

Since it passed in 2001, many states—including California—have chafed under the requirements that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) attached to billions of dollars in federal K–12 education aid. Congress voted to replace the law this week, reauthorizing those aid programs and loosening those strings—a lot. The president signed the bill yesterday.

This new flexibility comes at a good time for California. The state is in the middle of implementing a new K–12 accountability system and the new federal law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, gives California a chance to prove that its approach to improving schools can work—without running the risk of losing federal money.

NCLB and subsequent Obama administration programs dramatically increased the federal role in K–12 education, particularly when it came to accountability. NCLB required most students to take tests in math and reading every year. The results of those tests were used to determine whether or not a school was successful. Failing schools were required to take certain actions. If a state didn’t follow the rules or couldn’t make progress in improving its failing schools, it risked losing federal funding.

While NCLB provided a one-size-fits-all approach to accountability, the new law lets each state devise its own system, as long as it meets some core criteria:

It took eight years of legislative wrangling to produce ESSA. During that time, the message from state education chiefs was consistent: We believe in accountability, but give us the flexibility to do it our own way. They now have that flexibility, and with it, the responsibility to demonstrate they can hold schools accountable.

Luckily, the new federal law appears to mesh well with California’s plans for its accountability program. The State Board of Education is currently working to align its program with the eight state priorities defined in the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which determines how state money is allocated to schools. The board has suggested that it will discontinue the Academic Performance Index—which ranked schools on a scale from 200 to 1,000, based on student scores on state proficiency tests—and replace it with a “dashboard” of indicators that will provide information on the LCFF priorities.

It would be a welcome development if California could merge its state and federal accountability programs. In our 2014 report, Designing California’s Next School Accountability Program, we found that separate state and federal measures were confusing and sent mixed messages to educators and the public. An approach to accountability that uses multiple measures and incorporates LCFF performance data could fix that problem and generate more accurate and useful accountability information. But there are critical steps for the state to take, including:

  • Ensuring data are accurate. The law calls for valid and reliable indicators of student or school performance, so that data can be compared across schools and districts. Currently, we do not have definitions of several of the LCFF indicators, including student suspension and graduation rates, that allow good comparisons.
  • Focusing on what’s most important. There are twenty-two performance measures across the eight state priorities in the LCFF. The state can help schools by including only the most important goals and measures in its new accountability program.
  • Supporting the local improvement process. More resources and attention should be given to developing a robust program of technical assistance for schools and districts. The state needs to recognize that local educators do not always know how to accomplish state goals. In fact, our report on LCFF implementation finds that the problem of technical know-how includes activities such as planning and budgeting to support school improvement.

While the fit between the new federal law and the Local Control Accountability Plan approach is promising, the new ESSA also raises questions about using a dashboard of indicators to assess school performance. The ESSA requires states to intervene in the lowest performing 5 percent of schools. State board members have been quoted as saying that the new system will not reduce school performance to one number—as the API did. It will be interesting to see how the state identifies schools that need improvement, since a dashboard approach implies using multiple measures of performance.

The passage of ESSA recognizes that using the states as laboratories of democracy is a robust approach to school accountability. California, with LCFF, has already started its experiment. The new federal law requires state accountability plans to be ready by school year 2017–18. The state board will be spending a lot of time in the lab until then.

Californians’ Views of Political Outsiders

One of the early surprises in the 2016 presidential election is the strength of polling support for primary candidates who have never held elected office. A recent Pew national survey also found that Americans chose “new ideas and a different approach” by a wide margin over “experience and a proven record” when asked what was more important in a presidential candidate (57% to 36%). What are the political ramifications of this emerging national trend for the 2016 California elections?

Californians have a storied history of choosing political outsiders, electing movie stars Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governors. But in the past five years, career politicians have won by wide margins over political outsiders with business credentials. Voters chose Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman and Barbara Boxer over Carly Fiorina in 2010 and Jerry Brown over Neel Kashkari in 2014.

PPIC’s recent polling does not show a swing toward political outsiders among Californians this year either. When we repeated the Pew survey question in a recent PPIC Statewide Survey, California adults were less likely to say they favor new ideas over experience than their national counterparts (51% to 41%). More importantly, California likely voters are closely divided on new ideas versus experience (46% to 44%).

We also asked our tracking question about which qualification is more important to Californians when voting for statewide elected offices such as governor or US senator: experience in elected office or experience running a business. Today, California likely voters have a slight preference for experience in elected office (49% to 43%). In the past, the electorate has been divided on this issue—for example, during statewide elections in 2010 (44% elected experience, 43% business experience) and 2002 (43% elected experience, 43% business experience), which featured experienced politicians running against business leaders.

In other words, political insiders are more appealing in California today than they were in the state’s past, while the movement toward political outsiders is more limited here than in the nation as a whole. Still, a sizable number of Californians say they prefer political outsiders. Who are they and why might they have this preference? Our polling offers these insights: those who prefer outsiders are more likely to give their elected leaders low job approval ratings, more likely to have negative views of the two-party system, and more likely to be Republican than Democrat.

Majorities of those who prefer new ideas in presidential candidates say they disapprove of President Obama (54%), while majorities who say they favor experience in running a business for gubernatorial and US Senate candidates say they disapprove of Governor Brown (59%). Conversely, solid majorities who chose experience and a proven track record for a presidential candidate say they approve of President Obama (64%), and overwhelming majorities who are looking for experience in elected office for governor and US senator say they approve of Governor Brown (71%).

Negative attitudes toward the two-party system are also part of the profile for those who prefer a political outsider over an experienced officeholder. Just 31 percent of California likely voters say that the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, while 58 percent say that they do such a poor job that a third major party is needed. Majorities across partisan groups today say that a third major party is needed (52% Democrats, 57% Republicans, 69% independents). Solid majorities who prefer new ideas for a presidential candidate (64%) and favor experience running a business for gubernatorial and US Senate candidates (65%) also say that a third major party is needed.

Finally, partisanship is strongly related to preferences for political outsiders. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to favor new ideas in presidential candidates (61% to 34%) and to favor experience running a business for governor and US senator (71% to 23%). By contrast, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to favor experience and a proven track record in presidential candidates (56% to 33%) and experience in elected office for governor and US senator (72% to 21%). Independents are more divided, with about half favoring new ideas in presidential candidates (48%) and preferring experience in running a business for governor and US senator (47%).

In sum, we do not find fresh evidence of the national movement toward political outsiders among likely voters in California. This is because of the state’s partisan makeup (43% Democrat, 28% Republican) and approval ratings of President Obama (56%) and Governor Brown (54%) that favor the presidential and US Senate candidates with experience in elected office. If these political trends hold steady next year, then Democratic insiders should continue to have the edge over Republican outsiders in statewide elections.

However, we should not discount the importance of the finding that California’s GOP voters are aligned with most Americans in their strong preference for political outsiders. GOP voters will be swayed by the qualifications of presidential candidates who represent “new ideas and a difference approach” and by US Senate candidates who reflect “experience in running a business.” These preferences could have a profound impact on the election choices of GOP voters in California’s presidential and senate primaries.

Finally, the large and growing number of independent voters (i.e., no-party-preference) is a political wildcard in California. Independent voters account for 24 percent of the state’s electorate today. They overwhelmingly believe that a major third party is needed, and about half prefer a presidential candidate who represents new ideas and statewide candidates with experience running a business.

Most independent voters supported Democratic “insiders” in recent statewide elections, but we know from our surveys that their party leanings can shift in a relatively short period of time. In the 2000s, California’s independent voters aligned with GOP voters and supported Republican “outsider” Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor. The ease with which independent voters are able to change partisan and candidate preferences will add uncertainty to next year’s election, and may lead to surprises in 2016.

California Depends on Rivers—in the Air

Climate change could bring both bigger rains and longer droughts to California. What do the bigger rains mean for the state’s water management? We talked to Mike Dettinger—a research hydrologist with the US Geological Survey and a PPIC Water Policy Center research partner—about the weather phenomenon known as “atmospheric rivers.”

PPIC: What are atmospheric rivers?

Mike Dettinger: They are long pathways that transport water across the atmosphere. Typically they’re at least 1,200 miles long; the biggest can be five times that. They tend to evolve as they cross the Pacific. Those that manage to reach the West Coast meet a more-or-less abrupt end when they hit the mountains, dumping rain and snow in the process. These storms carry a lot of water—a big one can move up to 20 times the amount of water that comes down the Mississippi River. They can provide a third to half of our annual precipitation in just a few storms.

Because they’re usually warmer than other types of storms, larger areas of our river basins get rain rather than snow, which increases flood risk. In the past 60 years nearly all of our largest storms and most damaging floods were caused by atmospheric rivers. The largest ones have brought 12–16 inches of rain in a few days. On the plus side, they also bring ecologically beneficial flooding for wetlands and are a major factor in ending our droughts.

PPIC: Can we predict when these storms are coming?

MD: We’ve got about a decade of understanding atmospheric rivers in practical and useful ways. The California Department of Water Resources and others have responded by investing in an enhanced water monitoring network. These efforts and a lot of basic research have revolutionized forecasting of California’s largest storms, which is critical for reducing flood risks and managing water supply. A decade ago the weather service wouldn’t forecast storms beyond three days. Now we routinely receive forecasts of major storms a week or more in advance. We’re working to improve forecasting even more, especially in terms of the details of where and how intensely the storms will land. The hope is that better forecasting can allow dam operators to keep more water in reservoirs at the end of the rainy season while better managing flood risks.

PPIC: How might climate change affect these storms?

MD: As the world warms, the atmosphere will be able to hold more water. Climate models agree that we’ll see more atmospheric rivers—likely a doubling by the end of 21st century. How much water they’ll bring is less clear—some models show a 10–15% increase. But most of the increased rainfall will come from a larger number of these storms than from how much water they hold.

About half of climate projections show California getting wetter, while half show it getting dryer. If you dig a little bit, nearly all projections show an increase in the number of atmospheric rivers, and virtually all show a decline in other types of storms. That decline will bring more dry days, punctuated by these major storms. So if we indeed do get the wetter future, it’s because of more potentially dangerous atmospheric rivers. It’s a Faustian bargain.

We’ve spent a century building up a flood control system that tries to take the peaks off the worst floods. This has put our ecosystems at a disadvantage, as they evolved with regular floods. I think we’ll find it harder to control floodwaters as climate change builds, and that might tend to bring us back to something more like what California’s natural systems evolved under—allowing bigger areas to absorb floodwaters in winter. It will be interesting to see how we achieve balance and who will be the winners and losers. We have a lot to learn.

Learn More

TABLE SOURCE: Chart excerpted from The Meterorology of Extreme Orographic Precipitation in California—A Synthesis of 2014 (Ralph and Dettinger).

Video: PPIC Survey Examines Election Landscape

As California heads into an election year, the PPIC Statewide Survey looks at residents’ views on a broad range of issues that are already flashpoints in the presidential primary races and will likely surface in statewide campaigns next year.

PPIC research associate Lunna Lopes presented the survey’s key findings at a Sacramento briefing last week. She was joined by Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, for a question and answer session afterward. He noted a link between Californians’ “modestly optimistic view of the economy,” their belief that there is income inequality in the state, and their attitudes about which ballot issues are important. Twice as many residents say that increasing the state minimum wage is very important than say legalizing marijuana is very important.

“In California, the belief that this state is divided into the haves and have-nots—and the feeling among many Californians that they are among the have-nots—are going to be driving forces in the election,” he said. The survey briefing was held just after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, and the briefing touched on Californians’ views about gun laws. PPIC research associate David Kordus provided findings from the September survey on this issue: Compared to adults nationwide, Californians are more likely to favor stricter laws than we have now. Most also say that controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting the right of Americans to own guns.

Improving Water Allocation During Droughts

The drought has been a stress test for California’s water system. Brian Gray—an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center and professor emeritus at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco—is a coauthor of our new report Allocating California’s Water: Directions for Reform. We talked to him about its findings.

PPIC: How did our water allocation system fare during the drought?

Brian Gray: California is straining to meet a range of demands while also maintaining a healthy environment. Water rights matter most during times of shortage. In fact, their purpose is to define who is entitled to use water when there isn’t enough for all right-holders.

This drought was the first time the State Water Board curtailed water rights since 1977. Some senior water right-holders successfully challenged the board’s authority to apply the priority system to them. The board found it difficult to ensure that enough water remained in rivers to support at-risk fish species (many of which are protected by federal and state endangered species acts).

Because this drought is a harbinger of a “new normal,” we wanted to harvest its lessons. We found three key areas for improvement.

First, we believe the state can maintain its water-rights seniority system, but it must improve how water rights are administered. We should eliminate an archaic distinction between categories of water rights by bringing all surface water rights under the water board’s jurisdiction. We also need better information on water use and availability to enable more effective, real-time decision making.

Second, although we have legal protections for the environment, we don’t have a clear process for allocating water to critical environmental needs during droughts. We recommend that the water board define the amount of water required to protect fish, wildlife, and water quality within each watershed. This environmental water, along with water needed to protect public health and safety, would have top priority.

Finally, during droughts we need flexibility to allocate water to vital uses (such as domestic supply, permanent crops, and the environment) that may be short of water. Trading water can provide that flexibility. Yet during this drought trading was limited, in part because California’s water transfer rules are fragmented and inconsistent. We need to make it easier to trade water during droughts.

PPIC: Why shouldn’t the state create a new water rights system?

BG: There have been calls for a complete overhaul of California’s water rights system, which is quite complex and doesn’t always work smoothly. It’s unlikely that anyone would design this system today if starting from scratch. But water rights are property rights, so a wholesale change would raise significant constitutional questions under federal and state law. It’s probably better to maintain our system as long as we strengthen the water board’s oversight of water rights, and increase transparency and flexibility of water allocations. Improving information is key. Effective management requires that we know who has what water rights, how much they are diverting, and how much they are returning to the system following use.

We think the time is right to start making these changes toward a more efficient and fairer water rights system. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the governor’s emergency drought orders, and other initiatives demonstrate that the state is ready for reforms. Many of our recommendations are not nearly as challenging as these. And they will help us manage water better during the next drought.

Learn More

Read our report What If California’s Drought Continues? (August 2015)

Video: Governing in a Time of Change

At a time when economic, environmental, and demographic forces are changing California, Governor Jerry Brown’s chief aide, Nancy McFadden, was asked to describe three administration priorities requiring bold leadership.

The first priority is keeping the state on a fiscally stable road, she told PPIC president and CEO Mark Baldassare before a Sacramento audience last week. This requires tough choices, she said, as the governor demonstrated when he vetoed bills that were worthy ideas but had budget implications for the state General Fund.

“Sometimes bold leadership means saying no,” she said.

Second, the administration will continue to implement the far-reaching changes adopted in past years, such as corrections realignment and the Local Control Funding Formula for schools, which targets money to the state’s neediest students and shifts funding control to the local level.

McFadden said the third priority is the “whole panoply of climate change and environment issues facing not only our state but our world.” Extreme weather events—drought, wildfires, and flooding—pose immediate challenges that have to be managed.

McFadden’s conversation with Baldassare was followed by a panel discussion about leadership—what it takes and when elected officials have demonstrated it. The panelists were Jim Brulte, chair of the California Republican Party and former state senate Republican leader; state senators Loni Hancock and Carol Liu; and Darrell Steinberg, chair of the California Government Law and Policy Practice at Greenberg Traurig and former senate president pro tem. The moderator was John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times.

Testimony: Planning for Future Droughts

In a week that began with Governor Brown extending the statewide water conservation mandate into next year, a panel of experts testified about how to improve drought management. They spoke before the Assembly Select Committee on Water Consumption and Alternative Sources on November 17.

Nine experts covered a range of topics, including the state of our water infrastructure and management systems and options for improving water security as our climate becomes warmer.

Jay Lund, director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences and an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center, gave an overview of California’s complex water system and ways the drought has tested it. He noted the state suffered a water shortfall equivalent to three full Folsom reservoirs.

“We can’t drought-proof the state,” Lund said. “But we can do better in managing drought. In the future, there should be greater emphasis on improving our water markets and on storing more water in groundwater basins.”

I talked on key areas where we need to do better, as documented in our report What If California’s Drought Continues?:

  • Cities and suburbs: The state’s urban areas have weathered the drought well so far. But we’ve boxed our water agencies in by making it hard for them to raise rates and requiring cost accounting that is too precise. This makes it more difficult to invest in options like capturing stormwater and recycling wastewater.
  • Agriculture: Farmers increased groundwater pumping to make up for losses in surface water—a smart short-term thing to do. It can be smart for the long term too, as long as we get better at storing groundwater for drought years.
  • Rural communities: Our most vulnerable populations suffered from drying wells in areas that already had water quality problems. There’s a need for more sustained investment in safe water for rural communities.
  • Ecosystems: Our habitats and the animal life they support are in crisis from the dry, hot conditions. Wildfire risks are extreme, and many fish species are at risk of extinction. Rebuilding environmental resilience will be key to sustaining the state’s iconic biodiversity.

Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist with the Stanford Woods Institute, described some risks that climate change brings to the state’s water systems. Warm years are becoming the norm, making droughts much harsher by shrinking the snowpack and drying out soils.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, talked about increasing conservation and prioritizing water investments. “We saved almost 800,000 acre-feet of water this summer. This is far more water than any of the proposed reservoirs would provide,” he said.

Buzz Thompson, director of the Stanford Woods Institute, talked about the role of technology in increasing California’s water security and resilience. “New technologies will be coming along in the next 5–20 years that will reduce our costs and give us more options. We need to do more to support them.”

The hearing also featured remarks from top administration officials, who described progress in implementing the governor’s Water Action Plan. An Israeli water expert shared that country’s experiences in wastewater recycling, desalination, and pricing to combat water scarcity.

The committee plans to hold additional hearings on water supplies and sources in the coming months.

Learn More
Read California’s Water: Climate Change and Water (PPIC fact sheet, April 2015)

Immigrants and Health Insurance

California has made major strides in reducing the number of state residents without health insurance coverage. With the state’s Medicaid expansion and the creation of Covered California under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the percentage of Californians without insurance dropped nearly 5 percentage points in 2014—the first year of ACA implementation. Declines occurred across all racial and ethnic groups, with Latinos registering the largest drop at 9 percentage points. Nevertheless, Latinos continue to experience the highest uninsured rate, in part because the ACA coverage expansions exclude California’s estimated 2.7 million undocumented immigrants.

But there is more to the story of insurance coverage and California’s immigrants: we also observe large declines in the uninsured rate among all noncitizens, a group that includes an estimated 2.6 million people who are legally residing in the state (with green cards, temporary visas, work visas, etc.), as well as those who are undocumented. When we look at uninsured rates across different citizenship categories, we see the drop was larger among noncitizens than among US-born and naturalized citizens—noncitizens had nearly a nine percentage point decline in their uninsured rate.

Noncitizens who legally reside in the state have access to ACA coverage expansions either through the Medi-Cal program—if their household income is below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, about $33,500 for a family of four—or through Covered California, with financial assistance available to help pay for coverage. Still, about 35% of California’s more than five million noncitizen residents currently lack comprehensive health insurance coverage—most are likely to be undocumented, with limited sources for affordable insurance coverage.

Undocumented residents sometimes have private health insurance, most often through their employers. National estimates suggest between 30–40% of undocumented immigrants have coverage. This number could grow if federal immigration reforms are implemented, by providing undocumented immigrants who qualify (between 1.1 and 1.3 million in California) with work permits and better job opportunities that could offer increased access to employment-based insurance.

Along with pending federal action on immigration reform, state legislative proposals are also focusing on expanding affordable insurance coverage options to the undocumented. In our new report, we discuss these potential options and provide new regional estimates of the undocumented population in California by income thresholds to assist policymakers in planning for potential coverage expansions to this group.