admin – Page 26 – Public Policy Institute of California

The Carmel River Gets a Boost

The Carmel River is a shadow of its former self these days, due to overuse of its waters, drought, and dams. But an ambitious project to remove one of its two large dams will bring some life back to the overtaxed river.

The removal of the 106-foot-high San Clemente Dam, now filled with sediment, will be the largest in the state. It will open miles of spawning and rearing habitat for threatened steelhead trout and restore some of the river’s natural flow of sediments. The restoration of sediment flows will support the riparian ecosystem downstream, create gravel beds used by spawning fish, and help replenish sands at Carmel Beach.

The 1920s design of the dam does not meet modern safety standards. Removal of the dam involves many complex challenges, but the biggest by far is managing the 2.5 million cubic yards of sand, silt, gravel, and cobble behind the dam that have displaced all of its water storage capacity. The dam’s remote site precludes removing these sediments mechanically; instead, the project will create a permanent sediment storage area by rerouting the river for half a mile.

Removing San Clemente Dam will help improve habitat, but it isn’t a panacea for all of the river’s problems. Upstream of San Clemente Dam, Los Padres Dam blocks the best spawning and rearing habitat, which is in the Ventana Wilderness Area. Questions still remain about the fate of this dam and fish passage around it. However, removal of San Clemente Dam sets the stage for addressing other aging dams that are ripe for removal around the state.

California has more than 120 reservoirs—most of them small—that have lost at least 75% of their storage capacity to sedimentation. At least three dams in the Coast Ranges are prime candidates for removal: Matilija Dam on the Ventura River, Searsville Dam on San Francisquito Creek on Stanford University property, and Rindge Dam on Malibu Creek. While removing these dams would open up habitat for migratory fish, a key issue hindering their removal is what to do with the decades of sediment accumulated behind them.

Dams are often the principal factor causing degradation of the river ecology. Removing them can often be the single action with the greatest restoration benefits. But other factors affect river health, too, from land use to water abstractions. The Carmel River is not just constrained by dams, it also has been subject to excessive diversions of its waters. Starting in 2017, the river will get increased flows in response to an order by the State Water Resources Control Board to significantly reduce water diversions. Thanks to these efforts, the Carmel River is looking to be a rare success story for the state’s troubled rivers and native fish—and one that is even more important given the huge setbacks the environment has suffered during the drought.

Watch the removal of the dam via webcam.

Learn more about reducing the negative impacts of dams in chapter 5 of Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Resolution (pp. 228-238).

Video: California’s Aging Population

California is on the verge enormous change. In 2030—when the youngest baby boomers have reached retirement age—the state’s senior population will be nearly twice as big as it is today. It will be more ethnically and racially diverse. And many more seniors are likely to be living alone.

These changes have already begun, and their policy implications are wide-reaching. The state’s growing and changing senior population will require more support services and health care professionals. How is California coping with the challenge? That was the question posed to a panel of experts at a PPIC event in Sacramento last week.

“We could be doing better,” said Assemblymember Cheryl Brown, chair of the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care. She said information that can help caregivers is fragmented and not easily accessible.

Her assessment was shared by fellow panelists Karen Keeslar, executive director of the California Association of Public Authorities for In-Home Supportive Services, and Barbara O’Connor, a boardmember of AARP.

But Brown sounded a hopeful note. She predicted that as many more Californians—including legislators—begin care for aging loved ones the issue would become prominent. In fact, Brown and her fellow panelists are or have been caregivers for members of their own families. Keeslar noted the sheer number of Californians who are using in-home support services today—507,000, compared to 90,000 in 1980.

O’Connor advocated new models for senior living to help more Californians live as independently as possible—and not necessarily alone at home. Small senior communities are thriving as alternatives to nursing homes in other states, she said.

“It’s not just nursing home versus staying home,” she said.

Before the presentation, PPIC research fellow Laurel Beck provided an overview of a new report, Planning for California’s Growing Senior Population, which she coauthored.

Central Coast a Microcosm of State Water Challenges

Water challenges around the state are in many ways unique to a particular place, but there are also many similarities and lessons to be learned from place to place. We talked to Richard Frank, a member of PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network, about water management on the Central Coast, where he lives when he isn’t teaching environmental law at UC Davis and directing the school’s California Environmental Law and Policy Center.

PPIC: How are Central Coast water challenges a harbinger for California’s water future?

Richard Frank: First off, even before the current drought, the Central Coast experienced chronic water shortages; we came to a crisis point earlier than the rest of the state. Water shortages are a constant problem here, especially for the Monterey Peninsula—in part because the region isn’t connected to any of the large state or federal water projects. As the Central Coast grapples with trying to achieve water supply self-sufficiency, it’s helping to forge a path for other regions—especially in the southern part of state, which has become far more aggressive at developing regional supplies and reducing reliance on centralized state systems.

Monterey County also reflects an interesting statewide phenomenon. We have a growing divide between a relatively prosperous urbanized coastal zone competing for water with a rural inland area—the Salinas Valley—that is one of most vibrant agricultural areas in the state, and even the nation. We’ve been slowly increasing urban demands for water at the same time that agriculture’s large, steady demands are ever more challenging to meet. I’ve been struck by how this one county illustrates a broader California dynamic—a tale of two states. The classic conflict between Northern and Southern California has become one of urban-coastal vs. inland-agricultural.

Our region is also ahead of the game in the debate about desalination. Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties had been considering a joint project, but in recent months, the alliance has fractured. Monterey is still cautiously proceeding with plans for a desalination plant. Though it is not without concerns, I think it’s the least bad alternative we have. I don’t think we can conserve our way out of major droughts in this region, especially since we’re likely facing a “new normal” of hotter weather and more persistent droughts. We also can’t increase our groundwater pumping indefinitely. We have a big groundwater problem on the Central Coast—over-pumping has caused saltwater intrusion, which is contaminating our groundwater supply. Connecting to state and federal water projects is not a solution. They aren’t able to meet existing demand and can’t expand deliveries, given concerns about water needs for endangered species.

PPIC: What could the rest of the state learn from how the Central Coast has managed its biggest water challenges?

RF: We have a small market-based system for water transfers in urban areas in Monterey. Each property is assigned water credits, which can be traded; we’ve developed something of a robust market in water credits. It’s based on historic use. Each residence gets separate credits for each indoor use of water, and you can’t expand them (for example, add a new bathroom) without additional water credits. It’s a working example of water marketing on a micro-scale. Our market is not as transparent as it should be, though. For example, you can’t go online to see who has credits for sale.

PPIC: What permanent changes do you hope to see come out of this drought?

RF: Some in the Central Coast have adopted a head-in-the-sand attitude about our endemic shortages, and this is something I think the drought is helping to change. For example, we’ve had chronic excess diversion of the Carmel River, to the point that the State Water Board ordered a stop to it. After some resistance, the local water utility was forced to take action and tackle the impending cutbacks on supplies. The desalination project is part of the solution to having cutbacks on this water source. Another positive development is the removal of the outdated San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River; this river restoration is very much a positive development, and a harbinger of a more sustainable future.

Another positive change is the easing of the disconnect between prosperous coastal communities and inland agricultural areas. I think there is hope for a better relationship between these groups, because the drought is getting people talking more about how to solve our water problems. I am also hoping for a better functioning and more transparent water market. Finally, while we already use some recycled wastewater—for instance, on some golf courses—there’s still a lot of potential for harnessing this resource, including recharging our groundwater basins and helping get them into balance.

Read Richard Frank’s blogs on Legal Planet.

Californians and Climate Change

It’s been nine years since the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had its debut and AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” was passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature and signed by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Since then, Republicans and Democrats at the federal level have sparred over the scientific evidence on global warming, the government’s role in regulating greenhouse gases, and energy policies that will promote economic growth and well-being. Still, California likely voters’ strong support of AB 32—through good economic times and bad—has barely budged (66% PPIC July 2006, 63% PPIC July 2015).

The July 2015 PPIC poll finds that Californians’ economic fears are part of the reason for their steady support for AB 32—which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Among California’s likely voters, 69 percent say global warming is a threat to California’s economy and quality of life.

Another reason for likely voters’ support for AB 32 is their hope that it may improve the jobs outlook. Asked about the economic impact of state actions to reduce global warming, they are more likely to say the result will be more jobs for people in the state (34%) than to say that the result will be fewer jobs (24%) or that there will be no impact on jobs (29%).

Our polling finds a strong link between likely voters’ fears about the impact of climate change and hopes about state action to address it. Among those in favor of AB 32 today, the overwhelming majority say that global warming is a serious threat to the state’s economy. And a plurality of the supporters of AB 32 say the state’s actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs (44%). Less than a third (30%) say these actions would have no effect on job numbers. Just 14% say the result would be fewer jobs.

Californians have not only expressed consistent support for the state’s current goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, they favor expanding those efforts. Solid majorities of likely voters strongly support three ideas proposed by Governor Brown earlier this year and reflected in SB 350, which is under consideration in the legislature: reducing petroleum use in cars and trucks by 50% by 2030, increasing the use of renewable energy for the state’s electricity to 50% by 2030, and doubling the energy efficiency in existing buildings by the year 2030. Most likely voters also support the proposal in another bill, SB 32, which would require the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Once again, strong support of these more ambitious climate goals is tied to the perceived economic effects of both climate change and the state’s actions to address it. Overwhelming majorities of likely voters who favor the new proposals say that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy (88% reduce petroleum use; 82% increase renewable energy; 85% double energy efficiency; 87% reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Among likely voters who favor these new proposals, pluralities say that California’s actions to reduce global warming will lead to more jobs. Small minorities who favor the new climate change proposals say there would be fewer jobs as a result of actions to reduce global warming.

To reach California’s goals to curb emissions, the state will need to find ways to drastically reduce its greenhouse gases and reliance on fossil fuels. On this topic, the poll finds strong majority support for policies that encourage more electric vehicles and solar power. Overwhelming majorities who favor these policies also view global warming as a serious threat to the economy. Pluralities of those who favor these proposals expect that actions to reduce global warming would lead to more jobs.

PPIC’s surveys have consistently shown that most Californians are aligned with the state’s current efforts and proposed policies, and that they have made up their minds about the perceived economic impacts of climate change and state actions to curb it. Still, the ongoing political debate over what steps to take relies on partisan talking points borrowed from the national arena. There is a shortfall of factual analysis to help leaders—and all Californians—understand the costs, benefits, and trade-offs they are being asked to make. Specifically, will climate change take a greater toll on poor and disadvantaged communities? How will climate change policies improve job prospects in these communities?

As one of the most important issues facing California’s future, climate policy is certainly deserving of a well-informed discussion and a thorough public hearing as new climate-oriented proposals make their way through the legislative process this summer.

Video: PPIC’s Annual Survey on the Environment

As California pursues its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and considers still more ambitious ones—PPIC’s annual survey on environmental issues asked the state’s residents their views on climate change and energy. At a recent event in the capital, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

Californians see global warming as a serious threat—and most do not think action to reduce global warming will lead to fewer jobs.
There is strong support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements in AB 32 and SB 32.
Californians favor the energy goals in SB 350, and they also favor state support for solar power and electric vehicles.
Many say water is the state’s top environmental issue—but most do not know the reduction targets of their local water district.

California’s Renters in the Dark on Drought Targets

Californians have been asked to cut back their water use since last year, but June marked the first month under the mandatory conservation mandate. Now the numbers are in, and the news was good: statewide we exceeded our goal.

While meeting the mandate is likely on the top of the minds for water managers, most Californians don’t know the details of what is being required of them. It’s not a straightforward cut: each urban water agency has a different conservation target, ranging from 4-36%, depending on a number of factors. While most agencies successfully met their June targets, many will need to conserve more.

The July PPIC Statewide survey found that only 30% of adults know the amount they are being asked to conserve. And it turns out whether you are a homeowner or a renter plays a significant role in your awareness. Notably, homeowners (44%) are more than twice as likely as renters (18%) to report knowing the amount of conservation required. On the other hand, of those who are aware of their conservation target, about half of homeowners and renters (53% each) say it is the right amount. We also find that while solid majorities across both groups say their local water supply is a big problem, homeowners (77%) are much more likely than renters (60%) to hold this view.

In general, renters are less connected to their water use. They often do not pay the water bill, so they may not know how much water they use, and they lack financial incentives to conserve. In addition, renters use less water. Renters are often not responsible for outdoor watering, which accounts for more than half of water use in cities and suburbs. During this drought, state and local agencies have focused more of their effort on reducing outdoor watering, but renters’ water conservation must come mainly from indoor behavior. Since renters make up about 45% of California’s households, this is not a group of water users to ignore as the drought continues.

The more people know about how much water they use, the more likely they are to conserve. Renters often live in multi-unit buildings with one main meter to record the entire building’s use, making it very difficult to parse out how much water is used by individual units. Requiring sub-metering on new multi-unit buildings may help reduce future water use, but it is an expensive investment that won’t result in significant reductions in the short-term.

Infiltrating renters’ awareness and reducing their water use will require different incentives and education efforts—especially since renters are much less likely to follow news about the drought. For example, water agencies should expand public outreach campaigns focused on indoor use and feature them in urban areas with high renter populations. Renters should be encouraged to check for leaks in their toilets and request that their landlords perform leak-checks on the rest of the property. Landlords should also be encouraged to take advantage of available rebates to upgrade to efficient appliances, toilets, and shower heads. There may be more that most homeowners can do to reduce water use, but as a large portion of the population, renters can also play a role in getting us closer to our goals. The drought provides an opportunity to change perceptions of this scarce resource by all Californians.

A College Degree in Three Years?

During the recent state budget negotiations, the University of California promised to develop three-year degree programs on each campus for 10 of its top 15 majors by March 1, 2016. In addition, UC committed to enrolling 5 percent of students system-wide in an accelerated degree program by the summer of 2017. This is an intriguing goal that could benefit students and the state as a whole. Reaching it, however, would require overcoming significant obstacles.

The idea of accelerating the traditional four-year bachelor’s degree is not a new one. The three-year degree is especially likely to be touted as a way to boost the efficiency of public higher education during periods of declining state funding, growing enrollment, and rising tuition. It has been discussed in California and proposed in other states. Over the past two decades, Indiana, Ohio, Arizona, Illinois, and Florida have all directed their public four-year institutions to develop three-year degree programs. But the idea has not been widely adopted.

The vast majority of three-year degree programs attempt to attract high-achieving recent high school graduates who have already earned some college credit—either through advanced placement exams or by taking classes at a community college while still in high school. In exchange for a commitment to attend school year-round, students are promised priority course enrollment, a structured degree path, and high-intensity advising. Condensing the bachelor’s degree allows a student to reduce costs while burnishing a resume and possibly getting a jump-start on graduate school. Florida State University has had some success with its Degree in Three program, which began in 2000. Enrollment has been limited, though it increased from 71 students to 123 out of a total of about 6,500 freshmen between 2007 and 2008. And 40 percent of students who initially enrolled in the program ended up staying for four years–after switching majors, studying abroad, or participating in student government.

It is easy to see the appeal of completing a bachelor’s degree in three years. For students it has the potential to produce net financial benefits. Three-year graduates are likely to reduce the overall cost of their education despite the additional costs of attending summer sessions and forgoing summer employment. And newly minted graduates can enter the job market one year earlier, presumably with greater earning potential. For schools, reducing the amount of time students take to get degrees allows them to enroll more students. As PPIC research has shown, California needs to produce more college graduates to meet the state’s future workforce demand.

But the challenges are greater than they appear at first glance. For one thing, not all students complete their degrees in four years. As of 2013, only 60 percent of first-time, full-time UC freshmen graduated in four years; nearly one in five took between four and five years to graduate. In other words, for a significant number of students, participation in a three-year program would mean shortening their time at UC by more than a year. Campuses would need to re-examine their course offerings to make sure there are enough seats in required classes to meet student demand. Equally important would be to ensure that the sequence of offerings allows students to take all of their classes in three years. These changes would involve shifting teaching assignments and/or adding new instructors.

Even if the institutional challenges can be met, a larger question looms: What is the demand for a three-year degree? The students most able to attend classes year-round are those with more resources and/or fewer work or family obligations. The most motivated may be out-of-state students, who pay the steepest tuition. But we know that many UC freshmen today who have sophomore standing, and could finish in three years, choose not to.

A successfully implemented three-year degree program is likely to have a small impact on capacity. But if UC were to pursue this effort more broadly, and if the time to degree could be shortened to four years for students who now need five years to complete their degrees, the impact on capacity would be greater.

The Challenges of Getting More Crop per Drop

The continuing drought is having a big ripple effect in California agriculture. We talked to David Zoldoske, the director of Fresno State’s Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) and a member of the Water Policy Center’s research network, about trends in farm water management.

PPIC: How well is California agriculture doing in terms of water efficiency in recent years?

David Zoldoske: The big change is that the state’s growers are investing heavily in drip and micro-irrigation systems, and very soon there will be more acreage using these efficient systems than flood or furrow irrigation. Part of the increase comes from growers converting annual crops to trees and vines, and installing micro irrigation systems. So while we’ve gotten more efficient in irrigating these acres, we’ve also hardened demand for water—and in some cases increased overall water demand—because these perennial crops can’t be fallowed in times of drought. But there’s no doubt that this is a paradigm change, and it’s making California agriculture more efficient in its overall on-farm water use.

PPIC: What successful water-management technologies are California farmers already using that deserve wider adoption?

DZ: Tools such as water meters for measuring flow rates from pumps and soil moisture sensors are both important to improve water management. Scheduling for efficiency means knowing how much water you’re applying (the meters), and how deep it’s going (the sensors). Flow meters also help growers see real-time changes in how much water they’re using—if flow rates decrease, it could indicate a drop in groundwater levels, a worn pump, or perhaps a clogged filter. Without metering, it’s like driving a car without a speedometer or odometer. We’ve estimated that only about a third of groundwater pumps have flow meters installed, so there’s lots of room for wider adoption of this important technology. Water meters can provide important information both on-farm (how efficiently is the irrigation system performing and how much water was applied), as well as a measuring groundwater basin withdrawals.

PPIC: What’s the potential for high tech improvements to take farm-water efficiency to the next level?

DZ: Managing water on a large irrigated farm is both an art and a science, with multiple data points to consider. Many growers are operating with too little information, while others may be experiencing data overload from all the technology inputs. New cloud-based technologies can help farmers get more data, in real time, and allow them to better manage their crop water needs. But it’s important to remember that even with improved technologies on the farm, you can’t efficiently manage a poorly operating system. Often it’s the low tech approaches that provide the most benefits—like getting your pump tested, having your irrigation system audited for uniformity, and improving scheduling. Farmers need to get better at these basic technologies before the high tech improvements can really work. There is a tremendous opportunity for the state to help incentivize the adoption of key technologies like water meters to improve water efficiency across a broad spectrum of irrigated land. California should be strategic when it provides financial assistance for adopting new water technologies.

PPIC: Are there “unintended consequences” to agriculture becoming more efficient?

DZ: As we convert more acres from flood or surface irrigation to higher efficiency drip systems, we need to be aware that we may be losing potential recharge for our groundwater basins. Excess water applied to a field is an important source—and in some places the primary source—of recharge. Improving water efficiency on any one farm can directly affect the groundwater supply of a nearby farm or municipality. California must aggressively address the need for more groundwater recharge as an offset for more efficient farm water use.

PPIC: What long-term improvements to agricultural water management do you think will come out of this drought?

DZ: The biggest change will be the understanding that we need to manage groundwater basins for sustainability. It will likely cause some financial pain and suffering, but it will also help us avoid a “tragedy of the commons” situation, where everyone loses as groundwater basins are exhausted. Right now, we have too many big straws in the aquifer, and we have to start managing for the long view. I also believe we’ll be making more use of non-traditional sources of water, such as the large amounts of saline groundwater found in parts of the Central Valley. We are also evaluating the potential of diverting excess floodwaters to cropland with high infiltration rates, to help recharge groundwater basins during wet years. And most likely in future, we’ll be farming less ground in California, but getting “more crop per drop” by using water more efficiently.

Read more: Water for Farms from our California’s Water briefing kit

Photo: David Zoldoske in the field.

Emergency Room Use and the ACA

With millions of Californians gaining health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is concern about whether the state’s healthcare delivery systems—particularly hospital emergency departments (EDs)—will be able to absorb the additional patients.

These concerns are understandable. EDs are a critical access point to health care for all Californians—and, because they are required to serve patients regardless of insurance status or ability to pay, EDs are particularly important for uninsured and publicly insured residents.

Before implementation of the ACA, the uninsured relied on EDs for care more than those with private insurance but less than Medi-Cal beneficiaries. This was largely because uninsured patients are often billed for the services they receive, while Medi-Cal beneficiaries have either nominal or no financial responsibility for ED visits. Medi-Cal has grown significantly under the ACA—in 2014, monthly enrollment increased by 40 percent to cover more than 12 million Californians.

Newly released state data provides a first glimpse of ED usage under the ACA. While ED usage may shift in the future, these first-year figures suggest there has not yet been a dramatic change statewide. Total ED visits and visits that did not result in a hospital admission did increase in 2014. However, this growth was in line with the upward trend over the past decade.

The proportion of ED visits involving moderate and low urgency continued its recent downward trend in 2014. And there was no discernable change in the proportion of ED visits that required patients to be admitted to the hospital.

The ACA’s impact on the use of health services and health care delivery systems will be the subject of considerable research and a focus for policymakers over the next several years. It will be important to continue to carefully monitor and assess health care use, particularly across different hospitals, regions, and patient groups to ensure that hospital systems throughout California are functioning well and residents have access to the services they need.

SOURCE: California Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Development, Hospital Annual Utilization Data.

NOTE: The 2014 data is from the preliminary datafile. Figures include information from 292 hospitals that had data available in all years, which represent about 90 percent of all ED visits reported. The urgency or severity level of ED visits that did not result in a hospital admission is based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Low urgency is defined as visits categorized as minor and low/moderate (CPT codes 99281 and 99282). Moderate urgency is defined as visits categorized with CPT code 99283 and high urgency includes visits categorized as severe with and without threat (CPT codes 99284 and 99285).

California Streams Going to Pot from Marijuana Boom

California has seen a recent boom in marijuana farms, mostly on private lands but also illegal grows on public lands such as national forests. Hard data are hard to come by for this crop, which is mostly grown in the shadows. But California Department of Fish and Wildlife officials estimate that production on public lands has increased by 55 to 100 percent in ecologically fragile north coast watersheds over the past five years alone. This surge is having a decidedly unhealthy effect on some of California’s rivers and streams. The situation is heating up as many of the state’s waterways are at all-time lows and some at-risk fisheries nearing collapse.

A study of four northwestern streams by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) found that marijuana plants consumed 20-30% of streamflow during the dry summer low-flow season—a crucial period for salmon and other species – as well as marijuana cultivation. Illegal marijuana growing also can bring a host of other environmental problems, from polluted runoff to habitat damage from improper road construction.

Peter Moyle, a fisheries expert with UC Davis and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network, says, “All of these operations are taking water directly from streams, sucking away water from endangered Coho salmon, steelhead, tailed frogs, and other stream-dwellers, while damaging the banks of the streams. These diversions require permits—both from CDFW for stream alteration and from the State Water Board for diverting water—but few such permits seem to have been issued.”

Last year, Governor Jerry Brown marked $3.3 million in his budget proposal for enforcing pot growing rules in an effort to protect both the water supply and endangered species affected by growers.

Various state and local efforts are underway. The multi-agency Cannabis Pilot Project will enforce environmental protections in cannabis cultivation. The state’s Fish and Wildlife Watershed Enforcement Team inspects farms and seeks to permit them and bring them into compliance, but the understaffed team has been able to visit only a tiny portion of the state’s farms. New permitting processes to address illegal water diversions are in the works at the State Water Resources Control Board, but funding for compliance will be an issue. A recent a senate hearing called for a crackdown on illegal water diversions by marijuana growers.

In addition to highlighting the need for better regulation on the ground, the water impacts of marijuana growing are an example of the need for targeted and reliable sources of funding to address California’s environmental challenges. Currently, none of the tax revenue from California’s nearly $1 billion-a-year medical marijuana market is allocated for environmental protection.

Next year, Californians will likely be asked to vote on a ballot initiative to legalize possession of marijuana for recreational uses, as has been done in four other states and the District of Columbia. The potential ballot initiative provides an important opportunity to address a number of policy trade-offs, including the issue of how to pay for the environmental impacts of marijuana legalization.

Read “Regulating Marijuana” from the PPIC blog and Californians’ Attitudes Toward Marijuana Legalization.