Author: Jenny Miyasaki

A Path to Progress for the Salton Sea

The Salton Sea—created by a break in a Colorado River irrigation canal more than a century ago and for decades dependent on irrigation runoff for sustenance—has a water problem. The already-shrinking desert lake used to receive a temporary water supply as part of a Colorado River water trading agreement that sent some irrigation water to Southern California cities. But this temporary supply was cut off at the end of 2017, which has worsened environmental and health problems caused by the sea’s declining water levels.

We talked to Kurt Schwabe—a professor at UC Riverside and an adjunct fellow of the PPIC Water Policy Center—about possible solutions. Schwabe helped organize a recent symposium on the sea that explored impacts on local communities, new research, and policy solutions.

PPIC: Why does the Salton Sea need more water right now?

Kurt Schwabe: In 2003 the State Water Board allocated water to temporarily manage the dust and ecosystem problems associated with the shrinking sea. The board set a deadline of 15 years for the state and the parties in the water trading agreement to develop a plan to address these impacts. Although the state is behind in implementing solutions, the water allocation cutoff wasn’t postponed, and now the sea is shrinking at a faster pace. The increase in dust has a direct impact on respiratory illnesses and life expectancy in the region, which raises equity issues.

Another problem is that water salinity is increasing as the sea shrinks. Time is running out for the wildlife the sea supports. As explained by researchers at the symposium, fish populations have crashed and won’t recover, thereby resulting in the loss of birds that depend on the fish. We may see new populations of birds that eat brine flies, yet without an effective management plan those birds will last only about a decade until the sea becomes too salty even for brine flies. In a nutshell, the ecosystem doesn’t have 10 years for us to find a solution. More water and less saline water―similar to the water allocation provided from 2003 to 2017―would slow the decline and buy the state time to further develop or implement solutions.

So it’s time to come up with quick and cost-effective ways to mitigate the problems. Recent passage of Proposition 68 will provide around $200 million to support construction costs in the state’s 10-year plan, but this plan is a short-term and imperfect fix. There’s growing interest in finding ways to import water from elsewhere―but that could take a decade or so to implement, is extremely costly, and does not address the worsening public health and environmental impacts happening now. An obvious near-term solution would be to extend the allocation of water to the sea until the actual rollout of the management plan. It’s a reasonable and quick fix: the conveyance to move water is already in place, it’s a tried and true solution, and it’s very cost-effective.

PPIC: What role could a water market play in managing the sea’s problems?

KS: Water markets could be a longer-term fix to replace the temporary water allocation, and would allow growers to make choices about how to best get needed water to the sea. A market would let farmers choose how best to free up that water—either by installing more efficient irrigation, shifting to less water-needy crops, fallowing land, or some combination of these. From a technical standpoint, a water market could be implemented almost immediately.

PPIC: What are the key stumbling blocks to getting more water to the sea quickly?

KS: The stumbling blocks are mostly political. Water transfer schemes have been used in the region for more than 20 years and typically involve Southern California municipal water agencies leasing water from irrigation districts in Imperial County. This isn’t to say that getting such a fix approved is an easy task, since the politics surrounding California water are notoriously challenging. Yet I would argue that the dire and worsening human health consequences being borne every day by local communities near the sea justify urgent action.

Video: The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism

Proposition 47, passed by voters in November 2014, has generated considerable debate. By reducing penalties for some lower-level drug and property offenses, Prop 47 marked another significant step toward reducing California’s reliance on incarceration. Supporters of the reform believe that redirecting money that is no longer being spent on incarceration to behavioral health and other treatment programs would reduce recidivism. Opponents feared that Prop 47 would overburden local law enforcement and lead to increases in crime.

A panel discussion in Sacramento last Thursday encapsulated this debate—but also featured significant areas of agreement. PPIC researcher Mia Bird set the scene by outlining a new report, The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism. The report finds no evidence that Prop 47 has affected violent crime rates but sees signs that it led to a rise in property crime—driven largely by thefts from motor vehicles. The report also finds a decline in recidivism, driven largely by a drop in rearrest and reconviction rates for offenders covered by Prop 47.

Bird pointed out that “Prop 47 likely sent a signal to law enforcement to reprioritize their resources away from arrests for drug possession toward more serious offenses.”

Fresno police chief Jerry Dyer underlined this point. “Whenever you have laws that take away your ability to arrest certain individuals for a felony, and you know there’s no room in the jail for misdemeanants, you shift your resources [toward] violent criminals.”

For George Gascón, San Francisco’s district attorney, “Prop 47 is a mild beginning of a process where we go back and see where we want to put public resources.” He pointed out that the negative impact of high rates of incarceration has been felt primarily in communities of color, and added that recent crime fluctuations need to be placed in the context of historically low crime rates over the past several years.

For Dyer, reclassifying some drug and property crimes as misdemeanors means that there are “no consequences for individuals who are committing crimes.” Dyer also noted that when Prop 47 passed, local law enforcement was still adjusting to the realignment of corrections responsibilities that was enacted three years earlier. The pace of reform has felt like “trying to take a drink of water out of a fire hose.”

While the panelists had differing views on the state’s shift away from incarceration, they agreed on the importance of treatment programs for mental health and substance abuse disorders. Gascón noted that with funding from Prop 47, “communities are beginning to experiment with different ways of treating the drug addiction and mental health issues that drive many crimes.” Dyer agreed, noting that “jail is no place for people with mental health issues.”

Kate Howard, executive director of the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), explained how the BSCC developed a process for allocating 65% of the money saved by reductions in incarceration to local programs. The BSCC sought input from across the state, and the grant steering committee includes several ex-offenders, whose experience with the corrections system was “instrumental.” The first 23 grants were awarded in June 2017. While it is too early to measure their impact, Howard said there is “great reason for optimism.”

Gender Imbalances in STEM Majors

In California and the United States as a whole, women have made strong educational progress over many decades. In 2006, for the first time ever in California, women became more likely to hold a bachelor’s degree than men. Women’s educational advantage over men has continued to grow in the past decade. In 2017, women received 57% of the bachelor’s degrees, 58% of the master’s degrees, and 54% of the doctorates awarded by California colleges. Much of this advantage stems from better preparation: women are more likely to graduate from high school than men and are also more likely to complete the college preparatory courses required for admission to the state’s public universities. Even so, women remain underrepresented in key science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors—in California and across the nation.

Statewide, only a few majors are gender balanced—meaning that half the bachelor’s degrees are awarded to women and half to men. In 2016, according to federal data, among the 22 most popular majors in California’s public and private nonprofit colleges, more than 60% of the bachelor’s degrees in 10 majors and fewer than 45% of degrees in 5 majors were awarded to women. At one extreme, women make up more than 80% of the graduates in consumer sciences, education, liberal arts, social services, and health professions. At the other extreme, only about 20% of bachelor’s degrees in engineering and computer science were awarded to women in 2016.

Because engineering and computer science are associated with strong labor market outcomes, low shares of women in those fields is cause for concern. The proportion of women majoring in these fields has not risen much in recent years: from 2010 to 2016, the share of bachelor’s degrees awarded to women in California increased from 19% to 21% in engineering and from 16% to 18% in computer science.

Efforts to address STEM gender imbalances are under way. For example, an NSF study by UCLA researchers is using longitudinal data across a set of colleges to identify actions that can increase the share of women in computer science. Given California’s high tech economy, the state’s colleges and universities should play a leading role in meeting this challenge.

A Balancing Act for the Colorado River

The Colorado River―a critically important water supply for seven western states, including California―has been in drought for nearly two decades. We talked to Bonnie Colby, a professor of natural resource economics at the University of Arizona and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network, about conditions in the basin and next steps for improving shared management of the river.

PPIC: What concerns you most about the river’s condition?

Bonnie Colby: We’re in a more difficult situation than in previous droughts because the major reservoirs—Powell and Mead—are so low. It’s unprecedented in my 35 years of working on water. Low reservoir levels increase the potential for conflict and make it harder to balance supply and demand. But our collective capacity to address these kinds of conflicts is growing as well.

Regionally, groundwater levels are falling dramatically from increased pumping during drought. That strategy brings hazards over time because river flows and groundwater are intricately connected, and overdrafting groundwater reduces water flowing into rivers. California is now working on groundwater sustainability, which is promising. Arizona has done a great job managing groundwater in heavily pumped areas (known as “active management areas”), but there are other places where groundwater use is not regulated to manage overdraft.

PPIC: What are your biggest concerns about current efforts to manage the river?

BC: There’s a fundamental conflict over who’s going to cut back on water use. Cities and environmental groups hope irrigated agriculture will use various proven strategies to free up more water for cities and the environment, giving up use of some of its water for fair payment. Some farmers are willing to cut back for a few years, but many are reluctant to do that indefinitely. No one can be sure whether this drought will extend for years or decades. The overall drying trend in the basin should alert us that the future will not merely repeat past drought patterns. Once we start reducing crop water use year after year in farming regions, it’s hard to maintain the agricultural economy and related infrastructure.

Delays in the “drought contingency plan” process are another concern. These plans lay out commitments by the states regarding specific steps to cut water use and help maintain reservoir levels during drought. Water conflict is a very hard puzzle to solve. It’s difficult to decide which groups will bear the economic pain and impact to their quality of life. If there are cutbacks for multiple years in a row, how drastically should cities be asked to reduce water use? How should we deal with water for golf courses, for farms? Until the states can finalize drought contingency plans, we can’t finalize a number of important policy agreements—for example, new agreements with Mexico over sharing the river’s waters.

PPIC: What are some positive things about the state of the basin?

BC: The state of Colorado has shown a lot of leadership in making arrangements with farmers to use less water without causing significant economic disruption. These on-farm collaborative arrangements are where the basin can make substantial progress. If we put farmers’ and irrigation district managers’ knowledge and experience to use through voluntary collaborative programs, we should be able to reduce farm water 5% while only seeing a 1% drop in farm income, with only minor effects on food and fiber production. Farmers won’t, and shouldn’t have to, do this at their own expense―compensation for farm income losses is necessary.

On another hopeful note, we’ve seen the conversation start to shift so that more people in the region see the river as a connected system, from its headwaters in Wyoming and Colorado to its estuary in Mexico’s Sea of Cortez. There’s more understanding about the importance of changes in snowpack patterns, long-term water scarcity, and other key issues. A better informed constituency is a very good thing for tackling basin-wide challenges.

Encouraging Full-Time Enrollment to Boost College Graduation Rates

As colleges seek to improve graduation rates, many have focused on increasing the number of students enrolled full time. New data from the US Department of Education show that students at California’s public colleges and universities who first enroll on a full-time basis are much more likely to graduate within six years than students who first enroll part time. These higher graduation rates are observed both for first-time freshmen and for transfer students.

Full-time enrollment varies widely across California’s public systems of higher education. Students at California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC) are overwhelmingly full time, whereas most students at the community colleges enroll part time. UC requires students to enroll full time (at least 12 units per semester) unless they receive approval for part-time status. Some CSU campuses recently started encouraging students to agree to take 15 units per semester (a full-time course load), as have some community colleges.

Full-time enrollment campaigns (frequently known as “15 to finish”) have been gaining traction across the country. In some states, such as Hawaii and Indiana, more students are completing 15 credits per semester and four-year graduation rates are rising. But messaging and financial incentives aren’t enough to help all part-time students make the transition to full-time enrollment. Community colleges enroll large numbers of nontraditional students who have significant work, family, and other outside obligations. Some of these students may not be able to enroll full time and/or may need holistic supports such as child care services and transportation subsidies in order to succeed. To the extent possible, the state and its higher education institutions should look for ways to help more students enroll full time so that they can progress toward graduation.

PPIC Dedicates the Arjay Miller Room

PPIC dedicated the Arjay Miller Room yesterday at its Bechtel Conference Center—a meeting and learning space at the institute’s San Francisco headquarters. Three generations of the Miller family and many longtime friends and colleagues celebrated Arjay Miller’s life and the opportunity to carry on his legacy. Among the tributes were videos from those unable to attend in person.

As Mas Masumoto—farmer, author, and chair of PPIC’s board of directors—put it, “Within these walls will be lively conversations that I believe will be in the spirit of Arjay and what he wanted so much. This room will encourage constructive dialog about opportunities and challenges facing the state.”

Miller was a giant in the business world who built a legacy through his service to others. He was one of the ten “whiz kids” who left the Pentagon after World War II to resuscitate the Ford Motor Company. He had become president of Ford by the time he was appointed dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. There, he brought the first women onto the faculty and expanded the curriculum to include public policy, social issues, and ethics. He also established the Public Management Program, which has trained thousands of public sector managers.

One of Miller’s deepest beliefs was in the power of information to create positive change. It was this conviction—along with an awareness of California’s leadership on important national issues—that led him to cofound the Public Policy Institute of California in 1994. Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, said, “He loved California. He loved public policy. He loved data analysis, and he loved solving problems. So he loved PPIC.”

Miller served as the chair of PPIC’s board of directors from 1995 to 1998 and remained a member of the board until 2006. He was a trusted advisor and generous supporter to the end of his life. By serving as a gathering place for conversation and problem-solving, the Arjay Miller Room honors his contributions to PPIC as well as his commitment to serious analysis and nonpartisan collaboration.

Tailoring Domestic Violence Programs to Reduce Recidivism

California law requires that all domestic violence offenders who receive a probation sentence participate in a one-year rehabilitation program. A bill (AB 372) currently under consideration in the state legislature would allow five counties (Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Yolo) to pilot a new kind of treatment program tailored to offenders’ risks—their likelihood of reoffending—and needs. This program must include practices that are shown by research to be effective or promising in terms of reducing recidivism.

Domestic violence is a serious public health and safety issue that affects families, communities, and criminal justice systems. Drawing on data collected in 12 California counties through the BSCC–PPIC Multi-County Study, we find domestic violence offenders make up a significant share of local jail populations. From October 2011 to October 2014, 6% of all jail bookings were associated with domestic violence. After the passage of Proposition 47—which reclassified certain drug and property offenses to misdemeanors—in 2014, domestic violence accounted for roughly 8% of jail bookings.

Domestic violence offenders also tend to have high rates of recidivism. Three-fifths of individuals convicted of domestic violence are rearrested within two years—and 67% of this group are rearrested for another domestic violence offense. The large volume of domestic violence offenses combined with high recidivism rates highlight the need to understand and address the factors underlying these offenses.

The demographics and criminal histories of domestic violence offenders vary greatly—suggesting that effective interventions may differ as well. When we examine individuals who received probation sentences between October 2011 and October 2015, the majority (85%) of offenders are men. However, women still represent a significant share of the population, and treatment needs may vary based on gender. In addition, while most of these offenders are age 35 or younger (the average age is 34), a sizable minority are age 46 or above. Older offenders may have distinct needs compared to younger offenders, as problematic relationship patterns may be more difficult to address over time.

Criminal history background may also help determine appropriate interventions. Among domestic violence offenders receiving probation sentences, 18% were convicted of felonies and 82% were convicted of misdemeanors. We find that domestic violence offenders have an average of nine prior arrests for any kind of offense. On average, these offenders have one prior domestic violence arrest; 53% have no prior arrests for domestic violence, while 5% have six or more priors.

This variation suggests that tailoring domestic violence programs based on offenders’ risks and needs could be beneficial. However, there is much to learn. Any effort to address this important problem should include substantial program monitoring and data collection on participants’ characteristics and outcomes—creating the opportunity to learn about effective practices and potentially apply them statewide.

Funding Measures and the June Ballot

Last week’s primary election garnered considerable statewide and national attention, with much of the focus on the governor’s race and contested congressional seats. Further down the ballot, however, voters were asked to decide on millions of dollars of local tax, bond, and fee initiatives. On the whole, these measures enjoyed considerable success across the state.

We found that Californians voted on 107 local tax, bond, and fee measures, representing the range of fiscal tools that local jurisdictions can use to raise revenue and borrow funds. Bond measures were the most popular, with 42 different local governments seeking voter approval (37 K–12 school districts; 2 community college districts; 3 cities). There were also 32 parcel tax measures; those related to K–12 schools (12) and fire/public safety (10) were most common. Ballots also included proposals to impose or increase taxes on cannabis (13) general sales (9), gross business receipts (2), and hotel stays (3). And there were proposals to raise utility fees (3), business license fees (1), and bridge tolls (1).

Most of the long list of funding proposals passed—but just putting a measure on the ballot did not guarantee success. Although counties are still counting some ballots, which could affect a race or two, at this time, we observe the following:

  • Overall, voters passed 76 of the 107 measures.
  • Of the 39 school bond measures, 30 passed. Proposition 39, passed in 2000, lowered the threshold for passing school bonds from a two-thirds majority to 55%. Had these measures been subjected to the previous standard, only 11 would have passed. The 19 measures approved under the current standard increased borrowing for investment in public schools by $1.8 billion.
  • On the heels of one of the states’ worst seasons of wildfires on record, California voters held the line on parcel taxes intended to support fire protection, with only 3 of the 9 measures passing.
  • All 13 of the cannabis tax proposals passed overwhelmingly.

California touched off a revolt against taxes 40 years ago. Primary voters in 2018 generally voted for increases but were relatively discriminating in their support, depending upon the type of tax and its intended purpose. This discernment comes at a time when the state’s economy is growing and unemployment is low. It will be interesting to see what happens in November, when we expect to see even more funding measures on the ballot.

Will California’s Red Districts Turn Blue in November?

One of the important questions hanging over California politics this election cycle is the impact of Donald Trump. In the 2016 presidential race, support for Trump was soft, with some parts of the state voting Democratic for the first time in more than a generation.

This shift encouraged Democrats to target congressional seats that had previously been considered out of reach for the party. The seven Republican-held US House seats considered most competitive all voted for Clinton over Trump. Yet many of these places haven’t voted Democratic for higher office in decades. Is this Democratic optimism warranted, or was 2016 a fluke?

Tuesday’s primary can help answer this question. California’s top-two system—in place since 2012—offers a view into the partisan sentiment in these districts in a year when Donald Trump is not on the ballot. It’s more like a first-stage general election because it lets voters choose any candidate they like regardless of party.

The figure below compares the share of the two-party primary vote for Democratic candidates to the 2016 two-party presidential vote in the same district (primaries without at least one candidate from each major party have been omitted). Each point is a state legislative or US House seat. The more the points cluster in the shape of a line, the stronger the correlation between the two votes. But any point above the line has a 2018 primary vote that is more Democratic than its 2016 presidential vote, while any point below is more Republican.

This figure tells us two things. First, the 2016 presidential vote predicts the 2018 results quite well. As the Democratic presidential vote increases, the Democratic primary vote in 2018 climbs as well. Moreover, the slippage in this relationship (and there is some) is about as large as in previous top-two years.

Second, the Democrats underperformed Clinton’s 2016 vote in almost every district. This too is consistent with the past. Democrats have underperformed the presidential vote in every primary under the top-two system. In fact, the underperformance was actually a little smaller this year than the average. This suggests it’s normal for Democrats to look bad in the primary season, and that it’s no reason for Democrats to be worried or Republicans to be excited.

However, this tells us less about the fall outcome than it might appear. The party vote in the general election usually shifts Democratic, but the magnitude of this shift varies a great deal. It was quite large in 2012: a seat with a 50 percent Democratic outcome in the primary on average voted 56 percent Democratic in the general. But in 2014 there was almost no change at all, and in 2016 the fall outcome was slightly more Republican.

Thus, for Democrats these results are a mixed bag. On the one hand, there are signs that the Trump effect in California has staying power. On the other hand, the consequences for this fall’s election are not altogether clear. The Democrats probably won’t do much worse on average than they did on Tuesday. But beyond that it’s difficult to say, and the consequences for individual seats will have to wait until Election Day.

A Preview of the California Governor’s Election

The people have spoken and the November election for governor has been decided: Democrat Gavin Newsom will face off against Republican John Cox. Let’s look at recent PPIC surveys to help us understand the determining factors of this outcome and the political dynamics that will surface in this fall’s matchup.

In the weeks before the June primary, the May PPIC survey found that Newsom was his party’s favorite in a race with the four major Democratic contenders, while Cox was his party’s top choice in a contest between the two major Republican contenders. The election results confirmed these trends in the voting patterns of red and blue counties. What is it about these candidates that was attractive to their bases?

The primary results were foreshadowed in a January PPIC survey. When likely voters were asked about the qualifications that they are looking for in a candidate for governor, most Democrats (84%) said they wanted a candidate with experience in office, while most Republicans (65%) preferred a candidate with experience running a business. The party faithful chose the person who arguably fit their profile best—Lieutenant Governor Newsom and businessman Cox. While California likely voters favor elected experience to business experience by a wide margin (62% to 31%), the fall election will focus on issues where opinions are more divided. This suggests a more competitive race than one might expect in deep blue California.

The November gubernatorial election is set in a midterm-election context perceived as a referendum on President Donald Trump and the Republican-led Congress. John Cox is endorsed by President Trump while Gavin Newsom is a vocal member of the Trump resistance. Democrats hope to flip several of the House seats held by California Republicans so that their party can take control of Congress. This election comes at a time when independents are now the second largest voter group at 4.9 million (SOS, June 1).

Slim majorities of California likely voters also say they would vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate in their House district races in both the March PPIC survey (53% to 39%) and in the May PPIC survey (52% to 38%). Democrats strongly preferred the Democratic candidate (92% March, 91% May) and Republicans strongly favored the Republican candidate (87% March, 86% May) while, again, independents are divided (Democrats: 37% March, 43% May). The independents’ turnout and leanings will thus be a focal point in House races—another reason this voter group is the wildcard in November.

What else will Californians need to know about the two candidates? In the PPIC January survey, 60% of likely voters rank the candidates’ stands on the issues above several traits: experience (17%), character (16%), and political party (6%). Likely voters most often name the economy, immigration, and housing costs as their top issues in the May PPIC survey. Eighty-two percent of likely voters say that the candidates’ performances in public debates will be important in determining their vote for governor.

PPIC has invited the two gubernatorial candidates to participate in a public conversation with me about the issues, their leadership, and vision for California. Stay tuned for more information about when and where it will take place, and how you can attend or watch this special PPIC event.