Climate Change/Energy – Public Policy Institute of California

Video: The Benefits of Headwater Forest Management

The health of California’s headwater forests is in decline, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to major wildfires and droughts that threaten the many benefits they provide. Even in the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic, California must plan for the upcoming fire season, and continue work to reduce its risks. At a virtual event last week, PPIC researcher Henry McCann described how improved management can make Sierra forests more resilient and avoid major wildfire-related disasters, and summarized the findings of a new report that identifies the benefits and beneficiaries of such management practices.

“Expanding on the pace and scale of long-term forest stewardship is going to be a heavy lift for private and public entities,” said McCann. “Developing a clear sense of the benefits and beneficiaries of improving forest health is key to motivating long-term stewardship and identifying the partners to support it.”

An expert panel moderated by study coauthor and UC cooperative extension specialist Van Butsic discussed how this translates into practice.

What does the science tell us about managing California’s wildfire- and drought-prone forests? “It tells us there are opportunities for win-win scenarios, where a forest treatment designed to reduce fire risk will likely also have other benefits—for carbon storage, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, water output,” said panelist Carmen Tubbesing, a PhD candidate in forest ecosystems and fire sciences at UC Berkeley.

Tubbesing said that we can’t implement treatments “on every inch of forest in California,” but “research has shown that even treating a fraction of a landscape can have landscape-wide benefits on a forest” and reduce wildfire risk.

Angela Avery, executive officer of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, talked about programs her agency is involved in that “combine the social with the ecological” to build more resilient forests. California needs to build a workforce that can do this work, she said, noting that community colleges might be a venue for expanding forest workforce training. Highlighting another important gap, she pointed out that “we really need additional wood processing infrastructure across the Sierra Nevada if we’re truly going to manage our forests to resilience.”

Willie Whittlesey, general manager of the Yuba Water Agency, talked about collaborative work between his agency and a forest management project to protect the watershed by restoring local forests to a resilient condition. “We didn’t know what the direct benefits would be but we knew that we wanted to prevent our watershed from undergoing a catastrophic wildfire,” he said. “We have to look long term and we have to look forest-wide. Our forests aren’t sustainable in the condition they’re in,” he added.

Panelists also explored ways to expand forest management—and to build understanding of and support for such work. Tubbesing noted that “better investment in community outreach, and putting more people with scientific backgrounds as liaisons in the communities influenced by these decisions” would be a good first step.

We invite you to watch the event video.

Lessons from the Pandemic for Addressing Climate Change

Clear skies and less air pollution. Dramatic drops in harmful greenhouse gases. What can these environmental “silver lining” aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic teach us about addressing climate change? We talked to Louise Bedsworth—executive director of the California Strategic Growth Council, a state agency that brings together multiple agencies to support sustainable communities and strong economies—about the issue.

PPIC: What has the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about our efforts to tackle climate change?

LOUISE BEDSWORTH: The pandemic has caused us to make a lot of changes quickly, some of which we know are also necessary to tackle climate change—such as the dramatic reductions in travel by car and air. Businesses have implemented telework policies at a scale we’ve never seen before, and meetings that would have taken place in person are now remote. We’ve seen that these sorts of changes can rapidly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Looking ahead, we can think about how to incorporate some of these changes into how we work.

In addition to changes that reduce emissions, we have also seen a number of actions that are important for building resilience. We’re seeing more people out in their communities, walking, biking, and getting outside. And we see people checking in on vulnerable residents, neighbors coming outside to talk to each other, and growing movements to shop at local businesses.

These social connections are really important for building a resilient California—one able to withstand the shocks to come. In the face of a changing climate, we have to reduce emissions, but also ensure that that our people, economies, and ecosystems are resilient in responding to shocks and stresses. And that means building robust equitable communities that can weather these changes together.

We need to think about how we incorporate these lessons going forward—not just in our efforts to reduce emissions but also in how we’re thinking about building resilience in our communities.

PPIC: Do you see any long-term effects arising from the pandemic’s drop in emissions?

LB: We’ve seen what’s possible. We can make changes that have immediate impacts on air quality and emissions. That’s a really valuable lesson. The next step is figuring out how to make some level of these positive changes stick as we come out of the pandemic. For example, what policies do we need to encourage telework, or to encourage people to continue to drive less and walk more? Enabling just one day a week of telework could reduce commuter travel and associated emissions by 20%.

We also have to focus on how we rebuild our public transit systems, which have suffered steep declines in revenue and ridership. I think we have to be honest about the challenges facing transit systems, not just because of the financial hit they’ve taken but also to address people’s fear of being on crowded transit. How can we maintain these important systems even as we encourage more telework, biking, and walking?

PPIC: What are the economic implications of COVID-19 on the state’s climate change efforts?

LB: The pandemic has highlighted California’s equity challenges. Communities with high levels of poverty, joblessness, pollution, and poor health are bearing the brunt of this illness. We have to address the underlying causes of these inequities. The pandemic underscores the need for stronger efforts to reduce pollution and mitigate the effects of climate change—and for solutions that reduce these inequities.

We have to pay attention to how we rebuild our economy. Let’s put people to work to build more resilient infrastructure and a cleaner economy. Our long-term recovery must include investments that are in line with our goals on climate change and the environment, housing production, and quality job creation.

PPIC: What opportunities should we take from the coronavirus crisis to help address the climate crisis?

LB: We need to continue to focus on building a sustainable, equitable California. This includes building resilience in the state’s physical infrastructure as well as in our social and economic systems. If we don’t remain committed to our environmental goals as we recover from this, it will be harder and more costly to fix these problems down the road. In addition to working to maintain some new workplace practices, we need to prioritize actions that promote equity and sustainability. We must redouble our efforts to build safe and affordable housing located near jobs, schools, and transit and create high quality jobs and job training opportunities.

California can set an example for the world. The state is a leader in addressing climate change, but these changes have to happen globally. California must continue to lead by successfully demonstrating how we can emerge from the pandemic fully committed to sustainability and equity.

How Is the Pandemic Affecting Wildfire Preparedness?

A new report on the benefits of managing headwater forests to reduce wildfire risks is available here. Join us on April 30 for an online event featuring a panel of experts discussing this topic.

California has experienced catastrophic wildfires and widespread tree death in recent years that have accelerated its efforts to reduce wildfire threats to communities and improve forest health. Fortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is not deterring these efforts—though it could complicate the work. Activities must be carried out in ways that limit the risk of infection to workers, which can be difficult when managing fire and working with ground crews over days or weeks. Here we explore the impact of the pandemic on wildfire risk reduction.

Could COVID-19 affect the state’s ability to respond to wildfires this year?

Fighting wildfires is an essential service and the state’s ability to respond to wildfires this year will not be compromised by the pandemic. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the agency responsible for the bulk of the state’s wildfire response, is gearing up for the season by hiring seasonal staff and training crews for the fire line.

“Our staffing levels will be the same as last year to meet the demands of the upcoming wildfire season,” said CAL FIRE communication officer Christine McMorrow. To prevent firefighters from contracting and spreading the virus, CAL FIRE is integrating social distancing guidelines into training exercises. The agency is also considering options for making fire camps—where firefighters eat and sleep while battling blazes—less conducive to virus spread.

Could it affect vegetation management efforts?

Most vegetation management efforts have been designated as essential services and are expected to continue throughout the pandemic. Over the past year, private landowners, nonprofit organizations, local governments, water and electric utilities, CAL FIRE, and federal agencies did significant vegetation management in preparation for the upcoming wildfire season. Work on private, local government, and state lands is largely continuing as planned. Implementing entities are encouraging social distancing measures to protect crews from infection.

“We haven’t heard of major setbacks to forest health projects yet, but it is still early,” said Brittany Covich, policy and outreach manager for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state partner on many forest health projects in the region.

One major exception is national forests, which account for more than half of Sierra Nevada forestlands. On March 20, burns were suspended by the US Forest Service to avoid the spread of smoke (which can increase virus risk in nearby communities) and prevent crews from contracting and spreading the virus.

What are the potential long-term implications of the pandemic for forest management?

The economic fallout from the pandemic is forcing the state to reassess its spending priorities. This is generating uncertainty for many programs, including wildfire risk reduction. Spending in this area is one of three priorities for this year. However, it is not clear how much funding will be available for specific programs. In January, the Governor’s proposed budget included $165 million in state Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) money and an additional $250 million in funding for forest health projects from a Climate Resilience Bond intended for the November 2020 ballot.

Potential recipients of forest health funds are cautiously optimistic that some GGRF funds will remain on the table, but it remains to be seen whether the legislature and voters will be willing approve new bonds in the future.

The financial condition of state partners in fire prevention and forest health—including nonprofit organizations, local governments, and the US Forest Service—is also uncertain. “Frankly, we’re all in a wait-and-see mode, but we’re hopeful that forest management will remain a high priority,” said Covich.

California Agriculture in 2050: Still Feeding People, Maybe Fewer Acres and Cows

Water supply concerns, regulations, labor issues, tariffs, climate change, and other challenges have prompted some rather dire predictions about the future of California agriculture. We talked to Dan Sumner—director of the UC Davis Agricultural Issues Center and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network—about his research on California agriculture in 2050.

PPIC: How do you think California agriculture will change in the next few decades?

DAN SUMNER: The value of farm production in California has been growing for a very long time and is likely to continue to grow. Farmers have been shifting land and water to crops that generate more revenue per acre and per acre-foot of water. Tree and vine crops have replaced annual crops. For example, cotton acreage collapsed from more than 1.2 million Central Valley acres 30 years ago to just 260,000 now. And these days Central Valley farms are getting twice as much revenue from pistachios as from hay. The pace of the shift to crops that bring higher revenue per unit of land and water will likely slow in the coming decades simply because much of the transition has already occurred.

For many years now, California’s most valuable agricultural industry by gross revenue has been dairy. But the dairy industry has stopped growing—partly because it is expensive to haul hay in from places that have adequate water.

California dairy is also under pressure from economic implications of state regulations on climate and other environmental issues. Californians demand attention to environmental concerns, labor market conditions, energy costs, and other issues that generate regulation, and such regulations can be costly for farms. The result is some commodities that had been important in California will be grown elsewhere.

PPIC: How will climate change affect the state’s farms?

DS: It will drive many adaptations, including shifts in locations as farms plant crops better suited to new climate and market conditions. We also expect different pest problems. But given the close attention of researchers and growers to these issues, I don’t see unmanageable challenges in the next few decades.

It is important to recognize that global markets and climates interact, and so what economists call “comparative advantage” remains crucial to economic success. Let’s say climate change makes table grapes more expensive to grow here or moves the season earlier. But if climate change affects Mexican growing conditions even more, climate change could cause grapes to become more profitable and therefore expand in California. The crucial issue looking forward is what will grow well in California compared to other places and compared to other crops.

PPIC: What are important policy or regulatory drivers that could help the farm sector adapt to changing conditions?

DS: We’ll need all sorts of innovations in every sector, from banking, government institutions, and science to farm management. California agriculture is already innovative and flexible, but we’ll keep moving rapidly to adapt to the economic and environmental changes on the horizon. Regulations are a part of what is changing and a part of what agriculture is adapting to.

Farm labor cost and availability remain crucial drivers of the future of California agriculture. We need innovations to reduce labor per unit of output, but we also need policy and regulations that allow immigrants to continue to work in California.

The climate-water nexus is probably where we can gain the most from innovative regulations and adaptations. Climate change and water regulations, including groundwater regulations, will reduce California irrigation water availability. We’ll need to consolidate water use to fewer acres, possibly convert some land to dryland farming, and even idle some land. Fortunately, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is encouraging people to value water that once was taken for granted.

With far-sighted regulations, California can find more effective ways to store more water underground, and use it most effectively. For example, markets are crucial to provide incentives for groundwater recharge in the winter. If regulations continue to limit transfer of water among farms and from one year to the next, we will severely restrict incentives to adjust to climate change. I am confident that California will find a regulatory path to allow continued farm adaptation and flourishing.

Commentary: Newsom’s Water Framework Is Imperfect but Necessary. The Alternative Is Further Deterioration of the Delta

This commentary was published in CALmatters on February 10, 2020.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has put forward a framework for managing water and habitat in the Delta and its watershed. As far as we can tell, no one is very happy with the framework—and that may be a good sign.

The framework is the product of years of effort to negotiate an agreement among water users, other stakeholders, and regulatory agencies. Details are yet to be worked out, including firm commitments for water and funding, along with critical negotiations with the federal government on how to cooperatively manage upstream dams and the Delta pumps. Ultimately, the package has to be acceptable to state and federal regulators.

The scope of this effort is vast.

Over the next 15 years, the proposal is to spend more than $5 billion on new river and floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other native fish species.

This funding will also pay for a mix of new water projects, water purchases, and fallowing of farmland will provide additional water for the environment. Additionally, new governance and science programs will manage the water and habitat in the Delta, as well as the rivers that flow into it.

For many years and in multiple publications by the Public Policy Institute of California, we have been calling for a negotiated agreement in the Delta and its watershed. This agreement needs robust management that includes shared governance, reliable funding, strong science support, and regulatory backstops if parties fail to live up to their obligations.

These must-haves are outlined in our recent report: A Path Forward for California’s Freshwater Ecosystems.

It is also time to shift away from the traditional approach to addressing environmental concerns in the Delta, which has overemphasized a handful of endangered fishes and a single management tool: the volume of water dedicated to these fishes.

Success will require a broad portfolio of actions to manage the connections between water, land, and the many species—including humans—who rely on healthy ecosystems. The proposed framework makes an earnest attempt to take this broader approach.

A negotiated agreement will, by necessity, be imperfect and controversial. That’s because it is just not possible to satisfy all interests in the Delta. The trade-offs are real, sometimes painful, and can only be resolved through compromise.

Many Delta combatants are dug in, committed to fighting the same battles with the same arguments that they have been using for decades.

We can appreciate why many parties would want to hold out for a better deal, and absent that, turn to the courts in the hopes of getting their way. But as seasoned veterans of the Delta know well, the delay-and-litigate strategy has inherent risks because the outcomes are hard to predict.

In the meantime, the Delta and its watershed are changing rapidly—faster than science and management can keep up.

Many factors are to blame, including current and historic land and water management, the introduction of innumerable non-native species, declining water quality, the inexorable rise of sea level, and the changing climate.

This important ecosystem needs attention now, before conditions deteriorate further.

An agreement, with all its imperfections, provides some measure of certainty to water users and the environment alike.

If a coalition of interests sign on, even if reluctantly, the likelihood of success goes up, because all parties will have an interest in making the agreement work.

Perhaps most importantly, an agreement is the only way to comprehensively address the Delta’s problems. Drawn-out legal battles over how much water is allocated to the environment ignore all the other factors that affect ecosystem health.

We are not endorsing the specific contents of the Newsom Administration’s proposed framework. But we believe it has the “bones” of an eventual agreement that can be durable and binding, avoiding lengthy delays in addressing the Delta’s many problems.

The many Delta interests should persevere and try to make this agreement happen. This is an opportunity—the kind that comes along rarely—to shift from fighting about the Delta’s future to actually shaping it.

Video: A Conversation with Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor Gavin Newsom’s conversation with PPIC president Mark Baldassare last week focused on energy policy and climate change. After noting that it had been one year since PG&E declared bankruptcy, Baldassare asked the governor about his vision for the future of California utilities. Newsom responded by broadening the question. “We have to start thinking about our energy future and our transportation future and our low-carbon, green growth future in a collaborative mindset.”

In this context, he continued, “PG&E’s bankruptcy has turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity for this state. . . . It’s allowed us to ask questions . . . that otherwise weren’t front and center.” PG&E, he said, has to come out of bankruptcy with a vision for the future that prioritizes long-term thinking and public safety rather than shareholder return. The bottom line? California needs a “transformatively different” utility. And, he added, “if PG&E can’t do it, we’ll do it for them.”

Key to planning for the state’s energy future is making sure it works for all Californians. Going green, Newsom said, “can’t mean more income inequality.” It has to benefit both the “haves” and the “have nots”—creating jobs and ensuring affordable energy, and mitigating the dislocation that comes with change.

Another key area is wildfire mitigation and prevention. Newsom noted that the 2019 fire season was less damaging than other recent seasons, in part because “we’ve never been more prepared.” The state has been investing in new technology that monitors and predicts wildfires, as well as equipment for suppressing fires and responding to crises.

Wildfire prevention is complex, in part because, as Newsom pointed out, the federal government owns the majority of forest land in California. “We are doing the job the federal government is no longer doing,” Newsom said, adding that “the Trump administration’s budgets have been proposing cuts to forest management.” Land-use patterns are another complicating factor. New building codes have helped recently built housing survive fires, but there are a large number of older buildings in fire-prone areas.

As Newsom sees it, the challenge of implementing the state’s ambitious climate mandates is to bring politics and policy into alignment. “Politically, I recognize that what’s necessary may be impossible. But also I recognize from a policy perspective that what is impossible has to become necessary.” The ultimate goal, of course, is to move California forward: “The world is changing. We have to change with it.”

Fighting Sea Level Rise the Natural Way

How will rising seas affect the state’s freshwater ecosystems, and what role do these systems play in managing the coming changes? We talked to Letitia Grenier—a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network and a senior scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute—about this issue.

PPIC: How will sea level rise affect California’s freshwater systems?

LETITIA GRENIER: We tend to think of climate change as causing a slow, linear rise in sea level, but it’s definitely not always gradual. Depending on a host of local and global factors, we could see quick changes and sudden jumps in sea level.

Rising seas will affect how we manage runoff from major storms. It’s not enough to manage water coming down rivers and rising from groundwater—we also have to account for concurrent king tides and storm surges. It won’t work to build infrastructure that only addresses sea level rise—it must also take into account flooding coming from behind and below.

Rising seas will also push salty water farther into estuaries, including the Delta. The levee system throughout the Bay‒Delta is fragile, and could fail in big storms or earthquakes. That would allow a lot more salt water to come in, which could affect the water supply for Southern California.

PPIC: Talk about the potential for “natural infrastructure” to address rising seas.

LG: Our water infrastructure was developed to address specific issues, piece by piece. No one was responsible for figuring out how to make the overall watershed work well for all the things we need it to do. Instead, we optimized the system in each location for one function—water supply, flood control and other tasks. It’s like having many people each design one part of a car without thinking of the whole vehicle—it doesn’t work very well.

This approach to managing freshwater ecosystems changed key natural processes that actually worked for us—we interrupted the flow of sediment down rivers, blocked salmon from migrating upstream, and drained wetlands. There is huge potential to redesign systems to let natural processes help us solve some of our complicated problems. For example, if we realigned a creek so that it could move sediment to the coast, it can help rebuild marshes that would protect the urban shoreline and bring a host of other benefits.

PPIC: What are the advantages of using natural infrastructure options?

LG: Bringing more benefits is the big one. Engineered solutions are mostly designed to bring just one benefit. Compared to a concrete flood basin, a marsh provides not just flood protection but also creates habitat for at-risk species, protects the shoreline, sequesters carbon, filters and breaks down contaminants, and creates recreational opportunities. And traditional engineered infrastructure has a lifespan. Over a 50-year lifespan, will it be flexible enough to adapt to climate change? Usually not. Engineered solutions also cost more over their lifetime to maintain and upgrade. In contrast, ecosystems are always changing; they can adapt in ways that engineered solutions can’t. Let’s restore these systems so they can continue to do useful work for us.

PPIC: How do we get there?

LG: We have a lot of knowledge of freshwater ecosystems, but knowing how to use them as part of our water infrastructure system is pretty new. So we need to test more, and build more. We’re doing it too slowly and at too small a scale.

We also need to work across jurisdictions. We haven’t set ourselves up socially to do this. Our current system has too many agencies with missions that aren’t well aligned. So we’ll need to voluntarily coordinate to make our watersheds work as they should—and provide incentives to bring agencies together over watershed planning. It will take time to make this change, and we’re very short on time. I think these big social challenges are harder to resolve than the science side.

Many people think of ecosystem restoration as something that is “nice to have,” not “have to have.” But growing extremes in fires, floods, and droughts are bringing people around to the realization that we’re dependent on ecosystems, and it matters if they’re healthy. I hope that leads to the understanding that natural infrastructure is worth investing in and can perform better than traditional infrastructure in many cases. Climate change will require us to rebuild or fix a lot of our existing infrastructure. It’s a great opportunity to make transformational change.

Governor’s Budget Addresses Growing Wildfire Risks

This is the final post in a two-part series on how the governor’s budget proposal addresses natural resources. The first post looked at water and climate issues.

In recent years, California has experienced some of the worst wildfires on record, and the risk is increasing as the climate warms and precipitation becomes more variable. Governor Newsom’s proposed budget supports an array of tools for reducing the threat of wildfire. Funding for these investments would come from the state General Fund, a proposed climate resilience bond, and the greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF). The budget prioritizes three wildfire-related areas:

Boosting fire suppression resources: The budget would increase the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (Cal Fire), annual budget by $120 million. It would also add 677 staff positions over five years—an 11% increase in the state’s permanent firefighting force. These investments would improve Cal Fire’s ability to ramp up fire suppression efforts through a longer fire The budget also provides $9 million for the development of an interagency center to improve wildfire detection and responsiveness, as required by SB 209 (2019).
Bolstering community resilience: The budget proposes significant funding increases to make homes and community infrastructure less vulnerable to wildfire damage. It earmarks $500 million to reduce fire risks to community infrastructure, including drinking water systems, emergency shelters, and public medical facilities. It also includes $25 million for a pilot program that would provide financial assistance for home hardening (for example, switching to fire-resistant roofing) in low-income communities, as required by AB 38 (2019). Another $25 million is proposed for community resilience planning, including the development of local wildfire emergency plans. And the California Office of Emergency Services would get $50 million to help local governments prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the impact of wildfire-related power outages.
Improving forest health: Actions that help the state’s forests withstand high-severity wildfire, drought, and pests are essential to reduce wildfire threats. The budget builds on past efforts by allocating $165 million to Cal Fire’s forest health grant program. It also includes $250 million to supplement existing forest health programs funded by the GGRF. Finally, the $80 million allocation for the development of statewide LiDAR maps can help the state target its investments in forest management.

Managing the state’s climate-fueled wildfire threat requires both emergency fire suppression and risk reduction actions. Governor Newsom’s budget continues to move the state toward a useful balance of these efforts.

Video: A Conversation with Leon Panetta

Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense and CIA director, joined PPIC president Mark Baldassare in Sacramento last week for a wide-ranging conversation about leadership. Baldassare began by asking Panetta to “put on your CIA hat” and compare the targeting of Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration with the recent killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. The main difference, Panetta said, is that bin Laden had directly attacked the United States, and that he and other Al-Qaeda leaders were almost certainly planning more attacks.

Panetta explained that the Obama administration “never seriously considered an attack on Soleimani,” because “the result would be that we would increase the chances of war with Iran.” The issue was not whether Soleimani was a “bad actor,” but whether the US wanted to escalate the conflict: “When you make those kinds of decisions, you ought to damn well consider the risks of war.”

For Panetta, the tense situation with Iran underlines the importance of leadership. “In a democracy we govern either by leadership or by crisis.” Leadership, he continued, involves actively addressing major challenges—and this, in turn, entails uncertainty and risk. “If you’re not willing to take the risks associated with leadership . . . , crisis will drive policy in this country.”

Panetta sees impeachment as “a reflection of our times”—we have “a president who doesn’t abide by moral boundaries” and a Congress that “can’t work together.” But he is hopeful that the Senate will deal with the trial “in a fair and impartial way.” Otherwise, he continued, “there is a danger that impeachment is going to become just another political tool.”

Asked to assess how things are going in California, Panetta identified three interrelated leadership challenges: political imbalance, economic inequality, and education. To have a chance of restoring political balance in Sacramento, he said, Republicans are “going to have to look at immigration . . . inequality . . . climate change.” At the same time, the state’s Democratic leadership will have to collaborate with a broad range of stakeholders to tackle economic inequality—and its efforts will need to include a focus on education, which “is absolutely critical to the future of California.”

While Panetta is clearly worried about the level of dysfunction in Washington, he is not entirely pessimistic. “I’ve seen Washington at its best and Washington at its worst. The good news is that I’ve seen Washington work!” More seriously, he stressed the need for people to engage in the political process: “They’ve gotta be willing to fight for what they believe is right.” He conceded that politics “has gotten tougher.” But, he added, the great satisfaction of being involved in our democracy is that “you can do things to make people’s lives better.”

Governor’s Budget Seeks to Build Water Resilience

Earlier this month the Newsom administration laid out its vision for addressing the linked issues of water and climate in two key policy documents: the much-anticipated draft of its Water Resilience Portfolio (WRP) and the governor’s budget proposal. The WRP, which resulted from an April 2019 executive order, was developed with extensive input from state agencies and stakeholders from around California. It outlines more than 100 actions designed to ensure that communities, the economy, and ecosystems across California’s diverse regions are able to weather our increasingly volatile climate. The January budget provides a roadmap of the administration’s initial spending priorities in this area.

The big ticket item is the $4.75 billion Climate Resilience Bond, which could appear on the November 2020 ballot. More than 60% of the bond amount would directly support actions in the WRP—including integrated regional water projects, safe drinking water, flood protection, and environmental stewardship. The remainder would address other climate resilience issues for California communities—including reducing risks from wildfire, sea level rise, and extreme heat—and closing the funding gap for restoration efforts in the troubled Salton Sea.

General obligation bonds—which are repaid through the state General Fund—have been a key tool for funding water and environment initiatives over the past two decades. Although they usually pass (eight of nine have been approved since 2000, totaling $39 billion in today’s dollars), voters rejected the most recent water bond—an $8.9 billion bond on the November 2018 ballot.

The administration also proposes a modest allocation of General Fund dollars to near-term actions on the portfolio’s long to-do list. Key areas of investment include:

Groundwater sustainability: Groundwater is an essential drought reserve. This year, local agencies and water users in the state’s most stressed basins will begin implementing the landmark Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to bring their basins into balance. The budget proposes to spend $60 million on the hard work of reducing water demand in ways that support local communities and economies, such as water trading and making the best use of fallowed cropland.
Better data for decision making: The WRP emphasizes the importance of modernizing data use to make the most of our water resources, and acknowledges the key role of the state as a data collector and developer. Of note is the proposed allocation of $80 million toward development of statewide LiDAR maps—landscape contour images that can help guide investments in habitat improvements and efforts to reduce risks from flooding and sea level rise.
Cutting “green tape”: The WRP also stresses the importance of improving the approval process for projects designed to enhance the natural environment, which is especially vulnerable to climate change. The current process, which involves many agencies, causes lengthy and costly delays. The budget proposes to reduce “green tape” by allocating $4 million for new staff positions to help make the approval process more efficient. Even modest additional resources, coupled with strong direction from state leadership to agency staff, could help California move toward truly coordinated, expedient, and effective stewardship of our natural environment.

The administration’s proposals provide much food for thought about state priorities in the California water arena. The WRP in particular emphasizes the state’s role in facilitating and supporting efforts at local and regional levels, where most water investments take place. In the coming months, there will no doubt be a lively debate about the specifics of the Climate Resilience Bond—which must be finalized by early summer to qualify for the ballot—as well as the other ways the Newsom administration and the legislature can help the state’s communities, economies, and environment build water resilience.