Climate Change/Energy – Page 13 – Public Policy Institute of California

Testimony: Addressing California’s Growing Flood Risk

The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee held its first hearing of the new legislative session yesterday. As a reminder that California is never more than one big storm away from flood problems—even when reeling from a multi-year drought—the hearing’s topic was flood management. A particular focus was the state’s role in supporting flood protection infrastructure using funds authorized by Proposition 1E, a $4.1 billion general obligation bond approved by state voters in November 2006.

I provided the committee with an introductory overview of California’s challenges in addressing growing flood risk. I began with some summary information on the extent and nature of the risk: Roughly 21 percent of California’s population lives in areas vulnerable to flooding, with 4 percent at extreme risk. This is a problem that affects all regions of the state—especially the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and coastal areas. Risk is growing as the population grows, putting more people in harm’s way. A rising sea level and a changing climate—with warmer winters and more variable conditions—are also increasing California’s vulnerability to flooding.

California has a vast flood management system, overseen by federal, state, and local agencies. But this system faces significant challenges–including a large investment gap, with spending lagging far behind needs. In addition, state taxpayers face potentially high liabilities from levee failures within the Central Valley since a 2003 court ruling (the Paterno decision). And while improving flood infrastructure such as levees can reduce the frequency of floods, it doesn’t eliminate risk. If new development is allowed in places with the relatively low level of protection required by federal standards (against the “100-year flood”—a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year), the total economic and social risk of flooding can actually increase. Flood insurance is a way to cushion against this remaining risk, but few Californians take advantage of this option.

In a recent study, PPIC took a closer look at the flood investment gap. We found that although the recent infusion of state bond funds has helped, California’s flood investments are still seriously lagging. California needs to raise an additional $800 million to $1 billion per year to undertake these investments within a reasonable time frame (25 years). Federal contributions are small (just $250 million/year in recent years), and likely to decline in the future. So the gap will need to be filled by state and local sources. In the very near-term, the state can step up with remaining bond funds. The governor’s budget proposes spending the remaining $1.1 billion in Prop 1E funds next year. Proposition 1—the new state bond approved by voters in November 2014—provides an additional $395 million for flood protection. Beyond this, the solutions lie in making it easier for local agencies to raise funds and identifying new state funding sources.

To reduce risk, the state should also consider extending reforms enacted for the Central Valley in 2007—which set higher protection standards for urban areas—to other flood-prone regions. One of the best defenses against flooding is land-use planning that keeps people out of harm’s way.

Legislators Talk Next Steps on Water Policy

Four key legislators yesterday discussed their water policy priorities for the current session, agreeing that their top one is overseeing the implementation of Proposition 1, the state water bond passed in November. At a Sacramento gathering sponsored by PPIC and focused on managing drought, the four also agreed that the bond is just a down payment in addressing a long list of water policy challenges.

Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, who represents parts of southeastern Los Angeles County, noted that the water bond’s lack of earmarks, or “pork,” helped secure the voters’ approval—and will require strong legislative oversight to make sure the money is well spent.

Echoing the theme of legislative oversight, Assemblymember Marc Levine, who represents parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, said it is important to review past investments—such as Proposition 1E, passed in 2006 to fund flood control projects—to make sure that money is spent strategically and builds voters’ trust in government.

Asked about other policy priorities, Senator Lois Wolk, who represents much of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, mentioned water infrastructure. It is wearing out, expensive to replace, and the federal government is no longer financing it. That makes funding a challenge for the state.

How can the state build drought resilience? Senator Jean Fuller, who represents parts of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino Counties, said ensuring a predictable water supply is critical.

“People do not know—especially the farmer—when they’re going to get their water, if they’re going to get it in August, if they’re going to get it in July, how much it’s going to cost at that point.”

By building more certainty in the system, water markets can be managed for the benefit of all, she said.

Hundreds of people attended the PPIC event Managing Drought, and hundreds more watched the online webcast. PPIC will post videos of the full event soon.

Drought Watch: Managing—and Learning from—Scarcity

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

California is entering a fourth year of drought. The welcome, wet conditions that appeared earlier this winter gave way to dryness during the latter half of December. Although forecasts suggest that wet weather may return later this month, the long-term moisture deficit is unlikely to be erased, leaving the state to continue grappling with water scarcity.

As unpleasant as droughts are, they offer an opportunity to assess how well prepared California is for managing its water resources. The usual approach to learning from droughts is to conduct assessments after the drought ends. Unfortunately, once the rains come—as they certainly will—the pressure to prepare for the next drought is greatly reduced.

Recognizing the need to learn from drought while it is ongoing, PPIC will hold a half-day conference on January 12 in Sacramento. The event, supported by the California Water Foundation, will include two keynote addresses—one on current drought conditions by the state climatologist and another from a member of the Australian National Water Commission on how that country managed an unprecedented, 13-year-long drought. In addition, there will be a conversation with four members of the California State Legislature on legislative priorities for addressing droughts. Finally, panels of state and local leaders will focus on institutional responses to the current drought and proposals for policy reforms in three areas:

Managing urban and agricultural water scarcity. To date, the consequences of the latest drought have varied greatly across California’s geographical regions and economic sectors. Impacts in large urban areas have been modest, while many smaller community water systems have faced significant shortages. Agriculture has been hit particularly hard, but the intensity of the crisis has varied depending on geography and availability of groundwater. The panel will explore wide-ranging proposals to reduce the effects of future droughts on urban and agricultural sectors.

Conserving ecosystems during drought. Acute water scarcity has posed a major challenge for the state and federal agencies charged with managing ecosystems that support fish and waterfowl. Difficult decisions, including temporary reductions in environmental standards and trade-offs between species, were made “on the fly” with limited scientific information. The panel will review lessons learned during this drought and consider new approaches.

Water allocation during drought. The state’s century-old law that governs water rights played a central role in managing the drought during 2014. For the first time since 1977, the State Water Resources Control Board had to restrict surface water use by some water rights holders. In addition, the board had to make tough choices about how to manage water for the environment and how to allocate water to protect public health. The panel will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to water rights, along with alternative approaches that might reduce conflict during drought.

The conference is now fully booked, with more than 400 participants registered to attend. But you can follow the proceedings via live webcast. PPIC will also post videos of the sessions after the event.

California–State of Change

As leaders from government, business, and philanthropy gathered last week to discuss California’s future, we were reminded once again that these are exciting times in our state. The discussions were part of PPIC’s full-day conference, California—State of Change, and they highlighted both the advantages our state enjoys and the major challenges ahead.

Speakers noted that the recovering state economy, newly elected state leaders, a richly diverse population, and a history of innovation provide much to build on—as well as a lot of building to do. For example, California has recently enacted sweeping changes in corrections and education finance. But, as the governor’s chief aide, Nancy McFadden, emphasized in her keynote address, most of the hard work of implementing these policies lies ahead.

Among other challenges noted in the subsequent panel discussions: a state tax structure that leads to extreme revenue volatility, a need for public employee pension reform, an uneven economic recovery that has left many Californians behind, government institutions that do not provide the tools for managing in the 21st century, and an electorate that is disengaged from the political process.

But, as other speakers reminded us, Californians are living in a time of reform. A change in term limits may lead to more stability in the legislature and result in more long-term policymaking. Recent initiatives to shift many school decisions from the state to the district level and to move state corrections responsibilities to the counties could make local governments labs for innovation—but only if we have the will and the data to evaluate the results.

Our final panel demonstrated that California still knows how to dream big. The discussion focused on three projects: a historic effort to combat climate change, the construction of high-speed rail, and the advancement of stem cell research. All have been controversial, but they show that California voters and elected officials embrace innovation, as they have throughout the state’s history.

We invite you to watch the videos of each session. We hope you find the conversations as thought-provoking as we did.

California’s Future Challenges and Opportunities

PPIC hosted a day-long series of conversations this week about creating a better future for our state and highlighting the choices we need to make today to do so. After a keynote address by Nancy McFadden from the governor’s office, panelists from government, business, and philanthropy discussed California’s challenges and opportunities before a large audience in Sacramento and online. They tackled difficult topics, such as improving economic opportunity and increasing citizen engagement in government. And they discussed ways the state can build on its strengths—an improving economy, a diverse population, and a history of reform and innovation.

We will post videos of all of the sessions soon. In the meantime, we want to share the opening remarks prepared by PPIC researchers. They set the context each session:

We hope their insights will pique your interest and inspire you to watch the conference videos when they become available.

PPIC’s Role in a Changing State

California is changing quickly and in ways that touch the lives of all of its residents. The state has enrolled millions of people in health insurance under the federal Affordable Care Act. It is moving ahead to expand the cap-and-trade program that is a cornerstone of AB 32, the landmark law mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In K–12 education, California is implementing two sweeping policy changes at the same time. New English and math standards, called the Common Core, require big changes in what is taught in the classroom. A new school funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula, gives districts increased flexibility over spending and provides extra money for disadvantaged students.

Historic changes are playing out in the corrections system as well. Realignment, which shifted responsibilities for many offenders from the state to the local level, has had a significant impact on the state, counties, and communities.

Amid these policy shifts, California is coping with a major drought that has focused attention on the state’s need to improve its water management.

These changes are also taking place in an election year—and California’s elections have also undergone major changes. This is the first election in which state constitutional officers, such as governor and controller, will be elected under the top-two primary system.

At PPIC we are focused on monitoring and analyzing the impact of these changes—both short and long term—and examining other steps the state can take to meet its critical challenges. In recent months, we have delivered objective, nonpartisan research on all of these topics. We plan to release many more publications in the months ahead. Our PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to give California residents a voice in the policy changes that affect them, as it has since 1998. The PPIC blog provides regular updates on the impact of the drought, as well as news and analysis on a range of policy topics from our experts.

Through our extensive outreach, we have hosted discussions on these important topics and more. We invited California’s two top legislative leaders to share their priorities for the upcoming session. At another recent event, the two secretary of state candidates talked about how they would improve elections and increase voter participation, if elected. Both of these events were webcast live to engage Californians from all over the state.

We encourage you to sign up for our announcements to learn about future events. We hope you’ll stay up to date with our publications and videos by signing up for our monthly e-bulletin, following us on social media, and subscribing to the PPIC blog.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions.

Drought Watch: Crises as Catalyst for Policy Change

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

Today Governor Brown signed three bills that require portions of the state to start managing groundwater sustainably. These bills are historic. Until today, California was the only western state that did not regulate groundwater, typically the source of more than one-third of the state’s supply, and much more during dry years.

Why, after a century of failing to address much-needed reform, has the state finally acted on this problem? It’s the drought.

The problem of groundwater overuse is nothing new in California. Calls for reform began as far back as the early 1900s, when severe excess pumping in many groundwater basins began to cause problems. Chronic overdraft—taking more out of the ground than nature puts back in—has left many basins severely depleted.

When the current drought arrived and communities and farms turned to groundwater to make up for shortages in surface water supply, a century of neglect—the hydrologic equivalent of deficit spending—caught up with California. The groundwater that, managed well, should have been cheap and plentiful, became expensive and scarce, leading to an economic and social crisis. The well-publicized effects of unsustainable pumping include sinking ground, dry wells, crumbling canals and roads, intense competition to drill deeper (and more costly) wells, the fallowing of more than 410,000 acres of farmland, and losses of more than $2 billion in farm revenues and more than 17,000 farm-related jobs. These factors combined to create pressure to tackle what had been, up to now, off limits to reform.

In our 2011 book, Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation, we note that significant advances in state water policy are often tied to droughts and floods, along with the inevitable lawsuits that follow. Extreme events like the current drought reveal fundamental weaknesses in California’s water management policies and practices. Perhaps more importantly, they create pressure on government to respond.

This is the silver lining of water crises in California: they are often the way we get things done. (The comprehensive reform of flood management enacted in 2007 was spurred on by the graphic images of Hurricane Katrina two years earlier, for example.) Indeed, one strategy for advancing water management reform is to plan and prepare for the inevitable, and then take advantage of a crisis to push ahead on needed reforms.

This year’s groundwater package is indeed historic, but California still has a long way to go in improving the way it manages water. With our changing climate, we should expect more frequent droughts and floods (and lawsuits)—so there will be no shortage of opportunities to tackle other problems in the future.

Drought Watch: Rethinking Urban Water Pricing

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

The California Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide policy last month requiring local agencies to implement drought plans, including restrictions on outdoor water use. Local agencies have responded in a variety of ways. Some have imposed mandatory cutbacks while others are still only asking their customers to make voluntary cutbacks. Mandatory water use restrictions can be more effective and, according to the July PPIC Statewide Survey, 75 percent of Californians say they strongly favor them. So why aren’t more water agencies enacting mandatory cutbacks during this crisis?

Last month, Jay Lund—a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis and an adjunct research fellow at PPIC— outlined some of the factors that might cause local agencies to shy away from mandatory restrictions. One important factor is that when conservation measures work, agencies sell less water and their revenues fall. But the costs of providing water services do not decrease as much, so agency balance sheets can end up in the red. As a result, investments in system maintenance and upgrade generally take a hit, and agencies often have to increase rates. This sends a confusing signal to customers, who just did what was asked of them.

There is an alternative: drought pricing. Charging more per gallon during drought years provides an additional conservation incentive and ensures that agencies can cover costs while they are selling less water. According to a June survey by the State Water Resources Control Board, only 4 percent of urban agencies have enacted drought pricing strategies. The city of Roseville is one community using the drought pricing tool, which was adopted—and vetted with customers—before the drought hit. In June, Roseville implemented a temporary 15 percent drought surcharge while also mandating a 20 percent reduction in water use.

Like most things that alter the status quo, drought pricing policies require effective communication with ratepayers. Agencies need to emphasize the need for higher prices alongside increased conservation during droughts to ensure customer buy-in. But a big advantage of a drought pricing policy is that customers understand in advance that prices need to go up to keep their water system solvent, rather than feeling blindsided by a rate increase after the fact. While they require additional effort—and advance planning—by local agencies, drought pricing policies result in better financials and customer relations while contributing to the primary goal of reducing water use during times of scarcity.

Drought Watch: Trends in Urban Water Use

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

Most of California is now in an exceptional drought, but water use statewide has actually increased over the last year. In response, the state has imposed short-term restrictions intended to help us get through the current drought. As state and local water agencies look beyond the current emergency for ways to adapt to a future in which droughts are likely to be more frequent and more severe, it is instructive to examine and compare urban use in two relatively normal water years, 2000 and 2010.

First, the good news: Total statewide urban water use (for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes) decreased by 12 percent from 2000 to 2010, even as California’s population increased by more than three million. Reductions have been especially significant in central and southern California, where investments in conservation programs and new technologies seem to be paying off. In the commercial and industrial sectors, water use fell 36 percent and 18 percent, respectively, while residential interior water use declined by 20 percent overall and 27 percent per capita. The Great Recession probably played a role in these reductions, so it will be interesting to see if this trend holds as the economy continues its recovery.

Now for the bad news: Outdoor water use for both residential exteriors and large (commercial or public) landscapes rose 12 percent across the state between 2000 and 2010. This trend was largely driven by increases in southern California—in marked contrast to the region’s reductions in indoor water use. And it is likely to persist as California’s population continues to grow, especially in hot and arid inland areas with a higher proportion of single-family homes (which use twice as much water outdoors per household as multi-family buildings) and large lots.

One important takeaway is that more stringent building codes, increasing efficiency requirements, and new technologies seem to have resulted in more efficient indoor water use. But when it comes to landscaping, any improvements in irrigation technology seem to have been offset by our taste for large lawns and plants that need a lot of water (and our habit of overwatering them). To encourage long-term reductions in outdoor water use, agencies can implement new pricing structures, turf buy-back programs, and public education programs emphasizing drought-friendly landscaping. After our current water emergency ends, these long-term incentives and outreach efforts can help us be better prepared for future droughts.

(The map below shows the change in per capita outdoor urban water use between 2000 and 2010 in each hydrologic region. To see details of the state’s hydrologic regions, including county boundaries, visit our Map Room.)

Chart source: California Department of Water Resources.

The Politics of Global Warming

The Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32, was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. The law—which requires state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions—received strong majority support (65%) among Californians when the PPIC Statewide Survey first asked about it in July 2006, with strong majorities of Democrats (67%), Republicans (65%), and independents (68%) in favor.

Overall support for the law remains strong: in our July 2014 survey, 68 percent of Californians said they favored it. But the partisan makeup of the supporters has changed significantly. While support among Democrats and independents has remained solid, it has gradually decreased among Republicans. Today, 81 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents favor the law, but only 39 percent of Republicans do.

What happened?

We have found that this partisan divide is linked to two main factors. The first is the increasingly common belief among Republicans that global warming is not imminent. Fewer Republicans today say the effects of global warming have already begun (47% 2006, 35% today) or that global warming poses a serious threat to California (57% 2006, 48% today). Attitudes among Democrats and independents have not changed much.

The second factor is rising concern among Republicans that addressing global warming will affect the economy and jobs. From the beginning, proponents of AB 32 have argued that the threat posed by global warming requires immediate state action and opponents have expressed concern about the economic impact of regulating greenhouse gases. Our survey shows that during the Great Recession, support for taking action right away declined among all Californians. Support did not drop much among Democrats and independents, and it bounced back as the economy recovered. But immediate action on global warming was never popular among Republicans, so perhaps it is not surprising that even as the state’s unemployment rate declined from its peak in 2010 most Republicans continued to say the state should wait until the economy improved.

Their differences may be growing, but partisans do still agree on some aspects of addressing global warming. Majorities across parties continue to favor requiring increasing energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances. They also favor requiring industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce their emissions.

These results show that policymakers face a challenge in forging compromises on the contentious aspects of climate change policy. But they also have areas of consensus to build on.