Climate Change/Energy – Page 2 – Public Policy Institute of California

A Changing Water Landscape

California saw some especially big changes over the past year in its ever-changing water world. New groundwater sustainability agencies finalized their plans to better manage overtapped groundwater supplies, and are poised to begin implementing them. In October, the Trump administration announced plans to pump more water from the Delta, complicating efforts to negotiate solutions to water supply and ecosystem management conflicts in the Central Valley. And the Newsom administration recently released a plan to make the state’s extensive water system more resilient to climate change. All of this—and much more—took place in 2019.

The PPIC Water Policy Center continued its engagement on the big water issues facing California, and offered ways to tackle them.

Climate change
Climate change is bringing pressures that will seriously impact California’s water system: warming temperatures, shrinking snowpack, shorter and more intense wet seasons, more volatile precipitation, and rising seas. The issue is a defining element in much of the center’s work. Highlights from this year include:

The Newsom administration asked the center to summarize key water policy priorities to improve climate resilience, and ways to improve integration across state agencies to implement these priorities. Our recommendations informed the administration’s “water resilience portfolio.”
Our research on managing wastewater in a changing climate reviews how this important sector can maintain water quality in the face of reduced indoor water use, make smart recycled water investments, and build resilience to severe drought.
I gave testimony at a House of Representatives committee on preparing western water infrastructure for a more volatile climate.
We produced a trio of new fact sheets that explain how climate change affects California’s water; the importance of modernizing the state water grid to prepare it for the changes to come; and how to store more water in underground basins, which are a crucial drought reserve.
Our biennial Priorities for California’s Water report provided recommendations for improving water management and preparing the state’s water systems and natural environment for a changing climate. The publication inspired multiple panel discussions at our annual water conference in November.

Sustainable groundwater management
The San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest agricultural region and an important contributor to the nation’s food supply—faces growing water stress. We released a far-reaching report that details the valley’s water-related challenges, and lays out cooperative approaches that can help bring groundwater basins into balance, provide safe drinking water, and manage changes to water and land that will maximize benefits to people and nature. The center partnered with Fresno State’s California Water Institute to host a half-day event to discuss the new report’s findings. Our team also took our findings to the state legislature, various stakeholder groups, the media, multiple state agencies, and more.

Freshwater ecosystems
Our latest report calls for a new approach to protect the many benefits Californians derive from freshwater ecosystems. It lays out a plan to manage water, land, and species simultaneously to improve ecosystem health while also protecting native biodiversity and human uses of ecosystems. The approach, summarized here, is consistent with state and federal endangered species laws. We also held an event to hear from practitioners from around the state, who highlighted the advantages of this approach and the need to implement it more rapidly.

We’re thankful for these opportunities to help find creative and collaborative solutions to California’s most difficult and pressing water challenges. And as always, we thank our supporters who enable this important work.

With best wishes for a hopefully wet (but not too wet!) 2020,

Ellen Hanak

P.S. You can sign up for our weekly blog post. And you can learn more about how to support the center’s work.

Providing Safe Drinking Water in the Face of Disasters: Lessons from Lake County

Climate change is already affecting water management across the state. Small rural communities with ongoing drinking water challenges are especially vulnerable to greater extremes brought on by a warming climate. We talked to Jan Coppinger, a special district administrator from Lake County, about how the county’s small water systems have dealt with an especially devastating string of natural disasters.

PPIC: Describe Lake County’s recent water challenges.

JAN COPPINGER: The county is predominantly rural, geographically diverse, and home to a number of small, disadvantaged communities and tribes. As towns in the county were developing, they built small, isolated water systems. We now have almost 100 public water systems, and some are barely getting by. The county tried to encourage consolidation of smaller systems into bigger ones in the late 1980s. Two major consolidations took place at that time: one that merged 41 small suppliers to create the North Lakeport water system—which today is one of our strongest, best water systems—and one that combined 15 systems. The county did feasibility studies on other potential consolidations, but these were met with opposition from local communities, so the issue was dropped altogether until recently.

Over the past several years, a string of natural disasters has kept Lake County in a constant state of emergency. It started with a drought, followed by two massive wildfires, which burned more than 60% of our county. The burn scars made the floods of 2017 and 2019 especially devastating. The 2015 Valley Fire destroyed thousands of homes and eight water systems. One small water supplier—Starview Water System—had 151 customers before the fire and only 14 afterward. Following these disasters, consolidation became a way to get some of the devastated water systems back up and running. We have had success with consolidating and rebuilding nine water systems in the Cobb Mountain area in the last couple of years.

PPIC: Consolidation is a big undertaking. What is the most important lesson from Lake County’s efforts?

JC: It’s a very complicated process, and in most cases, outside technical assistance is needed. We have two other areas now looking at consolidation, and we’re having a hard time identifying which of the small water agencies can take the lead in the process. The agencies are willing but they don’t have the managerial or technical capacity. We have gotten support from the State Water Board and non-profit partners like the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to walk them through it. Financial assistance is another barrier, because consolidation can be expensive. The costs really vary. For the Cobb Mountain project, the feasibility study alone cost $250,000. We’re probably talking around $21 million for the entire consolidation. In that case, we had to bring some of the small systems up to code, and repair significant damage from the fire.

PPIC: How can small systems best prepare for natural disasters and climate change?

JC: Building physical connections to other systems and sharing resources is critical. Small systems need a backup supply to handle disasters—and because sometimes even the backup burns, they may need a backup to the backup. For instance, in the aftermath of the Valley Fire, the county invested $1.7 million to rebuild the Starview Water System, and connect it to other small systems in the Cobb Mountain area. The floods in early 2019 took out the roads, the culverts, and the brand new water system we built.

I never dreamed that entire water systems would burn to the ground. When I describe what has happened to small water systems in our area from these disasters, it really opens people’s eyes. Educating the people running these small systems has helped change minds about consolidation, in Lake County and across the state.

Watch a video of Jan Coppinger and other panelists talk about providing safe drinking water in California

Video: A Path Forward for California’s Freshwater Ecosystems

“The current approach for ecosystem management is not working. We’re proposing an alternative path,” said Jeff Mount, senior fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center, at a public briefing in Sacramento last week. He described two ways the current path is failing: in preserving the broad economic and social benefits associated with healthy ecosystems and in reversing the long-term downward trend in native biodiversity and ecosystem conditions. “The Endangered Species Act misses all that. It’s emergency room treatment” of a chronic problem, he added.

The event launched a new report that proposes managing more broadly for ecosystem health while still protecting species at risk of extinction. “We need diverse, complex, and varied ecosystems to recover species,” he noted.

A panel of experts brought real-world experience to the discussion. Panelists have worked on a plan to protect habitats for multiple species in the Upper Santa Ana watershed, a program to restore the San Joaquin River, and the effort to remove dams on the Klamath River, among others.

Heather Dyer, an endangered species biologist with the San Bernardino water district, said that in the Upper Santa Ana watershed, a large group of stakeholders is seeking to “reestablish a community of species” rather than solely focusing on one or two endangered species. She noted that improving the health of ecosystems requires planning at larger scales—and with the full landscape of regulators and stakeholders coming together to work things out.

Ali Forsythe of the Sites Reservoir Project noted that the hardest lift for large-scale projects is building trust among diverse stakeholders—especially when the project has had a long history of litigation behind it, as the San Joaquin River restoration did.

Lester Snow, now with the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, raised the issue of urgency for improving the health of the state’s freshwater ecosystems. Noting that the Klamath dam removal is already at the 13-year point with the four dams still standing, he said, “It’s these lead times that I think are killing us. Climate change and the change of our natural resource system are moving faster than we’re responding,” with grave implications for water supply reliability and ecosystem health. “We cannot have two decades of litigation and negotiation to address a problem that is critical today.”

We invite you to watch the event video.

The Democratic Presidential Primary: What Do Californians Care About?

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, and director of the PPIC Statewide Survey, participated in a panel on election issues at the Pacific Chapter of the American Association of Public Opinion Research meeting on December 6, 2019 in San Francisco. This post is excerpted from his prepared remarks.

Californians are turning their attention to the March 3 Super Tuesday primary as they play a new role in deciding the next Democratic presidential nominee. This is unfamiliar territory for California’s Democratic primary voters, who have become accustomed to casting ballots in June after other states have already determined the winner of their party’s presidential sweepstakes.

The 2019 PPIC surveys have consistently identified three frontrunners—Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren—with no clear favorite. At the same time, likely voters have signaled an openness to considering alternatives. In this context, the debates loom large, and eight in ten likely voters in the September PPIC survey say they are important (41% very, 43% somewhat) in deciding their vote.

What do California’s Democratic primary likely voters most want to hear from the candidates as the stage is being set for a December 19 Democratic debate in Los Angeles? In an open-ended question in the November PPIC survey, the top four issues mentioned are health care (21%), the environment (14%), jobs and the economy (13%), and immigration (12%). Several other issues—such as education, homelessness, housing affordability, gun control, crime, and taxes—are each mentioned by less than one in ten likely voters.

Across demographic groups, likely voters differ on the issues that matter the most. For instance, voters age 45 and older want to hear about health care more often than younger voters do (26% to 13%), while Latinos want to hear about immigration more often than whites do (24% to 5%), and whites want to hear about the environment more often than Latinos do (23% to 4%). Jobs and the economy is the only top issue generating a similar amount of interest across age, education, gender, income, race/ethnic, and regional groups.

The issues of greatest concern also vary according to candidate preference. Biden’s supporters name health care more often (25%), Warren’s supporters mention the environment more often (26%), and Sander’s supporters name immigration more often (22%). By contrast, supporters of the three leading candidates are similarly likely to mention jobs and the economy (13% Sanders, 11% Biden, 7% Warren).

One area of strong consensus? Views of President Trump. In the November PPIC survey, 91% of California Democratic primary likely voters say they disapprove of President Trump and 84% support his impeachment and removal from office.

When asked what’s more important, nominating a candidate who seems most likely to defeat Trump or one whose positions on issues are closest to theirs, 55% want to defeat Trump, while 36% want alignment on positions. Since the May PPIC survey, support for impeachment (65% to 84%) and the importance of nominating an electable candidate (48% to 55%) has risen.

Those who say that electability is most important, compared with those who say policy positions are most important, are more likely to mention health care (25% to 15%) and less likely to name immigration (7% to 18%) as the issue that they most want to hear about in the presidential debates. We find no differences between these two voter groups in the mention of the environment or jobs and the economy. Interestingly, education (11% to 2%) is noted more often among those who say that alignment on the issues is more important to them.

The Los Angeles debate is the next big opportunity for the presidential candidates to connect with California voters whose preferences are still being formed. Many Democratic primary likely voters already report that they are closely following the election news, but the debate could still result in an expanded electorate—and a scrambling of the race—if candidates connect with voters on issues that matter the most to them.

Throughout 2020, PPIC surveys will be monitoring what is likely to be an historic year for voter participation, as Californians engage in a consequential primary and a highly anticipated general election.

Reducing Flood Risk in the Central Valley

The Central Valley has some of the highest risk of flooding in the state, and that risk is growing as the climate changes. We talked to Tim Ramirez, a member of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, about how this risk is being managed for current and future conditions.

PPIC: Talk about managing flood risk in the valley.

TIM RAMIREZ: The valley has always flooded, especially in spring when snow melts in the high Sierra. Before it was developed, the landscape was often an inland sea in the spring. Now that many more people live there, it’s harder to minimize risk. The flood management system in the valley was envisioned 150 years ago, and in a lot of ways it continues to work. But the climate is changing with more rain and less snow, requiring an update.

That’s where the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan comes in. The plan is meant to not only protect people but also to help restore river ecosystems. We need to give rivers more room to flood, which better protects people and creates floodplains for native fishes, including Chinook salmon. For example, the Sacramento Valley Chinook salmon fall run is the single most important commercial fishery off northern California and southern Oregon, and there’s been a lot of work to ensure the health of those populations. There’s been a big push to restore salmon populations on the San Joaquin River, too. Reconnecting rivers to their floodplains is key to restoring salmon and illustrates the multiple benefits we can get from one project.

Rivers in the San Joaquin Valley in particular need more room. The San Joaquin River and its main tributaries—the Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus—flow through Fresno, Merced, Modesto, Oakdale, and other communities. Each has less than 10,000 cubic feet per second (CFS) peak flow capacity in their floodways. By comparison, the American River has expanded its floodway and can now safely release more than 100,000 CFS. The San Joaquin system is plumbed to store and meter out snowmelt. But almost all climate forecasts show more rain and less snow. The reservoirs and levees on the San Joaquin aren’t designed or operated for large rainfall events or the “pineapple express” floods (like the January 1997 floods) that come from rainfall on large snowpack.

PPIC: Talk about the flood plan.

TR: What’s unique about the valley is that the state—through our board—is responsible for operating and maintaining levees. The plan outlines what needs to be done to minimize flood risk and restore river ecosystems. The first plan was completed in 2012. We’re scoping now for the third update, due for adoption in 2022. The most important thing about this update is the acknowledgment that we need to modify the system for changing climate conditions.

When the next big flood happens we’ll have a lot more people living in harm’s way. The most immediate thing we can do is make better use of new forecasting tools and prepare to execute evacuation plans, so we can get people to high ground.

One of highest long-term priorities is to make investments where the San Joaquin River flows into the Delta near Stockton. A lot of improvements are happening on the Sacramento side of the system—for example, setting back levees to make more room for floods—but not as many on the San Joaquin side. The state needs to support local efforts on the ground and also flesh out the plan so we can start building multi-benefit projects on the San Joaquin side.

PPIC: What is one thing you hope to see accomplished in five years?

TR: That’s easy—create expanded flood capacity, including new floodplain habitat, on the San Joaquin side of the system. I also want the state to set new standards for how much bigger our floodways need to be to protect Central Valley communities, taking into account our changing climate.

Near term, we also need to fund the necessary operations and maintenance for the system we have now. It’s a universal problem that affects flood management and management of other water systems, forests, and the electric grid.

Watch Tim Ramirez and other panelists discuss protecting Californians from fire, floods, and drought at our November 2019 water conference.

Addressing Inequality in Flood Risk

More than 7 million Californians live in places that are at risk of flooding. But not every community is well prepared to recover from floods. A new study, headed by experts at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), is looking at how flooding affects social inequality in flood-prone parts of the state. We talked to project leads Richard Matthew and Brett Sanders about the issue.

PPIC: How can flooding affect social inequality?

RICHARD MATTHEW: Inequity typically grows with disasters. There is a whole range of ways hazards increase social inequity, and these impacts are expected to increase as flooding becomes more frequent and intense because of climate change. Low-income communities and people of color tend to have considerably less access to resources, such as insurance, to help them recover from floods. They often don’t have good access to emergency response information. Floods can affect their health, and impose various costs they weren’t expecting. They may lose their jobs and their affordable housing. They may have poor access to relief funds. At the end of the day, higher-income people usually end up in about same place they were before a disaster, but lower income people largely end up worse off. And these effects can last for years, and sometimes even bring permanent losses.

PPIC: Talk about how we evaluate local and state flood risk currently.

BRETT SANDERS: We basically rely on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps to evaluate flood risk across the state. We make a lot of decisions on the risk to property and people based on whether they live inside or outside of the high flood risk zones those maps show. FEMA maps are fairly cryptic about flood hazard, and they’re not designed to help the average person understand their exposure to floods or what the impacts might be. This approach does a poor job of preparing communities to be more resilient to flooding. What we know from work we’ve done in Southern California is that creating visualizations of flooding in partnership with those affected leads to much more useful information. And fine-resolution data makes a difference. By visualizing flooding at the scale of buildings and streets, we not only increase awareness about flooding, but we can minimize differences in perceptions about flooding. This sets the stage for productive conversations—finding out the issues communities care about and what can be done to minimize future flood impacts. It also presents an opportunity to bring climate science into flood planning. This “collaborative flood modeling” approach is entirely complementary to the FEMA insurance program.

A sample visualization of flood hazards. Credit: Brett Sanders/UCI

PPIC: What are some policy changes that could help California better safeguard those most at risk?

RM: In the short term, we especially need to bring collaborative flood modeling into the state’s climate assessment. Flood maps must be developed with the people who will be affected, so we can understand how flooding will affect people and identify the ways in which they are vulnerable. Our study will be a step in that direction. Longer term, we need fair and affordable ways to reduce flood vulnerability in much of California. That might mean inclusion in risk reduction planning, improved emergency communications, community-based access to resources for people affected by floods—and also policies to protect lower-income communities from the losses they disproportionately incur.

BS: California should have intuitive and actionable flood data available statewide. More graded information is needed for the different kinds of flood risks across the state—levees breaking, sea level rising, intense precipitation, and mudflows coming out of the mountains.

Video: Preparing California’s Water System for Climate Extremes

Climate change is stressing water management across California. This week the PPIC Water Policy Center hosted its annual half-day workshop in Sacramento to discuss how state and local leaders can help prepare California’s water system and ecosystems for greater climate volatility.

“California has the most variable year-to-year climate of any state in the lower 48,” said Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center. “This is expected to increase, with drier dries and wetter wets.” Water management of the future will “need to start managing our droughts for floods and our floods for droughts,” she added, because greater volatility will make it harder to manage multipurpose reservoirs for both floods and droughts at the same time. Flexible, multi-benefit approaches—and solutions that are aligned across agencies—are going to be increasingly important in tackling these complex challenges.

The first panel focused on managing fast- and slow-moving disasters—floods, fires, and droughts. Panelists discussed the impacts of the recent fires on communities and local water systems, and the types of tools and partnerships that can help minimize risks. Tim Ramirez of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the significant and increasing flood risk in the San Joaquin Valley and called for a flood bypass to protect the growing Stockton region. And Michael Thompson of Sonoma Water called for funding from the state to support the “collaborative infrastructure” that will enable agencies to work together more effectively.

A panel on safe drinking water summarized the current status of the problem and discussed how to best use the new Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund to ensure that the water delivery system works for everyone. “I think that in five years we want to see every child in California has safe drinking water in their home,” said Jonathan Nelson of the Community Water Center. “The way we do that will be through multiple strategies, but that’s the vision we want to work toward, and ideally, as quickly as we can.”

Darrin Polhemus of the State Water Board said small water systems pay more for their systems and supplies, have a lack of management and technical capacity, and are particularly hard hit by water contamination and shortages. He noted that “we have to change this whole paradigm” to help improve how small water systems operate.

The final panel brought key state officials to the stage to discuss the governor’s water resilience portfolio, now being developed to address the challenges of a more volatile climate. Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said a top priority is to make it easier to help the environment and get multiple benefits out of water projects. “Permitting wetlands restoration is the exact same process as permitting a strip mall,” he said. “So while we’re threatened by climate change and our ecosystem is under unprecedented threat, state government makes it really expensive and slow to get [such projects] done.” He said his agency is committed to cutting “green tape” that slows ecosystem restoration projects.

Sounding a particularly hopeful note, Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, said we have “an opportunity of a lifetime for farmers to step up and identify how they can be part of the solution to climate change.” She noted that farm practices can sequester carbon while also building resiliency to help farms weather droughts and floods.

We invite you to watch the videos from this event:

Taking on Tough Challenges at the State Water Board

The State Water Board is central to addressing many of California’s major water challenges, including protecting water quality for drinking and for the environment, addressing drought and water conservation, and managing the allocation of surface water. We talked to Sean Maguire, a civil engineer who was appointed to the board by former governor Brown in December 2018, about priority issues.

PPIC: What are the big challenges the board is grappling with right now?

Sean Maguire: At the top of our list is the Bay Delta water quality control plan. The plan, which covers the Sacramento–San Joaquin watershed and Delta, must ensure a reliable water supply and protect the basin’s fisheries and ecosystems. We’re working through a process that is very complex and has a lot of moving pieces—and right now it’s unclear if we’re on track to meet all of these goals. But it’s exciting to think there is a stakeholder-devised solution at hand—the voluntary agreement process—which would set out a plan to manage multiple rivers in a coordinated way, coupled with large-scale habitat restoration and science programs. There is still a long ways to go, but I have hope that voluntary agreements will prove to be the best path forward.

At the same time, we’re preparing for climate change. It’s clear that going forward we have to be incredibly efficient in our water management. The last drought resulted in legislation to establish indoor and outdoor water use efficiency targets and to require urban suppliers to develop stronger drought contingency plans. Many small water systems rely on a single source—most often groundwater—and we’re helping them find opportunities to connect to larger communities and identify new supplies. This is where water portfolios can help build resilience to drought and get us ready for a changing climate.

And finally, the most exciting news is the establishment of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund earlier this year. California has 7,000 water systems and hundreds of thousands of residents using domestic wells—a situation that presents a lot of challenges because many struggle to meet drinking water standards. The fund is a high priority for us, and we’re committed to coming up with a plan and policies to implement it, while also working on projects that can get started right away.

PPIC: Talk about contamination challenges.

SG: Water contamination is a huge challenge for the whole state. There are so many different sources, and many contaminants of emerging concern. The board is at the beginning of tackling PFAS contamination. This is a class of “forever chemicals” used in a wide range of products—for example, nonstick coatings, water repellants, take-out containers, and fire retardants. We’re moving quickly to better understand the risk by requiring testing wells in close to possible source sites (such as defense facilities, landfills, and airports), and also requiring those facilities to test local groundwater. We are also working to understand the human health effects, which will take some time.

PPIC: What gives you hope?

SG: In the past year, there’s been incredible collaboration surrounding really controversial water issues that have lingered for decades. I’m very hopeful about the stakeholder-informed solutions that are arising out of these processes. In addition to the Bay Delta process, we now have a strong wetlands policy—a collaborative solution that was a decade in the making. We have another stakeholder plan to address legacy pollution from farming and other discharges in the Central Valley. I hope we can repeat this type of collaboration with other issues and in other watersheds across the state. I have a lot of hope for the groundwater sustainability plans that are being developed now in the state’s overdrafted basins. And I believe the governor’s upcoming water resilience portfolio will give us a roadmap to help California prepare for the climate changes to come.

The state has a lot of complex water problems, and we can’t untangle them all with one brilliant policy change. But we’re making progress on many difficult issues, and I’m committed to keeping up the momentum.

New Laws Address Safe Drinking Water, Groundwater Recharge, River Health

It’s been an eventful year for California water policy. A milestone law to address the state’s drinking water challenges, which was signed by Governor Newsom earlier this year, established a $1.3 billion Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. In line with its broader policy focus on climate resilience, the administration is also creating a Water Resilience Portfolio Initiative, a collaborative effort by various state agencies to ensure water resilience in the face of a changing climate. A number of bills recently signed into law build on the progress made in this area. Here are some highlights:

Safe drinking water: Continuing the forward momentum of the drinking water fund, two new laws tackle water quality and supply, especially in rural, disadvantaged communities. Assembly Bill (AB) 508 authorizes the State Water Board to order water system consolidations in communities with domestic wells that consistently fail to provide safe drinking water. The bill also requires the board to ensure the consolidation is financially and technically possible, and to compensate for financial losses experienced by the water system that takes over the small system. And Senate Bill (SB) 513 authorizes the State Water Board to provide immediate relief for households whose wells have gone dry due to droughts or other disasters.
Groundwater recharge: A new law will also make it easier for water users to bring their groundwater basins into balance—another key to long-term water resilience. AB 658 seeks to enable more recharge of depleted basins, one of the most promising approaches for addressing groundwater overdraft. The bill streamlines the permitting process for groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and other local agencies to divert surface water for groundwater recharge. This tool is timely for the GSAs; those in the most overdrafted basins are now finalizing plans to manage their basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
Health of rivers, lakes, and streams: Challenges with freshwater quantity and quality for ecosystems were addressed by two new laws. SB 19 addresses a key data gap that makes it harder to manage water for ecosystems, especially during droughts. California currently lacks stream gages—which help monitor water levels—on half of the rivers and streams that support critical habitats. The bill requires the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board to develop a plan to modernize and expand the state’s stream gage network. And to address a growing water quality threat, AB 834 establishes a program to mitigate harmful algal blooms in California’s rivers, lakes, and estuaries, which pose a health threat to people and animals. The program will assess and monitor algal blooms, and publish the incidents and the resulting action online.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for California’s complex water challenges. This legislative cycle brought a range of solutions, from those with a broad scope, like data collection, to more targeted tools to address groundwater recharge and dry wells. Both types of approaches are needed to strengthen existing policies and take our water management forward.

Managing Urban Water During Dry Times: The California Example

This article was posted on Meeting of the Minds on October 7, 2019.

California’s drought-prone climate, diverse and decentralized landscape of urban water suppliers, and complex water system make it something of a laboratory for testing ways to manage water scarcity. The state’s urban water suppliers have become particularly adept at managing drought, and this sector has become a leader in water use efficiency, recycling, supply diversification, and integrated management.

But the 2012–16 drought revealed that California’s urban areas must continue innovating to ensure water systems are resilient to climate change. Unusually severe, this drought included the driest four-year stretch in 120 years of record keeping. Record-high temperatures and record-low precipitation reduced water stored in mountain snowpack and intensified drought conditions in other ways—making it more like droughts of the future that are expected to result from a changing climate. The lessons learned from this research have relevance for other urban areas facing drought.

Read the full article on meetingoftheminds.org