Climate Change/Energy – Page 3 – Public Policy Institute of California

Water Policy Priorities for a Changing California

How will climate change affect California water management, and what steps should the state take to prepare for these changes? The PPIC Water Policy Center was asked by the Newsom administration to submit formal comments outlining key water policy priorities for the state—and ways to integrate actions across state agencies to implement these priorities. Our recommendations will inform the administration’s preparation of a water resilience portfolio. We address two key areas where the state can play a leading role—modernizing the water grid and protecting freshwater ecosystems.

California’s “water grid”—the network of reservoirs, aquifers, rivers, and water conveyance and flood control infrastructure that connects much of the state—was built for a climate that no longer exists. Yet it is the most important asset the state has for addressing changing conditions, both statewide and within regions. A modernized water grid, coupled with more flexible management, can reduce the cost of future droughts, improve how we manage flood risk, and help protect freshwater ecosystems. The state has made important advances in assessing and improving its water supply infrastructure, but it still lacks a comprehensive program to address storage, conveyance, and operational challenges in the next few decades.

California’s freshwater ecosystems present special challenges. The state’s native biodiversity continues to decline, despite decades of effort to improve conditions. Problems encountered during the 2012−16 drought—high water temperatures, low flows, insufficient cold water stored in reservoirs, and degraded habitat—will all likely worsen as droughts become more intense. Management of cold-water-dependent species—including salmon, trout, and some resident fishes such as Delta smelt—will continue to pose a significant challenge for water managers and regulators as conditions warm. Changing habitat conditions could make it impossible for some species to remain viable in their historic locations. And conflicts between the need to protect native species and land and water management activities are likely to increase. Here, too, some promising actions have been taken, but more needs to be done to prepare for coming changes.

Tackling these complex challenges with an integrated water resilience portfolio is a bold step, and one that has the potential to make California a leader in climate adaptation. You can read our recommendations to the administration here.

Californians Support Actions to Address Climate Change

Today, world leaders converge in New York City for the United Nations Climate Action Summit. The summit comes at a time when the federal government is moving in a different direction than California in the area of climate change and energy policy. Just last week, the Trump administration announced it would rescind the state’s authority to set its own vehicle emission standards—a decision challenged on Friday in a lawsuit filed by California and 22 other states.

Over the past two decades, California has taken a multifaceted approach to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and Californians have consistently shown strong support for the state’s recent actions.

To reduce emissions from the transportation sector—the largest emitter, with 41% of the state’s GHG emissions in 2017—California expanded its vehicle pollution standards to cover smog-forming pollutants and GHG emissions. Other policies include low-carbon fuel standards, a major effort to ramp up electric vehicles, and integrating land-use and transportation investments.

California has also committed to decarbonizing the electricity sector. In 2018, then-governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order that calls for California to provide 100% of its electricity from renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045, and at least 60% by 2030. The state is on its way to meeting this goal, with about a third of electricity provided by renewable sources in 2017.

California was also the first state to enact a cap-and-trade program to reduce GHG emissions, which allows businesses to trade emissions permits. This program now covers 85% of the state’s GHG emissions.

New policies that target the reduction of carbon, methane, and other harmful GHGs are underway. Since carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere by plants and stored in vegetation, soils, and the ocean, the state is developing a strategy to use integrated land-use approaches. These approaches will produce the environmental and economic benefits that traditionally come from natural and working lands, while offering potential carbon storage.

Californians have consistently expressed support for strong climate change policies. A recent PPIC Statewide Survey found 71% of California adults are in favor of the state’s 100% renewable energy goal, including more than six in ten across regions and demographic groups. Two in three residents are in favor of the state law (Senate Bill 32) that requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Overwhelming majorities of Californians are also in favor of requiring automakers to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars.

This support will be critical in the state’s ongoing efforts to reduce emissions. In addition, adapting to the new realities brought on by climate change will be essential. Despite California’s goals and policies, some of the effects of a changing climate are already underway—and would persist even if all global emissions ended today. PPIC will continue to track California’s climate change policies and proposals, as well as residents’ opinions about this important issue.

Managing a Non-Native Delta Ecosystem

The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta has more non-native species than native ones, and its estuary is considered the most invaded in the world. We talked to Jim Cloern—an emeritus scientist with the US Geological Survey and an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center—about this challenge.

PPIC: How have non-native species changed the Delta?

Jim Cloern: The plant and animal communities are very different than they were 50 years ago. There are more than 200 non-native species of animals and plants in the Bay and Delta; all were introduced by people, many in the last half century. Some of these introduced species are relatively low in abundance, but some have emerged as “keystone species.” That means they now play a prominent role in the ecosystem, either by changing processes like food production for fish or by reshaping biological communities.

Probably the best-known example is a non-native clam indigenous to Asia that was first discovered in Suisun Bay in 1986. It was most likely carried across the Pacific in the ballast water of a cargo ship. Prior to this there weren’t any native clams in that part of the estuary; with no competitors, its population exploded. The clams caused a major restructuring of biological communities with their fast consumption of phytoplankton—the food supply for zooplankton, which in turn are an essential food source for young fish. After the clams took off, production at the base of the food web decreased by a factor of five—a major shock to any ecosystem. This has been a contributing factor to the decline of native fish since the 1980s.

There are many other examples of non-native species that have disturbed the Delta. The clam is just the most striking because the changes happened so fast—and have persisted for more than three decades.

Many species were introduced intentionally—for example, the striped bass and large-mouth bass, both of which are now popular sport fisheries. Both prey upon smaller species of fish, including some we’re trying to protect, such as salmon. As juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead migrate through the Delta to the ocean, they’re preyed upon by these introduced fish species.

Some non-native aquatic plants have caused significant harm to habitat. One is the water hyacinth. Anyone who boats in the Delta in summer runs into sloughs clogged with this floating water plant. It also blocks light below the surface, limiting phytoplankton production. Various efforts have been tried to control it, but they haven’t been effective. So the state now uses herbicides. We don’t know the environmental consequences of spraying these chemicals across the Delta.

Two more problematic non-native species are on the horizon: the freshwater quagga mussel and the nutria, a large rodent from South America. The quagga mussel was introduced in eastern waterways in the 19th century and has been making its way across the country. It’s now in Southern California. As with the clam, it outcompetes zooplankton for their phytoplankton food resource, disrupting food webs that support fish.

Nutria was farmed in the US for fur, and is a major problem in coastal Louisiana and the Chesapeake Bay. It poses a major risk to the Delta—not only for the ecological disturbance it creates, but also because its active burrowing threatens Delta levees already at risk from large storms.

PPIC: Describe how introduced species are affecting management of the Delta.

JC: We respond to ecological disturbance from introduced species with protective regulations and policies. For example, the state has begun a program to inspect boat hulls to make sure they don’t carry the mussel into new waterways. And the clam problem helped motivate California’s Marine Invasive Species Act, which directs commercial ships to either treat ballast water to kill species in it or discharge ballast water at sea. However, the state’s Marine Environmental Protection Division recently reported that the federal government intends to preempt state action on this issue.

But even with new policy efforts, the reality is that non-native species are making it harder to manage at-risk native species and ecosystems already challenged by harmful algal blooms, water diversions, habitat loss, and pollution from nitrogen and other nutrients.

PPIC: What should we do as next steps?

JC: Once a non-native species becomes established it’s very hard to eradicate. So we must try to prevent the introduction of new ones. And once they’ve been found, it’s critical to take urgent action to stop them from becoming established. A few decades ago we were caught off guard by the fast spread and large impacts of species introductions. We’ve learned how critical it is to act quickly, and California is now trying to actively prevent the spread of the quagga mussel, nutria, and other species.

The grand challenge of sustaining native species has turned out to be enormously difficult. That’s because their population losses are the result of many stressors—changing climate, habitat loss, pollution, non-native species, and water diversions. Success requires solutions built from a holistic, ecosystem-based perspective that considers ecological disturbance from introduced species in this broader context.

The Russian River: Managing at the Watershed Level

This is part of a series on issues facing California’s rivers.

Water managers across the state face new and more extreme challenges as the climate warms—from balancing the sometimes conflicting needs of urban, agricultural, and environmental water users to reducing risks from fires, floods, and droughts. We talked to Grant Davis, general manager of the Sonoma County Water Agency, about how his agency is approaching these challenges comprehensively, at the scale of the entire watershed.

PPIC: In your experience, what does it mean to manage at the watershed level?

Grant Davis: At its core, managing the Russian River watershed requires careful consideration of different land uses, stakeholders, water demands, environmental regulations, and ecosystem needs. We have to balance the competing needs of our 600,000 customers, a number of endangered species, recreational users, and a thriving farm community. In practice, we’ve changed our management considerably over the years. For example, we now intentionally release water from our two major reservoirs to improve estuary and fisheries management, while still meeting water supply needs.

In 2008, we began implementing what is known as a “biological opinion” designed to protect three endangered species—coho, Chinook and steelhead. An important element is restoring habitat on Dry Creek, a major tributary below our major drinking water reservoir. The idea is to slow water released from the reservoir to provide refuge for the fish. In the short run, it will likely make water deliveries harder, but it’s key to operating our system sustainably long term. When complete, we’ll have 6 miles of restored habitat out of a 14-mile stretch. It’s a multi-million-dollar effort—and a major undertaking in cooperation. Our agency has worked very closely with the regulating agencies and private landowners, who granted easements that enabled this restoration to occur.

PPIC: How do you use data sources to help you manage this watershed?

GD: We’re establishing information networks that bring multiple benefits. For example, we’re collaborating with the US Geological Survey on an integrated rainfall and stream gage network, which can help us evaluate whether storms might cause flash floods after fires. The rainfall data also helps with ecosystem management. In a changing climate, rainfall data is the primary input for understanding our watershed.

Since the Tubbs fire, we’ve begun working with more parties to leverage our respective data needs. For example, working with emergency responders, we’ve established a network of fire cameras that inform a text alert system. And working with PG&E, we’re looking at installing equipment to forecast atmospheric rivers and fire weather at the same weather stations.

It’s also critical that we use science to better understand atmospheric rivers, which will in turn allow us to better manage reservoirs as the climate warms. These large storms contribute to most flooding in California, and up to 95% of floods in our watershed. And the lack of atmospheric rivers leads to drought. We’re now working with the US Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the Department of Water Resources, and other colleagues to study this phenomenon. Together, we’re developing a joint project that uses improved forecasting of atmospheric rivers to better manage water releases from reservoirs. We’ve built a coalition with other water agencies—including those in Orange County, Turlock, and Yuba—that are interested in exploring these same issues in their rivers. Data from the project will help us improve how we manage water supply, floods, and the environment.

PPIC: Talk about how the interaction between surface water and groundwater has affected Russian River water management.

GD: Our watershed is ground zero for efforts to understand the links between groundwater and surface water, and to better manage both together. In 2014, Mark West Creek was selected as one of five priority creeks as part of the California Water Action Plan. The creek goes through a depleted groundwater basin, which has affected its flows. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is now developing recommended flow levels to protect and restore the creek’s critical habitat. The project will also quantify human needs within the watershed.

In places like Mark West Creek, groundwater recharge can play a critical role in addressing the “timing divide” for maintaining freshwater fisheries—because the question is not always whether water is available, but when it’s available. A pilot project in the town of Sonoma will use Russian River surface water in wet winters to recharge the aquifer. We can then pump it when it’s needed in dry summer months for critical uses.

Thanks to Jay Jasperse and Carlos Diaz, both of the Sonoma County Water Agency, for their contributions to this article.

Democrats View Environmental Policy as Critical in Upcoming Primary

Climate change is becoming a defining issue for voters in next year’s presidential election. According to PPIC’s latest statewide survey on the environment, record-high shares of Californians are concerned about the impacts of global warming, overwhelming majorities disapprove of the way President Trump is handling environmental issues, and most likely voters say presidential candidates’ positions on the environment are important in determining their vote next year.

With California’s presidential primary a little more than six months away, eight in ten likely voters say that the candidates’ positions on the environment are important (44% very, 36% somewhat) in determining their vote. Democratic likely voters (64%) are far more likely than independents (34%) and Republicans (20%) to say candidates’ positions on the environment are very important. In addition to partisan divisions, there are significant generational differences—even within parties, Democratic likely voters age 18 to 44 (76%) are much more likely than those age 45 and older (58%) to say candidates’ environmental positions are very important.

With the environment critical for many Democrats, especially younger voters, whom do they support in the 2020 presidential primary? Among likely voters who are registered Democrats or are Democratic-leaning independents, and who say candidates’ environmental positions are very important, support is greatest for Kamala Harris (19%), Elizabeth Warren (18%), Bernie Sanders (12%), and Joe Biden (11%). (Candidates mentioned are those who polled 10% or higher). Notably, nearly a quarter (24%) of those who say the environment is very important are currently undecided. Here, too, there are differences across age groups. Likely voters age 18 to 44 concerned about the environment name Warren (23%), Sanders (20%), and Harris (15%) as their top primary choices, while those age 45 and older name Harris (22%), Biden (16%), and Warren (15%).

When asked about the Green New Deal, a policy proposal in Congress that aims to address climate change and stimulate economic growth, three in four likely voters who are registered Democrats or are Democratic-leaning independents say that candidates’ positions on the proposal are important in determining their vote (35% very, 39% somewhat). Among those who say positions on the Green New Deal are very important, 20% name Harris and Warren, 14% name Sanders, and 10% name Biden as their preferred candidate. Again of note, 20% of voters who say this is very important are undecided. Likely voters age 18 to 44 interested in the Green New Deal support Warren (27%), Sanders (24%), and Harris (15%), while among those age 45 and older support is greatest for Harris (24%), Warren (16%), and Biden (15%).

These findings suggest that Californians will place high importance on environmental issues when making choices at the ballot in the coming year. With the next Democratic presidential debate and climate crisis town hall less than a month away, PPIC will be closely tracking the role of climate policies and other salient issues.

Preparing California’s Rivers for a Changing Climate

This is part of a series on issues facing California’s rivers.

California’s rivers and streams have experienced enormous changes over the past 150 years, and a warming climate brings new challenges. We talked to Ted Grantham—a river scientist at UC Berkeley and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network—about the state of the state’s rivers. Grantham was recently appointed as the first PPIC CalTrout Ecosystem Fellow. Thanks to the donors that helped us launch this program: Gary Arabian, the Morgan Family Foundation, Nick Graves, John Osterweis, and the Rosenberg Ach Foundation.

PPIC: Talk about the changes affecting California’s rivers and streams.

Ted Grantham: California’s rivers and streams have experienced so much change since European settlement that they’re considered “novel ecosystems.” Gold mining and logging brought a massive amount of sediment into rivers. Riparian forests that lined Central Valley rivers and extensive wetlands on the valley floor have mostly been converted to farming. Non-native species have been introduced to most of California’s rivers, lakes, and estuaries, which prey upon or compete with native species. Urban rivers across the state have been channelized. And essentially every major river and stream in the state is impacted by a dam. Dams aren’t just barriers to migratory fish, they also alter downstream flows.

We’ve also prevented rivers from being able to move. Rivers are not static features; when given the opportunity, they will dynamically respond to changes in climate. This dynamism is inherent to how rivers work—it’s how habitat is created and maintained for many species. And it’s what makes these systems resilient over time.

Given all these fundamental changes, it’s remarkable that most of the state’s native fish species are still with us, although many are at risk of extinction.

PPIC: How are the state’s rivers expected to respond to climate change?

TG: The most direct change is increasing temperatures. Our rivers and streams will continue to heat up in a warming climate. Even if average precipitation stays the same, we’ll also experience more extremes, with both drought years and wet years more likely to occur. While increasing floods pose risks to some river ecosystems, it’s drought we’re most concerned about. Drought not only reduces the amount of water available for the environment, it also intensifies competition with other water users, making it harder to protect freshwater ecosystems.

Climate change is particularly problematic for cold-water fish such as salmon. In the short term, large dams have the potential to limit warming to some degree because they hold reserves of cold water. For example, Shasta Dam is managed to sustain salmon populations downstream through cold-water releases. But if water gets too warm over time, our ability to sustain cold-water reserves in the reservoir will decline. In the long term, redesigning dams to allow for fish passage or strategically removing dams will give salmon access to cold water in higher elevation streams.

PPIC: How can we prepare rivers for a changing climate?

TG: There are several promising management strategies that are gaining traction and could help build climate resilience in our rivers. Two important ones are securing environmental flows and restoring floodplains.

“Environmental flows” refers to the quantity, quality, and timing of water needed to maintain healthy rivers and ecosystem services that people rely on. In the past, little consideration was given to water needs of the environment. But that is changing and we’re seeing a growing effort to establish legally protected water allocations for environmental benefits. For example, I’m currently involved in the California Environmental Flows Framework, a program to support the development of environmental flow standards in rivers and streams throughout the state.

We’re also seeing more interest in multi-benefit approaches to floodplain management. Most of California’s rivers are disconnected from their floodplains, which have been converted to agriculture and urban uses. This has had huge impacts on fish populations and other species. As the likelihood of extreme floods increases with climate change, reconnecting floodplains is a cost-effective way to reduce flood risk. What’s exciting is that floodplain restoration can be compatible with agriculture and can also provide productive habitats. For example, the Yolo Bypass is primarily managed to protect Sacramento from flooding, but it also supports seasonal agriculture and habitat for birds and fish. Bringing water back to our floodplains can even help replenish groundwater, which is a critical water source in drought years.

Planning for a Drier Future in the Colorado River Basin

The Colorado River has experienced decades of over-allocation of its waters, making it harder to address the added challenges that climate change is bringing. The recently adopted Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) was an important step toward addressing the basin’s chronic water shortages, but more work is needed to prepare for a hotter, drier future. We talked to Doug Kenney—director of the Western Water Policy Program at the University of Colorado and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network―about managing the basin for long-term water sustainability. Kenney organized a conference in June that covered these issues in depth.

PPIC: Talk about the basin’s over-allocation problem.

Doug Kenney: The current problem with the river’s water budget is in the lower basin. For much of this century, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico have consistently pulled about 1.2 million acre-feet more water out of Lake Mead than enters it each year. That’s basically five years of water supply for Las Vegas. You can get away with that much overuse by drawing down reservoir storage—which is what we’ve been doing—but that’s not sustainable. So we need to accelerate efforts to scale back consumption. That’s what the DCP was designed to do—it’s mandated belt tightening.

In the upper basin states it’s a very different situation—water use in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming is currently at a stable and reasonable level. But future use is expected to increase, while natural inflows are declining as the region continues to warm from climate change. The upper basin states can legally develop more water supplies, but the reality is that water isn’t likely to be reliably available. There’s a disconnect between how much water the upper basin states were promised and how much actually exists.

PPIC: What is needed to achieve sustainable management in the basin?

DK: The primary emphasis has to be on using less water. Given that most water in the basin is used for agriculture, that sector has the greatest potential to save water. Paying farmers to fallow some fields is probably the most appealing option. However, there are legal, financial, and cultural issues to deal with.

In most of the west, efforts to incentivize agricultural demand management have been pretty primitive—with the exception of Southern California, which has had major success trimming farm water use in the Imperial and Palo Verde water districts. Those programs aren’t perfect, but they are happening at a sufficiently large scale to make a significant contribution to addressing the regional water budget problem. In most other places in the basin, these types of programs are much smaller, and there’s a lot of skepticism about scaling these efforts up. The politics are very delicate, as these mechanisms would reallocate water from farms to cities. But you can’t ignore the math or the economics. Some sort of agricultural demand management will have to be a core element of any sustainable water use plan in the basin. The challenge is to do it in a way that is fair and protects the socioeconomic fabric of rural areas.

PPIC: What’s next for the basin’s water planning?

DK: The next steps are big ones. The operation of Powell and Mead is governed by interim guidelines that expire after 2026. Some key arrangements between Mexico and the US also expire then. The states are required to begin negotiating new rules to replace the expiring arrangements no later than 2020. This figures to be a really complex and very politically difficult negotiation, so there’s real interest in setting up the right process to get it done. That’s where many of us are focused right now—identifying the process that gives the negotiations the best chance for success.

PPIC: The DCP didn’t address ecological and health problems at California’s troubled Salton Sea. What’s next for the sea?

DK: At this point it’s about figuring out how to pay for what everyone knows has to be done. I’m convinced we’ve reached a turning point on the Salton Sea. There’s momentum within and outside of California to find a solution. It was disappointing that the DCP didn’t address the issues, but it wasn’t due to a lack of concern or effort—essentially, folks ran out of time. But I hear a consistent message from every sector and state: we need a solution for the sea. There’s an old maxim in this basin: anything is possible if all seven states can agree to it. I’m hopeful that this can apply to the Salton Sea crisis

Californians Favor Stronger Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Last month, California officials reached a groundbreaking deal with four major auto manufacturers to toughen greenhouse gas emissions. According to PPIC’s latest survey, an overwhelming majority of Californians (75% adults, 76% likely voters) favor requiring all automakers to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars. Californians express strong support for other efforts to reduce emissions as well.

The new emissions standards are more stringent than those proposed by the Trump administration and counter the administration’s efforts to restrict states’ ability to set emissions guidelines. Under the agreement, automakers will increase the fuel economy of their new vehicles by improving fuel efficiency and selling more electric vehicles and hybrids. While the stricter standards only apply to California, the automakers said the agreement is meant to show general support for a national emissions standard.

While most Californians favor requiring automakers to reduce emissions from new cars, support is slightly lower than it was when we first asked this question in 2002 (81% adults, 79% likely voters). Today, Democrats (90%) are much more likely than independents (73%) and Republicans (49%) to favor this policy. Strong majorities (at least seven in ten) across regions and demographic groups are in favor.

A strong majority of Californians (74%, 68% likely voters) also express support for encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less. Support has declined somewhat since this question was first asked in July 2008 (81% adults, 79% likely voters). Today, Democrats (87%) are nearly twice as likely as Republicans (45%) to favor the proposal, and three in four (75%) independents express support. Majorities across racial/ethnic groups are in favor, but Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans express the highest levels of support. Strong majorities across regions favor the proposal.

While three in four Californians favor these specific policy approaches, slightly fewer adults (67%) and likely voters (63%) support Senate Bill 32, the state law requiring California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Although partisans are deeply divided, majorities across regions and demographic groups are in favor, with Asian Americans (77%), San Francisco Bay Area residents (76%), and college graduates (76%) expressing the strongest support.

Earlier this year, Senator Scott Wiener introduced legislation (Senate Bill 50) that would require local governments to change zoning for new developments from single-family to multi-family housing near transit and jobs centers—one goal of the bill is to encourage less driving. In our May survey, 62% of Californians (57% likely voters) favored this proposal. Although the bill failed to advance out of a key committee, it is likely to be reconsidered in the 2020 legislative session.

As California’s leaders continue to pursue a variety of climate change and energy policies, PPIC will monitor emerging legislation on greenhouse gas emissions as well as the views of Californians on these proposals.

Video: Californians and the Environment

In the wake of the devastating wildfires over the past few years, a record-high share of Californians are very concerned about wildfires becoming more severe as a result of global warming, and majorities support the newly established wildfire insurance fund. At a lunchtime briefing in Sacramento last Thursday, PPIC researcher Alyssa Dykman outlined these and other key findings from the latest statewide survey.

Eight in ten likely voters see environmental issues as very important in the 2020 presidential election. With the California presidential primary seven months away, Kamala Harris (19%), Elizabeth Warren (15%), Bernie Sanders (12%), and Joe Biden (11%) have the highest levels of support among Democratic and Democratic-leaning likely voters; a quarter of these voters are unsure about how they will vote.

More than half of Californians see the state’s leadership on climate change as very important, and majorities support state and federal efforts to address climate change—from renewable energy to land-use and transportation planning that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Other survey highlights:

Two in three Californians oppose allowing more oil drilling off the coast; seven in ten support offshore wind power and wave energy projects.
Majorities view pollution of drinking water as a more serious problem in low-income communities and support the state’s creation of a clean drinking water fund.
Many Californians value ocean and beach conditions and say plastics and marine debris are a big problem.
There are wide partisan differences on climate change and what the state should do about it.

Record-High Share of Californians Worried about Climate-Fueled Wildfires

Two devastating wildfire seasons have put Californians on edge about future fire risk. Their concern is reflected in PPIC’s latest Californians and the Environment survey.

A record-high share of Californians (71%) report that they are concerned about wildfires becoming more severe as a result of global warming. This is an increase of 15 points since 2011 and 9 points since 2018. Concern over climate-fueled wildfires is significantly higher than concern about other potential global-warming impacts—this year it’s 29 points higher than concern over rising seas, and 22 points more than concern over worsening heat waves.

About six in ten Californians (63%) say that global warming has contributed to recent wildfires, a share that has remained steady in recent years. Today, residents of Los Angeles (71%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (69%) are the most likely to hold this view.

Overwhelming majorities of Democrats (85%) and independents (70%), and about half of Republicans (45%), say they are very concerned about more-severe wildfires. Women (77%) are more likely than men (65%)—and young Californians (78% age 18 to 34) are more likely than older residents (66% age 55 and older)—to hold this view.

Back-to-back years of destructive wildfires brought attention to a lack of funding for post-fire recovery, especially following the Camp Fire, when PG&E faced record-high wildfire liabilities and filed for bankruptcy protection. Governor Newsom recently signed into law a $21 billion wildfire fund that will reimburse investor-owned utilities for payments they make to victims of wildfires caused by their equipment. The fund will be paid for evenly by utility investors and ratepayers.

PPIC’s survey found that the governor’s wildfire fund is favored by a majority of Californians (57%). Support is much higher in the San Francisco Bay Area (67%) than elsewhere. The plan is also popular among minority groups, with 73% of African Americans and 68% of Latinos in favor, compared to Asian Americans (55%) and whites (49%).

Post-fire recovery funding does not address the need to reduce wildfire risk factors, however. Our report Improving the Health of California’s Headwater Forests outlines reforms to ensure long-term forest health is a top priority for guiding agency rules, policies, and management practices in one of the more fire-prone areas of the state. It also describes ways to make the most of available funds for forest treatment needs.

The state has been taking steps in recent years to manage wildfire risks. In 2018 the legislature appropriated $1 billion for fire prevention and fuel reduction activities over five years. In April, the governor declared a state of emergency throughout the end of this fire season to spur proactive forest management, especially near high-risk communities.

This year’s state budget allocated significant financial resources to mitigate the funding gap in forest management as well. And the state just added 393 more firefighters to its ranks. Changes at the federal level in 2018 are also helping to reduce wildfire risk on federal lands. These changes give California a chance to increase the pace and scale of ongoing wildfire risk-reduction efforts and to prepare for a new wildfire reality.