Category: Drought

Stressful Times for Drought-Stricken Delta

The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is one of the West’s most important estuaries, and a critically important water source for millions of Californians. But decades of water exports and human alterations have transformed this aquatic ecosystem, and a few dozen of its native species have dwindled to the point of extinction. We interviewed Phil Isenberg, vice chair of the Delta Stewardship Council and a member of PPIC’s board of directors, about the state of the Delta.

PPIC: How is the Delta faring these days?

Phil Isenberg: From an environmental perspective there’s not a lot of good news. The Delta is a severely damaged environmental site of great importance, and the damage has continued for more than 100 years. Very little restoration activity has taken place compared to the vast development of water supply infrastructure that has gone on in the past century. More housing is being built in flood-threatened areas, and urban growth continues on the boundaries. Some areas like Stockton are rapidly encroaching on agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas in Delta. The state’s Delta tunnel proposal has a greatly reduced environmental restoration plan—only about 30,000 acres of land will be put in protected status or restored for environmental purposes. It’s not insignificant, but certainly not as positive as the 150,000 acres which was part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

PPIC: What is the role of the Delta Stewardship Council in managing this important resource?

PI: Our mandate is to achieve two equally important goals: to provide a more reliable water supply for California, and to protect, restore, and enhance the Delta ecosystem. It’s the latest legislative attempt to create a legally enforceable governance and management plan for the Delta. The Delta Plan was adopted in 2013; within 30 days we were sued by 27 plaintiffs, ranging from agricultural interests, state and federal water contractors, the city of Stockton, and several environmental groups. Interestingly, no state agencies or counties have sued. Their legal argument seems to be either we went too far or didn’t go far enough—which suggests to me that we may have struck the right balance.

PPIC: What does the latest science tell us about the Delta’s condition?

PI: Besides being severely damaged by human actions over centuries, the Delta has also been damaged by the drought and by the diversion of water for human purposes during drought. Scientists are skeptical about the ability of government or society in general to be able to rapidly improve the environmental condition of the Delta. We have altered the ecosystem in too many ways. We’ve channelized its waters, put in more than a thousand miles of levees, allowed people to move into the floodplain, brought in invasive nonnative species, and allowed pollutants to flow in from industry and agriculture. The best science we’ve received over the years is that the Delta’s environmental troubles can be managed better, but we will not likely be able to save all species in face of these threats. The political process demands immediate action, but science tells us that it will take decades to improve a Delta damaged over the past 160 years. A big part of any real solution is to involve independent scientists in decision-making and then follow their advice.

PPIC: What’s the most difficult tradeoff we’re facing in the Delta?

PI: The biggest problem is the conflict between illusion and reality. Basically, the water supply in California has not expanded since we began keeping track in the late 1880s. Worse, the water supply remains highly volatile. As our society has grown, demands for water have increased; our demands now exceed available water in many years. People have unrealistic expectations that ignore the limits of our supply. Although it is state policy to reduce human reliance on the Delta—and to compensate for that with heavy investments in water conservation, recycling, and the like—a lot of folks want more.

PPIC: What’s your biggest hope or aspiration for the Delta’s future?

PI: The Delta is constantly changing; we can’t freeze it in time. The Delta that existed before extensive human changes cannot be recovered. California hasn’t always done the right thing regarding water, but over time we get it right more often than not. So I hold out a reasonable level of hope for an improved Delta in the future. A successful Delta future for me is one that stops urbanization and protects its environment and the agriculture that remains. Will it work? Ask me in 100 years.

Learn more:

Videos: How Should We Price Water?

Most of us probably know the average price for a bottle of water, but do you know how much you’re charged for water coming out of your tap? The price of water—which can have ripple effects throughout our communities, the economy, and the environment—may not be typical water-cooler conversation, but understanding it is essential to addressing key water-management challenges.

We interviewed Ken Baerenklau, a UC Riverside economist and adjunct fellow with the PPIC Water Policy Center, on the role of pricing to mitigate scarcity during droughts, and the need for fair and economically sensible prices. As Baerenklau notes, it can be hard to get pricing right—but critically important that we do. These short videos produced with Marjorie Gelin Goodwin offer an introduction to some key issues that drive the price of water.

Balancing act: The price vs. value of water
Competing goals: The challenges of using pricing to reduce water use

Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s resource page on drought and water supply

Managing Wildfires Requires New Strategies

Severe wildfires have been dominating the news this summer, with good reason. The persistent drought, coupled with the legacy of poor forest management practices, has produced historic fire conditions in California and much of the West.

In the month since the publication of our report on the California drought’s major repercussions—which projected a growth in extreme fires if the drought continues another few years—California has experienced several new fires that are among the largest or most damaging in recorded history.

Since this drought began in 2012, California has experienced two of the three largest fires on record, and four of the top 20, as measured by number of acres burned (see table). The newest “top 20” is the Fresno-area Rough Fire, which continues to spread and rise in fire rankings since its start in July. From September 11-17, the Rough Fire consumed around 20,000 additional acres and rose from eighteenth to fifteenth largest wildfire on record.

As of mid-September, this year’s Valley and Butte fires ranked third and seventh on the state’s list of most damaging fires, as measured by number of structures destroyed (see table). At this writing, neither fire was fully contained.

All three of these wildfires continue to burn despite a massive fire-suppression effort by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

UC Berkeley wildfire expert Scott Stephens explains that the current statewide drought has affected the frequency and behavior of recent wildfires. Hotter temperatures and dry conditions have “reduced moisture in both live and dead trees, as well as shrub leaves and tree needles, which allows for more efficient fire initiation and high intensity burns,” says Stephens.

A century of wildfire suppression and inconsistent fuel reduction efforts—such as thinning out trees and introducing more frequent, low-intensity fires—has increased the risk of major wildfires in California’s forestlands. Unnaturally dense forests create ample fuel for wildfires once they ignite.

One new drought-induced characteristic is that wildfires are continuing to grow throughout the night, Stephens notes. Historically, lower temperature and higher relative humidity at night would slow wildfire growth and give firefighters a chance to suppress the burn. The Moonlight (2008), Rim (2013), King (2014), and Valley (2015) wildfires burned intensely throughout the night.

Stephens warns that that we need to rethink our approach to forest management. Intense fires have the potential to convert forests to shrublands, permanently altering their ecology. To avoid this, the state must increase fuel-reduction efforts to ten times the area that is currently treated. “The good news is this is possible,” Stephens says. “We have the techniques and research to show forest restoration treatments are in line with the ecology of these ecosystems.”

Short-term fire suppression is extremely important for protecting human life and property, but experts agree that California needs to take a longer range view of forest management to limit damage from wildfires as the climate warms, and reduce the ever-growing cost of fighting fires. Fuel reduction efforts require sustained application over large areas for decades. The fractured ownership of California’s forestland makes implementation difficult. Some efforts are underway on private lands in California, but this has proven more difficult on federal lands (roughly half of our forestlands) due to permitting constraints. Until private and public forestland owners coordinate long term fuel-reduction efforts, California can expect to experience larger, more frequent, and increasingly severe wildfires.

Table notes: *Number of acres burned or structures destroyed may increase until wildfire is fully contained. Wildfires in bold started since the drought began in 2012.

Table source: CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (updated by PPIC with current wildfire information as of September 23, 2015); CAL FIRE Top 20 Most Damaging California Wildfires (updated by PPIC with current wildfire information as of September 23, 2015).

 

Reducing the Costs of Drought: Lessons from Australia

What do droughts in California and Australia have in common, and what lessons from Down Under are best-suited to managing mega-droughts here? At a recent conference of agricultural economists, Americans and Australians shared their experiences and research on the topic.
The meeting covered what worked well—and what did not—in managing Australia’s Millennium Drought, which lasted from 1997-2009. The “worked well” list included: water conservation in urban areas, water pricing, and cooperative governance among water managers. The Australians also depended heavily on water markets to reduce the costs of their mega-drought. The flexibility and autonomy offered by water trading helped communities allocate water quickly and efficiently to competing uses, and also provided an effective way to recover it for the environment.
Several researchers noted that water trading is an important drought response that deserves much wider use in California. Speakers noted that although trading has helped some here, California’s water market still lacks transparency—with only limited information available about trading rules, volumes, and prices.
Australians also benefited from a strong water policy foundation going into their mega-drought, including a national water initiative. This national agreement (which state and territorial governments agreed to abide by) focused on ensuring reliable water use information that is publicly shared, and also mandated the separation of land ownership and water access. These two factors have helped facilitate water management, sharing, and marketing. While separating land and water ownership may not be in the cards for California, there are other ways to improve water marketing here by strengthening water-use information. As elaborated in a 2015 PPIC report on managing our drought, several other policy priorities that were at play in Australia are also within our reach: setting clearer priorities for public health and the environment, managing demand and supply more stringently, and implementing progressive environmental drought management practices.
Australians were able to create a more resilient water system, but some researchers at the conference noted that their drought management was not without fault. One cautionary tale was that much of the costly new infrastructure put into place in response to the drought—mainly desalination and inter-basin pipelines—brought increased water supply benefits only after the drought ended, due to the time it took to plan and build desalination plants, in particular. While desalination is currently providing drinking water in Western Australia, where dry conditions have continued, plants built to serve communities in other regions have not been used because cheaper alternatives are once again available.
A key recommendation made by a number of panelists was to ensure that all other options are exhausted before moving forward with costly infrastructure projects like desalination. In addition, it’s important to take other steps to develop sound policy in areas like water information before the next drought. Because droughts are unpredictable but cyclical, long-term vision and preparedness are critical.
The takeaway from the meeting was that while the challenges and debates in California are similar to those during Australia’s Millennium Drought, the comparison is not perfect. As we continue to adapt and develop our own drought policies, it will be important to take lessons from both the successes and ongoing challenges experienced during Australia’s “big dry.”
Adam Soliman is a graduate student in agricultural, food, and resource economics at Michigan State University. He served as an intern at the PPIC Water Policy Center this summer.

Extinction Risk for Native Fish if Drought Persists

If the California drought continues, many of California’s native freshwater fishes are at imminent risk of extinction. This is a key finding of our recent report What If California’s Drought Continues?, which projects the potential consequences of ongoing drought on key sectors, including the environment.

Managing scarce water resources to improve the drought resiliency of the state’s rivers, wetlands and forest ecosystems, and the native biodiversity they support, has proven to be the most vexing challenge of this extended drought.

Our research finds that 18 native fishes could go extinct if the drought continues for several more years; this map shows their distribution in the state’s watersheds. We estimated each species’ extinction risk by evaluating the response of these fishes to factors such as reduced flows, increased water temperatures, stress from habitat changes or competition caused by invasive species, and the impacts of hatchery-bred fishes on wild fish populations. (Learn more about our methods in the report’s technical appendix.)

The results are disconcerting. The state’s “anadromous” fishes—those that spawn in fresh water but rear in the ocean—are being hit particularly hard. Coming into this drought, historic water- and land-use practices had diminished their populations. Low flows and high temperatures have made matters worse. Most of the state’s salmon runs are at risk, along with many runs of steelhead trout. Other species—some well-known (delta smelt) and some obscure (unarmored threespine stickleback)—are also in trouble.

The state needs to prepare now for addressing this problem, because if there is another dry year or two, many fishes are likely to go extinct. Recommended actions include acquiring or allocating water (particularly cold water) to improve habitat in strategic locations, relocating some fish, restoring spawning habitat, and improving access of fish to spawning and rearing areas. As a matter of urgency, these species should be brought into conservation hatcheries so that they can be reintroduced to the wild when conditions improve.

Along with the conservation-oriented goal of protecting the state’s native biodiversity, there are also very practical reasons for taking urgent action to protect these fishes. Half of the 18 species at risk are not currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Listing species for ESA protection brings legal obligations to stop population declines; experience shows this can be disruptive to water supply operations and incur considerable long-term costs. An ounce of prevention, in this case, would be worth many pounds of cure.

Water Management’s High-Tech Future

California’s water management systems face a list of daunting challenges, from the current drought to water pollutants to aging infrastructure. Newsha Ajami is at the cutting edge of encouraging high-tech advances to improve how cities manage water, both in her role as director of urban water policy at Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and as a member of a new project called ReNUWIt. We asked her about some of the advances she’s seeing around the state, and what a “next-gen water system” might look like.

PPIC: How is technology changing how we manage water?

Newsha Ajami: Technological advances are playing a significant role in many aspects of water management—from how individuals use water (for example, water-efficient appliances), to how we collect data and measure our water supply (such as smart meters). Some of these technological advancements have been directly impacting customer behavior. For example, software like WaterSmart allows customers to better understand their water use habits and potentially revise them. In the past 30 years, water use per capita has been dropping steadily, in part due to tech advances like more efficient toilets, washing machines, dishwashers, shower heads, and the like.

Also, various water purification technologies have enhanced our local and regional water supplies through treatment and reuse of wastewater for different purposes. For example, the West Basin Water District has been purifying some of the wastewater from the Los Angeles area and supplying it to various industrial and commercial customers.

In the near future, technologies that allow us to capture and reuse stormwater, rainwater, and graywater could play a significant role in enhancing regional water supplies and enhance our water supply portfolio.

PPIC: What are some of the more interesting projects that ReNUWit is focusing on to improve urban water management?

NA: There are so many interesting engineering and management projects within the ReNUWIt program. ReNUWIt researchers have developed an innovative wastewater treatment technology that allows us to treat wastewater and generate energy from captured methane, simultaneously. The energy is used to power the water reclamation process, making it a net zero-energy wastewater treatment system.

We’re also working on a smart water-trading platform, which is a tool to enable virtual trading in regions with shared water. The way it would work is that when users can make do with less of the high-quality water in their shared system—perhaps by building a water recycling plant for use by the industrial sector—their saved water is made available for other users in the system. It’s sort of an Airbnb for water. The system can provide a platform for water suppliers to share in a more flexible and transparent way.

Also, in partnership with the Oro Loma Sanitary District and various industries and NGOs, ReNUWit is designing a “constructed wetlands” at the Oro Loma wastewater treatment plant on San Francisco Bay. This is a multipurpose project to remove nitrogen, provide habitat, and buffer the treatment plant from the effect of sea level rise. We are also testing to see if such wetlands could potentially remove contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, fire retardants, pesticides, and chemicals from home cleaning products. This approach offers a creative way to meet environmental concerns related to wastewater treatment without the need to replace the entire treatment plant.

PPIC: You’re also on the Bay Area Regional Water Quality board. What kinds of improvements are you seeing in this area?

NA: The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has been undertaking multiple initiatives to further protect our water bodies from pollution. For example, in our efforts to better manage and clean up various pollutants that show up in urban runoff, the updated Municipal Regional Stormwater Permits would require municipalities to develop a plan to implement green infrastructure throughout their jurisdictions. We are also actively working with our permittees on reducing trash, which often finds its way into our waterways. And we are streamlining permitting of recycled water projects, especially those that aim to provide recycled water for residential landscape irrigation use.

PPIC: What good things are coming out of the drought?

NA: California has taken many steps to address water reliability in the past few years, partly due to the severe drought we have been facing—from big-ticket items like our new groundwater law and the $7.5 billion water bond, to smaller fixes like streamlining permitting of recycled water projects. The drought has also raised public awareness regarding water scarcity, which plays a vital role in changing consumer behavior in both the short and long term. It’s led to renewed statewide discussion on how we value our water resources, and how we allocate it among competing demands. I really hope some of these discussions turn into action and change the way we manage and govern this precious resource.

Video: Senator Boxer Comes to PPIC

In more than 20 years in the US Senate, Barbara Boxer said there have been good changes (more women today) and bad (the “chasm” that divides the parties). But sometimes, despite the gridlock and insults, there is common ground, she told an audience at PPIC yesterday. She and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell found it in teaming up on a multi-year highway bill.

“Working with Mitch McConnell was unexpected,” she said. “We actually hadn’t talked too much in 20 years.” Bringing senators from both parties to an agreement—particularly on how to pay for the bill—was tough. But the bill got the votes. It passed the Senate and is now pending in the House.

Boxer told this story and others in a wide-ranging conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, that touched on climate change, California water policy, the presidential race, and the nuclear deal with Iran.What’s next? For the record, Boxer says she is not retiring. She’s just not running for Senate again.

Video: Meeting Water Challenges on the Central Coast

The Central Coast has long been self-sufficient in water supply, but the drought has tested the region’s independent streak and helped foster growing cooperation among water agencies and interest groups.

“I would hope that we really start thinking regionally,” said US Rep. Sam Farr, who’s represented the Central Coast for more than 20 years. That was the biggest takeaway message from a wide-ranging panel discussion in Monterey this month, co-hosted by the PPIC Water Policy Center and water supplier California American Water.

The event brought together local experts to discuss the challenges of creating a more diverse water supply, resolving water problems, and protecting the environment.

Groundwater concerns have grown as four years of drought have increased the need for pumping, and saltwater intrusion is a persistent problem.

“In the Central Coast hydrologic region 85 percent of freshwater demand is met by groundwater—and that’s the largest fraction in the state,” said panelist Andrew Fisher, a hydrogeologist with the University of California, Santa Cruz. He noted that climate change will bring fewer but more intense storms, which will mean more runoff and less groundwater recharge. He said that we must put greater effort into recharging groundwater and understanding how much we’re using.

Panelist Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, discussed a local project to “push the saltwater back to sea” in the Salinas Valley aquifer. He noted that local farmers have been working hard to reduce water use and manage local aquifers more sustainably. Drip irrigation is now used on 60 percent of fields in the Salinas Valley, and another 12,000 acres are using recycled water and have been taken off groundwater pumping, he noted.

Moderator Paul Rogers, environment writer with the San Jose Mercury News and managing editor of the KQED Science Unit, noted that local residents already have some of the lowest water use rates in the state—about 70 gallons per person per day, compared to a statewide average of 97—yet still managed to conserve 29 percent after the mandate was put in place by the governor in April.

Monica Hunter, a board member of the Planning and Conservation League Foundation, noted that despite the area’s efforts to conserve, wells are going dry and small rural communities in the region are facing big water challenges. She noted the need for more data: “We really do not know the magnitude of these problems.”

The region is also rightly proud of its efforts to restore the Carmel River by removing the San Clemente Dam. “People from—I would say not just around California but around the nation—are looking to this region as a test case for removing a dam,” said Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center.

Carmel mayor Jason Burnett closed the evening with observations about climate change, conservation, and creative solutions. Sometimes we need to rethink what we used to see as a liability, he said. “Something we discarded is now something we can turn into an asset. You heard talk about stormwater, you heard talk of wastewater and turning those into assets that we can use and use time and time again. We’re already doing that here on the Central Coast.”

The Drought and Californians’ Views on Climate Policy

The California Legislature is considering bills that would expand state efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One, SB 32, would require that California reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Another, SB 350, would require that petroleum use in cars be reduced by 50 percent, half of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources, and buildings double their energy efficiency—all by 2030.

Our July statewide survey examined support for the goals of these bills. We found that strong majorities of Californians favored each of these proposals but that support varied among partisans, with Democrats and independents more likely than Republicans to be in favor. However, a closer look reveals that party registration is not the only driver of these views.

Within the parties and among independents, registered voters who think global warming has contributed to the drought are far more likely to support the ideas in these bills than those who don’t. Among Republicans, solid majorities of those who think global warming has contributed to the drought also support SB 32 and SB 350. Meanwhile, among Democrats and independents who do not think global warming has contributed to the drought, support for SB 350 drops to about half or less.

By the same token, Californians who think climate change is having an impact today are more likely to support these policies than those who don’t think it will have an impact until sometime in the future—and much more likely than those who think climate change will never have an impact.

These findings suggest that Californians who make a connection between climate change and their daily lives are much more likely to support policies to address it. They also suggest that attitudes toward ambitious climate and energy goals are not simply partisan, but that they are related to individual beliefs about the impact of climate change.

Video: What If California’s Drought Continues?

Four years into a historic drought, the environment and some rural communities are most at risk if hot, dry conditions persist. At an event in Sacramento last week, Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center, gave an overview of findings from the new report What If California’s Drought Continues, touching on the higher risk of large wildfires, increasing land subsidence from groundwater pumping, and the growing crisis affecting freshwater ecosystems and species. A panel of experts then dove deep into the drought’s perils—and success stories—before a capacity crowd.

Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at PPIC and a co-author of the report, moderated the panel, which included Wade Crowfoot, deputy cabinet secretary and senior advisor to Governor Brown; Laurel Firestone, cofounder and co-executive director of the Community Water Center; and Kevin Hunting, chief deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Asked to describe the successes and “pleasant surprises” in the state’s efforts to manage the drought, Hunting said his department has had to redefine success. “In the past success for us would be stable populations, recovering populations of endangered species,” he said. “Unfortunately, we’re in a situation now where success means avoiding extinctions … and really, plugging the gaps in the biggest risk areas.”

He said the agency has also brought creative approaches to managing fisheries and wildlife with a dwindling amount of water, including partnering with private water users to deliver water at critical times to support fish and waterbirds.

Firestone said major strides have been made in state-run efforts to get emergency water supply to rural communities facing water shortages. Beyond the state’s programs, she cited the efforts of volunteer and local agencies in these communities—”local people just trying to help their neighbors.”

Crowfoot gave his short list of drought successes, topped by water conservation across the state. “The real heroes of the California drought are actually everyday Californians,” he said, noting the latest water conservation statistics showing a statewide reduction in water use by over a quarter. He also cited the work of local water agencies, legislation—such as groundwater management reform—that crossed political boundaries, and unprecedented cooperation by state and federal agencies.

The panelists noted that much more needs to be done to both build on these successes—and strengthen efforts to address the challenges of continued drought.