Drought – Page 13 – Public Policy Institute of California

Central Coast a Microcosm of State Water Challenges

Water challenges around the state are in many ways unique to a particular place, but there are also many similarities and lessons to be learned from place to place. We talked to Richard Frank, a member of PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network, about water management on the Central Coast, where he lives when he isn’t teaching environmental law at UC Davis and directing the school’s California Environmental Law and Policy Center.

PPIC: How are Central Coast water challenges a harbinger for California’s water future?

Richard Frank: First off, even before the current drought, the Central Coast experienced chronic water shortages; we came to a crisis point earlier than the rest of the state. Water shortages are a constant problem here, especially for the Monterey Peninsula—in part because the region isn’t connected to any of the large state or federal water projects. As the Central Coast grapples with trying to achieve water supply self-sufficiency, it’s helping to forge a path for other regions—especially in the southern part of state, which has become far more aggressive at developing regional supplies and reducing reliance on centralized state systems.

Monterey County also reflects an interesting statewide phenomenon. We have a growing divide between a relatively prosperous urbanized coastal zone competing for water with a rural inland area—the Salinas Valley—that is one of most vibrant agricultural areas in the state, and even the nation. We’ve been slowly increasing urban demands for water at the same time that agriculture’s large, steady demands are ever more challenging to meet. I’ve been struck by how this one county illustrates a broader California dynamic—a tale of two states. The classic conflict between Northern and Southern California has become one of urban-coastal vs. inland-agricultural.

Our region is also ahead of the game in the debate about desalination. Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties had been considering a joint project, but in recent months, the alliance has fractured. Monterey is still cautiously proceeding with plans for a desalination plant. Though it is not without concerns, I think it’s the least bad alternative we have. I don’t think we can conserve our way out of major droughts in this region, especially since we’re likely facing a “new normal” of hotter weather and more persistent droughts. We also can’t increase our groundwater pumping indefinitely. We have a big groundwater problem on the Central Coast—over-pumping has caused saltwater intrusion, which is contaminating our groundwater supply. Connecting to state and federal water projects is not a solution. They aren’t able to meet existing demand and can’t expand deliveries, given concerns about water needs for endangered species.

PPIC: What could the rest of the state learn from how the Central Coast has managed its biggest water challenges?

RF: We have a small market-based system for water transfers in urban areas in Monterey. Each property is assigned water credits, which can be traded; we’ve developed something of a robust market in water credits. It’s based on historic use. Each residence gets separate credits for each indoor use of water, and you can’t expand them (for example, add a new bathroom) without additional water credits. It’s a working example of water marketing on a micro-scale. Our market is not as transparent as it should be, though. For example, you can’t go online to see who has credits for sale.

PPIC: What permanent changes do you hope to see come out of this drought?

RF: Some in the Central Coast have adopted a head-in-the-sand attitude about our endemic shortages, and this is something I think the drought is helping to change. For example, we’ve had chronic excess diversion of the Carmel River, to the point that the State Water Board ordered a stop to it. After some resistance, the local water utility was forced to take action and tackle the impending cutbacks on supplies. The desalination project is part of the solution to having cutbacks on this water source. Another positive development is the removal of the outdated San Clemente Dam on the Carmel River; this river restoration is very much a positive development, and a harbinger of a more sustainable future.

Another positive change is the easing of the disconnect between prosperous coastal communities and inland agricultural areas. I think there is hope for a better relationship between these groups, because the drought is getting people talking more about how to solve our water problems. I am also hoping for a better functioning and more transparent water market. Finally, while we already use some recycled wastewater—for instance, on some golf courses—there’s still a lot of potential for harnessing this resource, including recharging our groundwater basins and helping get them into balance.

Read Richard Frank’s blogs on Legal Planet.

Video: PPIC’s Annual Survey on the Environment

As California pursues its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and considers still more ambitious ones—PPIC’s annual survey on environmental issues asked the state’s residents their views on climate change and energy. At a recent event in the capital, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

Californians see global warming as a serious threat—and most do not think action to reduce global warming will lead to fewer jobs.
There is strong support for the greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements in AB 32 and SB 32.
Californians favor the energy goals in SB 350, and they also favor state support for solar power and electric vehicles.
Many say water is the state’s top environmental issue—but most do not know the reduction targets of their local water district.

California’s Renters in the Dark on Drought Targets

Californians have been asked to cut back their water use since last year, but June marked the first month under the mandatory conservation mandate. Now the numbers are in, and the news was good: statewide we exceeded our goal.

While meeting the mandate is likely on the top of the minds for water managers, most Californians don’t know the details of what is being required of them. It’s not a straightforward cut: each urban water agency has a different conservation target, ranging from 4-36%, depending on a number of factors. While most agencies successfully met their June targets, many will need to conserve more.

The July PPIC Statewide survey found that only 30% of adults know the amount they are being asked to conserve. And it turns out whether you are a homeowner or a renter plays a significant role in your awareness. Notably, homeowners (44%) are more than twice as likely as renters (18%) to report knowing the amount of conservation required. On the other hand, of those who are aware of their conservation target, about half of homeowners and renters (53% each) say it is the right amount. We also find that while solid majorities across both groups say their local water supply is a big problem, homeowners (77%) are much more likely than renters (60%) to hold this view.

In general, renters are less connected to their water use. They often do not pay the water bill, so they may not know how much water they use, and they lack financial incentives to conserve. In addition, renters use less water. Renters are often not responsible for outdoor watering, which accounts for more than half of water use in cities and suburbs. During this drought, state and local agencies have focused more of their effort on reducing outdoor watering, but renters’ water conservation must come mainly from indoor behavior. Since renters make up about 45% of California’s households, this is not a group of water users to ignore as the drought continues.

The more people know about how much water they use, the more likely they are to conserve. Renters often live in multi-unit buildings with one main meter to record the entire building’s use, making it very difficult to parse out how much water is used by individual units. Requiring sub-metering on new multi-unit buildings may help reduce future water use, but it is an expensive investment that won’t result in significant reductions in the short-term.

Infiltrating renters’ awareness and reducing their water use will require different incentives and education efforts—especially since renters are much less likely to follow news about the drought. For example, water agencies should expand public outreach campaigns focused on indoor use and feature them in urban areas with high renter populations. Renters should be encouraged to check for leaks in their toilets and request that their landlords perform leak-checks on the rest of the property. Landlords should also be encouraged to take advantage of available rebates to upgrade to efficient appliances, toilets, and shower heads. There may be more that most homeowners can do to reduce water use, but as a large portion of the population, renters can also play a role in getting us closer to our goals. The drought provides an opportunity to change perceptions of this scarce resource by all Californians.

The Challenges of Getting More Crop per Drop

The continuing drought is having a big ripple effect in California agriculture. We talked to David Zoldoske, the director of Fresno State’s Center for Irrigation Technology (CIT) and a member of the Water Policy Center’s research network, about trends in farm water management.

PPIC: How well is California agriculture doing in terms of water efficiency in recent years?

David Zoldoske: The big change is that the state’s growers are investing heavily in drip and micro-irrigation systems, and very soon there will be more acreage using these efficient systems than flood or furrow irrigation. Part of the increase comes from growers converting annual crops to trees and vines, and installing micro irrigation systems. So while we’ve gotten more efficient in irrigating these acres, we’ve also hardened demand for water—and in some cases increased overall water demand—because these perennial crops can’t be fallowed in times of drought. But there’s no doubt that this is a paradigm change, and it’s making California agriculture more efficient in its overall on-farm water use.

PPIC: What successful water-management technologies are California farmers already using that deserve wider adoption?

DZ: Tools such as water meters for measuring flow rates from pumps and soil moisture sensors are both important to improve water management. Scheduling for efficiency means knowing how much water you’re applying (the meters), and how deep it’s going (the sensors). Flow meters also help growers see real-time changes in how much water they’re using—if flow rates decrease, it could indicate a drop in groundwater levels, a worn pump, or perhaps a clogged filter. Without metering, it’s like driving a car without a speedometer or odometer. We’ve estimated that only about a third of groundwater pumps have flow meters installed, so there’s lots of room for wider adoption of this important technology. Water meters can provide important information both on-farm (how efficiently is the irrigation system performing and how much water was applied), as well as a measuring groundwater basin withdrawals.

PPIC: What’s the potential for high tech improvements to take farm-water efficiency to the next level?

DZ: Managing water on a large irrigated farm is both an art and a science, with multiple data points to consider. Many growers are operating with too little information, while others may be experiencing data overload from all the technology inputs. New cloud-based technologies can help farmers get more data, in real time, and allow them to better manage their crop water needs. But it’s important to remember that even with improved technologies on the farm, you can’t efficiently manage a poorly operating system. Often it’s the low tech approaches that provide the most benefits—like getting your pump tested, having your irrigation system audited for uniformity, and improving scheduling. Farmers need to get better at these basic technologies before the high tech improvements can really work. There is a tremendous opportunity for the state to help incentivize the adoption of key technologies like water meters to improve water efficiency across a broad spectrum of irrigated land. California should be strategic when it provides financial assistance for adopting new water technologies.

PPIC: Are there “unintended consequences” to agriculture becoming more efficient?

DZ: As we convert more acres from flood or surface irrigation to higher efficiency drip systems, we need to be aware that we may be losing potential recharge for our groundwater basins. Excess water applied to a field is an important source—and in some places the primary source—of recharge. Improving water efficiency on any one farm can directly affect the groundwater supply of a nearby farm or municipality. California must aggressively address the need for more groundwater recharge as an offset for more efficient farm water use.

PPIC: What long-term improvements to agricultural water management do you think will come out of this drought?

DZ: The biggest change will be the understanding that we need to manage groundwater basins for sustainability. It will likely cause some financial pain and suffering, but it will also help us avoid a “tragedy of the commons” situation, where everyone loses as groundwater basins are exhausted. Right now, we have too many big straws in the aquifer, and we have to start managing for the long view. I also believe we’ll be making more use of non-traditional sources of water, such as the large amounts of saline groundwater found in parts of the Central Valley. We are also evaluating the potential of diverting excess floodwaters to cropland with high infiltration rates, to help recharge groundwater basins during wet years. And most likely in future, we’ll be farming less ground in California, but getting “more crop per drop” by using water more efficiently.

Read more: Water for Farms from our California’s Water briefing kit

Photo: David Zoldoske in the field.

The “Inexact Science” of Water Pricing

How can the price of water help us manage the drought? Like everything to do with water management in California, there is no easy answer. The State Water Resources Control Board recently held a workshop to examine the current pricing climate and explore the state’s role in helping urban water utilities adopt conservation-oriented water rates.

Currently, more than half of the state’s urban water utilities use some form of tiered water rates, which increase the per-gallon charge for higher levels of water use. While tiered pricing can encourage conservation, utilities also must meet other competing objectives, particularly covering the cost of providing services. When water sales fall, balancing the books can be a challenge, because fixed costs make up as much as 70 to 80 percent of total utility costs.

Ellen Hanak, director of PPIC’s Water Policy Center, presented findings from recent PPIC research on water system finance at the workshop. She noted that “urban water agencies have been successful so far at using revenue from water rates to remain fiscally stable.” But while utilities have generally been investing at a healthy pace, they are likely to be drawing down their financial reserves as water sales have fallen during this drought. Hanak also said that while pricing “is not an exact science,” water agencies could improve communication with customers about the major costs that must be covered even if water use declines.

One complicating factor lies with Proposition 218, a 1996 initiative that sought to ensure that the charges for many local services, including water, are closely linked to the costs of service to individual properties. Hanak and other panelists expressed concern that courts are interpreting the proposition’s cost-proportionality requirement too rigidly to allow tiered pricing to work effectively. For instance, a recent ruling in a case against San Juan Capistrano’s tiered pricing states that while this type of pricing is legal, the tiers must correspond to the actual cost of providing service at each level of usage – something easier said than done.

Ken Baerenklau, an associate professor at UC Riverside and a member of the Water Policy Center’s research network, studied a Southern California water district’s use of a specific type of tiered pricing, and found that household water demand was reduced by approximately 15% without significantly increasing the average price of water service. Baerenklau emphasized the need for better data collection on water rates and consumption in order to examine the effectiveness of various pricing mechanisms. He also noted that “there is a difference between the price and value of water,” and that we are currently not paying the true cost, especially with respect to the environment.

Lester Snow, executive director of the California Water Foundation and member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s Advisory Council, recommended renewed investment in water infrastructure and management to adapt to our changing climate. Snow said that fundamental water policy changes should be made now while attention on water issues is high. He also advocated for reform of Proposition 218, saying that we are pushing people to conserve, but have systematically withheld some of the tools water agencies need.

Water Board members expressed interest in creating a clearinghouse of rate-setting tools for water agencies and case studies of agencies with successful conservation pricing. This will help agencies better understand what has worked and how to minimize the risk of adopting new pricing structures. Another important step mentioned by a number of panelists was the need for a statewide fee that could fund “fiscal orphans”—areas that are difficult to fund locally—such as lifeline rates for disadvantaged communities, stormwater capture, and investments to improve drought management.

Don’t Count on El Niño to End the Drought

El Niño is back in the news, much as it was last year at this time. But this year, El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific have intensified, and some climate scientists think the outcome this winter could be the return of much-needed rain. Hopeful media reports are describing the growing El Niño as a potential drought buster.

How solid are these predictions and should we count on a wet winter? Unfortunately, El Niño is an unreliable predictor of winter storminess. Although some of our wettest years have occurred during El Niño events, some very dry years have also occurred.

El Niño is the name given to a climatic pattern that originates in the Pacific tropics, and involves both the ocean and the atmosphere. It is defined by unusually warm upper-ocean waters in the central and eastern tropical Pacific, and is linked to slackened trade winds. El Niño conditions usually persist for several months and recur, irregularly, roughly every two to seven years. El Niño (and its opposite phase, a cool tropical Pacific condition known as La Niña) is Earth’s strongest and most important short-term climate variation because of its global reach: it disturbs climate and ecosystems in the tropics but also unleashes altered atmospheric patterns well beyond the tropics.

One of the regions it affects, usually during the winter, is California. Some El Niño events are strong enough to impact the North Pacific jet stream, which steers winter storms into California. Because the bulk of our seasonal precipitation occurs in a handful of strong winter storms the additional El Niño events make a big difference to the state’s water supply.

But El Niño often produces strong regional differences in precipitation. In many El Niño years, Southern California can be unusually wet, but the state’s important water supply areas in Northern California are often not—sometimes they are even unusually dry. When this happens, the water supply benefits of El Niño are limited. What’s more, in some El Niño years the entire state remains dry. The figure below shows how widely precipitation can range, with or without El Niño.

So why are climate scientists so energized about El Niño this summer?

El Niño conditions, once established, tend to last for several months. Beginning this spring and continuing through this summer, scientists have observed unusual heat build-up in the upper layers of the tropical Pacific. Climate models are pointing to a moderate to strong El Niño through the summer and into the fall. But summer and early fall are the dry season in California, and El Niño conditions at this time will not make much of a difference in the ongoing drought. These same models indicate that El Niño conditions are likely to persist into the coming winter, which is key to shifting the jet stream and increasing the number of winter storms. Historically, unusually strong El Niño events have been linked to record wet years in California. Two of the wettest water years on record in the state—1983 and 1998—occurred during very powerful El Niño conditions. So while the warmth this year is impressive, so far the 2015 El Niño is not in the same league as the extraordinary cases of 1983 and 1998, and the uncertainties over its intensity into next winter remain considerable.

As tempting as it is to hope this El Niño will take us off the hook for planning for a fifth year of drought, it would be unwise to bet on this, given the uncertainties. With reservoirs and groundwater at historic low levels after four consecutive dry, warm years, a single wet year is unlikely to erase the drought. Rather, it is prudent to plan now for continued impacts of our long dry spell. Major relief would be a pleasant surprise, but for now, continuing our efforts to conserve will pay off even if the hard rains come.

Chart note: This graph shows annual winter precipitation in the Sierra Nevada in relation to the Southern Oscillation Index, a measure of El Niño. Typically, the more negative the value, the stronger the El Niño, with greater global impacts on weather.

Chart source: California Department of Water Resources (precipitation); National Weather Service, Climate Prediction Center: Monthly Atmospheric Indices ( <ahref=”http: www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov=”” data=”” indices=”” soi”=”” target=”_blank”>Southern Oscillation Index). Modified from a graphic provided by Western Regional Climate Center.

Proposed Reservoirs Are No Panacea for Drought

This commentary was published on Sunday, July 5, 2015, in the Sacramento Bee.

The acute water shortages now hitting California have prompted many in Congress and the state Legislature to call for new surface reservoirs to reduce the impacts of future droughts. Some have even blamed the lack of reservoir development as a primary cause of water scarcity during the current drought. The reality is that new surface storage would have added only modestly to the state’s water supply. We’d still be in the midst of a severe drought. Building drought resilience requires a much broader set of actions, including conservation, water trading, managing groundwater and expanding nontraditional supplies like recycled wastewater and stormwater.

(Continue reading on Sacbee.com.)

Drought Bills: Small Changes, High Impact

As Californians continue to cope with the impacts of the ongoing drought, actions to improve the way we manage water are being taken at all levels of government. Last week Governor Brown signed into law Drought Trailer bill (SB 88) and Resources Budget Trailer bill (SB 83). These bills will improve the way we respond to the current drought and better prepare us for future droughts. Here are three ways they will do this:

Consolidation of some small water systems with bigger ones to increase drinking water accessibility for at-risk communities. Many small, disadvantaged rural communities in California lack reliable and safe drinking water. These communities often lack economies of scale because the cost of improving and maintaining these systems is high and their customer base is small. Even when these small water systems are eligible for state funding for capital improvements like water treatment systems, they often lack the technical and operational capacity necessary to sustain them over time. In some cases, consolidation—the physical or administrative merging of drinking water systems—can be a cost-effective solution. The bill allows the State Water Resources Control Board to pursue consolidation when other solutions are not appropriate, and it provides protection against liability issues that may make larger agencies unwilling to consolidate. In our report Paying for Water in California we recommended consolidation as one of a suite of actions that could help address chronic safe-drinking water challenges.

Better monitoring and reporting requirements for water diverters and some water rights holders. Earlier this year we recommended improving the state’s water information system to effectively manage water resources during droughts. This bill takes California one step closer to this goal. For example, individuals who divert water under the most senior water rights were previously required to report their diversions to the Water Board every three years; now they’ll be required to report annually. Surface-water diverters who use more than 10 acre-feet a year will also be required to install measuring devices. Well-drilling logs will also become public. The new reporting requirements reflect progress in modernizing California’s water accounting capabilities. The next step is to integrate improved water information and resource planning tools to better manage water scarcity.

Temporary environmental oversight exemptions for groundwater recharge projects, recycled water system standards, and local decisions to prohibit drilling of new groundwater wells. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) can play an important role in evaluating the environmental impacts of projects or regulations, but the length and cost of the review process can discourage responsive policymaking. This bill streamlines review for projects and policy decisions that are low-risk and well-tested, but could immediately increase drought resiliency. California’s regulatory framework is such that these projects will likely be reviewed in other forums, so this bill doesn’t eliminate all oversight. As we heard from San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo at our April “Water in Silicon Valley” event, this kind of streamlining would have real-world impacts. San Jose is seeking an expedited process from CEQA to begin building a groundwater recharge system that would expand use of San Jose’s existing recycled water system.

As the legislative year continues we can expect more statewide policy changes that address our stressed water system. We’ll provide regular updates on key water legislation in this blog.

Better Reservoir Management Would Take the Heat off Salmon

Over the past few weeks, the state’s largest reservoir—Shasta—has been in the spotlight as managers struggle to meet multiple demands with dwindling reserves. Surface reservoirs are central to managing California’s water supplies for a variety of purposes. However, during extended droughts, when the amount of water in reservoirs gets low, water allocation decisions can involve difficult trade-offs. This year the trade-offs at Shasta are particularly challenging, since the survival of a run of endangered salmon may be on the line.

Most of Shasta’s water goes to agricultural water contractors in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. The reservoir generates abundant hydropower and supports a large recreation economy. Shasta, along with Folsom and Oroville Reservoirs, is also the principal source of water for controlling freshwater outflows from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These outflows are necessary to maintain water quality for both human uses as well as fish habitat.

Balancing all of these demands for Shasta water is made more complex by the needs of winter-run Chinook salmon—an endangered species that is edging close to extinction.

The Sacramento River was blocked by Shasta Dam in 1944. This shut off access to spawning grounds for millions of winter-run salmon that historically migrated to the river’s headwaters in late winter. Their eggs—deposited in the gravels—survived the hot California summers because of the abundant cold spring flows in these headwaters.

Today, the dense, cold water that collects at the bottom of the reservoir in winter and early spring is the only available source of cold water for these fish. Spawning is now restricted to a relatively short stretch of the Sacramento River immediately below the reservoir where temperatures are kept low enough by cold water releases.

In late summer of 2014, the water released from Shasta was too warm, resulting in the death of almost all the winter-run Chinook salmon eggs. According to a report by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, temperature models used to forecast dam operations failed to fully account for reservoir water temperatures and the performance of gates used to selectively draw water from various depths. By the time the errors were discovered, early season water releases for irrigation had used up available cold water.

This year the weather circumstances are roughly the same: low winter and spring inflows and unusually warm temperatures. In a report to the State Water Resources Control Board in early spring, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provided assurances that temperature needs for winter-run Chinook could be met while allowing water releases for irrigators and meeting water quality requirements in the Delta.

But in late May, reservoir managers revealed that winter-run salmon eggs were at risk due to high temperature releases for a second consecutive year. This year’s miscalculations were different than last year’s. Operations staff failed to incorporate water temperature data that showed that the lake had warmed rapidly in the spring. As before, these errors led to overly optimistic projections for available water.

State and federal officials have committed to trying to stave off another complete loss of winter-run Chinook, acknowledging that failing to do so may lead to extinction. They say themselves that this is going to be no easy task given the warmth of water in the reservoir.

These difficulties in managing Shasta Reservoir highlight a significant policy challenge that needs to be addressed during this drought, and that also has implications for managing future droughts.

Uncertainty—whether from data collection or failures of technical models to adequately represent extreme conditions—needs to be more explicitly integrated into decision-making. When water supplies are very limited, there is great pressure to meet all competing demands to the maximum extent possible, leaving little room for adjustment to unanticipated conditions or events. This is especially true for cold water in reservoirs because early season releases for irrigation or other uses limits options to adjust later in the season.

To incorporate uncertainty into drought planning, priorities need to be clearly defined, and a margin of safety established for top priorities, such as preventing extinction of endangered species.

A greater margin of safety would likely have prevented the loss of winter-run Chinook salmon in 2014 and helped avert the challenges this year. To be sure, this would have meant increased water scarcity for some downstream irrigators. But this scarcity would not be permanent, since the rains will eventually return. And policies such as crop insurance and emergency drought support can lessen the financial costs of water shortages to farmers. For the salmon, there will be no second chance: extinction is permanent, regardless of whether it rains again.

Californians and Water Conservation

In our May statewide survey, we found that 60 percent of Californians think people in their part of the state aren’t doing enough to respond to the current drought. The prevalence of this belief varies somewhat across regions. It turns out that Californians’ assessments of their neighbors’ efforts generally align with their area’s water conservation levels.

Earlier this month, the State Water Resources Control Board released conservation statistics for April 2015, showing how much each of the state’s ten hydrologic regions reduced its monthly water use compared to April 2013. This data shows that statewide water use declined by 13.5 percent in April, and that reductions ranged widely across the state. The South Coast region, which includes Los Angeles and neighboring counties, had a reduction of 8.75 percent, while the northeastern North Lahontan region (on the Nevada border) had a reduction of 37.5 percent.

For our survey, we interviewed at least 80 residents in 5 of the state’s hydrologic regions (the Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, San Joaquin River, Tulare, and South Coast). When we compared survey responses about water conservation efforts with the water use reductions in these regions, we found that perceptions and reductions are aligned in almost all areas.

In the Sacramento River region, which had the biggest cut in water use among the five regions considered, residents were most likely to say that people in their area are doing the right amount to respond to the drought. These residents were also least likely to say people in their area aren’t doing enough. Responses in the region were split about evenly between “the right amount” (41%) and “not enough” (40%).

In contrast, residents of the South Coast—the region with the smallest cut in water use—were most likely to say that people in their area aren’t doing enough to respond to the drought and the least likely to say people are doing the right amount. In this hydrologic region, residents were more than twice as likely to say people aren’t doing enough (63%) than they were to say that people are doing the right amount (25%).

This pattern holds across the state, with one exception. The San Francisco Bay hydrologic region’s conservation rate is second best, yet its residents are the second most likely to be critical of conservation efforts in the area. This contrast between satisfaction with conservation efforts and conservation results might be attributable in part to ideology. Statewide, liberals (67%) were more likely than moderates (60%) or conservatives (52%) to say people in their area aren’t doing enough, and the San Francisco Bay region has a relatively high concentration of residents who identify themselves as liberals (41%). Also, water use in the Bay Area is historically lower than in other parts of the state, so conservation may be a deeply ingrained positive value.

What this comparison of survey responses with water use statistics tells us is that many Californians seem to have a good sense of how well their communities are doing in addressing the drought. Whether this sense comes from observations of neighbors, knowledge of their own behavior, or signals from local government and agencies, it suggests that Californians know what is needed to combat the drought.

Chart note: Survey responses are sorted by county into hydrologic regions. Counties that fall into more than one hydrologic region are assigned to the region where most of the population lives.