The May edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians and their Government, explores attitudes toward the governor’s latest proposed budget and gauges preferences in the gubernatorial primary. It also examines opinions on health care reform, the drought, poverty, and climate change.
PPIC research associate Dean Bonner presented the results of this wide-ranging survey at a lunch briefing in Sacramento last week.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
The drought has brought the term storage to the forefront of political debate over how to manage water in California. Water scarcity during this drought is perceived by many, including prominent elected officials, as a failure of government to build sufficient storage.
For most, storage refers to water kept in reservoirs behind dams. People tend to forget that we also store water underground, in the state’s many aquifers. And during a drought, this groundwater storage is usually much more important.
Managed well, groundwater is the state’s best hedge against drought. The volume of potential groundwater storage in California is several times greater than surface storage. On average, about 35 percent of annual water use for cities and farms comes from groundwater, and 60 percent or more in some important agricultural regions such as the Tulare Basin and the Central Coast. During a severe drought such as this one, when groundwater pumping increases, this share can go up significantly. But groundwater is not easing the effects of this drought as much as it could because we don’t manage it as drought storage.
A fundamental principle of sustainable groundwater management is that you allow water to accumulate in aquifers during wetter years so that you can pump it out during the dry years when surface water sources are insufficient. In most of California’s main agricultural areas—especially the southern Central Valley and parts of the Central Coast—the total water demands are so great that we have stopped allowing groundwater levels to recover during the wetter years. Instead, we are “mining” groundwater, treating it like oil and gas, extracting it as if it was a non-renewable resource never to be replaced.
This mining—or overdraft—reduces the available supply of groundwater during dry years. It raises the costs of remaining supplies, as wells need to be drilled deeper and electricity bills rise because water has to be pumped from deeper depths. Unsustainable pumping also creates a host of other problems, including dewatering of rivers and wetlands that support fish and wildlife as well as land sinking—or subsidence—that damages roads, bridges, canals, and flood control infrastructure.
Some of California’s large urban areas—including much of Southern California and Silicon Valley—provide valuable lessons on how to move toward more sustainable management of groundwater basins. In these areas, acute groundwater overdraft spurred groundwater users—often with the aid of the courts or the state legislature—to develop management schemes that work. These groundwater basins are overseen by court-appointed water masters or special management agencies that can collect fees, monitor use, and allocate pumping rights. Most important, they can compel users to store water during wet times, so it is available when drought strikes.
A silver lining of the current drought is that it has brought focus to how we manage groundwater, the other water storage in California. Innovative proposals for comprehensive reform are coming from the Brown administration and from grassroots efforts orchestrated by the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Water Foundation. These proposals have the common goal of creating sustainable groundwater management by
Now is the time to move forward on this issue, while the consequences of groundwater overdraft are at the center of debate and impacting so many.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
In the previous Drought Watch we examined the need to modernize the way we track water supply and use to better manage droughts. California also needs to modernize how we manage water for the environment during droughts.
By reducing the quality and quantity of habitat, drought poses a broad ecological challenge to California’s fish and wildlife. The stress is particularly acute in watersheds where native species compete with the demands of cities, farms, and forestry for critical land and water supplies. In many watersheds, remaining habitat has become more suitable for invasive, non-native species, which also compete with native species in various ways. The net result can be significant reductions in populations of native species during severe droughts. Recovery can take years.
In a recent blog post, we joined colleagues from UC Davis, UC Hastings, and Stanford to call for reform in the way the state manages the environment during drought. A common approach is to relax flow and water quality standards prescribed for species protection to make more water available for human needs. This year, the State Water Resources Control Board has already done this on numerous occasions, with the concurrence of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.
This is not necessarily bad drought policy. Regulators have to make difficult choices when there simply is not enough water to go around. However, the process could be improved. Flow and water quality standards for critically dry years are set well in advance of a drought and involve extensive scientific review. In contrast, relaxing standards receives little review, and the process typically does not incorporate plans to mitigate for the consequences, either during or after the drought.
This same ad hoc approach applies to well-meaning efforts to conserve species during a drought. In late April, the governor released an executive order that instructs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to help endangered fish species, through actions such as monitoring winter run Chinook salmon, improving habitat on state lands, and seeking cooperation from landowners. These are common-sense measures, but if they had been planned for before the drought, they could have been implemented more quickly.
Money for environmental management during a drought is also an afterthought. In his latest state budget, to be considered by the legislature this summer, the governor has proposed approximately $40 million be made available to support actions contained in his executive order. This is a significant increase over the $2.3 million total allocated in emergency state funding in February. Still, this money will not arrive soon enough to make a major difference for this year. Again, planning ahead to raise such funds would be preferable. (See one alternative approach here.)
Good environmental drought policy must anticipate actions that may be necessary to balance human uses of water with the long-term needs of fish and wildlife. The criteria and scientific basis for the relaxation of flow and water quality standards should be developed, reviewed and adopted before a drought emergency. This includes identifying funding mechanisms for emergency responses and mitigation actions that reduce harm during the drought and lead to recovery of species afterward. If California is lucky enough to get through this drought without significant new harm to our native fish and wildlife, let’s make sure we prepare better before the next drought strikes.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
In most years, the arrival of May signals the end of the rainy season. As California transitions from hoping for rain to managing its absence, it is appropriate to assess how we have handled this drought so far. In a recent blog post, we, along with our colleagues at UC Davis, UC Hastings, and Stanford University, identified several key lessons from the current drought. One of these is the need to modernize the way we track water supply and use.
To illustrate, just this past week the State Water Resources Control Board released a series of graphs that summarize the gaps between projected supply and demand for this year. These graphs form the basis for determining who may be told to curtail the amount of water they take out of rivers when supplies are scarce. The take-away from these projections is that significant shortfalls will occur starting this month—when the irrigation season starts in earnest. Under California’s water rights system, irrigators holding junior water rights—i.e., rights established more recently—could be completely cut off in most areas. It also appears that unprecedented cuts will occur for senior water rights holders as well.
Although these demand and supply curves appear precise, the state board is handicapped by a lack of good information on water supply and use. To manage the drought more effectively, the board needs better information in two key areas.
First, there have been major advances in technology that can be used to measure flow. These include sophisticated remote sensing techniques, computer modeling, and sensor networks. Although there has been progress, the state has been slow to adopt these new technologies. For many rivers the board, and its partner the California Department of Water Resources, are, at best, making educated guesses. In addition, the state uses protocols for managing this information that were adopted in the early 20th century. In a drought there is need for real-time information and forecast-based projections to manage diminishing supplies.
Second, who uses how much water, and when, is acutely important when river flows are low, because a handful of users can have great impact. Although reporting on water use has improved since legislation passed in 2009, the board has not been in a position to verify the accuracy of self-reporting by thousands of water rights holders, including the oldest, most senior water right holders. Statewide, there is no comprehensive understanding of how and when water rights holders make use of alternative supplies, including the state’s overdrafted groundwater basins.
Since the economic, social and environmental consequences of water management during a drought are especially high, people understandably want to see the board administering diversion curtailments with precision and in real time. But during the wet periods, the legislature and state agencies tend to ignore this issue because there is more water to go around and little public pressure to correct information gaps. Then, when the wet inevitably turns to dry, there are insufficient time and resources to address the problem.
Droughts provide the political and economic motivation to get our water management system into better shape. Step one would be to invest in modernizing the way we measure, forecast, and administer water use—hopefully before the next drought.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
In both houses of the California Legislature, multiple versions of a new water bond are being amended and debated to make the June deadline for replacing the $11.1 billion bond now slated for the November election. Originally intended for the November 2010 ballot, the bond has been twice delayed due to concerns it would not pass. The March 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey showed a bump in public approval since last year, with 50 percent of likely voters now saying they would approve it, up from 42 percent in March 2013. Survey responses to other questions about water suggest that this rise in support likely reflects concerns over the drought. For example, a record share of residents (15%) named water as the most important issue facing the state (up from 2% a year earlier).
As the legislature considers the final size and shape of this new bond, it is worth reviewing how bond funds have been used in the past and the areas that most need bond support in the future.
The 2000s were a big decade for water bonds, with approved funds totaling almost three times as much as the three previous decades combined. Even so, bond funds currently only contribute about $1 billion a year to the water sector, a small portion of the $30 billion that is spent annually on the state’s water system.
Moving forward, new bond funds are likely to be more limited (as shown by the current bond’s bumpy road to approval), so it makes sense to focus them on areas that lack sustainable and reliable funding sources. As we show in our report Paying for Water in California, these areas include small water systems in rural, low-income communities, flood protection, stormwater pollution management, aquatic ecosystem recovery, and integrated water management. The bond funds approved in the 2000s have been spent overwhelmingly in these areas, yet the need is still great.
For activities that more readily raise funds from local ratepayers—such as water supply and wastewater management—future bond support should be limited to projects that generate broad public benefits. This might include water supply projects that promote better integration of our water system (e.g., by capturing stormwater, which can improve both water supply and prevent pollution) or ecosystem recovery (e.g., by improving the quality or quantity of water to support fish and wildlife).
Even if a new water bond passes this fall, California will need to find other ways to pay for small system drinking water quality, critical improvements to flood protection, stormwater management, aquatic ecosystems, and integrated water management. As part of its deliberations, the legislature will need to think beyond bonds, and consider new statewide fees or special taxes—such as a small surcharge on water use or a small increment on the sales tax—to help fill these gaps with a reliable revenue stream.
The drought has focused attention on water supply and highlights the crucial role of funding in supporting our water system, said Ellen Hanak, PPIC senior fellow, at a half-day conference PPIC hosted last week at the Sacramento Convention Center. The conference focused on the issues highlighted in the PPIC report Paying for Water, which pinpoints funding gaps in five key areas of water management. Hanak opened the conference with a presentation of her report, starting with an overview of how California pays for water. She noted that state general obligation bonds make up just a small part of the $30 billion spent annually on the water system.Most funding, about 85 percent, comes from local sources—rates, fees, and taxes. However, legal obstacles make it difficult for local agencies to raise money. Hanak then summarized the areas in which the state is failing to deliver the level of services California residents expect. She closed with a roadmap of recommendations for funding reform.
In the first panel discussion, experts from local water agencies and the governor’s office took up the issue of “fiscal orphans” for which there is no clear revenue stream—areas such as flood control, stormwater, and safe drinking water for small, disadvantaged communities. panelists talked about their challenges and successes in building better integrated systems in these orphan areas.
The second panel tackled a series of tough questions: How can the state partner with local and regional agencies to improve water management? What has the state done well and what can it do differently? Panelists with both state and local perspectives joined this lively discussion.
The third panel considered some of the legal challenges posed by Propositions 218 and 26. Panelists said these constitutional amendments have pushed water authorities to be more transparent in their use of taxpayer funds. But the measures and the courts’ interpretations of them have also made it more difficult to fund water solutions.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
Although droughts have many downsides, they can also spur lasting improvements in water management. Unsustainable groundwater use has long plagued California’s rural areas, and the current drought is providing much needed impetus to pursue reform.
California is one of the only western states that does not regulate groundwater use under state law. Except for a few dozen basins where local agencies have special oversight authority (mainly in urban Southern California and the Bay Area), local groundwater management remains largely voluntary and somewhat precarious. Despite some recent advances in basin monitoring and replenishment programs, these agencies have been unable to prevent damaging declines of groundwater supply and quality. As recent headlines on water scarcity point out, overtaxed basins are unable to effectively serve one of groundwater’s most important roles: as a buffer against drought.
In late March, the Governor’s Office held a workshop to seek input from local managers and other experts on a proposal that would empower local agencies to better manage groundwater—and commit the state to step in as an emergency backstop if locals fail to come through. Today’s post on the California Water blog, coauthored by an interdisciplinary team from PPIC, UC Davis, UC Hastings, Stanford, and elsewhere, walks through important funding considerations for this reform.
To be effective, local entities must have sufficient authority and flexibility to raise the money they need to track water levels and make key investments—both in infrastructure and in new water supplies for replenishing their basins. In addition, these agencies should have the ability to enact special surcharges to prevent excessive pumping. Right now, that power is only granted to a handful of agencies.
Extending and strengthening the funding and oversight authorities available to local agencies across the state will better prepare us for the next time we need to look to the ground, instead of the sky, for our water needs.
The March PPIC Statewide Survey examines several major issues in California, including water, high-speed rail, marijuana legalization, and taxes. The survey also finds that three months before the primary, Governor Jerry Brown remains a strong favorite for re-election this year.
The wide-ranging survey also looks at Californians’ views on national issues—such as immigration and health care reform, and abortion —and provides approval ratings on federal elected officials.
PPIC research associate Jui Shrestha presented the results of the survey at a luncheon briefing in Sacramento.
The Assembly Budget Subcommittee for Resources and Transportation–which oversees budget allocations for water-related state agencies–convened a group of experts on Wednesday to provide an update on the current drought. PPIC senior fellow Ellen Hanak gave the members an overview of state and federal emergency drought funding for California and suggested other fiscal measures that the legislature should consider to make California more drought resilient. Here are her prepared remarks.
Good morning and thank you for the invitation to address the committee. I’d like to focus my remarks on how the legislature can help California become more drought-resilient, both in the near term and over the longer term. And since your committee is tasked in particular with considering budget measures, I will highlight the question of funding.
As you all know, several weeks ago the legislature passed, and the governor signed, emergency drought legislation. These bills made $687 million available for a variety of programs. This state funding package came on the heels of an announcement of $222 million in federal drought funding for California—bringing the total to $909 million. In the state’s case, most of the funds (80%) come from previously authorized state general obligation (GO) bonds, with the remainder from the general fund (11%), new cap and trade auction revenues (6%), and a variety of other funds (3%). A large portion of the federal funds comes from the 2014 Farm Bill.
The table provides an overview of the allocation of these funds. About a quarter ($239 million) is for near-term emergency assistance to communities facing special hardship because of the drought. A small share (0.3%, or $2.3 million) is directed to emergency ecosystem support. And nearly three-quarters of the total ($668 million) is directed toward improving water use efficiency and reliability. Although some of the investments in this last category may help in the near term, most should be viewed as efforts to make the state more drought-resilient over the longer term.
This breakdown between near- and longer-term impacts of drought spending reflects the realities of drought response: In the very near term, cash can provide helpful support to affected communities, but it can’t fundamentally change the water supply situation. One of the very interesting lessons from the current drought is that two decades of investments by California’s major urban utilities—in areas such as water use efficiency, above- and below-ground storage, and non-traditional supplies like recycled wastewater and stormwater—has made these communities much more capable of getting through droughts. The new spending earmarked for improving efficiency and water supply reliability should help California continue to build its resilience to future droughts.
The drought has also renewed legislative attention on putting a new GO bond on the November 2014 ballot to fund water management in California. As we show in a new PPIC study on water finance, Paying for Water in California, state bonds approved since 2000 have helped fund a range of important water management activities. However, bonds can at best be just a part of the overall solution to meeting California’s critical water funding needs. The legislature can and should pursue other actions to give California a sustainable and reliable funding system for water. Some examples include:
In closing, it’s worth recognizing that droughts are a recurring feature of California’s climate. The current crisis presents an opportunity to continue improving our water system’s ability to cope with water scarcity in the face of population growth and a changing climate. By supporting the emergency funding package, the legislature has already taken some important steps to help alleviate the worst effects of this drought and to build future drought resilience. With additional steps, the legislature can help ensure that our water system can support a healthy economy, society, and environment over the longer term.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
The drought has prompted California to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars of remaining state bond funds and other revenues to make the state more resilient in the future. These funds are certainly welcome, but it’s important to see this spending in perspective. As we show in a new PPIC report—written with a team of co-authors from other institutions—the contributions of state money are small change when it comes to spending on water. Most of the $30 billion spent annually to support California’s water system is raised by local and regional water agencies.
The good news is that California’s urban water and wastewater utilities are in relatively good fiscal health. Thanks to their significant investments to improve water supply reliability in the two decades since the last major drought, California’s major urban areas—and the state’s economy—will largely be able to weather this one. Crucially, these utilities have been able to make the needed investments by raising local water rates.
However, looming legal challenges may limit the ability of local agencies to make continued investments in modern, integrated water management—investments that would better prepare us for population growth, climate change, and future droughts. Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment adopted by the state’s voters in 1996, requires water bills to reflect the costs of service to each individual parcel. As some recent court cases have shown, a narrow interpretation of this requirement can present roadblocks to several important management tools:
To enable our water system to respond effectively to future droughts, the courts need to keep the entire water system in mind when responding to rate challenges. And over the longer term, California needs to better align its funding laws to the goals of modern water management. In a state where drought is a fact of life, this alignment will allow us to manage this crucial resource far into the future. Asking our water managers to account for the cost and location of each drop of water when developing their water rate structures will undermine recent momentum toward a more sophisticated and interconnected water system.
