Category: Drought

A Water Sector Energy Hog

When we use water, we’re also using energy—sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Overall, water use accounts for about 20 percent of California’s electricity use and 30 percent of natural gas used by businesses and homes. This energy is used to supply, convey, treat, and heat water.

Where does it all go, and more importantly, how can we best save both water and energy?

You might guess that our long-distance transport of water through the state’s network of canals and pumping stations is a big energy hog. The federal and state water projects combined move about a quarter of all water used in California. The State Water Project—which conveys water from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta to cities and farms in the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern California—is the largest single user of electricity. But even so, the state’s water conveyance system is something of an energy sipper, accounting for just 4 percent of the sector’s total energy use.

Or maybe you’d assume that California farmers—who use about four times more water than the state’s urban areas—use the most water-related energy. But even though farmers pump some 10 million acre-feet of water in an average year, they use just 5 percent of California’s water-related energy.

Have you guessed it yet? Hint: The state’s cities, especially California households and industries, use by far the most water-related energy—and much of it goes down the drain.

Heating water is the most energy-intensive water-related activity. Some residential “end uses” of water—faucets, showers, and clothes washers—are energy hogs, accounting for 42 percent of all energy used in the water cycle. And in total, the residential, industrial, and commercial end uses of water account for more than 85 percent of energy used in the water sector. By comparison, supplying, pumping, and treating urban water make up about 5 percent. 

Reducing the energy footprint of the state’s water cycle will require more reductions in hot water use.

A recent study, which looked at the energy use of supplying, pumping, and treating water, estimated that the energy savings resulting from drought-related urban water conservation to date has equaled the combined savings of all energy efficiency programs offered by the state’s major energy utilities. The study did not account for water heating or other energy-intensive uses of water.

California has been a leader in energy efficiency for many years. Its efforts include reducing energy use of washing machines and dishwashers—which together still use less energy than showers. Last year, the state’s energy commission adopted new standards (which went into effect this summer) that will cut water flow in showerheads by 20 percent. The move is expected to save more than 2.4 billion gallons a year in the first year—and enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes for a year.

To further reduce the energy footprint of the state’s water cycle, it would be most effective to continue to target reductions in hot water use. This can be done by changing our habits (such as decreasing water heater temperatures), improving water-heating efficiency, and reducing the energy intensity of some industrial processes.

Saving energy in the water sector also reduces greenhouse gas emissions—nearly 10 percent of the state’s emissions are directly associated with water use. California plans to reduce its emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and the water sector can provide some of the most cost-effective ways to meet that goal.

But as always in California’s water management, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Local assessments—with state agencies’ support—are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of various solutions locally and across regions. The state could then use these assessments to devise a statewide plan for reducing the water sector’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Energy and Water (from the California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Making the Groundwater Law Work

California was one of the last western states to regulate the use of groundwater. Now, the state’s landmark law mandating sustainable use of this critical resource is significantly changing how communities manage it. We talked to Thomas Harter—a groundwater expert at UC Davis and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network—about implementing the 2014 law, which he calls “the most important water legislation in 50 years.”

PPIC: What are the key components of groundwater sustainability?

Thomas Harter: The state law is based on six “commandments” that interpret what groundwater sustainability means: thou shall not draw down water levels too far, deplete storage in the aquifer, degrade water quality, allow seawater intrusion, cause land to subside, or use groundwater in ways that reduces other people’s surface water or harms ecosystems.

The law mandates that groundwater must be sustainably managed for the long run. It’s not an option. Another critical piece of the law is that it be managed locally. This is an opportunity for local agencies, water districts, and stakeholders to take charge of whatever needs to be done.

Another important aspect is having everyone around the table who’s benefiting from, using, or concerned about groundwater. Stakeholders may have to make decisions on how to augment their groundwater supplies or how to reduce demand to make local use sustainable. People are going to come to the table with different core issues—for example, some will be more concerned about protecting domestic water users, while others will be focused on the economic impacts of using less groundwater.

PPIC: What more do we need to know about our groundwater basins to better manage them?

TH: We have to understand the resource, and how our uses affect it. What are water levels doing? Are we degrading the quality of groundwater? Is it being used or managed in ways that harm surface water uses and users? That kind of basic understanding is really important.

There are some important things we need to know about the state of our groundwater that the state could play a role in, which would help locals bring their basins to sustainability.

First, the state has a responsibility to monitor land subsidence across California, as sinking land is one of the key indicators of unsustainable conditions. We need more consistent measurements to determine how fast land is subsiding. The state would be in the best position to collect this data, and make it useable and accessible to local groundwater sustainability agencies.

The state is also in the best position to collect data on land use and evapotranspiration, which is a measure of how much water plants use. Evapotranspiration is one of the biggest water budget components in the state and the largest single consumptive use. In other words, it is water that is removed from the water system through use or evaporation by plants, consumed by people or animals, or incorporated into products or crops. Having a high-resolution understanding of evapotranspiration and how it changes over time and across years will be critical to ensure we have accurate water budgets.

California also needs to get back to more frequently mapping land use across the state and make that data available. Land use is closely related to evapotranspiration. To devise an accurate water budget, you need to know which field is planted in which crop at which time of year, which areas are being urbanized, and where other changes in land use are occurring.

The state’s system for gauging streamflow also needs work. To make good decisions, locals need a better understanding of the contributions of groundwater to their tributary streams. The US Geological Survey and the Department of Water Resources, which manage these gauges, are struggling to keep up with the network they have, and many gauges have been discontinued due to lack of funding. We need to fund ongoing maintenance of this water-monitoring network so we don’t lose a legacy of valuable information. And we need to expand it in areas where groundwater and surface water are closely connected.

PPIC: What changes do you expect to see as communities move to implement the groundwater law?

TH: I think the biggest thing is that, at the local level, we’ll have a much broader stakeholder group informed about and engaged in their groundwater system. There will be greater understanding about the interconnections between land use, groundwater, surface water, and water supply and quality, and about the kinds of projects we can do to address sustainability issues. I hope that in 10 years we’ll have a better understanding of how we can transition to sustainable resource management with the least amount of economic pain. I think there are opportunities for creative solutions that are win-wins for the environment and people dependent on groundwater resources. I also think that having a better understanding across stakeholder groups will lead to increased cooperation, which will be important for implementing and funding solutions.

Learn more

Watch “Implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act” (PPIC event video, Oct. 18, 2016)
Read “Reforming California’s Groundwater Management” (PPIC fact sheet)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

California’s Changing Headwaters

Much of the state’s water supply originates in forested headwaters high in the mountains. Yufang Jin is a UC Davis professor specializing in ecosystem change and remote sensing (gathering aerial images of the earth). She is also a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network. She talked to us about how a warming climate and extreme wildfires are changing these crucial ecosystems.

PPIC: How are large wildfires changing our watersheds?

Yufang Jin: We’re seeing intensifying wildfires in California, especially in the headwater regions where our rivers originate. More intense fires have significantly changed the composition and structure of forest ecosystems, affecting both water quality and quantity—though not always for the worse. For example, large fires can significantly reduce the amount of vegetation covering the land, which reduces the amount of water consumed by plants. Burned areas also have much less water circulating in the soil. Both of these post-fire processes have a positive impact on streamflow, as more water works its way into the water table and streams. But the loss of groundcover plants from intense fires also increases surface erosion, which can cause landslides in the rainy season. Ashes and sediments flowing into streams harm water quality.

PPIC: What are catastrophic fires teaching us about managing forests, wildfires, and water in California?

YJ: They’re pushing us to use management strategies that recognize the relationships between forests, fires, and water supply. In the past most forest management focused on wildfire suppression. There’s now recognition that solely focusing on suppression led to unnaturally dense forests, which in turn led to larger and catastrophic fires. So now there’s a growing effort to use forest thinning and prescribed fires to reduce fire hazards. Some pilot projects indicate that allowing natural fire to thin forests can lead to increases in water quantity in the watershed as well. A lot of federal and state agencies are now emphasizing watershed restoration strategies that bring multiple benefits. They are paying more attention to approaches that reduce fire hazards and may also increase water yields.

PPIC: How will climate change affect the severity of wildfires in California?

YJ: All climate models predict that the warming trend will continue in coming decades, and will often be accompanied by drier conditions. There is consensus that with these conditions, we can expect more severe wildfires across California and in the West more generally. One of our recent studies showed that the average area burned in Southern California could increase 70 percent by mid-century. Another effect of climate change is that forests in the western US will become more vulnerable to drought stress, making them more prone to diseases and beetles, leading to greater tree mortality and more fires.

PPIC: What kinds of technological advances can help us improve watershed management in the state?

YJ: There are two technologies that can provide more informed water management. One is obtaining images from satellites with remote sensors to learn about ecological and hydrological conditions on the ground. The other is using big data analytics and cloud computing, which can help us interpret the huge amount of data you get from remote sensors and translate it into information that farmers and water managers can use and act upon.

Basically, remote sensors can be used to monitor factors like water temperatures, the range of particular plant types, or the amount of water being released from plants. You can observe relatively large areas over time in a cost-effective way. For example, remote sensors can help detect algal blooms and invasive aquatic species throughout the watershed. Water managers can use remote sensing to estimate how much water is being used by crops or by natural vegetation, and how that water use changes from season to season or year to year. It can also help figure out how ecosystems will respond to a changing climate or how changing land use can affect water use. For fire management, remote sensing can track when and where fires occur, how effective fuel treatment projects are in reducing fire severity, and how vegetation recovers after fires.

While there are no simple technological solutions for managing the effect of a changing climate, having tools like these will make it much easier to get the quantitative information that we need to develop adaptive forest and watershed management strategies.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Protecting Headwaters (from California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)
Read “Managing Wildfires Requires New Strategies” (PPIC Blog, September 23, 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s drought resource page

Water Trivia Quiz Answers

Yesterday we published a water trivia quiz to ring in the new water year. Today we bring you answers. For each right answer, have a drink of water—you deserve it! (Answer to bonus question: the water year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, which is the period when precipitation totals are measured.)

  1. What could bring the biggest reduction in water use for a family in a single-family home? B: Removing a lawn would bring the highest water savings. Outdoor landscaping accounts for roughly half of all urban water use, and lawn is the thirstiest piece of that equation, especially in the hotter, dryer parts of the state. Replacing lawn with native plants can reduce water use by up to 60%. But this can be a costly change for households to make.

    Second best would be replacing an old toilet. Toilet flushing accounts for nearly a quarter of water use in the average home. Switching to a high-efficiency 1.28 gallon model can save more than 6,789 gallons per year if you started with a 5 gallon model, and about 4,000 if you had a 3.5 gallon one. Replacing a leaking toilet will bring even greater savings.

    The showerhead is next. Bathing accounts for about 17 percent of household water use, and the US EPA Water Sense program estimates that switching from a standard 2.5 gallon-per-minute showerhead to a 2 gallon-per-minute one can save 2,900 gallons per year (and a significant amount of energy from lower water heating as well).

  2. What was California’s per-capita water use in 2015? B: 130 gallons per day in 2015 (the fourth year of the latest drought). That’s down from 232 gallons per day in 1995. On average, inland residents used more. The reasons: outdoor watering and a hotter climate (their average was 168 gallons per person per day), while coastal residents used just 119 gallons per day.
  3. What causes toxic algal blooms? D: The growing problem of toxic algal blooms is an “all of the above” problem. A combination of nutrient-rich runoff from farms, discharges of treated sewage and urban runoff, and the drought’s warmer water temperatures and reduced river flows, caused numerous algal blooms in our waterways this year.
  4. How much surface water did Central Valley farms receive in 2015 compared to a year with normal rainfall? C: In 2015, surface water deliveries to Central Valley farmers were about half those of a normal year. About half a million acres were fallowed in both 2014 and 2015, costing the farm economy nearly $2 billion, and as many as 10,000 full- and part-time farm jobs. Groundwater pumping replaced about 70 percent of the lost surface water, which worsened the problem of overdrafted groundwater basins in some places.
  5. How was California’s energy supply affected by the drought? D: All of the above. A drop in urban water use brought significant energy savings statewide. Some Central Valley power plants that rely on surface water for cooling faced water shortages. The industry is being encouraged to switch to more reliable recycled water supplies, which is already the cooling source for a third of the state’s power production. California also produced about half as much hydropower during the latest drought compared to normal years; fossil fuels made up most of the drop. The growing problem of California’s “snow droughts” reduces the state’s ability to store water and produce hydropower in summer, when demand is highest. A warming climate will worsen this problem.
  6. Which new water supply would be the least costly to develop? D: While it’s a bit hard to generalize—the answer depends on the local cost of water, geography, and project particulars—the cheapest is likely a conservation program to replace old toilets, showerheads, washing machines and the like, according to a 2016 study by the California Public Utilities Commission. Some efficiency measures can even generate more benefits than costs over their lifetime, according to a recent report by the Pacific Institute. For urban areas located near an aquifer, groundwater recharge is second in terms of cost. For areas with poor access to groundwater basins, the best bet for a new water source may be recycling wastewater and piping it directly into the existing water system (called “direct potable reuse”); the state is currently developing policies that would make this possible. Seawater desalination is likely to remain the most expensive new source for most California communities.
  7. How many of California’s native fish are now at risk of extinction? B: At least 18 of California’s native 122 fish species are now at near-term risk of extinction. The drought’s low flows and high water temperatures add to the effects of dams, water diversions, habitat degradation, and the introduction of non-native species. A total of 90 native fishes are in trouble in one way or the other, with 31 already listed under the Endangered Species Act. The way we manage water leaves our freshwater ecosystems in perpetual drought.

Drought Savvy? Take Our Water Trivia Quiz

The start of the new “water year” has brought mixed messages to drought-stressed Californians—from above-normal rains in the northern part of the state to lingering drought in the southern half. But whether you live in the wet or dry part of the state, everyone can use a refresher course on what the drought means for our water supply. The answers are here. (Bonus question: What is a water year?)

1. Californians have experienced both mandated and voluntary calls for water conservation during this drought. For a family living in an older single-family-home, which of the following could bring the biggest reduction in water use?

A. Replace old showerheads with low-flow ones

B. Remove the lawn

C. Replace an old toilet with a water-efficient one

2. Water use in cities and suburbs has been declining for many years. What was California’s per-capita water use in 2015 (the fourth year of the latest drought)?

A. 175 gallons per day

B. 130 gallons per day

C. 55 gallons per day

3. Toxic algal blooms have become more common in California waterways in recent years, causing lake and beach closures, poisoning pets and sea life, and posing human health risks. What causes them?

A. Warmer water temperatures

B. Nutrients in the water from farms, treated sewage, and urban runoff

C. Lower flows into lakes, wetlands and estuaries

D. All of the above

4. How much surface water did Central Valley farms receive in 2015 compared to a year with normal rainfall?

A. Most farmers received the same amount.

B. They got 25% less—the statewide conservation mandate

C. They got about half of normal allocations

5. How was California’s energy supply affected by the drought?

A. Since it takes energy to supply, treat, and heat water, California households saved significant amounts of energy by using less water.

B. Some inland power plants faced water shortages that threatened their cooling-water supply

C. Hydropower production was cut in half due to reduced snowpack and runoff into reservoirs

D. All of the above

6. To help us address future shortages in urban areas, which of the following new water supplies would be the least costly to develop?

A. Building seawater desalination plants

B. Recharging groundwater with urban stormwater or treated wastewater

C. Making wastewater clean enough to drink

D. Enacting water efficiency programs, such as those to replace wasteful indoor water fixtures and appliances, and thirsty lawns

7. The ongoing drought has pushed many already troubled freshwater species to the brink. How many of California’s 122 species of native fish are now at near-term risk of extinction?

A. 12

B. 18

C. 27

California’s Snow Drought

Snow—or the lack of it—has been making headlines lately. California has had unusually low snowpack for the past several years, and the winter of 2015 was the all-time lowest snowpack in recorded history. Low snowpack brought major challenges to water managers.

Snow plays a disproportionately large role in water and environmental management in California. About a third of our average annual water supply starts out as snow. It flows into our major reservoirs in spring and early summer, when water demand on farms starts to ramp up.

“Snow droughts” typically coincide with reduced overall precipitation. This is always associated with a reduced number of large storms during winter (California relies on a handful of large storms every year to supply most of its water.) Snow droughts are also associated with unusually warm conditions.

Temperature affects snowpack in several ways. During warm winters, rain turns to snow at higher elevations than in colder years. This means that a smaller area is covered by snow, and there is less snowpack. Snow—like water—can also evaporate when conditions are warm. This process, known as sublimation, can dramatically reduce the snowpack. Finally, warm conditions cause early melting of the snowpack. The thinner the snowpack and the warmer the conditions, the sooner it will melt. In an average year, California’s snowpack starts to melt around April 1. During warm drought years, it can melt as much as a month or more earlier.

A good snowpack helps bolster our reservoirs precisely when the demand for water—principally for irrigation for farms—is highest. Many reservoirs are required to maintain space for capturing winter floods to protect downstream users. The spring snowmelt is critical for refilling these reservoirs to meet water supply needs. Snow droughts add special challenges to water management because changes in the timing and volume of runoff can have a big impact on reservoirs.

Environmental management is also complicated by snow droughts. State and federal laws require that many reservoir operators release cold water to support downstream habitat for steelhead and salmon. During the warm days of summer, managers tap into the pool of cold water that accumulates at the bottom of a reservoir (cold water is denser, so it sinks). Snowmelt runoff lowers the temperature and increases the volume of a reservoir’s cold water pool. This gives greater flexibility to managers for meeting both water supply and habitat needs, which are often in competition.

Snowpack is also the source of most of the state’s hydropower generation. A small or early snowmelt can cause significant reductions in hydropower, forcing utilities to make up the difference with other sources (most typically, fossil fuels).

Finally, snow droughts may be increasing in frequency and intensity. Recent studies throughout the West are showing that temperature—rather than reductions in precipitation—may have the most significant influence on drought conditions. And most climate projections suggest that this trend will likely worsen over the course of this century. The 2012–15 snow drought—along with all its water management challenges—may become much more common in the future.

There are no simple solutions to the loss of snowpack. To adapt, California will have to shift from its historic reliance on snowpack for storing water. This will require more flexible operation of our surface reservoirs to accommodate changes in timing and volume of snowmelt runoff. We’ll have to shift more water into aquifers to support flexible operation of dams, particularly those that need to make space to capture winter floods. And environmental managers will have to find innovative ways to conserve cold water to sustain salmon and steelhead populations, especially as the climate warms.

All of these adaptations are doable and need not represent major increases in costs or disruptions to water supplies. But we’ll need new policies, changes in the traditional ways we manage water, and a willingness to act to address the snow drought challenge.

 

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Climate Change and Water (from the California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)
Watch “California’s Water Challenges: Water Supply”
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center drought resource page

Video: Policy Priorities for California’s Water

Five years into this drought—with the possibility of a sixth on the way—what have we learned about addressing the diverse challenges of scarce water supplies? A PPIC Water Policy Center event in Sacramento last week brought together experts to discuss four of the state’s key policy challenges: strengthening urban drought resilience, managing groundwater in rural areas, addressing declining ecosystem health, and ensuring safe drinking water in disadvantaged communities.

The far-ranging conversations took the audience on a virtual tour of California’s drought hot spots. It included Central Valley towns subsisting on bottled water after local wells dried up, stressed rivers and streams with numerous fish species on the brink of extinction, and farmers anticipating big changes to rural economies as a law to maintain sustainable groundwater levels is implemented.

Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center, gave an overview of how California is managing the complex and interrelated challenges of this persistent drought. The experience can help us better prepare for future droughts and a warming climate, she said.

Cities have weathered the drought fairly well. But many urban water systems—which supply about 90 percent of California’s population—struggled to implement the statewide water conservation mandate issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, panelists noted. Now that the mandate is no longer in force, the focus is on encouraging long term water efficiency—especially for outdoor landscape water use.

A panel on the complex challenges of implementing the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act raised the need for better data to inform decision making. Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, said a big challenge for the law is “how do we create trust so that everyone will be engaged,” especially given the many challenges facing farming communities right now.

Managing water for the environment during drought was the focus of the third panel. Jeff Mount, senior fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center, noted that California’s aquatic ecosystems “are in perpetual drought … because of how we manage water.” He argued that we must focus on managing ecosystems rather than trying to save individual species on the brink.

Water shortages and poor water quality have also made life difficult in a number of disadvantaged rural communities—the focus of the last panel. Hundreds of communities have experienced drying wells, nitrate pollution, and other problems that threaten their water supplies.

Laurel Firestone, co-director of the Community Water Center, noted that while addressing this crisis has become a growing priority in California, more needs to be done locally and nationally to address inequities in access to safe drinking water. “Our lack of action is costing vastly more … than if we got ahead of the problem and solved it,” she said.

We invite you to watch the videos from this event, and hope you find the discussions illuminating and useful:

Learn more

Read California’s Water (PPIC Briefing Kit, October 2016)
Visit the Policy Priorities for California’s Water YouTube page
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

California’s Fish Emergency

Three-quarters of the state’s native fish are in trouble, and options for recovery have been constrained by the drought. We talked to Peter Moyle—an eminent fish biologist at UC Davis’s Center for Watershed Sciences and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network—about what can be done to bring native fish back from the brink.

PPIC: A year ago, your research showed that if the drought continued, 18 native fish would be at imminent risk of extinction. What is the situation now, and how has the state responded?

Peter Moyle: For many native species, things are even worse. Those 18 species are in the most immediate danger, and their situation has not improved. Delta smelt are on the verge of extinction. We currently know of 122 species of native fish in California, and 90 of them are in trouble in one way or the other, with 30 already listed under the Endangered Species Act. Climate change is making things worse.

The fish agencies have mostly used emergency-room responses during this drought. For example, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife did some emergency rescue operations this summer—capturing fish and putting them in hatcheries. And the US Fish and Wildlife Service sent some large experimental flows into the Delta to try to help smelt. What we really need to do is get better about planning for managing our species and ecosystems through droughts and floods, both of which are regular features of the state’s climate.

PPIC: What are your top three recommendations for managing water to prevent extinctions?

PM: The first thing is to ensure that every species has a home. We need to designate and manage “conservation waters”—core habitats to protect native species.

Second, I would ensure that every dam that blocks a stream has a more natural flow regime that favors fish. We need a systematic evaluation of the state’s 1,500 large dams to see which could be better managed to provide flows for native fish. Since virtually every river in the state has a dam, there’s a lot of room for improvement. Putah Creek is a good example of the potential—its flow is designed to mimic natural flow patterns but using a much smaller amount of water than historic flows. Fish in that stream are doing really well right now.

Third, we need to be more realistic about managing the Delta for native species. The big programs to try to fix the entire Delta just don’t work from a native fish perspective. The southern and central Delta have been so altered by human activities that it is very hard to make the changes that would make a difference. More promising is focusing on an arc of habitat in the north Delta that is all linked by the Sacramento River, from the Yolo Bypass to Suisun Marsh. Investing in habitat restoration there could make a big difference. Also, if we cluster projects in one area, they can build on each other’s ecosystem benefits. It’s a much more likely place to have a successful restoration.

PPIC: What are your thoughts about the recent effort to help the Delta smelt with flows through the Yolo Bypass?

PM: I’m hopeful about this project, which is being led by Ted Sommer of the Department of Water Resources. The idea is to expand food sources for the smelt by moving water into the Yolo Bypass, where it becomes enriched with nutrients and plankton. The water is then flushed downstream where it stimulates more plankton growth. The DWR team found plankton blooms all the way to Rio Vista. It seems to have worked, but it’s still in the proof-of-concept stage. It will be good to try on a larger scale. This is a good example of reconciliation ecology—the idea that while we can’t re-create ecosystems from the past, we can try to create conditions that will allow species to thrive within altered systems. The potential to improve habitat for native species based on reconciliation ecology is huge.

PPIC: What else gives you hope?

PM: I’m an intrinsic optimist. One thing that gives me hope is that there are a lot of very bright people working to conserve fish in this state. And there have been some recent developments in water law that make me hopeful. The major thing we’re short of is the will at high levels to do the kinds of extensive, risky projects that could bring our fish back to healthy populations. A good example of what I’m talking about is happening at Blue Creek in the Klamath Basin, which is an important cold-water refuge for migrating salmon and steelhead. The entire watershed is being purchased so it can be managed for fish by the local Yurok tribe, who’ve agreed to be its stewards. The Western Rivers Conservancy, which is partnering with the Yurok, has been extremely creative in finding funding for the project. Not only does this project help fish, it helps preserve the Yurok’s cultural traditions and creates jobs for tribal members.

Learn more

Read “California’s Ecosystems in Perpetual Drought” (PPIC Blog, August 30, 2016)
Read “Saving Native Fishes from Extinction” (PPIC Blog, October 30, 2015)
Read the report, What if California’s Drought Continues? (August 2015)

New Laws Strengthen State’s Water Safety Net

Governor Brown signed nearly 60 new bills this year that will influence how California goes about the business of managing water. Several of these new laws will expand and strengthen the water safety net for disadvantaged communities. A suite of bills signed in recent weeks will bring a much-needed assist for communities lacking reliable access to safe and affordable drinking water.

While the vast majority of residential water customers in California have access to safe drinking water, several hundred small communities still struggle to provide drinking water that meets basic health standards. In addition, the drought has resulted in more than 2,000 domestic wells across the state going dry and shortages in 100 small rural water systems. Small water districts serving low-income communities are not like their much larger counterparts—their rate bases are smaller, costs per household are higher, and their customers can’t afford high rates. In addition, these communities tend to have a shortage of managerial and technical expertise. These interrelated challenges constrict small districts’ ability to fund and maintain new pipelines, wells, and water treatment plants. Recognizing that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution, the state has recently begun to experiment with regulatory, administrative, and financial tools to help solve the problem.

Consolidating small water districts into larger ones is a relatively low-cost and durable solution that can bring lower per unit costs and improved levels of service to small, disadvantaged communities. The State Water Board has exercised the authority granted last year to mandate such mergers with six consolidations in the Central Valley. The state also covers some costs for consolidations. One of the most notable examples is the voluntary merging of 1,800 water-stressed homes in unincorporated East Porterville with the larger and more resilient water system serving the nearby city of Porterville.

The suite of bills signed this year—Senate Bill (SB) 552, SB 1263, and SB 1456—builds on past progress to strengthen the water safety net in several ways.

  • Improving access to funding: SB 1456 makes it easier for water systems serving small, disadvantaged communities to use state financing for capital improvements such as drinking water treatment plants. The bill extends this benefit to professional water service providers that serve small disadvantaged communities across the state.
  • Enhancing technical and managerial capacity: Even where financial resources are available, a small water system lacking experienced managers or expert technical staff may struggle to maintain water treatment and distribution systems. SB 552 offers a remedy by allowing the State Water Board to hire a third-party administrator to manage the water system on behalf of the community. The administrator can set and collect water rates and apply for other funding to build water treatment plants and cover operations and maintenance costs. This new tool potentially offers a long-term solution for small water systems, especially when the community doesn’t have any neighboring systems to easily connect with.
  • Preventing new unsustainable systems: SB 1263 aims to prevent communities from developing unsustainable water systems in the first place. The bill authorizes the State Water Board to deny permits for new water systems if the applicants cannot demonstrate adequate capacity to produce reliable and safe drinking water for at least 20 years under a variety of hydrologic conditions. Instead, it encourages them to partner with neighboring water suppliers that can.

These new tools for addressing drinking water issues in disadvantaged communities show that the state is both conscious of the complexity of the situation and willing to experiment with new approaches. We’ll be keeping track of legislative developments related to water in future blog posts.

Learn more

Read “Drinking Water Quality: Perceptions and Challenges” (PPIC Blog, September 6, 2016)
Read “California’s Water Quality Challenges” (PPIC Water Policy Center fact sheet, October 2015)
Read “Building a Better Water Safety Net” (PPIC Blog, October 21, 2015)

Water Marketing That Helps Nature

California urgently needs more practical, effective ways to improve conditions for struggling populations of native fish and waterbirds. A key ingredient is to add more water to rivers and wetlands at critical times of the year. Water trading is a proven way to do this—it brings necessary flexibility for environmental water managers while also reducing conflicts over the allocation of scarce supplies.

Buying water to support nature is not a novel concept in California. In fact, federal and state agencies helped jumpstart California’s water market during the 1987–92 drought by purchasing water for wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries. Today, environmental water purchases support wildlife refuges, increase flows for fish in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and other watersheds, and reduce salt build-up in the Salton Sea.

Most of the water comes from irrigation supplies. Farmers are paid to release water they have in storage or to change the timing or amount of water they use on their fields. This offsets the farmers’ own costs and gives environmental managers access to water to support habitat priorities. In the early years, most environmental water deals were for a year or less. Starting in the 1990s, multiyear leases—lasting anywhere from 8 to 15 years—became more common.

Although both buyers and sellers have become more comfortable with environmental water trading, the trends suggest waning momentum for this approach. Environmental water purchases peaked in early 2000s, at around 400,000 acre-feet annually. They fell to just half that level during the latest drought. Environmental purchases fell from 30 percent to just 15 percent of all water trades—despite continued market growth.

Instead, the decline reflects a drying up of funding. In today’s dollars, roughly $620 million was spent on environmental water acquisitions from 1984 to 2014. Almost three-quarters of this sum came from state (53%) and federal (20%) taxes—mostly state general obligation bonds that are repaid with general tax revenues. Water users have provided most of the remainder. Notably, 23% is from an ecosystem restoration surcharge on water sold to Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors that is used to acquire water for wildlife refuges and some instream flows. Participants in a large water trade between the Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego are funding mitigation for the Salton Sea.

In the near term, funding constraints are likely to further reduce environmental water purchases. One large multiyear deal funded by past water bonds—a 60,000 acre-feet/year lease to support Delta flows for endangered smelt and salmon—is set to expire later this year, and no funds have been identified to continue the program.

To reverse the trends, California needs to develop more stable approaches for acquiring environmental water. One way is to permanently buy water rights, rather than just leasing them. Proposition 1, passed by voters in late 2014, sets aside $200 million for this purpose. Permanent acquisitions of water rights entail greater up-front costs, but they give environmental managers an asset they can count on.

Another way is to create a stable pool of funds, so that environmental managers can flexibly lease water when and where it’s most needed. Bonds are not the right vehicle for this. Instead, a small surcharge on water use—similar to the CVP ecosystem restoration fund—is what’s needed.

Either way, California needs to unleash the potential of water trading to improve conditions in the state’s rivers and wetlands. Australia, facing similar challenges and conflicts over the use of scarce water supplies, invested several billion dollars to permanently buy back water for the environment. This process has given the environment an equal seat at the table and taken much of the heat out of day-to-day management decisions. As a result, river and wetland species have a much better shot at thriving in a variable, drought-prone climate.

Figure source: Updated from E. Hanak and E. Stryjewski. California’s Water Market, By the Numbers: Update 2012 (PPIC, 2012).
Figure notes: Dry years are those classified as critical or dry for the Sacramento Valley. Wildlife refuges includes water purchased by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and the federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s Water Acquisition Program (WAP). San Joaquin River flows, also funded through WAP, are for an experimental program to support salmon. Delta flows are for CALFED’s Environmental Water Account, continued as part of the Yuba Accord from 2008 to 2016. Other instream flows include water dedicated to the environment under section 1707 of the Water Code. Salton Sea mitigation includes water from the Imperial Irrigation District to mitigate the impacts of Colorado River water transfers to San Diego.

Learn more

Read “California’s Water Market” (PPIC Water Policy Center fact sheet, March 2016)
Read “Lessons on Sustaining the Environment During Drought” (PPIC Blog, June 23, 2016)
Read “California’s Ecosystems in Perpetual Drought” (PPIC Blog, August 30, 2016)