Category: Ecosystems

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 Now that the mandate is no longer in force, the focus is on encouraging long term water efficiency—especially for outdoor landscape water use.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)

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)

California’s Ecosystems in Perpetual Drought

Freshwater species—especially fish—are in trouble, and it’s not just the latest drought that put them there. We talked to Ted Grantham, a river scientist at UC Berkeley and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network, about the status of the state’s freshwater ecosystems.

PPIC: Drought has really hurt populations of native fishes. Aren’t these fishes adapted to drought?

Ted Grantham: California’s native fish have been in steady decline for at least 50 years—in part due to dams, habitat degradation, and the introduction of non-native species. Drought is an added stressor. California has a highly variable climate, with dramatic changes in rainfall and stream flow from year to year. Native fishes have developed several strategies to cope, but key to their long-term survival is their ability to recover from drought during wet years. It’s a “boom and bust” ecosystem. The problem is that we capture and divert a significant portion of available water in wet years, making it harder for the fishes to recover. Since 1975 the state has had about 15 years that were above-normal or wet years. But in the Delta, for example, the ecosystem only experienced about half that many wet years because of water diversions. During this same period, California has had fewer than five extreme dry years, but the Delta experienced about 20 from the ecosystem’s perspective. Essentially, our freshwater ecosystems are now experiencing a perpetual drought. The boom and bust ecology has lost its boom.

PPIC: A number of California fish populations hit new lows in this drought. What can we do to prevent extinctions?

TG: There are at least three strategies that would help us better manage our native freshwater fishes. First, we need to better define the amount of water needed to sustain healthy fish populations. The ability to protect flows for ecosystem benefits also depends on an accurate accounting system for tracking water availability and use; we have a long way to go on this. And we need to recognize that not all streams are created equal—some streams are disproportionately important for supporting biological diversity. Currently, the state doesn’t have a plan to identify and protect those areas. We need to be more strategic in conserving the places that matter most.

PPIC: What kinds of problems will climate change pose for California’s ecosystems, and what can we do about it?

TG: For many of our native fish species—especially salmon—California is the southern extent of their natural range. So we’re already at the limits of their tolerance for warm temperatures. As the climate gets warmer, life will be increasingly difficult for these species. We’re already seeing that species dependent on cold water are responding to climate warming by moving to cooler streams, such as those at higher elevations. The problem is we’ve constructed so many dams on our rivers that fish might not be able to migrate to these preferred locations—the dams act as barriers to fish movements. California has at least 1,400 large dams and thousands of smaller ones. We need to start identifying critical barriers to fish movement and take a closer look to determine if modifying these structures—or in some cases removing dams—is a feasible strategy to restore connectivity in our rivers and streams.

The second adaption strategy is protecting “climate refugia”—areas naturally buffered from climate change—to support cold-water species. Some rivers and streams appear to be more resilient to climate change and provide sustained, cool flows despite warming air temperatures—because they are fed by groundwater springs or have a northern exposure, for example. Identifying and protecting these kinds of refugia could help minimize the loss of species in a warmer future.

I am actually optimistic about the future. Although the drought has severely affected California’s freshwater ecosystems, it also has raised awareness about the need to improve water management and better prepare for climate change. We’ve begun to address longstanding problems, such as poor groundwater management. We’re also starting to realize that the health of our ecosystems is tied to the reliability and quality of our water supply, which is leading to creative and more integrated solutions that balance human and ecosystem needs.

Learn more

Read “How Much Water Does Nature Need?” (PPIC blog, June 29, 2016)
Read “Lessons on Sustaining the Environment During Drought” (PPIC blog, June 23, 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s ecosystems resource page

Three Lessons on Water Accounting for California

Californians are known to take pride in the state’s many exceptional characteristics. But in at least one important area, we’d be wise to learn a thing or two from our neighbors. Not only are the Golden State’s water management challenges shared by other western states, but many of these places use more advanced practices to understand how much water is available, who has claims to it, and how much is being used.

A new report by the PPIC Water Policy Center reviewed how California compares to other dry regions—11 other western states and Australia and Spain—in integrating water information into critical management functions. We found ample room for improving the state’s systems—especially for managing groundwater overdraft, defining environmental water needs, and stimulating water trading.

These three overarching lessons, drawn from our comparison study, have particular value for California:

  • Management of groundwater can be improved by adopting common standards for evaluating its availability and use. In most regions, including California, groundwater management is locally driven. Getting users to agree on long-term goals can be difficult when local agencies that share groundwater resources use different accounting methods to assess availability and use. Recognizing the need for better coordination, Australia developed accounting standards that ensure consistency across agencies. And Texas developed “authoritative” groundwater models that serve as an accepted standard for determining allocations and settling disputes, and are used as the default for local agencies. As a result, both places improved their cooperation and coordination over shared resources, and reduced costs. Establishing a set of standards could help California facilitate basin-wide planning as the state the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
  • Clearly defining environmental water needs makes decision-making easier for all water users. California still needs to consistently define the quantity, timing, and quality of water for environmental uses in most watersheds throughout the state. This will not only benefit the environment but also reduce uncertainty for other water users who rely on watershed resources. For instance, Washington is defining water budgets that clarify environmental needs for each sub-basin in the state. A pragmatic path for California is to develop watershed-based environmental water budgets that integrate local watershed goals such as ecosystem health and water supply objectives.
  • A well-functioning water market stands on three legs: clarity on water claims, certainty on water use, and strong systems to manage and share information. Water trading is a key tool for shifting water from less critical uses during times of scarcity. Trading opportunities in California are limited by a lack of information. Improving our understanding of how much water is used under each water right (and how much returns to streams and aquifers) is critical for determining the volumes of water that can be traded without harming other users. Idaho and Colorado have made great strides in this area. California would also benefit from more detailed, publicly disseminated information on volumes, prices, and locations of water trade agreements. The water market in Victoria, Australia, leads the way in providing timely and accessible information on water rights, allocations, and trading.

Investing in water accounting can stretch supplies during times of scarcity, as has been demonstrated in other dry regions. Making a commitment to comprehensive, authoritative, and user-oriented water accounting now, as other states and countries have already done, will help California become more resilient to the challenges posed by future droughts and climate change.

Learn more

Read the report Accounting for California’s Water (July 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Video: Improving California’s Water Accounting

Understanding California’s balance sheet for water—how much there is, who has claims to it, and what is actually being “spent”—is key to effective and sustainable water management, especially during droughts. But the state’s system of accounting is outdated and ineffective for managing some of our biggest water challenges, according to new research from the PPIC Water Policy Center.

A group of water management experts gathered to discuss the topic at a PPIC event last week.

“The drought has spotlighted weaknesses in California’s water accounting,” said PPIC researcher Alvar Escriva-Bou. These weaknesses make it harder to manage groundwater, water for the environment, surface water allocations, and water trading, he said.

Better information about groundwater use and claims is an especially urgent need. Lance Eckhart, director of basin management and resource planning for the Mojave Water Agency (which relies 100% on groundwater), said, “It’s probably going to take a generation” to bring the state’s over-drafted basins into balance. “The way you do that is by collecting good data…to quantify how much you have going in and how much is going out.” A lack of good information increases conflict over the resource, he said.

Tom Howard, executive director of the State Water Resources Control Board, noted that California has made “huge improvements” in managing information about water rights in the past six years. “But there are still a lot of blank spots” in the state’s water accounting system—for example, understanding how much water returns to the system from farms.

The drought revealed major weaknesses in how the state accounts for environmental water. Maurice Hall, associate vice president of water for the Environmental Defense Fund, said tightening the system of environmental water management through better information would allow managers to “specifically put the water where it needs to be for the fish and wildlife” and enable them to “defend the actions we are making for those wildlife.”

The issue of cost prompted a lively conversation about how we currently value water and how to fund the modernization of the system. Ellen Hanak, director of PPIC’s Water Policy Center, put the cost in context: “California annually spends $31 billion on our water system overall… And then look at the size of our economy—over $2 trillion. In the scheme of things, we ought to be able to find a little more money to do these kinds of things.”

Escriva-Bou and Hanak are coauthors of a new report that compares California’s water accounting systems to those of 11 other western states, Australia, and Spain. The authors identify gaps in California’s water information systems, and propose a dozen ways to bridge them.

Learn more

Read the report, Accounting for California’s Water (July 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Commentary: California Needs Better Account of Groundwater


This commentary was published in the Sacramento Bee today, Thursday, July 21, 2016.

California’s prolonged drought has driven home the need to improve our balance sheet for water—determining how much there is, who has claims to it, and what is actually being used. New research by the PPIC Water Policy Center compared California to 11 other western states, Australia and Spain—places that also struggle with water scarcity—and found significant room for improvement.

Read the full commentary on sacbee.com.

Learn more

Read Accounting for California’s Water (July 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

How Much Water Does Nature Need?

California’s water-dependent ecosystems are stressed even in normal times, and the latest drought has made matters worse. We talked to Mike Sweeney—the executive director of the Nature Conservancy’s California chapter and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s advisory board—about the troubled condition of our natural environment and how to improve it.

PPIC: How much water does nature need?

Mike Sweeney: In most places, the answer is “more than it’s getting now.” But it’s as much about timing and temperature as it is about quantity. Research shows that taking more than 20% of a river’s natural flow at any given time can negatively impact the river’s function and ecosystem. Today, our rivers receive about half of their historic natural flow. Clearly, we have a problem.

That said, there isn’t a simple answer to the question, “How much water does nature need?” Nature’s needs are dynamic, not static. Many species need surges of water at precise times and places. We’ve heavily engineered our water system to store water during wet periods and to move it to where people need it. This changed not only how much water flows through our river basins but also when it flows, often undermining conditions most favorable to native species.

We need to get specific about when and where nature needs water and build solutions that address these needs. That can include things like leasing water at key times of year from other water users or managing a dam so that water flows when it is needed and in the right amounts—rather than at a set volume all the time, which is often the current practice.

PPIC: What kinds of solutions might help resolve the conflict over water for the environment?

MS: Fish are in trouble: 88% of the state’s native fish species are already extinct, threatened, or endangered and at risk of extinction. But these days, farmers are often at odds with the people trying to protect nature, whether that’s in the Central Valley or up north along the Shasta River. Farmers are frustrated because regulators cut back their access to water.

What if we create solutions that work for both? There are ways to meet the needs of farmers and fish. Farmers can be part of the solution by helping to find ways to change the timing of water use—such as storing water in the winter for agricultural use during summer, rather than tapping rivers and streams when fish need it most. We need to get smarter about managing the wet times and dry times to provide water for both farms and fish.

PPIC: If you could change one thing about how California water is managed, what would it be?

MS: In California, we don’t do a good job of measuring how much water is flowing in our rivers and streams. That makes it hard to know how much really needs to be there for nature and when you should cut back water use on farms and ranches to provide water for fish. So the most important thing to change is to proactively manage water to meet nature’s needs using the best, state-of-the-art information we can get. To do that, we have to measure water in real time so that we have accurate data about where water is flowing. This would make it far easier to optimize water for cities, farms, and nature.

Learn more

Read “California’s Environment Needs a Water Budget” (PPIC blog, December 14, 2015) 

Read “Lessons on Sustaining the Environment During Drought” (PPIC blog, June 23, 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s ecosystems resource page

Lessons on Sustaining the Environment During Drought

California and Victoria, Australia, are both drought-prone states that face major challenges in managing freshwater-dependent ecosystems and native species during dry times. Both states have experienced intense controversy over balancing water for environmental needs and agricultural and urban uses. But while California’s environment has suffered greatly during its latest drought—with many species pushed to the brink of extinction—Victoria avoided serious biological losses during an even longer drought. Equally important, Victoria enacted a suite of policy changes that improved water management for all sectors, not just the environment, and reduced conflict.

A new report by the PPIC Water Policy Center examines how Victoria allocates water for the environment during times of extreme scarcity. We identify four key lessons from Victoria’s experience that could improve how California manages water for the environment during drought. These include:

  • Plan for drought rather than simply react to it: Victoria adopted planning processes that make it easier to set priorities for managing species during times of extreme scarcity, help build species’ resilience during normal and wet years, and promote recovery of populations when drought ends. Extensive community involvement in these plans has improved the public’s understanding of environmental water management actions, resulting in reduced tensions. California lacks environmental drought plans, relying instead on decision making during an emergency, rather than before.
  • Strengthen state and federal partnerships: Victoria’s success in managing drought relied on strong support from the Australian federal government. Although federal-state coordination in the West has improved during the current drought, the federal government—despite its key responsibilities in regulating and providing water resources—has not played a significant role in anticipating or reducing the effects of drought on California’s environment.
  • Recognize a water right for the environment: Victoria granted the environment a water right with equal priority to urban and agricultural uses. Environmental water managers are provided with resources to build and manage an extensive water portfolio, and participate in a robust, well-managed water market. Although California has some water rights allocated to the environment, volumes are relatively small and cannot be flexibly managed. Efforts to acquire significant permanent supplies for environmental uses have been limited by a lack of funding.
  • Treat environmental water as equal to other uses: In Australia, the environment has an equal “seat at the table” in water negotiations and the opportunity to be a partner in constructing water management solutions. This enables a more flexible, ecosystem-based approach to managing environmental water. In California, the highest environmental priority is avoiding extinction of native species protected by state and federal endangered species acts. This creates the perception that the environment is a constraint rather than an integrated priority in water management.

California has made some important advances in environmental water management during the current drought, including enacting historic legislation to reform groundwater management, developing new standards for environmental flows in a few basins, and allocating bond funds to purchase water rights for the environment. But much more needs to be done to improve drought resilience and to reduce conflict over environmental water allocations in future droughts. The Victorian experience shows that better planning and the right tools can reduce uncertainty for all parties and increase flexibility for environmental management. It’s a model worth exploring here in California.

Learn more

Read “California’s Environment Needs a Water Budget” (PPIC blog, December 14, 2015)
Read a summary of policy recommendations from Improving the Federal Response to Western Drought (February 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s drought resource page

How Is California Spending the Water Bond?

Almost two years ago, California voters passed Proposition 1—a $7.5 billion water bond intended to provide significant investments in the state’s drought-challenged water systems. Today, Californians concerned about the prospects of worsening drought may wonder how the state is spending these funds, and whether they are moving out the door fast enough.

Proposition 1 has seven funding categories, with a pot of money allocated to each. The bond language preauthorized spending in the largest area—$2.7 billion for water storage projects. For the other six areas, spending must be appropriated in the state budget.

With the passage of the most recent budget, nearly 80 percent of the bond has now been appropriated. The only category with no funds appropriated is flood management, which is still spending down money from earlier bonds.

Far less of Proposition 1—just $177 million, or 2 percent—has been awarded for spending. This gap reflects the additional prep work needed to use the appropriated funds. Bond money is generally appropriated to specific state agencies, who distribute it as cost-share grants through a competitive process. To ensure accountability, agencies set up rules on how they will evaluate applications. Once these rules are publicly vetted and finalized, agencies solicit project applications and award funds.

To date, the awards have focused on addressing priorities related to urgent public health and safety issues and the drought. Thirty-one grants will help disadvantaged communities with safe drinking water and wastewater treatment projects, 19 grants will boost urban supplies with wastewater recycling projects, and 21 grants will support local efforts to better manage groundwater reserves. Another priority has been California’s ecosystems, which have been hit hard by the drought; 45 projects address water supply and habitat to support native species around the state.

No funds have been awarded yet for water storage, another key area for boosting drought resilience. This has led to some criticism that the pace of spending is too slow, but this overlooks the bond language, which laid out a two-year process for establishing funding criteria.

The water bond’s storage money can only be used for funding “public benefits” resulting from storage projects. For any given project, at least half of these benefits must be for improving ecosystem conditions. Other qualifying benefits include better flood protection, recreation opportunities, emergency supplies, and water quality. In January, the California Water Commission proposed regulations that outline how the public benefits will be judged and quantified. The public comment period has ended, and the commission is on track to finalize its regulations by the end of 2016 and start soliciting applications in 2017.

The experience so far with Proposition 1 spending highlights something Californians have already seen with past water bonds: turning bonds into projects on the ground takes time. And there can be tradeoffs between expediency and value, because spending money quickly can favor less innovative projects or those that would be relatively easy to fund without bond support. So while California shouldn’t drag its feet in funding improvements to the state’s drought-challenged water infrastructure, striving for an accountable process that leads to quality projects is likely to be worth the wait.

Figure source: Proposition 1 Bond Accountability Report; Proposition 1 Bond project search website; Wildlife Conservation Board Streamflow Enhancement Program project allocations (downloaded on June 15, 2016)

Figure note: Appropriated amounts (light grey circles) contain both appropriations and costs for issuing and tracking bonds (2% of total costs). Amounts awarded to projects are calculated by the authors compiling data for each project from the Proposition 1 project search website. We searched for projects in “all counties,” organized projects by bond spending area/chapter, and summed both total cost of projects ($571 million) and Proposition 1 contribution to that sum ($177 million). In addition to money for awarded projects, agencies have also spent some funds for grant administration, which is not included in the dark grey circles.

Learn More

Read California’s Water: Paying for Water (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015)