PPIC Water Policy Center – Page 20 – Public Policy Institute of California

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: Assessing California’s Global Warming Law

Ten years ago, California enacted a law to combat global warming that set an ambitious goal: reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Today, the state is poised to reach this target, and policymakers are discussing aiming for a new one.

Each year since the law—AB 32—took effect, the PPIC Statewide Survey has examined Californians’ views on climate change and the state’s actions to address it. The survey has consistently found that most Californians believe that the effects of global warming have begun and that majorities support the state taking action to address it.

But a partisan split has emerged since the law took effect. AB 32’s goals no longer have the bipartisan support they did in 2006. Today, Democrats and independents are much more likely than Republicans to support the goals of AB 32. This divide is reflected in a number of findings in the 2016 Californians and the Environment Survey.

Research associate David Kordus presented the survey at a briefing in Sacramento last week.

How Green Is My Water?

Harmful plumes of algae in waterways have been much in the news lately, in California and nationally. We talked to James Cloern, a senior scientist at the US Geological Survey and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network, about this pressing water quality issue.

PPIC: What are algal blooms, and how big a problem are they for California?

James Cloern: Our waterways are home to many thousands of species of microscopic algae, but only a few dozen can develop into harmful blooms. They become harmful when they either produce toxic chemicals, which can make people and animals sick, or disrupt biological processes like animal feeding or bird flight—some species excrete goo that can gum up birds’ wings.

There’s growing evidence that harmful blooms are increasing because we are over-fertilizing our lakes, rivers, and estuaries such as the Bay-Delta. This over-fertilization comes largely from the discharge of treated sewage or runoff of nutrient-rich water from farms, cities, gardens, and animal lots. Two nutrients are causing these problems: nitrogen and phosphorus.

Algal blooms can grow very rapidly when they have the right conditions: warm water, high sunlight, and high concentrations of nutrients. California’s latest drought coincided with record-high temperatures, which warmed waterways and was a contributing factor to a number of algal blooms around the state.

One really nasty algae—Microcystis—seems to be increasing globally. It has an advantage as the climate and waters warm. Microcystis has become a challenge in California. In recent years we’ve seen it bloom in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Pinto Lake, Pyramid Lake, Shasta Lake, and reservoirs of the Bay Area’s East Bay Regional Parks.

PPIC: Could climate change worsen this problem?

JC: There is still much to learn about the ecology of these blooms, but we know these events are strongly tied to climate and especially to extremes such as heat waves and drought as well as El Niño/La Niña cycles. One grand challenge is to understand the interactions between climate variability, including climate change, and over-fertilization. Developing that knowledge is critical for establishing the quantities of nutrients that cause more frequent or intense harmful blooms.

PPIC: How well prepared are we to manage these water quality challenges?

JC: Water managers today are asking three essential questions of the scientific community. First, at what point do we have to take action? Second, which nutrient do we tackle first? And third, what level of action is required?

These are challenging questions, and they have global implications. They’re important in densely populated urban areas, where we dispose of treated sewage in water bodies, and in areas where water bodies drain large agricultural areas.

California’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards are tackling these issues. They have two new programs on nutrient management—one for San Francisco Bay, one for the Delta. The technical solutions are very different for dealing with land runoff and sewage. The sewage issue can be solved technically, but the fix is expensive. The San Francisco water board is now trying to determine what level of impairment should trigger mandated water treatment to reduce nutrients coming into the Bay. Since the problem could cost on the order of $5–$10 billion to solve, board members don’t want to mandate unnecessarily strict changes.

The land-runoff challenge is much harder to address, because the source of pollution is the application of fertilizers on land, feedlots, and septic systems. Solving the problem will require substantial behavioral changes such as new farming practices. But it has been done elsewhere—for example, Denmark mandated national-scale action to reduce both nitrogen and phosphorus.

We have a clear understanding of how nutrient pollution can make our waters unswimmable, unfishable and undrinkable. Solutions to the nutrient pollution problem exist, but they have costs. Californians must decide if the benefits justify the expense.

Learn more

Read “California’s Water Quality Challenges” (PPIC Water Policy Center fact sheet, October 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center water quality resource page

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

Implementing California’s Groundwater Law

What will it take to successfully manage groundwater in California? This was the topic of a recent workshop jointly held by UC Water and the PPIC Water Policy Center. The workshop brought together researchers, policy makers, and water managers to reflect on the challenges of implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in California’s Central Valley, the state’s leading agricultural region. Here are some key takeaways.

Groundwater recharge should become more intentional. Farmers are the biggest users of groundwater in the Central Valley—but they also do the most to replenish it. When they apply water to their fields, crops don’t use all of it—some water seeps down and recharges underground aquifers. However, to achieve sustainable use in many aquifers, the process of recharge will have to become more deliberate and widespread in the Central Valley. UC Water experts presented research from several experimental sites across the state showing that recharge can be increased in a variety of ways. Depending on local circumstances, some possible solutions include having farmers flood their fields with excess winter runoff, setting back levees and using floodplains as infiltration grounds during flooding, and engineering recharge basins or using injection wells to direct water underground. Some of this is already happening in different parts of the valley. But scaling up recharge efforts to a magnitude large enough to bring overdrafted basins into balance will likely mean developing hundreds of additional small, decentralized projects across the valley.
It’s all about incentives. Recharge is a local process, but the benefits can be regional. To make recharge projects sprout in the Central Valley, incentive mechanisms will be needed to credit individuals who participate. One promising way of incentivizing farmers to recharge was presented by UC Santa Cruz researcher Andrew Fisher, who described experiences from a pilot project in the Pajaro Valley on California’s Central Coast. That project’s goal is to establish a system that provides rebates to those who recharge groundwater.
Accounting will be critical.California’s groundwater law requires users to establish local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), which will have authority to monitor, measure, and regulate pumping and to fund recharge projects. Before passage of the law, California generally did not require monitoring of groundwater pumping or restrict its use, despite continued declines of groundwater levels in many parts of the state. As a result, there is little historical data on groundwater pumping and storage for Central Valley groundwater basins. At least some GSAs are likely to begin metering agricultural pumping, which can serve both as monitoring and enforcement. As GSAs make these important decisions, it will be important for them to strive for having widely available, transparent estimates of groundwater use and recharge volumes. Such data are critical to estimate groundwater budgets and provide a framework for water trading. For instance, crediting farmers for recharge is impossible if we don’t know how much water they pump out and how much they recharge.
No silver bullets. While recharge is promising, some reductions in groundwater use may also be necessary to achieve sustainability in some areas. For example, in parts of the southern Central Valley, there may not be enough extra surface water to justify building new recharge infrastructure. Many places across the valley may not have the right soil composition for recharge. Fortunately, California has extensive infrastructure to move surface water from where it is more plentiful to where it is scarce. As locals begin to implement the groundwater law and seek to reduce overdraft, water trading can help increase the efficiency and reliability of water allocation.

The workshop showed that there is a high level of interest in discussing solutions to California’s groundwater management challenges. Finding more opportunities to bring researchers and practitioners together to discuss ongoing work and identify ways to collaborate is an important step forward in the state’s path toward sustainable groundwater management.

Learn more

Read “The Coming Groundwater Revolution” (PPIC Blog, January 6, 2016)
Read our policy brief “California’s Water: Storing Water” (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Brian Gray Joins PPIC Water Team

The PPIC Water Policy Center is pleased to welcome Brian Gray as our newest staff member and senior fellow. He brings extensive experience in water and environmental law. He is a professor emeritus at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and has been an adjunct to the Water Policy Center since last year.

Gray has published numerous articles on environmental and water resources law, and has served as a key collaborator on PPIC water reports, including the 2011 book, Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation, and several of our recent contributions on the drought, such as Allocating California’s Water: Directions for Reform (2015) and the just-released Managing Water for the Environment During Drought: Lessons from Victoria, Australia.

“My work with PPIC these past seven years has been the richest and most rewarding of my career,” Gray said. “I am honored to be a member of the Water Policy Center, and I look forward to continuing to work with my talented and inspiring colleagues here at PPIC, in our research network, and in the broader water resources policy community.”

Gray holds a JD from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BA in economics from Pomona College. In addition to his work with PPIC, Gray has contributed in a variety of other ways to environmental policy work. He has argued before the California Supreme Court and the US Court of Appeals in cases involving wild and scenic rivers, water pricing reform, and water rights and environmental quality. He is a recipient of the William Rutter Award for Excellence in Teaching and the UC Hastings Outstanding Professor Award.

Learn more

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