Category: PPIC Water Policy Center

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)

A Weatherman Explains California’s Volatile Climate

What does the future hold for California’s weather and climate? Is drought the new normal? And what about La Niña? We talked to Daniel Swain—founder of the popular California Weather Blog and a Stanford University climate scientist—about our volatile climate.

PPIC: La Niña is looming, bringing the possibility of another dry winter. What issues does it raise for the state?

Daniel Swain: It’s ingrained in California folklore that El Niño means rain and La Niña means no rain. Climate scientists often emphasize that the effects of both can be highly variable in California. El Niño and La Niña do give us much more predictability than we would have in a typical year, but that’s not always enough to help us predict exactly what’s going to happen. Last year we had a bit of a predictive failure when a very strong El Niño didn’t translate to extremely wet conditions for California as a whole. Northern California got a break this winter, with near-average precipitation. It didn’t actually earn back its accumulated water deficit, but at least it didn’t get larger. The La Niña situation is even more uncertain, bringing a wider range of possible outcomes than with El Niño. But it’s reasonable to say there is an increased risk of dry conditions this coming winter. So La Niña is certainly not good news. Another dry and warm winter would be bad news for the environment and groundwater, because these systems haven’t recovered from previous dry winters.

PPIC: Talk about the role of climate change in the California drought.

DS: There are two things to think about: what’s going on with precipitation and with temperature. We’ve seen record warmth by a really wide margin for most of the latest drought. It’s been a much more severe drought than it would have been with cooler temperatures and the same amount of rain. These extremely warm temperatures are clearly linked to global warming. The question of precipitation is much harder to answer. There hasn’t been much of a trend in California’s average precipitation. But that doesn’t mean the character of precipitation isn’t changing—in fact, we’re seeing an increase in atmospheric patterns associated with both very dry and very wet conditions. The central cause of our really dry conditions during the present drought is the “ridiculously resilient ridge” anchored over the Pacific, which has been keeping big storms away. The question of whether or not global warming affects the risk of very low precipitation years is essentially equivalent to asking whether climate change has increased the chance of big ridges like this—and recent research suggests that it does. Between our high confidence in the role of rising temperatures and the less-certain linkage to these ridge patterns, we can say there is a substantial climate change fingerprint on this drought.

PPIC: Climate scientists have made it clear that we can’t attribute a single event to climate change, but at what point do we start talking about “a new normal” in California?

DS: It’s quite clear that global warming is rarely if ever the singular cause of an extreme climate event—there is always some degree of weather or randomness involved. A more important question is: does global warming influence the likelihood of a specific event? We have high confidence that global warming has increased the likelihood of drought in California. It’s clearly not the only factor, but asking the question in this way provides a useful frame for evaluating risk. As for “a new normal,” it’s pretty unlikely that California’s future will be characterized by a permanent shift to low rainfall. The state’s climate is already characterized by extremes—we see a lot of year-to-year variation, particularly in precipitation. A more useful way to think about our certainly warmer future is to ask whether the driest or wettest years are occurring more frequently or more intensely. Having wider swings between drought and flood—that might actually be the new normal.

One bit of good news is that we’re getting a lot better at predicting atmospheric rivers, which bring our biggest rain storms. We may be able to use these much improved forecasts to allow more leeway in managing water storage in reservoirs. Our increasing ability to forecast weather is going to give us new ways to address our water challenges—to better manage increased risk.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Climate Change and Water (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015) Read Daniel’s California Weather blog

A Changing State of Water Conservation

The California State Water Board is charged with balancing all water needs across the state—an especially difficult task when there’s less water to go around. We talked to Fran Spivy-Weber, the board’s vice chair (and chair of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s advisory council), about water conservation and lessons from the drought.

PPIC: What expectations do you have for statewide water use in light of recent changes to the state’s approach to urban water conservation, which replaced the 25% mandate with locally set standards?

Fran Spivy-Weber: I think there will be a bit of an uptick in water use in the short term, but I’m not expecting water use to go up to where it was. My experience after previous droughts shows that after all the work to educate people and change plumbing fixtures and appliances, water use stays pretty flat. Meanwhile, the board is working with the Department of Water Resources to develop long-term water use targets—for indoor and outdoor urban uses—as well as targets for reductions in leakage from pipes. We plan to work on these targets into early fall, and will be getting public input during that time. By the end of the year these targets should be pretty final, and the governor can put them into legislation and agency practice next year. These targets will give everyone something to aim for.

PPIC: What is the most important lesson for California from the latest drought?

FSW: I think it’s to share data about water use with the press and public. We’ve seen strong leadership on water conservation by individuals around the state—most changes were done not because people were told to do so but because they could see there was a limited amount of water available and they wanted to do their part. We also learned that water rates do matter. Water agencies that have drought surcharges did OK, those that did not are suffering. It can be politically difficult to change rates, but when people buy less water during droughts, water agencies with flat rates suffer. People mostly care about having enough water when they turn on the tap; they care very little about how much water their appliances use. The energy sector in California has completely separated the costs of delivery from the service of providing their commodity. The water sector needs to do this too.

PPIC: What is the state doing to encourage innovations in water supply?

FSW: The board’s biggest action was to approve loans for recycled water, and it clearly helped. We’re now identifying how much recycled water is actually being served—we’ll know by the end of summer. The state’s goal is 1 million acre-feet by 2020, 2 million by 2030. On technological innovations in water, the governor’s office is taking the lead. A number of the state’s universities are also pursuing these kind of innovations. Over the next 10 years the way in which water is delivered will likely change dramatically. Water will be reused a lot more, and storm water will be captured in more places. Water agencies tend to be the most conservative agencies—their engineers have to know that when they undertake something new it will provide safe, clean water and meet customers’ needs—so they’re often not eager to take on new technologies. But with the drought and climate change, and an increasing cost of water, they’re starting to think about it more.

PPIC: How much more room do we have to improve urban water efficiency?

FSW: There is much more room for improvement. While a number of communities are achieving 55 gallons of indoor water use per capita per day or even less—particularly in new houses—most people in the state live in older housing, with old, water-wasting fixtures. This will change in the next few years. Outdoor landscaping is changing, and we haven’t seen the end of it—many people pulled out lawns to save water, but now many more are beginning to realize they don’t want lawns that take a lot of maintenance and water.

Learn more

Read “Water Management’s High-Tech Future” (PPIC Blog, September 3, 2015)
Visit the State Water Board’s drought information page
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

California’s Big-Ticket Water Challenges

California’s hundreds of local public water agencies are responsible for about 90 percent of the water delivered across the state. We asked Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and vice-chair of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s advisory council, to weigh in on three big-ticket water management issues ACWA’s members are facing.

PPIC: Last week, the State Water Board voted to give control over water conservation standards to local agencies. Why is this change important?

Tim Quinn: Essentially, the board decentralized decisions about drought management so that local water agencies can tailor their plans to local conditions. ACWA strongly believes that this was a move in the right direction. The initial drought emergency conservation regulations did not account for local factors like climate and, more importantly, the extent to which local agencies have invested in drought-resilient local supplies. By allowing local public agencies to account for these factors, we will have more effective and lower-cost drought protection while maximizing incentives for further investments in drought resiliency. The new approach in no way means less conservation. In fact, ACWA strongly believes in raising the bar on water-use efficiency and conservation in our long-term water management plans. The board’s action appropriately recognizes that, at least for the time being, emergency conditions no longer exist. Now we need to pivot to the adoption of long-term conservation plans in which, as the California Water Action Plan puts it, “conservation is a way of life.”

PPIC: What do you think about the governor’s “twin tunnels” approach to addressing the issues facing the Delta?

TQ: I’ll be blunt: we have an outdated and ineffective system for conveying water through the Delta. The system’s intakes are in the wrong part of the Delta, which maximizes conflicts between species protection and water supply and does not work for either purpose. Unless we’re prepared to abandon this system, we need to fix it. I think abandoning it would not be good for California.

My organization believes that we need a comprehensive statewide program that includes a physical fix in the Delta to make our water supply less vulnerable. Fixing the system would help improve the Delta’s ability to cope with climate change and sea-level rise, minimize conflict between water supply and fisheries, improve water quality for 25 million Californians, and make the system better able to withstand earthquakes and floods.

I spent a couple of decades of my career up to my eyeballs in the Delta, trying to figure out how to get the water we need with the intakes in the wrong place. It seems California simply has a very difficult time having an adult conversation about the Delta. Despite the obvious difficulties, if the Brown administration can move forward with its Delta strategy, we should all be ready to provide support for it as part of a common-sense statewide water action plan.

PPIC: What are the most urgent water needs the state should invest in?

TQ: There are six critical areas we need to fund: water conservation and local resource development, storage—both above and below ground, Delta conveyance, implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, provision of safe drinking water to disadvantaged communities, and investment in habitat and watersheds. These are the essential bricks in the wall of a sustainable water system for California, and they’re all important. They also lend themselves to different funding strategies; some are adequately funded and some not. The biggest shortfalls in funding probably arise for the last two categories. Some have suggested a public goods charge on water to fund these activities, which the water industry would oppose. Others point to the general fund as the logical source of funding for public benefits. It seems to me that the important thing is to come to some agreement on funding so that a comprehensive water plan can move forward.

Learn more

Read California’s Water briefing kit for more information on key water management challenges
(April 2015)
Read “Stressful Times for a Drought-Stricken Delta” (PPIC blog, October 5, 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

Troubled Waters for California Farmers

California farmers have been coping with major water challenges during the latest drought. We talked with Dave Puglia, executive vice president of Western Growers and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center advisory council, about these challenges.

PPIC: What water uncertainties do California farmers face?

DAVE PUGLIA: It varies by region. In some areas, water reliability for the future is paramount. In other places, water quality requirements are more challenging. The San Joaquin Valley is facing long-term restrictions in surface water. Imperial County growers are wondering if their supply from the Colorado River will last.

In areas where water quality is key, the increasing capability to detect contaminants has led to increasing regulations to reduce pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The state’s drive for perfection doesn’t recognize the realities of farming. California is treating nitrogen and nitrates as the equivalent of industrial solvents. Nitrogen is necessary to produce food, and we’re using fertilizers much more sparingly now. Many growers worry that there could one day be a virtual prohibition on the use of nitrogen, which has been used from dawn of agriculture.

Businesses hate uncertainty, and state policies on water quality and supply paint a very uncertain picture. These are multigenerational businesses with most of their assets tied up in land. They’re looking over a 20-year horizon and asking, should we continue to invest in this business in this state? They’ve experienced an immense growth in regulatory burdens in the past two decades—not just in water—and don’t see the trajectory changing. From a balance sheet perspective, it looks very dark.

I think we’ve lost regulatory balance in California. If we looked at how all these regulations work together, we could learn a lot about how these mandates add to the burden of this industry. That would force a conversation on whether we want to maintain the nation’s largest agricultural industry.

PPIC: What uncertainties does the state’s groundwater law pose for farmers?

DP: I think the biggest threat to its successful implementation rests in the fact that many growers fear they’ll lose access to adequate groundwater supplies, which won’t be replaced with surface water. In the past 20 years, the San Joaquin Valley has easily lost 2 million acre-feet a year in surface water. The biggest threat is the lack of surface water being delivered to the valley to recharge groundwater basins.

PPIC: What will it take to bridge the “fish vs. farms” divide?

DP: There is a major lack of confidence in the science used by fish agencies to make decisions on water deliveries from the Delta. The state and federal water projects are now functionally controlled by state and federal fish agencies based on the abundance of species, but their modelling seems arbitrary and questionable to many. The fish aren’t recovering, and there’s inadequate attention to other stressors that impact both salmon and smelt. Theoretically, the governor’s tunnels project has potential to break us out of this dynamic and provide adequate water reliability south of the Delta. But there’s uncertainty about it among agencies that would be required to pay for it and opposition from the environmental community. Without some big changes, I don’t see the divide getting better.

Learn more
Video: Farming’s Water Future (PPIC blog, March 2, 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

Regulating Marijuana as a Crop

In the 20 years since marijuana was legalized for medical use in California, it has become an increasingly legitimate crop in the state’s agricultural landscape. Yet despite relatively steady progress in moving marijuana cultivation out of the shadows, important questions remain about the crop’s impact on water and the environment, and whether the state can regulate these issues successfully.

Last year the state legislature passed laws designed to regulate medical marijuana production. Should Californians vote to legalize recreational marijuana use this fall, the state will need to take an even more active role in regulating production, as argued in a recent PPIC report.

Marijuana growing has yet to move to large-scale production, but that could change with shifts in state or federal laws. Both the total amount of marijuana produced and number of cultivation sites are difficult to estimate. An often cited but uncertain estimate is that California has about 50,000 cultivation sites. A recent effort to map grows in Humboldt County suggests that most have less than 100 plants and typically cultivate less than one acre. These small grows are usually located far from improved roads and often scattered on steep slopes. Currently, only 7 percent of grows in Humboldt County are on what could be considered prime agricultural land.

The biggest environmental concerns regarding marijuana cultivation—or any agricultural commodity, for that matter—are water use, deforestation, and water pollution. Given the small size of most grows, marijuana production currently does not appear be a major driver of deforestation in California, although building access roads may cause erosion and fragment wildlife habitat.

And although it has been reported to be a thirsty plant, recent estimates of marijuana’s water use in Humboldt County—one of the state’s biggest growing areas—suggest that under 2,000 acre feet a year is used for that county’s entire crop. This is enough to irrigate about 400 acres of almonds (for scale, California currently has more than a million irrigated acres of almonds). Some water used for marijuana irrigation comes from headwater streams that are home to sensitive species, and water use tends to increase in the fall when these watersheds are most stressed. If the crop were to be widely grown in drier areas, water impact might increase. Recent proposals for large marijuana greenhouse operations in Southern California desert communities also raise questions about water supply.

State regulations have recently given regional water quality boards and county governments better tools to manage marijuana growing. The North Coast Regional Water Board has adopted regulations requiring all marijuana operations over 2,000 square feet to enroll in a program requiring monitoring and potential cleanup for water discharge and diversions at existing marijuana operations. Humboldt County has introduced one of the state’s first land use ordinances for marijuana production, which limits cultivation size based on zoning type and square footage of the parcel.

The legal market for marijuana in California is likely to expand, especially if voters approve recreational use this fall. This presents both opportunities and challenges. The state can establish rules that make access to the market contingent upon following environmentally responsible and water-smart growing practices. The challenge is that for the regulations to be meaningful, they must be enforced. State and county officials will need to monitor the location of grows and practices, and collect information that can guide future policies to effectively reduce the crop’s impact on land and water resources. Accomplishing that will require adequate time and staff.

Learn more

Read “California Streams Going to Pot from Marijuana Boom” (PPIC blog, July 23, 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Photo credit: North Cascades National Park Service

Paying for Groundwater Recharge

The author is a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network.

Water levels in many of California’s groundwater basins have dropped too far, too fast in recent years, prompting a wave of experimental projects to augment the natural recharge of aquifers. But funding is a missing element in many of these efforts. A new local program to provide incentives for groundwater recharge could be replicated in other parts of the state.

Most Californians who use groundwater do not pay to use it. Instead, in many basins, property owners with an “overlying right” to water underground are free to extract as much as they need for “reasonable and beneficial use,” as loosely defined by state law, paying only for the costs of pumping.

The state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, enacted in 2014, empowers local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to impose fees in support of long-term water resource management and develop funding mechanisms for projects that conserve water and augment available supplies.

The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, adjacent to Monterey Bay, manages groundwater in one of California’s most productive and economically important agricultural areas. For decades, this area has experienced persistent groundwater overdraft. The water agency meters most wells and levies an “augmentation charge” to pumpers in the basin. In March, the agency’s Board of Directors approved a five-year pilot program of “recharge net metering.” The program seeks to enhance groundwater recharge by some 1,000 acre-feet per year using stormwater runoff from nearby slopes as the primary water supply.

Representatives from UC Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District will act as third-party certifiers and help identify and screen project sites. The water agency will credit pumpers who run successful projects, partly offsetting their augmentation charges. This rebate helps to compensate pumpers for losses of land use or access and periodic maintenance needed for the recharge systems. It’s intended to function like the electricity net-metering program run by PG&E for customers who contribute power to the grid with home solar panels.

Could a program like this work in other parts of the state? Much depends on how GSAs set up water management programs and metering and fee structures. Developing a rebate program in parallel with a structure to charge for groundwater pumping might make fees more palatable to land owners who are not used to paying for groundwater. Giving a rebate for recharge makes sense if the GSA can subsequently levy a fee for use of the additional water.

Other factors that will influence project success include the availability of suitable recharge sites and the ability to collect runoff from a large enough drainage area to justify the effort. The effect on water quality also has to be considered. Besides rebates, other costs to consider include those to identify promising sites and verify field conditions, conduct community outreach, secure permits to satisfy environmental and other requirements, design and install the systems, and measure the benefits—the basis for the rebate. Yet even with these costs, this approach can be economically viable when compared to other supply alternatives.

This is just one approach to solving a difficult problem. Given California’s history of paradigm-shifting innovation, we are likely to see more ways to incentivize sustainable groundwater resources as GSAs figure out how to manage their basins for the long term.

Learn more

Read “Reforming California’s Groundwater Management” (PPIC fact sheet)
Read “Farms that Grow Groundwater” (PPIC blog, April 18, 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center’s water supply resource page

Reconnecting the Klamath

State and federal officials recently signed two agreements to reshape the Klamath River. If these agreements are fully implemented (and there are still some important hurdles ahead), they would lead to removal of the four aging hydropower dams that separate the Upper and Lower Klamath Basin, perhaps as early as 2020. This restoration effort would be the largest of its kind in the US, if not the world.

We were members of the 2001 National Research Council committee that first reviewed the environmental management challenges in the Klamath Basin. Our report, which focused on conflicts over habitat and water for threatened and endangered fishes, made many recommendations, including dam removal. We are gratified to see progress toward this objective.

There are many good reasons for removing these dams. They harm water quality, block access to spawning grounds in the upper watershed for declining stocks of wild salmon and steelhead, and are a financial liability to the company that owns and operates them. Their removal is both inevitable and appropriate.

While the agreements represent a major milestone, we had another conclusion: dam removal will not solve the Klamath Basin’s problems, although it is a necessary first step.

There is an understandable perception that reconnecting the Upper and Lower Klamath will lead to dramatic improvement of conditions for salmon and steelhead. After all, the largest dam removal in US history to date—the Elwha Dam in Washington—resulted in rapid improvements for these fishes and the ecosystems that support them. Other dam removals have had similar responses.

The Klamath, however, is very different. The removal of the Elwha Dam opened up 70 miles of pristine habitat, all protected within a national park. In contrast, the vast expanse of marshes in the Upper Klamath Basin through which the upstream rivers flow have been drained and farmed for more than a century. And the remaining lakes, including Upper Klamath Lake and Keno Reservoir, have significant water quality issues. If these and other problems in the Upper Basin are not addressed, the environmental benefits of taking down the dams will not be fully realized.

Dam removal will not solve the Klamath Basin’s problems, although it is a necessary first step.

For these reasons, dam removal on the Klamath is a commitment, rather than a conclusion. Sustained, well-funded efforts to restore and monitor habitat in the tributaries (where most salmon and steelhead spawn and rear), and to improve water quality in the Upper Basin must continue for decades after the dams come down. The agreements recognize this, but it is easy to lose focus once the primary objective—dam removal—is achieved.

The story of the Klamath dam removal effort is an object lesson for the deeply entrenched combatants in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. The Klamath agreements are a triumph of negotiation over confrontation and litigation. These agreements represent more than a decade of hard work on the part of the federal and state governments, farmers, environmental groups, and Native American tribes, who are especially critical to its success. Long-time adversaries climbed out of their trenches and negotiated a comprehensive fix. Agreements like this are, by virtue of their many compromises, naturally imperfect and difficult to come by. But in today’s complex, politically charged environment, they are the only way to make meaningful progress on resolving contentious water issues.

Learn more

Read a summary of policy recommendations from Improving the Federal Response to Western Drought (February 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

5 Things to Know About Desalination

A longer version of this piece was recently published by “Water Deeply.”

Could desalination provide a reliable supply of water for California? A number of policy makers have been raising this question in response to water-supply challenges brought on by the drought. Around the globe, some similarly dry places are getting a significant share of their water through desalination.

Officials in some cities (especially in Southern California) certainly think so, and are taking steps to develop seawater desalination plants. The state’s water bond allocates $725 million to help local water agencies build water recycling and desalination plants. Recent proposals that prioritize desalination include Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed water bill, which would provide $100 million in funds for desalination projects; Assembly Bill 1925 by assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, which would establish annual goals for producing potable water through desalination; and the Obama’s administration proposed budget for 2017, which would launch an Energy-Water Desalination Hub, and provide funding for other desalination initiatives.

California has more than 60 years’ experience with desalination, and yet the process remains a minimal part of the state’s water system, for a number of reasons. Here are some key facts to know about desalination in California today.

  1. It’s not just about the ocean: Although desalination often uses seawater, in California and other western states it has mostly been used to remove salts from brackish water (which is saltier than freshwater but less salty than seawater). The state’s existing plants can produce almost 140,000 acre-feet from brackish sources, but only 57,000 acre-feet from seawater. Brackish desalination is generally much cheaper, because there’s less salt to remove.
  2. Seawater desalination will remain an expensive source of water: According to a recent report by the White House, current seawater desalination technologies will need to undergo a fourfold reduction in cost, a threefold decrease in electricity usage, and a twofold cut in carbon-dioxide emissions to compete with traditional water sources.
  3. California’s water supply varies from year to year, while desalination is a fixed long-term investment: Customers in water districts using desalination will pay higher costs for desalted water even in wet years when cheaper sources are available.
  4. California has relatively abundant supplies from other sources. Even during droughts, the state has a variety of water sources that can carry it through long dry periods, nearly all of which are significantly cheaper than seawater desalination.
  5. Environmental impacts are a concern. The most significant effects are ocean water intake, and brine disposal (in ocean and brackish plants). Desalination’s high energy use compared with other water sources also raises concerns about greenhouse gas emissions.

A drought is a bad time to rush into investments in desalination to address water supply problems that can be solved more effectively in other ways. Many desalination plants prompted by droughts—including in Australia, Spain, and here at home in Santa Barbara—either never were used or closed within a few years of operation because their high-cost water could not be justified once rains returned. Desalination is clearly not a silver bullet for California, but it is one tool to consider for communities facing long-term water insecurity.

Learn more

Read our policy brief “California’s Water: Storing Water” (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015)
Read our policy brief “California’s Water: Paying for Water” (from California’s Water briefing kit, April 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center water supply page

Water Use and Californians’ Views on the Drought

The State Water Resources Control Board recently reported results of the nine-month statewide water conservation effort that Governor Brown announced last April. With an overall reduction of 23.9 percent compared to the same nine months in 2013 and 2014, the state came up just short of its 25 percent target. Monthly water savings have been below 25 percent in each month since October. Notably, in February—the final month of reporting under the governor’s water savings mandate—the statewide reduction was just 12 percent. This suggests a decreased sense of urgency about the drought. The PPIC Statewide Survey has found additional evidence that Californians’ sense of urgency has declined.

In our March 2015 survey—before the conservation effort was announced—two-thirds of Californians said people in their area were not doing enough to respond to the drought. In surveys since the mandatory water reduction was implemented in June 2015, only half have expressed this view. In each region of the state today, fewer say not enough is being done than said so last March—including the Central Valley, where we’ve seen a 21 point decline in the share saying “not enough.”

Following the wet winter months and a slowdown of statewide water savings, fewer Californians are saying that the supply of water in their part of California is a big problem. In our March survey, 57 percent expressed this concern—but that’s down from 70 percent last September and 66 percent in March 2015.

We have also seen fewer Californians name water and drought as the most important issue facing the state. Last month, 20 percent of Californians said water and drought were most important. That is down from a peak of 39 percent in May 2015 and similar to the responses we heard in March 2015 (23%).

As spring begins and policymakers consider the next steps for water use reduction, Californians’ views on the drought will continue to be an important factor in statewide water conservation efforts.

Learn more
Visit the PPIC Statewide Survey
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center