Category: PPIC Water Policy Center

Video: January PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

State residents are feeling more optimistic than they have in years—about California’s elected leaders, the direction of the state, and their own economic futures. Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented these and other key findings at a briefing last week in Sacramento. In addition to asking about government and fiscal issues, the January survey gauged opinions on four important issues being debated at the state and federal level. Among the findings:

  • Crime, police, and race relations. A solid majority of Californians say the police are doing either an excellent job or good job controlling crime in their communities. But blacks are much less likely than others to hold this view.

  • Water and drought. A majority of Californians say the supply of water is a big problem in their region, and most say the state and local governments are not doing enough to respond to the current drought.

  • Health care reform. A record-high 51 percent of Californians have a generally favorable view of the 2010 health care reform law, while 41 percent have an unfavorable view.

  • Immigration reform. A solid majority of residents support President Obama’s executive action to shield as many as 4 million immigrants from deportation, while about a third are opposed.

Managing Drought: Conference Videos

After a day of discussions about the drought, PPIC senior research fellow Ellen Hanak, was asked to sum up.

“This drought, as challenging as it was—as it still is—has really provided the opportunity for folks from different agencies that have different management objectives to work together to make the most out of the little water that we’ve had available.”

“It was not as bad as it could have been,” she said. “And I think that that is going to continue.”

The keynote speakers and panelists at PPIC’s Managing Drought conference this week emphasized that there is much to do to make California more drought resilient. Climatologist Mike Anderson’s description of the state’s future made the challenges clear. Panelists throughout the day discussed the difficult tradeoffs California has yet to make in managing urban and agricultural scarcity, conserving ecosystems, and allocating water.

But the discussions also highlighted a path forward. Keynote speaker Jane Doolan described lessons California can learn from Australia’s experience with its millennium drought. Our legislator panelists pointed out that California has begun to make reforms in water management that—with diligent oversight—the state can build on.

We invite you to watch the videos of the Managing Drought conference. We hope you find the discussions constructive and useful.

Testimony: Addressing California’s Growing Flood Risk

The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee held its first hearing of the new legislative session yesterday. As a reminder that California is never more than one big storm away from flood problems—even when reeling from a multi-year drought—the hearing’s topic was flood management. A particular focus was the state’s role in supporting flood protection infrastructure using funds authorized by Proposition 1E, a $4.1 billion general obligation bond approved by state voters in November 2006.

I provided the committee with an introductory overview of California’s challenges in addressing growing flood risk. I began with some summary information on the extent and nature of the risk: Roughly 21 percent of California’s population lives in areas vulnerable to flooding, with 4 percent at extreme risk. This is a problem that affects all regions of the state—especially the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and coastal areas. Risk is growing as the population grows, putting more people in harm’s way. A rising sea level and a changing climate—with warmer winters and more variable conditions—are also increasing California’s vulnerability to flooding.

California has a vast flood management system, overseen by federal, state, and local agencies. But this system faces significant challenges–including a large investment gap, with spending lagging far behind needs. In addition, state taxpayers face potentially high liabilities from levee failures within the Central Valley since a 2003 court ruling (the Paterno decision). And while improving flood infrastructure such as levees can reduce the frequency of floods, it doesn’t eliminate risk. If new development is allowed in places with the relatively low level of protection required by federal standards (against the “100-year flood”—a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year), the total economic and social risk of flooding can actually increase. Flood insurance is a way to cushion against this remaining risk, but few Californians take advantage of this option.

In a recent study, PPIC took a closer look at the flood investment gap. We found that although the recent infusion of state bond funds has helped, California’s flood investments are still seriously lagging. California needs to raise an additional $800 million to $1 billion per year to undertake these investments within a reasonable time frame (25 years). Federal contributions are small (just $250 million/year in recent years), and likely to decline in the future. So the gap will need to be filled by state and local sources. In the very near-term, the state can step up with remaining bond funds. The governor’s budget proposes spending the remaining $1.1 billion in Prop 1E funds next year. Proposition 1—the new state bond approved by voters in November 2014—provides an additional $395 million for flood protection. Beyond this, the solutions lie in making it easier for local agencies to raise funds and identifying new state funding sources.

To reduce risk, the state should also consider extending reforms enacted for the Central Valley in 2007—which set higher protection standards for urban areas—to other flood-prone regions. One of the best defenses against flooding is land-use planning that keeps people out of harm’s way.

Legislators Talk Next Steps on Water Policy

Four key legislators yesterday discussed their water policy priorities for the current session, agreeing that their top one is overseeing the implementation of Proposition 1, the state water bond passed in November. At a Sacramento gathering sponsored by PPIC and focused on managing drought, the four also agreed that the bond is just a down payment in addressing a long list of water policy challenges.

Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, who represents parts of southeastern Los Angeles County, noted that the water bond’s lack of earmarks, or “pork,” helped secure the voters’ approval—and will require strong legislative oversight to make sure the money is well spent.

Echoing the theme of legislative oversight, Assemblymember Marc Levine, who represents parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, said it is important to review past investments—such as Proposition 1E, passed in 2006 to fund flood control projects—to make sure that money is spent strategically and builds voters’ trust in government.

Asked about other policy priorities, Senator Lois Wolk, who represents much of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, mentioned water infrastructure. It is wearing out, expensive to replace, and the federal government is no longer financing it. That makes funding a challenge for the state.

How can the state build drought resilience? Senator Jean Fuller, who represents parts of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino Counties, said ensuring a predictable water supply is critical.

“People do not know—especially the farmer—when they’re going to get their water, if they’re going to get it in August, if they’re going to get it in July, how much it’s going to cost at that point.”

By building more certainty in the system, water markets can be managed for the benefit of all, she said.

Hundreds of people attended the PPIC event Managing Drought, and hundreds more watched the online webcast. PPIC will post videos of the full event soon.

Drought Watch: Managing—and Learning from—Scarcity

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

California is entering a fourth year of drought. The welcome, wet conditions that appeared earlier this winter gave way to dryness during the latter half of December. Although forecasts suggest that wet weather may return later this month, the long-term moisture deficit is unlikely to be erased, leaving the state to continue grappling with water scarcity.

As unpleasant as droughts are, they offer an opportunity to assess how well prepared California is for managing its water resources. The usual approach to learning from droughts is to conduct assessments after the drought ends. Unfortunately, once the rains come—as they certainly will—the pressure to prepare for the next drought is greatly reduced.

Recognizing the need to learn from drought while it is ongoing, PPIC will hold a half-day conference on January 12 in Sacramento. The event, supported by the California Water Foundation, will include two keynote addresses—one on current drought conditions by the state climatologist and another from a member of the Australian National Water Commission on how that country managed an unprecedented, 13-year-long drought. In addition, there will be a conversation with four members of the California State Legislature on legislative priorities for addressing droughts. Finally, panels of state and local leaders will focus on institutional responses to the current drought and proposals for policy reforms in three areas:

Managing urban and agricultural water scarcity. To date, the consequences of the latest drought have varied greatly across California’s geographical regions and economic sectors. Impacts in large urban areas have been modest, while many smaller community water systems have faced significant shortages. Agriculture has been hit particularly hard, but the intensity of the crisis has varied depending on geography and availability of groundwater. The panel will explore wide-ranging proposals to reduce the effects of future droughts on urban and agricultural sectors.

Conserving ecosystems during drought. Acute water scarcity has posed a major challenge for the state and federal agencies charged with managing ecosystems that support fish and waterfowl. Difficult decisions, including temporary reductions in environmental standards and trade-offs between species, were made “on the fly” with limited scientific information. The panel will review lessons learned during this drought and consider new approaches.

Water allocation during drought. The state’s century-old law that governs water rights played a central role in managing the drought during 2014. For the first time since 1977, the State Water Resources Control Board had to restrict surface water use by some water rights holders. In addition, the board had to make tough choices about how to manage water for the environment and how to allocate water to protect public health. The panel will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to water rights, along with alternative approaches that might reduce conflict during drought.

The conference is now fully booked, with more than 400 participants registered to attend. But you can follow the proceedings via live webcast. PPIC will also post videos of the sessions after the event.

Drought Watch: Is This the End of Our Dry Spell?

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

This morning, the Bay Area and the Central Valley began to assess the mess created by Thursday’s big storm. And a big storm it was, with 50+ mph winds, torrential rains (more than 10 inches in some places, with blizzards in the Sierra), widespread flooding of streets, long power outages, and rivers and creeks that overtopped their banks.

This was an unusually powerful “atmospheric river” storm—California’s version of a hurricane—unmatched in intensity since January 2008. A deep low-pressure system came ashore in northern California and southern Oregon, generating violent winds throughout these regions. Spinning counterclockwise like a top, this system dragged warm, moist air into California from as far away as west of Hawaii—in satellite photos, this stream of moisture resembles a river, thus the name. All this activity led to prodigious amounts of rain in a very short period of time. And as cold air came in with the low pressure center, it produced abundant snow at higher elevations.

Beneath every headline about the intensity of the storm will be the question: Is the drought over? The answer: Not even close. It is important to remember that the state has been in severe rainfall deficit for three continuous years. One storm rarely busts a drought.

After the storm totals are added up, we will be at or slightly above average for this time of the year, and this is just the beginning of our wet season. At the same time, it has been so warm this season that total snowpack is likely to be below average, even with this big boost. The California Department of Water Resources has stated that we will need 150% of average precipitation this rainy season to recover from the drought. To have that kind of year, we need four or more additional atmospheric rivers (although not necessarily as strong as this one).

Indeed, history shows that as much as half of our annual rainfall is packed into just five to seven days of intense rainfall, highlighting the fine line between a wet year and dry one. And storms like this do little to address the problem of years of groundwater depletion. For that, we need many rainy days.

Still, despite the damage and inconvenience, this storm produced significant good. The state’s reservoirs are so depleted that there will be no trouble capturing this storm’s runoff. Small reservoirs, such as those serving Santa Cruz and other coastal communities hard hit by drought, will show dramatic improvements. The large reservoirs that rim the Central Valley—supplying water to 25 million people and more than seven million acres of farms—will get a good bump from this storm. Sometime this month, Folsom Reservoir, which does double duty by providing water and reducing Sacramento’s flood risk, is likely to encroach on the space it sets aside for flood control. (That Folsom Dam will be releasing water to protect against floods during a drought is testament to the difficulties the state faces in managing reservoirs for multiple, often conflicting needs).

This storm also was great for the environment. Native plants and animals are well-adapted to these kinds of events, and the physical changes that high flows bring to rivers and floodplains are needed to sustain habitat. One of the most important and stressed ecosystems in the state—the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta—received a welcome flush of fresh water. During drought, the Delta becomes increasingly saline, harming habitat as well as the ability to export clean water to cities and farms. Bursts of fresh water reduce salinity and improve water quality for humans as well as the ecosystem (this is often lost on those who complain that this is water “wasted to the sea”).

In sum, this was an unusually powerful storm that caused damage, snarled traffic, and was a general nuisance for most northern Californians. Although it didn’t end the drought, this storm sure helped a lot.

California Politics and the Future

Jim Brulte, chair of the California Republican Party, says Governor Brown is “clearly the master of Sacramento.”

Jennifer Medina, national correspondent for the New York Times, says the governor hasn’t talked much about poverty or income inequality— an issue his Republican opponent used in the election this year.

And Garry South, longtime Democratic strategist, says the governor needs to take on the tough issue of fiscal reform because this can only be done by a Democrat.

These are a sample of comments from a panel of experts speaking at a briefing hosted by PPIC in Sacramento this week. The discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the governor and legislature. The event began with a presentation of the results of the new PPIC Statewide Survey by Dean Bonner, associate survey director. The survey included a wide range of topics, including tax reform, health care, climate change, and the approval ratings of state leaders.

 

Drought Watch: It’s the Heat and the Humidity

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

The severity of the current drought is sparking keen interest in seeing how this past water year (October 2013–September 2014)—and more importantly, the past combination of years—ranks in comparison to other droughts. As noted in a PPIC fact sheet, this drought is one of the driest.

What’s more, this drought is so challenging because it has been very warm. Recent summaries from the National Climatic Data Center reveal that the 2014 water year was one of California’s warmest, as the map below indicates. The numbers show how average temperatures for the past water year compare over 119 years of record-keeping. Much of the west was warm—and California was warmest of all.

In addition, the 2014 water year was preceded by two drought years with daily average temperatures and daily maximum temperatures that were well above the 20th century average.

Temperature plays an important role in exacerbating water scarcity during drought. Warm temperatures during the winter and spring reduce the amount of snow relative to rain and lead to earlier spring snowmelt. The state’s snowpack is our largest surface reservoir, accounting for roughly a third of available supply.

Warm temperatures have an equally important impact on how much water is lost to the atmosphere by transpiration of plants and evaporation from soils. In a typical year, this process—called evapotranspiration—removes almost two thirds of the water that falls on the state. Warmer temperatures and a longer growing season dry things out, sharply reducing the share of rainfall that makes it into rivers and groundwater.

As soils dry out, it is harder to recover when the rains come again. The parched landscapes of California will require abundant rain this winter before soils become saturated enough to produce significant runoff. This is why runoff, relative to the amount of precipitation, is often less following very dry years. Even if we receive normal precipitation this winter, we will still have a drought “hangover” (see recent forecasts for the coming winter).

Finally, it is worth noting that most climate change models suggest that the well-documented decades-long trend toward warmer temperatures in California will continue (models are less certain about changes in precipitation amount). More years that are both dry and warm will pose many challenges for California, as we can see from our struggles with the current drought.

Figure source: National Climatic Data Center

Drought Watch: What If 2015 Is Dry?

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

Three consecutive years of drought have depleted California’s water storage, brought hardship to the agricultural sector, and led to stringent emergency conservation measures in cities throughout the state. In October, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its outlook for next winter, and the preliminary modeling suggests more of the same. So what, if anything, should the state do differently next year?

The State Water Resources Control Board, which administers water rights in California, is asking this very question. In May of this year, the board limited surface water diversions (a process called “curtailment”) for thousands of water users for the first time since the 1976–77 drought. The board followed a century-old system that cuts back diversions based on the seniority of the water right. During curtailments, this system—often referred to as “first in time, first in right”—gives priority to those who have the longest history of water use or those who have property that lies along a river. Few, except perhaps those who were not asked to cut back, were happy with how this process went, so the board sought input on how to improve water allocation next year.

In collaboration with a number of our colleagues, we made recommendations to the board for improving the efficiency and fairness of the curtailment process. Our letter, posted in full on the UC Davis Center for Watershed Science’s Californiawaterblog.com, makes the following recommendations:

Modernize curtailments. Last year’s approach was based upon limited information about available flows and water use. Because of this, the board was forced to curtail whole groups of water users, rather than identifying individual users based on their seniority. For example, on many rivers the board curtailed everyone who had a water right that post-dated 1914, the year our modern rights system was established. In the coming year, the board can significantly improve curtailments by taking advantage of existing tools that forecast flow and estimate location and amount of use.

In addition, this year the board did not undertake significant curtailments until late May, more than two months after the irrigation season began. We recommend that the board announce curtailments much earlier in the year so that water managers can better plan to seek alternative supplies or implement additional conservation actions.

Clarify policy on the environment and public health and safety. This year, the board, with some minor exceptions, chose not to specify the amount of water that should be set aside to protect public health and safety, nor did it set priorities for trade-offs between meeting environmental needs and satisfying water rights. If, as predicted, 2015 turns out to be dry, the board will need to confront these issues head on. We argue that the laws governing water use require the board to set and implement policies on these issues. In addition, we recommend that the board create an independent scientific advisory panel that would help to inform decisions about environmental trade-offs.

These changes will be useful, even if it rains this winter. Recurring droughts are a part of California’s climate, and by modernizing how we allocate our water resources during times of scarcity we can be better prepared for the coming year—and future droughts.

Voters More Optimistic, Less Engaged

A lot has changed since Californians cast ballots just four years ago.

Likely voters today are feeling much better about the direction and economic outlook of the state. In October 2010, most (77%) said that the state was headed in the wrong direction. In our latest survey, likely voters are much more positive about the state’s future—although they are still more likely to say wrong direction (54%) than right direction (40%). Similarly, in October 2010 less than a quarter of likely voters (20%) expected good economic times in the upcoming year and far more (65%) expected bad times. Today, the mood is decidedly different, with 42% expecting good times and 47% expecting bad times. In October 2010, most likely voters (59%) named jobs and the economy as the state’s most important issue. Today, just 30% name it as the top issue, which barely keeps it in first place, while 28% name water and the drought. Further, in September 2010 nearly all likely voters (90%) called the state budget situation a big problem—today, that number is 62%.

This year, likely voters are paying less attention to news about the candidates for governor than they did four years ago, when the race involved an open seat and a high-profile contest. In October 2010, an overwhelming majority were very (39%) or fairly closely (50%) paying attention to news about gubernatorial candidates. In our latest survey, just half of likely voters were doing so (18% very, 34% fairly). In addition, there is a big enthusiasm gap. Fewer voters today say they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual” (53% 2010, 40% today).

In 2010, when many people were tuned into the top of the ticket race, nearly 60 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. With far fewer voters paying attention to the gubernatorial race—and with the lack of a Congressional senate race—what can we expect in 2014? Will concerns about the drought and the state budget drive people to the polls—and if so, how will this translate into votes on Proposition 1, the water bond, and Proposition 2, the establishment of a rainy day fund? Stay tuned to PPIC as we continue to follow the November 2014 election.