Category: PPIC Water Policy Center

Drought Watch: Support for the Water Bond

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

With the effects of the drought intensifying, the water bond is at the top of the legislature’s to-do list. Unless an agreement is reached on a new version, the $11.1 billion bond built in 2009 will go before voters this November. This year we have seen a range of proposals for a smaller water bond—including one by Governor Brown and one by Senate Republicans that designates more funding for storage than the governor’s. The debate continues.

Getting approval by two-thirds of both houses of the legislature is just the first step. The next hurdle is voter approval. According to the July PPIC statewide survey, 51 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes on the current $11.1 billion bond, with support increasing to 59 percent if the bond amount were smaller. This is higher than in March 2013, when only 42 percent of likely voters said they would vote yes on the $11.1 billion bond, and 55 percent supporting a smaller bond.

While the size of this bond may be important for voter approval, the central policy debate is about how the money should be allocated. Most funding for California’s water system comes from local water bills and taxes, but a new state water bond could help close critical funding gaps facing some parts of the water sector. The PPIC report Paying for Water in California highlighted the lack of sustainable and reliable funding for drinking water quality in small systems, flood protection, stormwater management, aquatic ecosystem management, and integrated water management.

Even if the legislature and the voting public do come together to approve a new bond, there is still work to be done to ensure sustainable funding for our water system. A bond can be expected to provide about $1 billion per year in new funds, leaving a $1 to $2 billion annual funding gap for critical water services. To close this gap, Californians will need to go beyond bonds and approve a broader mix of revenues, such as water use surcharges or state sales tax increases.

Climate Change, Fracking, and Drought—Oh My!

Last week’s release of the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment prompted a discussion of several major policy issues under consideration in Sacramento. A panel convened by PPIC talked about the survey’s findings on climate change policy, particularly public attitudes toward a potential increase in gas prices when new regulations for transportation fuels begin next year.

PPIC research associate Sonja Petek set the stage for the panel discussion by presenting the survey findings. The panel included Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica); Anne Baker, a senior advisor at the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies; and Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. The panelists said they supported the goals of the state’s climate change policies. They encouraged a public education effort about the extension of the cap-and-trade program to transportation fuels. The survey found that most Californians also support the policy change, but support drops sharply if it means higher gas prices.

The panel was divided on the state’s approach to fracking, a controversial process for extracting underground oil. Bloom is the author of a bill calling for a moratorium on fracking. Lapsley described the economic benefit of having more in-state oil production. The survey found most Californians opposed to fracking.

The panel also discussed water policies and the drought. In the survey, Californians name water as the number one environmental issue this year, and a narrow majority of likely voters support an $11.1 billion bond that is scheduled for the November ballot. Support is higher for a lower bond amount, something that is under discussion in the Capitol.

Drought Watch: Water for the Environment

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

The ongoing drought has heightened tension over how water is allocated in California. In our recent publication on overall water use in California, we show that the environment uses the largest share—50%—of the state’s water. In contrast, agriculture uses 40% and urban users account for only 10%.

The amount going to the environment may look surprisingly high, but this number is not as straightforward as it may seem. Most of what we call “environmental” water is simply too remote for people to use—or is actually reused for irrigation, drinking water, or other human benefits. In other words, most of the water that goes to the environment does not significantly detract from the overall amount of water available for other purposes.

Here, we look more closely at how the California Department of Water Resources breaks down environmental water use (also see related figure below):

  • Managed wetlands make up state and federal wildlife refuges and account for only 4% of total environmental water use. These wetlands provide critical habitat for migratory and resident birds, along with fish, plants, and other wildlife. Some provide other important ecosystem services like flood protection.

  • Delta outflow accounts for 16% of total environmental water use. The state sets standards for how much water should flow into the Delta from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and how much should flow out of it, into San Francisco Bay. These standards seek to meet two primary objectives: protection of native fishes listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and maintenance of water quality standards within the Delta—most notably for salinity—to allow irrigation of farms in the Delta and exports of water to cities and farms elsewhere.

  • Instream flows constitute 18% of statewide environmental use. These are minimum river levels set by state regulatory agencies to meet habitat needs for fish and wildlife in waterways.

  • Rivers designated as “Wild and Scenic” use the bulk of water assigned to the environment—63%. Under federal and state laws, these rivers are protected from the construction of water resources projects—such as dams or diversions—that would adversely impact them. However, most of these rivers are in the state’s remote north coast, where there is little agricultural or urban demand for water and no economically viable way to use it elsewhere. Outside of the north coast, most water in Wild and Scenic Rivers (such as those on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada) is captured in downstream reservoirs and used again for hydropower generation, irrigation, and drinking water.

As this discussion shows, the allocation of limited water supplies is not a matter of simple tradeoffs between the environment and humans. Sometimes, water counted toward environmental use gets used again for something else. Other times, there is no practical alternative use (such as in the north coast). Understanding these basic facts is essential to resolving differences over how to manage water in California.

Drought Watch: Our Thirsty Lawns

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

The unprecedented restrictions on outdoor water use that the state enacted this week send a message that Californians need to conserve more water. But we can do more to move toward sustainable consumption. To help the state get through this drought—which may continue into 2015—and prepare for a future that will include repeated droughts, local agencies should go further to encourage long-term changes in how we use water outdoors.

Outdoor water demands—which account for roughly half of all urban water use—are highest during the hot, dry summer months. Experts regularly cite reductions in landscape watering as “low hanging fruit” during droughts. But, as we’ve learned, it is not enough to just ask people to cut back: during the 2007–2009 drought, outdoor water use did not significantly decline despite repeated calls for conservation.

The main culprit is Californians’ love affair with lawns. Not only do lawns require a lot of water to look good, but people also tend to overwater them. Water agencies should seize the opportunity presented by the drought—and the publicity surrounding the new restrictions—to offer incentives for switching out thirsty lawns. For instance, Long Beach has a turf buyback program that offers rebates to customers who replace grass lawns with low-water-using plants—which have the added benefit of lending themselves to more-efficient irrigation systems. Finding attractive alternatives to lawns is easier than ever before, now that major garden retailers offer a range of California-friendly plants. Gone are the days of cacti and gravel being the only options.

Water pricing can also motivate customers to make the switch. Tiered rate structures—which charge a higher price per gallon for higher use—help send a message about the real costs of our landscaping choices. More than half of urban water agencies currently have some form of tiered rates, though recent legal challenges to their constitutionality under Prop 218 threaten to undermine these very important tools.

During droughts, it makes sense for water agencies to charge higher prices per gallon than they do in normal years. This provides additional conservation incentives while ensuring that agencies bring in enough to cover costs when they are selling less water. The city of Roseville, for example, implemented a temporary 15 percent drought surcharge starting in June. But according to a State Water Resourses Control Board survey, only 7 percent of agencies have enacted drought pricing strategies this year.

So far, no region has reached the governor’s 20 percent conservation goal, and water use has actually increased in some regions. Over the next few months we will see whether increased watering restrictions and threat of fines can deliver the conservation message to all Californians.

Drought Watch: Putting Some Myths to Rest

This commentary was first published by the Sacramento Bee on July 6, 2014. Drought Watch is a continuing series on the PPIC Blog.

As the effects of the drought worsen, two persistent water myths are complicating the search for solutions. One is that environmental regulation is causing California’s water scarcity. The other is that conservation alone can bring us into balance. Each myth has different advocates. But both hinder the development of effective policies to manage one of the state’s most important natural resources.

Let’s consider the first myth, that water shortages for farms are the result of too much water being left in streams for fish and wildlife.

Continue reading on Sacbee.com.

Allow Water Rights Trading

This commentary was published by the New York Times on June 29, 2014, in a discussion of The Water Crisis in the West.

We have an outdated water rights system in the American West: Water goes to those who claimed it first, whether or not they are putting it to the best use.

This system originated out of practicality. The climate in the West is dry for much of the year, and with Western rivers few and far between, it’s often necessary to invest in storage and conveyance to get water to where it is needed. But the rights to use water were allocated many decades ago, when the region had far fewer people, and before it was widely recognized that the system often short-changed the environment. …

Continue reading on nytimes.com.

Drought Watch: Regional Solutions

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

Across California, local water agencies are scrambling to apply for new state matching grants authorized under February’s emergency drought legislation. The program aims to accelerate the use of remaining state bond funds for integrated regional water management: activities in which local agencies team up to generate mutual benefits. One example—water suppliers and stormwater agencies that work together to incorporate captured stormwater into local water supplies. Such projects can simultaneously enhance water supply reliability and the quality of water in rivers and coastal areas.

Regional integration has already led to some significant successes, most notably the enhanced ability of urban water suppliers in Southern California and the Bay Area to cope with the current drought. Successes include ramping up water conservation and recycled wastewater storage to increase supplies in storage, and building new connections between local water systems to enable emergency sharing. Outside funds are often needed to jump start these collaborations, both to encourage innovation and to enable some partners—such as stormwater agencies – to participate even if they don’t have the necessary funds.

But as we showed in our study Paying for Water in California, integrated regional water management is on the brink of fiscal failure because state bond funds are running out. Both the legislature and local water agencies have pushed the idea that bonds should continue to provide these dollars, and the major bond proposals under consideration include substantial new funds for this purpose.

But there might be a better way: adding a small statewide surcharge on water use to support regional projects. Local water agencies have often rejected this idea, arguing that if they send money to Sacramento they won’t see it again. But what if the funds go directly to the regions?

Here’s how we think this could work. The legislature (or state voters) would pass the surcharge and set broad criteria for funding eligibility. The funds would be apportioned to the state’s 12 principal hydrologic regions—the large basins that are already used to divvy up bond funds. But rather than having state agencies award the grants, this task would go to new Regional Water Commissions—regional counterparts to the California Water Commission, the state body tasked with awarding matching grants for storage projects under most bond proposals.

Though more politically tricky to pass than a bond, the statewide water surcharge would have numerous advantages. The revenues would be more reliable than bond funds. And relying on Regional Water Commissions to allocate these dollars could encourage broader collaborations than we have seen from the state-sponsored grant program, which has nearly 50 planning regions, often too small to reap the real benefits of integration. Many groundwater basins, for instance, have different boundaries than the current planning regions, and groundwater agencies could use assistance from these regional funds to support better management.

Finally, this statewide option is preferable to creating local or regional surcharges, which can be difficult to raise without approval of two-thirds of local voters. To raise $200 million annually—the amount that’s been available through bonds—a surcharge 7.5 cents/1,000 gallons on urban water bills would suffice. This would increase the average cost of tap water by just 2.8 percent, while creating a valuable incentive fund that helps local water managers enhance the quality and reliability of regional water supplies. As part of a package with a new bond devoted to areas of true statewide need, a statewide water surcharge would help ensure that our water system can support a healthy economy, society, and environment.

Local Water Funding in the June Primaries

Much of the current water talk in Sacramento surrounds a new state water bond for the November ballot. Yet as we show in our study Paying for Water in California, most water spending—84 percent—is actually raised locally. While passage rates on local water measures have been fairly high since 1995 (72 percent passing), few make it on the ballot (on average only six per year). This is largely because funding for many critical water services—including stormwater management, flood protection, and ecosystem and watershed improvements—often requires two-thirds of voters to approve, and local officials are reluctant to put such measures on the ballot unless they think they can win. In the June 3 primary election, only two local water measures were proposed. The results illustrate the challenges of funding water services that require direct voter approval.

In Contra Costa County, Orinda’s Road and Storm Drain Repair Bond passed with 75 percent approval. It authorizes the city to issue $20 million in general obligation bonds to fund the restoration and repair of roads and storm drains, plus a property tax increase to pay for the bonds. Broader funding measures like this—which include a water service along with something else—have generally been more successful than exclusively water-focused measures. Local governments seem to have recognized this reality and have increased these kinds of measures in recent years. Unfortunately, measures that fund multiple activities may generate less funding than is needed to fill water service gaps.

The second local water measure, the Lake County Healthy Lake Tax, failed with 64 percent approval (repeating an earlier failed attempt in 2012 that had 63 percent approval). It would have increased the local sales tax by one-half cent for 10 years to pay for the eradication of weeds, algae, and invasive mussels from Clear Lake, the restoration of wetlands, and the improvement of water quality.

As the Lake County example suggests, the two-thirds voter threshold for local special taxes and bonds is a significant obstacle. Orinda twice failed to pass measures in the mid-2000s, despite 64 percent approval. Since 1995, 65 percent of the measures requiring two-thirds approval passed, but 84 percent would have passed at the 50 percent threshold that is required for local general taxes and statewide fiscal measures. We can’t know how many more measures would have been put on the ballot had the voter threshold been lower.

Funding these essential water services through local tax and bond measures is a marked contrast to funding for water supply and sewer services, which are paid for with revenues from monthly customer bills. These services are generally in good fiscal shape because when new funds are needed, providers are required only to give customers the opportunity to protest rate increases.

To help address water funding gaps, California should consider treating flood and stormwater services like water and wastewater. It would also be helpful to treat local special taxes like local general taxes and statewide fiscal ballot measures—requiring a simple majority vote. Of course, this would require constitutional reforms. But without these changes, the state will need to provide much more support to local governments to pay for services that are essential to all Californians.

Drought Watch: Lessons from Kansas

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

As summer approaches, signs of the drought are intensifying, with early season wildfires, new reductions in supplies from California’s depleted rivers, and many farmers scrambling for appointments with well drillers to access more groundwater. In Sacramento, there is also a heightened sense of urgency regarding money for the water system, as the June 26th deadline looms for legislative action on a new bond for the November 2014 ballot. The drought has drawn policymaker attention to water system investments, and it has raised hopes that the public will be willing to support new borrowing. While this is good news for California’s water system, the focus on bonds is a missed opportunity to go bigger.

As we showed in our March 2014 study, Paying for Water in California, a new bond can at best provide about $1 billion per year in new funds for water. So even if a bond passes in November, California will still be facing an annual funding gap of $1– $2 billion to meet critical needs. Bonds alone can’t do the job, and now’s the time—during, not after the drought—to consider a broader package of solutions.

One important place to look for additional funds is new state fees and taxes dedicated to underfunded areas like safe drinking water, flood protection, and healthy watersheds. And here’s where Kansas comes in: Since 1989, Kansas has had a small surcharge on urban water use (6 cents/1,000 gallons) to help fund projects of statewide importance. A small surcharge on agricultural chemicals also goes into this fund, as do fines charged to water polluters. And Kansas is not alone. Missouri and New Jersey both have surcharges on urban water use (1 cent/1,000 gallons) to support safe drinking water programs. Maryland, whose environmental problems in the Chesapeake Bay rival those of California’s Delta, has small parcel taxes to fund stormwater control. Minnesota uses a small increment on the state sales tax (0.12 cents/dollar) to support healthy watersheds.

For perspective, the typical price of tap water in California is $2.67/1,000 gallons, so a 6 cent surcharge (as in Kansas) would raise this to $2.73/1,000 gallons, an increase of just 2.2 percent. And the typical California sales tax is 8.5 cents/dollar, so a 0.12 cents/dollar surcharge (as in Minnesota) would raise this to 8.62 cents/dollar, an increase of just 1.4 percent. And these small surcharges would bring in some badly needed cash: About $175 million/year for a Kansas-style urban water fee, and about $575 million/year for a Minnesota-style sales tax increment.

These surcharges could be passed by California’s legislature (by a simple majority or two-thirds vote of both houses, depending on whether they qualify as regulatory fees or taxes) and then signed into law by the governor. Or they could be put before voters alongside a new bond. Of course, the politics of new fees and taxes are trickier than those of new state bonds, for which the bill comes later, when most current officeholders will be termed out. But for the sake of a healthy and secure economy, society, and environment, the time for bold action is now. California will have plenty of company.

May Survey Looks at Views on Budget, Drought

The May edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians and their Government, explores attitudes toward the governor’s latest proposed budget and gauges preferences in the gubernatorial primary. It also examines opinions on health care reform, the drought, poverty, and climate change.

PPIC research associate Dean Bonner presented the results of this wide-ranging survey at a lunch briefing in Sacramento last week.