Category: Water Supply

California Agriculture in 2050: Still Feeding People, Maybe Fewer Acres and Cows

Water supply concerns, regulations, labor issues, tariffs, climate change, and other challenges have prompted some rather dire predictions about the future of California agriculture. We talked to Dan Sumner—director of the UC Davis Agricultural Issues Center and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network—about his research on California agriculture in 2050.

PPIC: How do you think California agriculture will change in the next few decades?

DAN SUMNER: The value of farm production in California has been growing for a very long time and is likely to continue to grow. Farmers have been shifting land and water to crops that generate more revenue per acre and per acre-foot of water. Tree and vine crops have replaced annual crops. For example, cotton acreage collapsed from more than 1.2 million Central Valley acres 30 years ago to just 260,000 now. And these days Central Valley farms are getting twice as much revenue from pistachios as from hay. The pace of the shift to crops that bring higher revenue per unit of land and water will likely slow in the coming decades simply because much of the transition has already occurred.

For many years now, California’s most valuable agricultural industry by gross revenue has been dairy. But the dairy industry has stopped growing—partly because it is expensive to haul hay in from places that have adequate water.

California dairy is also under pressure from economic implications of state regulations on climate and other environmental issues. Californians demand attention to environmental concerns, labor market conditions, energy costs, and other issues that generate regulation, and such regulations can be costly for farms. The result is some commodities that had been important in California will be grown elsewhere.

PPIC: How will climate change affect the state’s farms?

DS: It will drive many adaptations, including shifts in locations as farms plant crops better suited to new climate and market conditions. We also expect different pest problems. But given the close attention of researchers and growers to these issues, I don’t see unmanageable challenges in the next few decades.

It is important to recognize that global markets and climates interact, and so what economists call “comparative advantage” remains crucial to economic success. Let’s say climate change makes table grapes more expensive to grow here or moves the season earlier. But if climate change affects Mexican growing conditions even more, climate change could cause grapes to become more profitable and therefore expand in California. The crucial issue looking forward is what will grow well in California compared to other places and compared to other crops.

PPIC: What are important policy or regulatory drivers that could help the farm sector adapt to changing conditions?

DS: We’ll need all sorts of innovations in every sector, from banking, government institutions, and science to farm management. California agriculture is already innovative and flexible, but we’ll keep moving rapidly to adapt to the economic and environmental changes on the horizon. Regulations are a part of what is changing and a part of what agriculture is adapting to.

Farm labor cost and availability remain crucial drivers of the future of California agriculture. We need innovations to reduce labor per unit of output, but we also need policy and regulations that allow immigrants to continue to work in California.

The climate-water nexus is probably where we can gain the most from innovative regulations and adaptations. Climate change and water regulations, including groundwater regulations, will reduce California irrigation water availability. We’ll need to consolidate water use to fewer acres, possibly convert some land to dryland farming, and even idle some land. Fortunately, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is encouraging people to value water that once was taken for granted.

With far-sighted regulations, California can find more effective ways to store more water underground, and use it most effectively. For example, markets are crucial to provide incentives for groundwater recharge in the winter. If regulations continue to limit transfer of water among farms and from one year to the next, we will severely restrict incentives to adjust to climate change.  I am confident that California will find a regulatory path to allow continued farm adaptation and flourishing.

Commentary: Newsom’s Water Framework Is Imperfect but Necessary. The Alternative Is Further Deterioration of the Delta

This commentary was published in CALmatters on February 10, 2020.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has put forward a framework for managing water and habitat in the Delta and its watershed. As far as we can tell, no one is very happy with the framework—and that may be a good sign.

The framework is the product of years of effort to negotiate an agreement among water users, other stakeholders, and regulatory agencies. Details are yet to be worked out, including firm commitments for water and funding, along with critical negotiations with the federal government on how to cooperatively manage upstream dams and the Delta pumps. Ultimately, the package has to be acceptable to state and federal regulators.

The scope of this effort is vast.

Over the next 15 years, the proposal is to spend more than $5 billion on new river and floodplain habitat to benefit salmon and other native fish species.

This funding will also pay for a mix of new water projects, water purchases, and fallowing of farmland will provide additional water for the environment. Additionally, new governance and science programs will manage the water and habitat in the Delta, as well as the rivers that flow into it.

For many years and in multiple publications by the Public Policy Institute of California, we have been calling for a negotiated agreement in the Delta and its watershed. This agreement needs robust management that includes shared governance, reliable funding, strong science support, and regulatory backstops if parties fail to live up to their obligations.

These must-haves are outlined in our recent report: A Path Forward for California’s Freshwater Ecosystems.

It is also time to shift away from the traditional approach to addressing environmental concerns in the Delta, which has overemphasized a handful of endangered fishes and a single management tool: the volume of water dedicated to these fishes.

Success will require a broad portfolio of actions to manage the connections between water, land, and the many species—including humans—who rely on healthy ecosystems. The proposed framework makes an earnest attempt to take this broader approach.

A negotiated agreement will, by necessity, be imperfect and controversial. That’s because it is just not possible to satisfy all interests in the Delta. The trade-offs are real, sometimes painful, and can only be resolved through compromise.

Many Delta combatants are dug in, committed to fighting the same battles with the same arguments that they have been using for decades.

We can appreciate why many parties would want to hold out for a better deal, and absent that, turn to the courts in the hopes of getting their way. But as seasoned veterans of the Delta know well, the delay-and-litigate strategy has inherent risks because the outcomes are hard to predict.

In the meantime, the Delta and its watershed are changing rapidly—faster than science and management can keep up.

Many factors are to blame, including current and historic land and water management, the introduction of innumerable non-native species, declining water quality, the inexorable rise of sea level, and the changing climate.

This important ecosystem needs attention now, before conditions deteriorate further.

An agreement, with all its imperfections, provides some measure of certainty to water users and the environment alike.

If a coalition of interests sign on, even if reluctantly, the likelihood of success goes up, because all parties will have an interest in making the agreement work.

Perhaps most importantly, an agreement is the only way to comprehensively address the Delta’s problems. Drawn-out legal battles over how much water is allocated to the environment ignore all the other factors that affect ecosystem health.

We are not endorsing the specific contents of the Newsom Administration’s proposed framework. But we believe it has the “bones” of an eventual agreement that can be durable and binding, avoiding lengthy delays in addressing the Delta’s many problems.

The many Delta interests should persevere and try to make this agreement happen.  This is an opportunity—the kind that comes along rarely—to shift from fighting about the Delta’s future to actually shaping it.

Governor’s Budget Seeks to Build Water Resilience

Earlier this month the Newsom administration laid out its vision for addressing the linked issues of water and climate in two key policy documents: the much-anticipated draft of its Water Resilience Portfolio (WRP) and the governor’s budget proposal. The WRP, which resulted from an April 2019 executive order, was developed with extensive input from state agencies and stakeholders from around California. It outlines more than 100 actions designed to ensure that communities, the economy, and ecosystems across California’s diverse regions are able to weather our increasingly volatile climate. The January budget provides a roadmap of the administration’s initial spending priorities in this area.

The big ticket item is the $4.75 billion Climate Resilience Bond, which could appear on the November 2020 ballot. More than 60% of the bond amount would directly support actions in the WRP—including integrated regional water projects, safe drinking water, flood protection, and environmental stewardship. The remainder would address other climate resilience issues for California communities—including reducing risks from wildfire, sea level rise, and extreme heat—and closing the funding gap for restoration efforts in the troubled Salton Sea.

General obligation bonds—which are repaid through the state General Fund—have been a key tool for funding water and environment initiatives over the past two decades. Although they usually pass (eight of nine have been approved since 2000, totaling $39 billion in today’s dollars), voters rejected the most recent water bond—an $8.9 billion bond on the November 2018 ballot.

The administration also proposes a modest allocation of General Fund dollars to near-term actions on the portfolio’s long to-do list. Key areas of investment include:

  • Groundwater sustainability: Groundwater is an essential drought reserve. This year, local agencies and water users in the state’s most stressed basins will begin implementing the landmark Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to bring their basins into balance. The budget proposes to spend $60 million on the hard work of reducing water demand in ways that support local communities and economies, such as water trading and making the best use of fallowed cropland.
  • Better data for decision making: The WRP emphasizes the importance of modernizing data use to make the most of our water resources, and acknowledges the key role of the state as a data collector and developer. Of note is the proposed allocation of $80 million toward development of statewide LiDAR maps—landscape contour images that can help guide investments in habitat improvements and efforts to reduce risks from flooding and sea level rise.
  • Cutting “green tape”: The WRP also stresses the importance of improving the approval process for projects designed to enhance the natural environment, which is especially vulnerable to climate change. The current process, which involves many agencies, causes lengthy and costly delays. The budget proposes to reduce “green tape” by allocating $4 million for new staff positions to help make the approval process more efficient. Even modest additional resources, coupled with strong direction from state leadership to agency staff, could help California move toward truly coordinated, expedient, and effective stewardship of our natural environment.

The administration’s proposals provide much food for thought about state priorities in the California water arena. The WRP in particular emphasizes the state’s role in facilitating and supporting efforts at local and regional levels, where most water investments take place. In the coming months, there will no doubt be a lively debate about the specifics of the Climate Resilience Bond—which must be finalized by early summer to qualify for the ballot—as well as the other ways the Newsom administration and the legislature can help the state’s communities, economies, and environment build water resilience.

A Changing Water Landscape

California saw some especially big changes over the past year in its ever-changing water world. New groundwater sustainability agencies finalized their plans to better manage overtapped groundwater supplies, and are poised to begin implementing them. In October, the Trump administration announced plans to pump more water from the Delta, complicating efforts to negotiate solutions to water supply and ecosystem management conflicts in the Central Valley. And the Newsom administration recently released a plan to make the state’s extensive water system more resilient to climate change. All of this—and much more—took place in 2019.

photo - Ellen HanakThe PPIC Water Policy Center continued its engagement on the big water issues facing California, and offered ways to tackle them.

Climate change
Climate change is bringing pressures that will seriously impact California’s water system: warming temperatures, shrinking snowpack, shorter and more intense wet seasons, more volatile precipitation, and rising seas. The issue is a defining element in much of the center’s work. Highlights from this year include:

Sustainable groundwater management
The San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest agricultural region and an important contributor to the nation’s food supply—faces growing water stress. We released a far-reaching report that details the valley’s water-related challenges, and lays out cooperative approaches that can help bring groundwater basins into balance, provide safe drinking water, and manage changes to water and land that will maximize benefits to people and nature. The center partnered with Fresno State’s California Water Institute to host a half-day event to discuss the new report’s findings. Our team also took our findings to the state legislature, various stakeholder groups, the media, multiple state agencies, and more.

Freshwater ecosystems
Our latest report calls for a new approach to protect the many benefits Californians derive from freshwater ecosystems. It lays out a plan to manage water, land, and species simultaneously to improve ecosystem health while also protecting native biodiversity and human uses of ecosystems. The approach, summarized here, is consistent with state and federal endangered species laws. We also held an event to hear from practitioners from around the state, who highlighted the advantages of this approach and the need to implement it more rapidly.

We’re thankful for these opportunities to help find creative and collaborative solutions to California’s most difficult and pressing water challenges. And as always, we thank our supporters who enable this important work.

With best wishes for a hopefully wet (but not too wet!) 2020,

Ellen Hanak

P.S. You can sign up for our weekly blog post. And you can learn more about how to support the center’s work.

California’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Hampers Shasta Reservoir Project

This is part of a series on issues facing California’s rivers.

California’s Wild and Scenic rivers have been in the news of late. The US Bureau of Reclamation and its cost-sharing partner, Westlands Water District, proposed to raise Shasta Dam to increase storage capacity in the state’s largest reservoir. They believe that the project would increase water supply reliability and enhance cold water storage to support salmon downstream.

Opponents of the project—including the State of California, environmental organizations, fishing groups, and Native American tribes—argue that the project would flood prime fish habitat and inundate tribal religious sites on the McCloud River, which is protected under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Given current federal and state laws, it is unlikely that the bureau will be able to raise Shasta dam anytime soon.

Congress enacted the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve the free-flowing condition of rivers that have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural values. It bars federal agencies from actions that would harm these values.

California passed its own Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1972. The statute prohibits activities that could damage soil, water, timber, and habitat close to the river. It also bars the State Water Board and other state agencies from assisting or licensing facilities that could harm the wild and scenic values of a protected river.

The state and federal wild and scenic river systems include 26 of California’s rivers. These protected river segments and tributaries encompass about 2,000 river miles, or less than one percent of California’s rivers and streams.

A persistent myth is that wild and scenic rivers are, in effect, wilderness areas and thus protected from any uses except recreation. In fact, although both statutes protect the “free-flowing” condition of segments designated wild and scenic, most of California’s protected rivers are affected by other water and land uses—including dams and water diversions.

Yet, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts have had profound influences on some of California’s rivers by restricting new water projects and land uses that may impair the values for which a river was included in the system.

In 2019, the California courts ordered Westlands not to study or participate in other efforts to raise Shasta Dam, because the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits “agencies of the state” from cooperating on facilities that could impact the free-flowing condition of the McCloud.

Although the decision did not apply directly to the Bureau of Reclamation, for several reasons it, too, will have difficulty proceeding with the Shasta expansion project. For example:

  • Raising the dam would require a “dredge and fill” permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Before the bureau can receive such a permit, federal law requires that it obtain certification from the State Water Board to ensure that the project would comply with state water quality standards and other legal requirements. California law would preclude the board from doing this, however, because the project would inundate a state-designated wild and scenic river.
  • Federal law also requires the bureau to secure at least 50 percent of the funding for new federal facilities from non-federal partners. Currently it has no alternative to Westlands. Moreover, most other potential cost-sharing partners—irrigation districts and other water supply agencies—are also “agencies of the state” and would be bound by the restrictions of the state Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as was Westlands.
  • Finally, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act requires the bureau to comply with all requirements of state law. This includes the wild and scenic protections for the McCloud River.

Future efforts to expand Shasta Dam by the Bureau of Reclamation or any “agencies of the state” will therefore run afoul of multiple state and federal laws. Of course, the California Legislature and Congress could change these laws or grant a special exemption for the Shasta expansion project. But neither is likely in this time of divided government in Washington, DC, and divergent notions of federalism and environmental protection between the Newsom and Trump administrations. Thus, as the laws now stand, an expanded Shasta Reservoir—at least one that encroaches on the free-flowing stretch of the McCloud River—remains a remote prospect.

Providing Safe Drinking Water in the Face of Disasters: Lessons from Lake County

Climate change is already affecting water management across the state. Small rural communities with ongoing drinking water challenges are especially vulnerable to greater extremes brought on by a warming climate. We talked to Jan Coppinger, a special district administrator from Lake County, about how the county’s small water systems have dealt with an especially devastating string of natural disasters.

photo - Jan Coppinger

PPIC: Describe Lake County’s recent water challenges.

JAN COPPINGER: The county is predominantly rural, geographically diverse, and home to a number of small, disadvantaged communities and tribes. As towns in the county were developing, they built small, isolated water systems. We now have almost 100 public water systems, and some are barely getting by. The county tried to encourage consolidation of smaller systems into bigger ones in the late 1980s. Two major consolidations took place at that time: one that merged 41 small suppliers to create the North Lakeport water system—which today is one of our strongest, best water systems—and one that combined 15 systems. The county did feasibility studies on other potential consolidations, but these were met with opposition from local communities, so the issue was dropped altogether until recently.

Over the past several years, a string of natural disasters has kept Lake County in a constant state of emergency. It started with a drought, followed by two massive wildfires, which burned more than 60% of our county. The burn scars made the floods of 2017 and 2019 especially devastating. The 2015 Valley Fire destroyed thousands of homes and eight water systems. One small water supplier—Starview Water System—had 151 customers before the fire and only 14 afterward. Following these disasters, consolidation became a way to get some of the devastated water systems back up and running. We have had success with consolidating and rebuilding nine water systems in the Cobb Mountain area in the last couple of years.

PPIC: Consolidation is a big undertaking. What is the most important lesson from Lake County’s efforts?

JC: It’s a very complicated process, and in most cases, outside technical assistance is needed. We have two other areas now looking at consolidation, and we’re having a hard time identifying which of the small water agencies can take the lead in the process. The agencies are willing but they don’t have the managerial or technical capacity.  We have gotten support from the State Water Board and non-profit partners like the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) to walk them through it. Financial assistance is another barrier, because consolidation can be expensive. The costs really vary. For the Cobb Mountain project, the feasibility study alone cost $250,000. We’re probably talking around $21 million for the entire consolidation. In that case, we had to bring some of the small systems up to code, and repair significant damage from the fire.

PPIC: How can small systems best prepare for natural disasters and climate change?

JC: Building physical connections to other systems and sharing resources is critical. Small systems need a backup supply to handle disasters—and because sometimes even the backup burns, they may need a backup to the backup. For instance, in the aftermath of the Valley Fire, the county invested $1.7 million to rebuild the Starview Water System, and connect it to other small systems in the Cobb Mountain area. The floods in early 2019 took out the roads, the culverts, and the brand new water system we built.

I never dreamed that entire water systems would burn to the ground. When I describe what has happened to small water systems in our area from these disasters, it really opens people’s eyes. Educating the people running these small systems has helped change minds about consolidation, in Lake County and across the state.

Watch a video of Jan Coppinger and other panelists talk about providing safe drinking water in California

Video: Preparing California’s Water System for Climate Extremes

Climate change is stressing water management across California. This week the PPIC Water Policy Center hosted its annual half-day workshop in Sacramento to discuss how state and local leaders can help prepare California’s water system and ecosystems for greater climate volatility.

“California has the most variable year-to-year climate of any state in the lower 48,” said Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center. “This is expected to increase, with drier dries and wetter wets.” Water management of the future will “need to start managing our droughts for floods and our floods for droughts,” she added, because greater volatility will make it harder to manage multipurpose reservoirs for both floods and droughts at the same time. Flexible, multi-benefit approaches—and solutions that are aligned across agencies—are going to be increasingly important in tackling these complex challenges.

The first panel focused on managing fast- and slow-moving disasters—floods, fires, and droughts. Panelists discussed the impacts of the recent fires on communities and local water systems, and the types of tools and partnerships that can help minimize risks. Tim Ramirez of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the significant and increasing flood risk in the San Joaquin Valley and called for a flood bypass to protect the growing Stockton region. And Michael Thompson of Sonoma Water called for funding from the state to support the “collaborative infrastructure” that will enable agencies to work together more effectively.

A panel on safe drinking water summarized the current status of the problem and discussed how to best use the new Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund to ensure that the water delivery system works for everyone. “I think that in five years we want to see every child in California has safe drinking water in their home,” said Jonathan Nelson of the Community Water Center. “The way we do that will be through multiple strategies, but that’s the vision we want to work toward, and ideally, as quickly as we can.”

Darrin Polhemus of the State Water Board said small water systems pay more for their systems and supplies, have a lack of management and technical capacity, and are particularly hard hit by water contamination and shortages. He noted that “we have to change this whole paradigm” to help improve how small water systems operate.

The final panel brought key state officials to the stage to discuss the governor’s water resilience portfolio, now being developed to address the challenges of a more volatile climate. Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said a top priority is to make it easier to help the environment and get multiple benefits out of water projects. “Permitting wetlands restoration is the exact same process as permitting a strip mall,” he said. “So while we’re threatened by climate change and our ecosystem is under unprecedented threat, state government makes it really expensive and slow to get [such projects] done.” He said his agency is committed to cutting “green tape” that slows ecosystem restoration projects.

Sounding a particularly hopeful note, Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, said we have “an opportunity of a lifetime for farmers to step up and identify how they can be part of the solution to climate change.” She noted that farm practices can sequester carbon while also building resiliency to help farms weather droughts and floods.

We invite you to watch the videos from this event:

Taking on Tough Challenges at the State Water Board

The State Water Board is central to addressing many of California’s major water challenges, including protecting water quality for drinking and for the environment, addressing drought and water conservation, and managing the allocation of surface water. We talked to Sean Maguire, a civil engineer who was appointed to the board by former governor Brown in December 2018, about priority issues.

Photo of Sean MaguirePPIC: What are the big challenges the board is grappling with right now?

Sean Maguire: At the top of our list is the Bay Delta water quality control plan. The plan, which covers the Sacramento–San Joaquin watershed and Delta, must ensure a reliable water supply and protect the basin’s fisheries and ecosystems. We’re working through a process that is very complex and has a lot of moving pieces—and right now it’s unclear if we’re on track to meet all of these goals. But it’s exciting to think there is a stakeholder-devised solution at hand—the voluntary agreement process—which would set out a plan to manage multiple rivers in a coordinated way, coupled with large-scale habitat restoration and science programs. There is still a long ways to go, but I have hope that voluntary agreements will prove to be the best path forward.

At the same time, we’re preparing for climate change. It’s clear that going forward we have to be incredibly efficient in our water management. The last drought resulted in legislation to establish indoor and outdoor water use efficiency targets and to require urban suppliers to develop stronger drought contingency plans. Many small water systems rely on a single source—most often groundwater—and we’re helping them find opportunities to connect to larger communities and identify new supplies. This is where water portfolios can help build resilience to drought and get us ready for a changing climate.

And finally, the most exciting news is the establishment of the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund earlier this year. California has 7,000 water systems and hundreds of thousands of residents using domestic wells—a situation that presents a lot of challenges because many struggle to meet drinking water standards. The fund is a high priority for us, and we’re committed to coming up with a plan and policies to implement it, while also working on projects that can get started right away.

PPIC: Talk about contamination challenges.

SG: Water contamination is a huge challenge for the whole state. There are so many different sources, and many contaminants of emerging concern. The board is at the beginning of tackling PFAS contamination. This is a class of “forever chemicals” used in a wide range of products—for example, nonstick coatings, water repellants, take-out containers, and fire retardants. We’re moving quickly to better understand the risk by requiring testing wells in close to possible source sites (such as defense facilities, landfills, and airports), and also requiring those facilities to test local groundwater. We are also working to understand the human health effects, which will take some time.

PPIC: What gives you hope?

SG: In the past year, there’s been incredible collaboration surrounding really controversial water issues that have lingered for decades. I’m very hopeful about the stakeholder-informed solutions that are arising out of these processes. In addition to the Bay Delta process, we now have a strong wetlands policy—a collaborative solution that was a decade in the making. We have another stakeholder plan to address legacy pollution from farming and other discharges in the Central Valley. I hope we can repeat this type of collaboration with other issues and in other watersheds across the state. I have a lot of hope for the groundwater sustainability plans that are being developed now in the state’s overdrafted basins. And I believe the governor’s upcoming water resilience portfolio will give us a roadmap to help California prepare for the climate changes to come.

The state has a lot of complex water problems, and we can’t untangle them all with one brilliant policy change. But we’re making progress on many difficult issues, and I’m committed to keeping up the momentum.

New Laws Address Safe Drinking Water, Groundwater Recharge, River Health

It’s been an eventful year for California water policy. A milestone law to address the state’s drinking water challenges, which was signed by Governor Newsom earlier this year, established a $1.3 billion Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. In line with its broader policy focus on climate resilience, the administration is also creating a Water Resilience Portfolio Initiative, a collaborative effort by various state agencies to ensure water resilience in the face of a changing climate. A number of bills recently signed into law build on the progress made in this area. Here are some highlights:

  • Safe drinking water: Continuing the forward momentum of the drinking water fund, two new laws tackle water quality and supply, especially in rural, disadvantaged communities. Assembly Bill (AB) 508 authorizes the State Water Board to order water system consolidations in communities with domestic wells that consistently fail to provide safe drinking water. The bill also requires the board to ensure the consolidation is financially and technically possible, and to compensate for financial losses experienced by the water system that takes over the small system. And Senate Bill (SB) 513 authorizes the State Water Board to provide immediate relief for households whose wells have gone dry due to droughts or other disasters.
  • Groundwater recharge: A new law will also make it easier for water users to bring their groundwater basins into balance—another key to long-term water resilience. AB 658 seeks to enable more recharge of depleted basins, one of the most promising approaches for addressing groundwater overdraft. The bill streamlines the permitting process for groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and other local agencies to divert surface water for groundwater recharge. This tool is timely for the GSAs; those in the most overdrafted basins are now finalizing plans to manage their basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
  • Health of rivers, lakes, and streams: Challenges with freshwater quantity and quality for ecosystems were addressed by two new laws. SB 19 addresses a key data gap that makes it harder to manage water for ecosystems, especially during droughts. California currently lacks stream gages—which help monitor water levels—on half of the rivers and streams that support critical habitats. The bill requires the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board to develop a plan to modernize and expand the state’s stream gage network. And to address a growing water quality threat, AB 834 establishes a program to mitigate harmful algal blooms in California’s rivers, lakes, and estuaries, which pose a health threat to people and animals. The program will assess and monitor algal blooms, and publish the incidents and the resulting action online.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for California’s complex water challenges. This legislative cycle brought a range of solutions, from those with a broad scope, like data collection, to more targeted tools to address groundwater recharge and dry wells. Both types of approaches are needed to strengthen existing policies and take our water management forward.

Managing Urban Water During Dry Times: The California Example

This article was posted on Meeting of the Minds on October 7, 2019.

California’s drought-prone climate, diverse and decentralized landscape of urban water suppliers, and complex water system make it something of a laboratory for testing ways to manage water scarcity. The state’s urban water suppliers have become particularly adept at managing drought, and this sector has become a leader in water use efficiency, recycling, supply diversification, and integrated management.

But the 2012–16 drought revealed that California’s urban areas must continue innovating to ensure water systems are resilient to climate change. Unusually severe, this drought included the driest four-year stretch in 120 years of record keeping. Record-high temperatures and record-low precipitation reduced water stored in mountain snowpack and intensified drought conditions in other ways—making it more like droughts of the future that are expected to result from a changing climate. The lessons learned from this research have relevance for other urban areas facing drought.

Read the full article on meetingoftheminds.org