Water Supply – Page 3 – Public Policy Institute of California

Water Policy Priorities for a Changing California

How will climate change affect California water management, and what steps should the state take to prepare for these changes? The PPIC Water Policy Center was asked by the Newsom administration to submit formal comments outlining key water policy priorities for the state—and ways to integrate actions across state agencies to implement these priorities. Our recommendations will inform the administration’s preparation of a water resilience portfolio. We address two key areas where the state can play a leading role—modernizing the water grid and protecting freshwater ecosystems.

California’s “water grid”—the network of reservoirs, aquifers, rivers, and water conveyance and flood control infrastructure that connects much of the state—was built for a climate that no longer exists. Yet it is the most important asset the state has for addressing changing conditions, both statewide and within regions. A modernized water grid, coupled with more flexible management, can reduce the cost of future droughts, improve how we manage flood risk, and help protect freshwater ecosystems. The state has made important advances in assessing and improving its water supply infrastructure, but it still lacks a comprehensive program to address storage, conveyance, and operational challenges in the next few decades.

California’s freshwater ecosystems present special challenges. The state’s native biodiversity continues to decline, despite decades of effort to improve conditions. Problems encountered during the 2012−16 drought—high water temperatures, low flows, insufficient cold water stored in reservoirs, and degraded habitat—will all likely worsen as droughts become more intense. Management of cold-water-dependent species—including salmon, trout, and some resident fishes such as Delta smelt—will continue to pose a significant challenge for water managers and regulators as conditions warm. Changing habitat conditions could make it impossible for some species to remain viable in their historic locations. And conflicts between the need to protect native species and land and water management activities are likely to increase. Here, too, some promising actions have been taken, but more needs to be done to prepare for coming changes.

Tackling these complex challenges with an integrated water resilience portfolio is a bold step, and one that has the potential to make California a leader in climate adaptation. You can read our recommendations to the administration here.

Planning for a Drier Future in the Colorado River Basin

The Colorado River has experienced decades of over-allocation of its waters, making it harder to address the added challenges that climate change is bringing. The recently adopted Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) was an important step toward addressing the basin’s chronic water shortages, but more work is needed to prepare for a hotter, drier future. We talked to Doug Kenney—director of the Western Water Policy Program at the University of Colorado and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network―about managing the basin for long-term water sustainability. Kenney organized a conference in June that covered these issues in depth.

PPIC: Talk about the basin’s over-allocation problem.

Doug Kenney: The current problem with the river’s water budget is in the lower basin. For much of this century, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico have consistently pulled about 1.2 million acre-feet more water out of Lake Mead than enters it each year. That’s basically five years of water supply for Las Vegas. You can get away with that much overuse by drawing down reservoir storage—which is what we’ve been doing—but that’s not sustainable. So we need to accelerate efforts to scale back consumption. That’s what the DCP was designed to do—it’s mandated belt tightening.

In the upper basin states it’s a very different situation—water use in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming is currently at a stable and reasonable level. But future use is expected to increase, while natural inflows are declining as the region continues to warm from climate change. The upper basin states can legally develop more water supplies, but the reality is that water isn’t likely to be reliably available. There’s a disconnect between how much water the upper basin states were promised and how much actually exists.

PPIC: What is needed to achieve sustainable management in the basin?

DK: The primary emphasis has to be on using less water. Given that most water in the basin is used for agriculture, that sector has the greatest potential to save water. Paying farmers to fallow some fields is probably the most appealing option. However, there are legal, financial, and cultural issues to deal with.

In most of the west, efforts to incentivize agricultural demand management have been pretty primitive—with the exception of Southern California, which has had major success trimming farm water use in the Imperial and Palo Verde water districts. Those programs aren’t perfect, but they are happening at a sufficiently large scale to make a significant contribution to addressing the regional water budget problem. In most other places in the basin, these types of programs are much smaller, and there’s a lot of skepticism about scaling these efforts up. The politics are very delicate, as these mechanisms would reallocate water from farms to cities. But you can’t ignore the math or the economics. Some sort of agricultural demand management will have to be a core element of any sustainable water use plan in the basin. The challenge is to do it in a way that is fair and protects the socioeconomic fabric of rural areas.

PPIC: What’s next for the basin’s water planning?

DK: The next steps are big ones. The operation of Powell and Mead is governed by interim guidelines that expire after 2026. Some key arrangements between Mexico and the US also expire then. The states are required to begin negotiating new rules to replace the expiring arrangements no later than 2020. This figures to be a really complex and very politically difficult negotiation, so there’s real interest in setting up the right process to get it done. That’s where many of us are focused right now—identifying the process that gives the negotiations the best chance for success.

PPIC: The DCP didn’t address ecological and health problems at California’s troubled Salton Sea. What’s next for the sea?

DK: At this point it’s about figuring out how to pay for what everyone knows has to be done. I’m convinced we’ve reached a turning point on the Salton Sea. There’s momentum within and outside of California to find a solution. It was disappointing that the DCP didn’t address the issues, but it wasn’t due to a lack of concern or effort—essentially, folks ran out of time. But I hear a consistent message from every sector and state: we need a solution for the sea. There’s an old maxim in this basin: anything is possible if all seven states can agree to it. I’m hopeful that this can apply to the Salton Sea crisis

Got Surface Water? Groundwater-Only Lands in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley—California’s largest agricultural region—has the largest groundwater deficit in the state. However, water scarcity is not experienced equally across the valley. Some areas receive abundant surface water to support cropland irrigation and drinking water supplies. Most others supplement their use with groundwater. Still others have no surface water access and depend entirely on groundwater. Water users in these groundwater-only areas are particularly vulnerable to pumping restrictions under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)—the state-mandated effort to balance groundwater basins.

The map below gives a broad view of where the groundwater-only agricultural lands are located in the San Joaquin Valley. These areas are present in each basin; they include irrigated cropland (shown in red on the map) as well as rangeland and other open space (shown in gold).

We estimate that nearly 20%—or 840,000 acres—of irrigated cropland in the valley has no access to surface water. Crops are similar in groundwater-only lands and lands that have at least some access to surface water: more than half are planted with permanent fruit and nut crops. These crops provide higher revenues and employment than most annual crops. With groundwater cuts looming and no other water supply to fall back on, groundwater-only areas are on the front line of the effort to bring basins into balance. Inflexible approaches to managing this transition could result in unnecessarily large, undesirable reductions in high-value crop acreage, regional employment, and GDP.

Cooperative approaches to water management can give flexibility to groundwater-only areas and lessen the regional economic burden of reducing groundwater use. Facilitating local surface and groundwater trading would allow farmers who need more water for their orchards and other high-revenue crops to compensate other farmers for reducing their water use. Expanding surface water trading more broadly across the valley could bring down costs further and offer even more flexibility. And smart regional investments in new water supplies—particularly to capture more runoff from big storms and increase groundwater recharge—could offset some of the water use cutbacks expected in groundwater-only areas.

Cooperation will also be important to ensure adequate water supplies are available for the valley’s growing cities and small towns—most of which also rely heavily, if not entirely, on groundwater. Recharge partnerships that benefit communities are one promising way to do this.

Water conditions in San Joaquin Valley basins vary, from the size of a basin’s groundwater overdraft to the availability of surface water in the local supply mix. These variable conditions call for cooperation between those with access to surface water and those without. This will make it possible to lessen the costs of implementing sustainable groundwater management, a transition that will benefit the valley over the long run.

The LA River and the Trade-Offs of Water Recycling

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

After a very wet winter, California has been declared drought free. But planning for future water shortages has continued. In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced a goal of 100% wastewater recycling by 2035 to help make city supplies drought proof.

While recycling wastewater helps cities adapt to a changing climate and prepare for droughts, it can have unintended consequences for local watersheds. In some cases, the growing use of recycled water could minimize or even eliminate flows from wastewater treatment plants into local rivers and streams and reduce ecological and recreational benefits. The Los Angeles River exemplifies this kind of trade-off: expanded water recycling will reduce the amount of treated wastewater flowing into this increasingly revitalized urban waterway.

The lower stretch of the river, which was converted into a concrete flood channel in the mid-1900s, is changing. Concrete has been removed from large stretches of the river and public parks and bike paths have been built along its banks, encouraging recreational use and increasing public interest in the river’s restoration. The river was declared a navigable water in 2010 and opened to kayaking the following year. It provides a vital refuge to a variety of riparian species that lost most of their habitat to channelization and urban development.

Last year, researchers from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) launched a study to document the effects of reductions of treated wastewater on vulnerable species and habitats along the highly urbanized, 45-mile stretch of the lower river, as well as on recreational uses of the river. One of the project’s goals is to determine how these impacts could be offset by investments in river restoration and upstream mitigation projects.

The SCCWRP researchers plan to develop recommended seasonal flow targets for each section of the LA River. They will consider the balance between protecting the river’s ecological and recreational uses and local agencies’ desire to capture, divert, and recycle more water in the watershed. The study will also help inform a number of planning efforts, including One Water LA and the LA River Revitalization Master Plan.

Eric Stein, principal scientist with SCCWRP, emphasized that the project’s success is dependent on its collaborative nature. “We are bringing together agencies, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups to help explore alternative future scenarios and find innovative ways to balance potentially competing demands for water in the LA River,” he said.

The LA River watershed is only one example where a conflict between recycled water investments and downstream users is emerging. As the demand for recycled water grows and local agencies consider new projects, other watersheds could benefit from similar efforts to better understand the impacts of water recycling on the local ecology and downstream users.

Learning the Language of Groundwater

groundwater (ground·wa·ter \-wȯ-tər, -ˌwä-\ Water beneath the land surface that fills pore spaces in underlying soil or rock.

Groundwater is a critical part of California’s water supply—on average, underground aquifers provide nearly 40% of the water used by the state’s farms and cities, and more in dry years. But after decades of unsustainable pumping in many basins, the state is undergoing major changes in how it manages this resource. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires water users to develop plans to bring their basins into balance in coming years and encourages wide public participation in the planning process. Knowing some of the vocabulary is key to engaging in the conversation. This glossary will get you started.

Adjudication: A lack of clarity over how much groundwater individuals can pump has caused conflict in some places. In more than two dozen basins, mostly in Southern California, the courts have been asked to settle—adjudicate—disputes over groundwater pumping rights. Adjudicated basins must report how much water is being pumped, but most other basins are not yet required to do so.

Conjunctive use: The coordinated management of surface water and groundwater to make the best use of surface water during wet periods and groundwater during dry periods. Expanding this practice can require changing how surface reservoirs are operated, to allow the release of more water during the fall to replenish aquifers and increase reservoirs’ capacity to hold winter runoff.

Conveyance: The infrastructure needed to move surface water to where it can be used, including to areas suitable for recharging aquifers. In some parts of the state, this infrastructure is in poor condition or is missing links, creating barriers to getting more water into underground storage.

Glide path: A gradual approach to implementing SGMA, to give water users time to adjust and prevent major disruptions in the regional economy. Most groundwater sustainability agencies in the San Joaquin Valley—where overdraft is a major issue—are likely to adopt this approach. The result is that groundwater levels will continue to decline, but at a decreasing rate, until they reach long-term balance.

Groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs): Local agencies formed to develop groundwater sustainability plans to manage their resources for the long run. More than 250 GSAs in 140 “priority basins” (which account for most of California’s groundwater use) have been formed.

Overdraft: When groundwater extraction exceeds what is being replenished (also called “groundwater mining”). Its repercussions can include drying wells, sinking lands, reduced streamflow, degraded water quality, and higher energy use from pumping water from deeper depths.

Recharge: Taking action to replenish underground aquifers with surface water (also known as “managed recharge” to distinguish it from natural recharge). This water can come from a variety of sources, including flood- and stormwater, treated wastewater, and spare surface water. Recharge usually involves spreading water on the land. Some water districts have dedicated recharge basins, but individual farms can also help by recharging on their lands. “In lieu” recharge is when farmers enable the aquifer to replenish naturally by pumping less and using surface water instead. One challenge is coming up with ways to compensate farmers who recharge shared basins under their land.

Safe or sustainable yield: The amount of water that can be withdrawn from a groundwater basin without causing problems—such as a significant drop in water levels, harm to groundwater-dependent ecosystems, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, to name a few.

Saltwater intrusion: Many coastal aquifers—for example, those on the Central Coast—are overdrafted, which reduces groundwater flow toward the sea and allows saltwater to move in.

Subsidence: Land surfaces can sink in overdrafted basins, which damages infrastructure such as bridges, reservoirs, and water canals. Parts of the San Joaquin Valley have been sinking by more than half a foot annually. Subsidence has reduced capacity in the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Requires water users in most groundwater basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans to bring groundwater use and recharge into balance by the early 2040s. The challenges are particularly big in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast.

White areas: Areas that rely entirely on groundwater for drinking water and irrigation supplies. Water users in these areas—which are shown in white on irrigation district maps—are particularly susceptible to groundwater quality problems and falling water tables, and are vulnerable to pumping restrictions with the implementation of SGMA.

Fostering Sustainability in the San Joaquin Valley

California’s largest farming region faces two linked challenges: balancing groundwater supply and demand in overdrafted basins, and addressing water quality in the region’s aquifers. We talked to Ashley Boren, executive director of Sustainable Conservation, about tackling these issues in the San Joaquin Valley.

PPIC: Talk about your organization’s efforts in groundwater recharge.

Ashley Boren: We’re focused on trying to get stakeholders in the San Joaquin Valley to think about doing more recharge―and expanding recharge approaches―to make a dent in the overdraft problem. Climate forecasts show that California will have fewer but more intense big storms in the future, with a lot of water coming at once. When that water comes out of the Sierra, we need to let it spread out across the land—including on suitable farmland that can handle large volumes of water and has good soils for recharging groundwater. There’s a lot of opportunity to do more recharge.

We’ve definitely seen an uptick in interest among farmers in recharging on their land—the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act has been a huge driver for that. We’re trying to provide tools to help farmers and irrigation districts recharge as much as possible. For example, we’ve got some demonstration sites where we help growers who accept water onto their land to measure the results and impacts. We use our findings for education and outreach with other farmers. And with our partner the Earth Genome, we’ve created a tool that runs scenarios on how landowners and water agencies can optimize recharge using a combination of dedicated recharge basins, fallowed land, and active cropland. It combines publicly available information on things like soil types with water agencies’ proprietary information on canal capacity and location. It’s cloud-based and easy to use.

We’ve also joined the Department of Water Resources’ Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge effort, which explores ways to marry flood management with groundwater recharge and habitat creation to achieve multiple benefits. There are more than 200 stakeholders involved so far.

PPIC: What needs to happen to scale up recharge?

AB: Several things need to happen. Improving conveyance infrastructure is the big one, so we can move water to where it’s needed most and where conditions for recharge are suitable. We need more landowners willing to accept water on their land, and also more recharge basins. And we need to figure out how much water is available for recharge by watershed, so water agencies know what they’re working with and how much they can capture.

We’re collaborating with the State Water Board to enhance current regulations that would greatly boost recharge efforts, and exploring ways to expedite permitting while ensuring existing water rights are honored and environmental water needs are covered.

PPIC: You’re also working with dairies to help them address water quality issues. What are key lessons from this work?

AB: We’ve been working with San Joaquin Valley dairies on how to manage manure to protect water quality for nearly 20 years. We’re helping dairies apply nutrients more precisely to their feed crops in order to reduce nitrate leaching into groundwater. But reducing the use of manure on croplands means dairy farmers have a lot of leftover manure. Manure is a valuable resource, so the industry is trying to figure out how to create products with excess manure that can be exported off farms to avoid nitrate leaching. Studies indicate we will have to export up to 40% of the valley’s manure to comply with water quality laws. The good news is the industry is actively working to figure out the market for manure products.

We’re also really excited about a partnership with the irrigation company Netafim, supported by the USDA, which allows dairies to apply their nutrient-rich wastewater very precisely to their feed crops to limit leaching of the excess nitrogen into groundwater. So far we’ve seen up to 40% less water and up to 75% less nitrogen applied to fields at our demonstration projects. An added bonus is this system also reduces nitrous oxide emissions into the air by 90%. If dairies could get credit for reducing this very harmful greenhouse gas, it could help pay for installation of the systems.

Watch a video with Ashley Boren and other panelists discussing how to prepare California’s water management system for the impacts of climate change.

California’s Growing Demand for Recycled Water Has Ripple Effects

Wastewater agencies produce highly treated water that is increasingly being reused as a water supply. While it’s still only a small portion of overall water use, the use of recycled water has nearly tripled since the 1980s―and is continuing to rise as water agencies seek to meet the demands of a growing population and improve the resilience of their water supplies.

Recycled water production is closely related to water use and wastewater management. It also directly influences flows for ecosystems and downstream water users in some watersheds. As its use expands, weighing the trade-offs involved will help avoid conflict. Meeting current and future demands requires careful consideration of several issues, including the impact of water use on wastewater management, changing types of demand for recycled water, and the needs of ecosystems and downstream users.

Recycled water production is affected by reductions in water use. In other words, recycled water is not completely “drought proof.” The drought of 2012‒16 provides a clear example of this. The rapid reduction of urban indoor water use in this period resulted in a reduced quantity and quality of wastewater for most of the state’s wastewater agencies. In a survey conducted by the PPIC Water Policy Center, just over 40% of wastewater agencies that recycle wastewater reported that their ability to produce recycled water was impaired during the drought. The long-term efficiency of water use and related declines in wastewater quality may also affect recycled water production in the future. For example, as households become more water-efficient, the wastewater they discharge to sewers can have higher concentrations of salts, which are not removed in most treatment processes. Saltier water may not be suitable for outdoor irrigation of golf courses or lawns—common uses of recycled water. If this issue grows in severity, agencies may be forced to incorporate desalination into wastewater treatment, which is likely to add cost and complexity.

Demand for recycled water is growing and changing. Recycled water is increasingly being used in urban areas for public landscape irrigation, golf courses, industrial cooling, and groundwater recharge. Replenishing sources of drinking water is the biggest growth opportunity for water recyclers. New state rules allowing replenishment of groundwater and surface water storage with recycled water—and eventually the direct connection of recycled water to drinking water infrastructure—will create opportunities for recyclers to cost-effectively meet growing demands well into the future. This will require close coordination between water suppliers and wastewater agencies. Some wastewater agencies will also need to increase their treatment capacity to meet the higher water quality standards required for potable reuse.

Expanding use of recycled water may reduce flows of treated wastewater in rivers, streams, and estuaries. Treated wastewater is an important water source for some ecosystems and downstream water users. Watersheds where wastewater makes up a significant amount of the flow that supports ecosystems and downstream users are especially vulnerable to conflict. For example, a proposal to increase the use of recycled water in Coachella Valley would decrease flows to the already shrinking and vulnerable Salton Sea. Managing recycled water so that it avoids harm to ecosystems and downstream users will require additional collaboration and thoughtful planning.

Closer coordination between wastewater agencies and water suppliers can help minimize impacts from changing patterns of water use on wastewater quantity and quality. Regional planning can also help agencies make smart recycled-water investments that take advantage of opportunities to more directly replenish drinking water supplies. New projects should be based on a careful consideration of local demands and costs, and also how well the investment fits into the overall regional supply of water for both human and environmental uses. Taking such steps now can help water managers in this growing sector make the most of this once-maligned resource.

What Does the Colorado River Drought Plan Mean for California?

A much-anticipated plan to address chronic water shortages in the Colorado River Basin was recently signed into law by President Trump. This drought contingency plan (DCP) aims to slow the long-term decline in Lake Mead’s water levels caused by over-allocation of Colorado River water and 19 years of drought, as well as address future water shortages in the basin.

The DCP is the fruit of a decade of negotiations among the seven basin states to resolve the over-allocation problem through cuts and water storage. (Mexico receives water from the river but is not part of this plan.) California has the largest share of the Colorado, with senior rights to more than a quarter of the river’s average annual flow.

Lake Mead is a water source for 600,000 acres of farmland and 19 million people in Southern California. California agencies can also store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mead.

Without the DCP, Lake Mead’s water level could drop too low to allow releases from Hoover Dam. As the lake nears this threshold, senior water right-holders in California might be tempted to withdraw their water before it becomes inaccessible. While such a move would be permissible, it would accelerate the drop in the lake level and affect future deliveries for junior water right-holders in the other lower-basin states.

The DCP eliminates this concern and delivers an orderly and mutually agreed upon method to manage shortages until 2026. It provides assurance against curtailments for water stored behind the dam. This is especially important for the Southern California water agencies, whose ability to store water in Lake Mead is crucial for managing seasonal demands.

Some significant challenges must still be addressed, however. The Imperial Irrigation District, the largest Colorado River water user, opted out of the plan due to a dispute over funding to restore the shrinking Salton Sea. The district also filed a lawsuit that calls for the DCP to be suspended until an environmental review of the plan is completed.

The lawsuit alleges that the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which would contribute most of the water required to fulfill California’s obligations under the DCP in times of system-wide shortage, unlawfully approved the DCP. IID claims that MWD did not consider the “sources of water that would be necessary for [it] to fulfill its commitment and the environmental effects associated with obtaining water for those sources.” The outcome of this lawsuit is uncertain.

Currently, the Colorado supplies about a third of all water used in Southern California’s urban areas. The region’s water agencies are taking steps to develop more local supplies and increase water efficiency to help them meet water demand if DCP cuts are triggered during a future water shortage.

The plan won’t cause immediate water cuts. This year’s wet winter means that Lake Mead’s elevation, currently 1,090 feet above sea level, may remain above the 1,045-foot threshold at which the mandate is triggered for California. But the basin states now have a plan in place to address the next dry spell.

Commentary: How Better Wastewater Management Can Help California Adapt to Climate Change

This commentary was published on CALmatters on May 9, 2019.

Our public health relies on wastewater management to treat sewage and remove pollutants coming from our homes and businesses.

This system is fundamental to protecting our health. In California, treated wastewater also is a critical source of water for the environment, and, increasingly, a source for recycled water. Climate change is worsening water scarcity and flood risks. Advancements in engineering and technology can help prepare wastewater agencies for a changing climate. But significant shifts in policy and planning are needed to address these challenges.

Wastewater agencies must reliably remove pollutants even as the quantity and quality of the water they treat declines during droughts, and when large storms push their equipment to the breaking point.

In February, an atmospheric river storm—the type that is expected to become more common as the climate warms―inundated Healdsburg’s wastewater treatment facility and pushed more than five times the normal flow of wastewater and runoff into Santa Rosa’s treatment plant.

In a drought, reduced flows to wastewater plants can hamper agencies’ ability to comply with treatment standards, damage equipment, increase costs, and shrink revenue. Lower inflows also reduce the volumes available for recycled water, often considered a “drought-proof” supply.

The drought of 2012–16 brought all of these problems to the fore. Many wastewater agencies are now changing their operations, infrastructure, or finances in response to the challenges they experienced. Our new study recommends sector-wide changes in three areas to help build the sector’s climate resilience:

Maintain water quality in the face of reduced indoor water use. Short-term water conservation during droughts and longer term reductions in water use from indoor efficiency measures challenge wastewater management. All wastewater agencies should assess their vulnerability to major climate pressures, and plan for future droughts. Better coordination and information sharing with suppliers about indoor water conservation and efficiency efforts are also key.
Make smart recycled water investments. Coordination among wastewater and water supply agencies is needed to address the demand for recycled water. Regional planning for recycled water projects can result in investments that are more responsive to changing water use and an increasingly volatile climate, bringing financial and environmental benefits.
Balance conflicting objectives within watersheds. Many wastewater treatment plants discharge treated water into inland watersheds.

Meeting increased demand for recycled water may fuel conflict over the use of treated discharge to support ecosystems and downstream users. Rivers and streams are expected to experience lower flows and higher temperatures, which will heighten threats to aquatic ecosystems. Resources are needed to identify areas most at risk of conflict over the use of treated wastewater, and to develop tools to evaluate the impacts of water recycling projects on the environment and downstream water users.

The state can help wastewater managers make these adaptations, which are critical to building a more integrated and resilient water system. The State Water Board should align its policies on water use, wastewater, recycled water, and environmental protection to better manage for these multiple objectives.

Forging new partnerships to tackle the full range of climate-related risks will help wastewater agencies determine the best adaptations and improvements needed to prepare wastewater management—and California’s water system as a whole—for a more volatile future.

Testimony: Water Supply and Quality Challenges in the San Joaquin Valley

Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center, testified today (April 30, 2019) before the Assembly Subcommittee on Water, Parks and Wildlife, at a hearing on balancing water needs into the future in the San Joaquin Valley. Here are her prepared remarks. View her presentation.

The San Joaquin Valley produces more than half of California’s agricultural output. Irrigated farming is the region’s main economic driver and predominant water user. The region is also ground zero for many of the state’s most difficult water management problems―including long-term depletion of groundwater reserves, lack of safe drinking water in many rural communities, and accumulation of a variety of groundwater contaminants.

Over the past three years, the PPIC Water Policy Center has worked with an interdisciplinary team of researchers from Fresno State, Point Blue Conservation Science, UC Davis, and UC Merced to examine these challenges and identify promising solutions. Today, I’ll provide you with some highlights from our latest report, Water and the Future of the San Joaquin Valley, including areas where the California Legislature can be most helpful in facilitating progress. Two of my coauthors on this study—Sarge Green from Fresno State and Thomas Harter from UC Davis—are also here to answer your questions.

I’ll touch on four priority areas for action: balancing water supplies and demands; ensuring safe and reliable drinking water supplies; managing groundwater quality for the long-term; and fostering beneficial water and land use transitions.

Balancing water supplies and demands

Chronic groundwater overdraft—pumping in excess of the amount that is replenished—averages nearly 2 million acre-feet per year in the San Joaquin Valley, or roughly 11 percent of the region’s net water use. The consequences include dry wells, sinking lands, damaged infrastructure, and reduced reserves to cope with future droughts.

In light of these problems, the valley is on a fast track to implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires groundwater users to bring water supplies and demands into balance by the 2040s. The first local sustainability plans must be finalized and launched in early 2020. Although attaining balance will benefit the valley’s economy over the long-term, it will entail some near-term costs.

To end overdraft, local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) will have to augment supplies, reduce demands, or use some combination of these approaches. We estimate that about a quarter of the historical deficit can be filled with new supplies at prices farmers can afford. The balance will likely need to be met by managing farm water demand—with the idling of at least 500,000 acres of irrigated cropland (about 10% of current acreage).

On the supply side, the most promising options are to capture and store more local runoff in groundwater basins, and to increase water imports by managing the system differently. On the demand side, increasing water trading—both within and across groundwater basins—can significantly mitigate the economic impacts of reducing water use, by allowing farmers to maintain the crops that generate the most revenue, GDP, and jobs. Reducing overdraft gradually between now and 2040—the “glide path” approach to implementing SGMA—can also lessen the costs of adjustment by giving farmers more time to adapt.

Priority actions to facilitate the adoption of an optimal supply and demand portfolio approach include:

Assessing which new infrastructure investments—including conveyance—are warranted to support more recharge and water trading.
Incentivizing recharge on farmland—one of the most cost-effective ways to store water.
Developing transparent and equitable local water trading rules, including for groundwater.
Clarifying how much additional high winter and spring runoff is available for recharge.
Facilitating state and federal approvals for water trading and groundwater banking projects.
Coordinating both within and across groundwater basins to maximize benefits.

Although local and regional water users and agencies will need to take the lead on many of these actions, both the state and federal governments can play vital roles. The state can be especially helpful in clarifying how much water is available for recharge, facilitating approvals for water trading and groundwater banking projects, and working with local partners to assess infrastructure needs.

Ensuring safe and reliable drinking water

The valley’s most urgent water issue is addressing chronic problems of unsafe and unreliable drinking water in rural communities, most of which rely on groundwater. The region is a hot spot for unsafe drinking water. With just 10 percent of the state’s population, it is home to more than half of all community water systems that have persistently contaminated tap water. Contamination is also a problem for very small water systems that are regulated by counties and for homes served by domestic wells. Some groundwater contaminants—such as arsenic and uranium—occur naturally. Others are caused by human activity. For instance, agriculture is the primary source of nitrate, a serious contaminant that is widely present in shallow wells.

The region is also a hot spot for unreliable drinking water supplies in communities that depend on shallow wells. During the latest drought, roughly half of the 150 small water systems that sought emergency assistance from the state were in the valley, as were nearly 80 percent of all residents who reported dry domestic wells. Without concerted action, this vulnerability will persist. Several thousand additional drinking water wells are vulnerable if groundwater levels fall another 30 feet—something that could easily happen during the next drought, or if local groundwater sustainability plans allow continued overdraft under a glide path approach and fail to mitigate the problem.

In recent years, various legal and administrative changes have helped address the drinking water crisis. But there is still an urgent need to build a robust, comprehensive framework for tackling it. Affected communities will require technical, financial, and managerial assistance. Here are some top priorities:

Consolidating or aggregating systems to provide economies of scale to small water systems.
Providing technical support.
Planning for shortages and developing rapid response procedures to mitigate dry wells.
Ensuring funding support for both capital investments and ongoing operations and maintenance.

A variety of local parties—including counties, urban water suppliers, irrigation districts, groundwater sustainability agencies, pollution dischargers, and NGOs—will need to play a major role in helping to address this problem. But the state must take leadership in developing funding solutions and ensuring there’s a comprehensive plan for addressing both quality and supply vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

Managing groundwater quality for the long-term

Valley farmers and other dischargers of contaminants must also meet new requirements for protecting groundwater and soils from the long-term buildup of nitrate and salts. California has been a national leader in seeking to address these problems, with a suite of new regulations adopted over the past decade. The Salt and Nitrate Control Program (SNCP)—adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in 2018 and pending approval by the State Water Board—provides an umbrella framework for addressing these challenges. SGMA also requires GSAs to protect water quality while balancing groundwater supplies and demands.

Nitrate in drinking water wells, which originates primarily from inorganic nitrogen fertilizer and manure used in farming, poses significant public health risks. Dairies face special challenges in managing manure efficiently, and solutions have remained elusive.

Salinity is a growing threat to local agricultural productivity. Roughly 250,000 acres of cropland have already been retired due to salinity in soils, and another 1.5 million acres are considered impaired.

But managing for these contaminants is costly. The SCNP seeks to find a balance between protecting water and land resources for the long run and maintaining the viability of agricultural production in the present, while also ensuring safe drinking water solutions.

Here are some top priorities for action:

Coordinating water quality and quantity management. This will be especially important for managing groundwater recharge, which under some circumstances can accelerate the migration of chemicals in the soil (especially nitrate) into the aquifer and impair drinking water quality, at least for a time.
Implementing new technologies to manage pollutants. This will be especially important for dairies, which need to remove excess manure and transform it for other uses.
Providing regulatory flexibility. This includes flexibility to allow some continued loading of nitrogen and salt as long as impacts on drinking water supplies are mitigated, as proposed under the SNCP.

While local water managers, farmers, and the agricultural industry will need to take the lead in addressing these issues on the ground, the state can play a major role in providing effective and responsible regulatory flexibility, and in supporting research and development (R&D).

Fostering beneficial water and land use transitions

Finally, the valley will need to plan for and manage the changing landscape as some cropland is idled—both to avoid negative consequences from dust, pests, and weeds, and to get the most value from these lands in other uses. Pursuing approaches that seek multiple benefits on this land can support the regional economy, public health, and the environment. There are numerous stewardship options: healthy soils, habitat, wildlife-friendly solar, recharge, flood protection, and recreation.

There are already some models of how this can work. For instance, the Kern Water Bank provides thousands of acres of upland habitat for San Joaquin desert species and abundant intermittent wetlands, while also serving as a major groundwater storage site. But to date, there is no serious planning effort to see how lands coming out of production might be used most productively, and how to provide the right incentives to realize this potential.

Here are some top priorities for action:

Initiating broad-based, inclusive planning. For many issues—ranging from determining the best areas for habitat investments to coordinating recharge and managing salinity—taking a valley-wide perspective will be key.
Implementing flexible regulatory approaches to make it easier to implement multi-benefit restoration projects.
Providing incentives and funding to support activities on the ground.
Boosting technical support and R&D.

Again, local and regional parties will need to take the lead on many aspects of this work. But state and federal agencies can facilitate good outcomes by providing regulatory flexibility, financial incentives, and support for technical assistance and R&D.

How can the Legislature be most helpful now?

The valley is at a pivotal moment, and there are many ways in which the state can assist the region’s residents implement efficient, equitable, and sustainable solutions to their water-related challenges. Here are some final thoughts on how the Legislature can be most helpful in the near-term:

First, ensure a robust, comprehensive framework for safe and reliable drinking water solutions. This is an urgent public health issue and needs urgent attention. The framework should include reliable funding, as well as a sound, timely approach to providing technical and managerial solutions on the ground.

Second, support the building blocks for the region’s transition to groundwater sustainability. Planning for sustainable groundwater management is well underway, but this transition won’t happen overnight. Early actions to promote forward momentum will be especially valuable in the next few years.

To create the preconditions for success, the state should accelerate its own efforts to provide regulatory clarity, consistency, and flexibility. Key areas include how much water is available for recharge, how to recharge in ways that are acceptable from a water quality perspective, and how to implement broad-based, multi-benefit restoration projects that put land coming out of production to best use.

Support for local and regional initiatives can also make a difference. Key areas include assistance with the assessment of smart infrastructure investments, pilot efforts to implement innovative approaches on the ground, technical support and R&D for water quality and land stewardship solutions, and broad-based planning to develop regional approaches for multi-benefit management of water and land.

California has long been a model for others in the management of natural resources. Many are now looking to see how we tackle the tough challenges of providing safe drinking water to all residents and managing our groundwater resources sustainably for the long term. The San Joaquin Valley is on the front line for addressing both of these challenges. The region’s farmers and residents have a history of creatively adapting to difficult and changing conditions, and constructive solutions are in reach. The state can provide vital support to help ensure success.