Tag: Drought Watch

Drought Watch: The End of the Rainy Season

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

California’s rainy season is pretty much over. Most years, 85% of the wet season’s rain and snow has already fallen by late March. While rain often falls in April and May, it is rarely enough to make a big difference in the overall water picture, and the forecast is now quite dry.

That means California’s water managers now have a good idea how much water will be available in the state’s reservoirs, snowpack, and groundwater basins.

The news is not heartening. While parts of the north coast did fairly well, the rest of California did not. The Sierras received about half of annual average precipitation. And as the record warm temperatures of last year have persisted, the snowpack is at an all-time low (now 8% of average). As California’s struggling ski area operators know all too well, most precipitation fell as rain, rather than snow.

Statewide, reservoir storage is about half of capacity. However, the almost non-existent snowpack provides no prospect for improvement in storage this spring—something water managers count on in most years.

This fourth consecutive dry year have led to some dire, even apocalyptic predictions, including that California will run out of water within a year. While managing this drought will be difficult, even painful in some regions, the state is not going to run out of water and there is no need to panic. Rather, prudent adjustments to water scarcity that began earlier in the drought will continue and intensify. These include:

  • Increased urban conservation. Californians cut their per capita water use last year, but they can do more. In particular, there is ample room to reduce outdoor watering, which makes up roughly half of urban water use. The State Water Resources Control Board has tightened restrictions on outdoor water use, and many municipalities will increase their conservation efforts.

  • Increased water trading. Robust water markets, involving willing sellers and buyers, are an effective way to manage scarcity. The Australians found this to be helpful during their crippling Millennium Drought. California’s water market helped many farmers keep their orchards alive in 2014. This year, cities with dwindling drought reserves are also looking to buy water – as illustrated by the recent deal between Sacramento Valley rice farmers and Metropolitan Water District, Southern California’s large water wholesaler. As demand for trading increases, so will water prices.

  • Increased use of groundwater. Groundwater pumping has grown since the drought’s onset, but California’s reserves of groundwater remain large—particularly compared to surface storage. Groundwater will continue to make up shortfalls in surface water this year. Unfortunately, past failures to manage groundwater have lowered the water tables in many basins, making water more expensive to extract and often requiring drilling new, deeper wells. The new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act will eventually address this problem, but not soon enough for this drought.

In short, California is not running out of water, just cheap water. A fourth consecutive year of drought will make both water scarcity and management possibilities increasingly apparent.

Drought Watch: Priorities for Cities and Farms

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

A spate of recent news articles have reinforced what most Californians already know: the state is locked in a grim drought, with unusually warm temperatures and near-record low snowpack. Since this is the fourth consecutive dry year, reserves are low and water scarcity will be acute in some farming regions and watersheds.

In our new report, Policy Priorities for Managing Drought, we highlight four areas that need reform to reduce the economic, social, and environmental harm from drought in California: 1) improving water use information; 2) setting clear goals and priorities for public health and the environment; 3) promoting water conservation and more resilient water supplies; and 4) strengthening environmental management.

The third item on this list – promoting conservation and more resilient supplies – refers to steps needed to improve the ability of both urban and agricultural areas to weather droughts. California’s urban water agencies are already in much better shape than they would have been, thanks to significant investments since the early 1990s in conservation, local storage, alternative supplies like highly treated wastewater, and new connections between neighboring water systems. But cities need to redouble their efforts. In particular, they can do much more to reduce landscape irrigation, which still accounts for half of urban use. Financial incentives like rebates for replacing turf with more drought-tolerant plants can help. Yet to encourage widespread change in habits, cities also need to adopt water rates that send a strong signal to customers who are using too much water outdoors.

For California’s farmers—who require large volumes of water for irrigation during the dry growing season—the options are somewhat different. Investments in more efficient irrigation technology provide numerous benefits: higher quality produce, lower use of pesticides and chemicals, and higher yields. But in most places this technology doesn’t free up new water. That’s because the water not consumed by crops in less efficient irrigation systems either returns to rivers or recharges groundwater basins, where it gets reused. For farmers, one of the best drought adaptation tools is a well-functioning water market, which can help get water from willing sellers to willing buyers.

The market helped many farmers keep their orchards and vineyards alive last year, and it will help this year too. (And as the recent purchase of some water by Southern California’s large urban water wholesaler demonstrates, the market can also help cities bolster critical drought reserves.)

Yesterday the State Water Resources Control Board reauthorized—and amped up—some urban outdoor water use restrictions as a way to push the conservation efforts of local water agencies. In our report, we suggest the board could also take steps to promote the water market. In particular, some local irrigation districts that have abundant supplies still restrict sales outside of their districts, even when farmers in these districts would be willing to sell. Just as excess landscape watering in cities can be considered unreasonable during droughts, prohibiting water trades could also be considered unreasonable. Allowing scarce water to move to where it’s most needed would help all of California get through this drought.

Drought Watch: Treating Stormwater as a Resource

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

This weekend, the Southland got some much needed rain. This storm helped fill local reservoirs and moisten parched soils—bolstering the region for a fourth year of drought. Unfortunately, too much of this stormwater simply ran straight into local rivers and the ocean, picking up numerous pollutants along the way. Local and state officials want to change this by developing programs that capture and store more stormwater—simultaneously reducing pollution and improving water supplies.

In California, it’s hard to pay for such programs, given our complicated laws on local water finance. To gather ideas about how the state might help, two Senate committees held a joint informational hearing last week. I provided some context on funding issues and opportunities, drawing on PPIC’s recent work on water system finance.

Stormwater is one of California water’s “fiscal orphans.” It faces a critical funding gap—on the order of $500 to $800 million annually—in large part because of constraints introduced by Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1996. Around this time, stormwater management changed. What was once the routine job of getting storm drainage out of streets as fast as possible became the much more difficult job of preventing the contents of this drainage—an often toxic mix of fuels, fertilizers, pesticides, animal waste, and trash—from harming our waterways and beaches. Proposition 218 introduced strict requirements on how to calculate the costs of these programs, and it also required that local voters—rather than their elected representatives—approve any fee increases. Local governments have been in a bind ever since. They are required by law to manage this pollution, but they face voter resistance to paying for cleanups that mainly affect people living in communities downstream.

The new interest in treating stormwater as a resource—not just a nuisance—is part of a welcome shift toward thinking about California’s water in a more holistic way. For too long, we have been managing different aspects of our water in isolation—with separate programs for water delivery, wastewater treatment, and management of floods and stormwater. If it is done right, capturing stormwater in rain gardens and wetlands can filter out the pollution while storing the water for later use. Recent court rulings and Assembly Bill 2403 (enacted in 2014) helped clarify that the costs of capturing stormwater for water supply can be included in the bills for water delivery. This makes better management easier: increases in water rates require customer oversight but not direct voter approval.

However, more action is needed because some of the costs of stormwater programs relate strictly to managing pollution. The legislature should consider other ways to help local agencies raise the needed funds. One promising direction involves expanding the scope of a 2001 law. This law (AB 810) authorized two Southern California water agencies to apply revenues from the extra charges on water bills for overwatering landscapes—a source of polluted runoff during the dry summer months—to stormwater programs. It’s worked well, and it would be easy to extend this authority to agencies around the state.

Another simple fix would be to let local agencies use their state transportation dollars—funded mainly by the tax on fuels—as matching funds for state grants that support stormwater projects. Under current rules, the state considers these transportation funds to be “state” monies, even though they are generated by local drivers and earmarked for local use. If those rules were changed, local governments that are revamping their streets to make them more bike- and pedestrian-friendly could also create rain gardens that capture, treat, and store stormwater—for a small added cost.

Steps like these are examples of low-hanging fruit that can help California get on a more sustainable path of managing its scarce water resources.

Drought Watch: Getting More Pop per Drop

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

With the state still facing drought conditions, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held a hearing yesterday titled “Water: State and Local Funding Relationships and the 2015-16 Governor’s Budget.”

PPIC senior fellow Ellen Hanak testified to the panel about the recent history of the state’s water finance. (Here is her slide presentation.) She noted that California has been relying increasingly on state bonds to finance water projects, using six bonds to raise almost $20 billion between 2000 and 2006, in addition to the $7.5 billion bond that voters passed last November.

She recommended that the state gather more information on water use so that water can be fairly allocated when supplies are low. She also said the state Fish and Wildlife Department is doing a good job managing ecosystems during the drought but that California could benefit from a more strategic plan to do so, as Australia adopted during its recent drought.

Noting that the state needs to find ways to stretch scarce water supplies, Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he was going to adopt a line from Ellen’s testimony as the “mantra” for the committee: “greatest pop per drop.”

Drought Watch: Water Not Wasted to the Sea

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

Northern California got a good soaking last weekend, with more than 10 inches of precipitation in many parts. This translated to healthy amounts of water flowing off the hillsides. Much of it is headed into our large reservoirs where—after three years of drought—there will be plenty of capacity to store it for later use for cities, farms, and the environment. But a significant amount made it into rivers in the Sacramento Valley. From there, that water is on its way to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, and ultimately the ocean.

To many, the notion of water to the ocean is akin to water wasted. It is perceived as serving no valuable purpose before mixing with salt water and being rendered useless.

This perception is understandable if we limit our thinking to benefits from direct use of water: manufacturing, industry, drinking, sanitation, or growing gardens and crops. But outside of improving habitat for native species, there are multiple indirect benefits derived from water currently running into the Delta.

The most conspicuous is improved water quality. January’s record low precipitation left the Delta unusually salty. A salty Delta poses problems for the more than 25 million people and more than three million acres of irrigated agriculture that make use of it. Salt is also a problem for farmers in the Delta who rely on local water for irrigation.

To keep the Delta fresh enough for exports and uses in the Delta during dry periods, water has to be released from upstream reservoirs. And a great deal of that released water has to pass through the Delta and into the Bay to keep salt water from encroaching on the Delta. The water used to create this hydraulic barrier cannot be recovered.

A wave of water coming down the Sacramento River freshens the Delta, naturally pushing the salty water out. Depending upon how we operate the export pumps, the effect of this flush can last a long time and allows dam operators to husband their stored water for use later in the year.

Last year, we had three of these flushing events in the late winter and early spring that cleaned up a very salty Delta. These events created benefits—by reducing dam releases necessary to keep things fresh—that lasted into the summer.

Indirect benefits of this water do not end at the Delta. Shorelines and marshes throughout the San Francisco Bay are eroding due to a lack of sediment. This is part of a long-term trend with many causes, but is largely due to the trapping of sediment upstream by dams and levees and a lack of sufficient river flows to move it out of the Delta and into the Bay.

Additionally, as the more than 20 operators of wastewater treatment plants in the Bay Area know, water quality is a major—and potentially very costly—issue of concern, particularly in the South Bay. Freshwater inflows to the Bay help improve water quality and help the Bay meet state and federal standards.

So when you see the brown water from this latest storm moving down the Sacramento River, out through the Delta into the Bay, keep in mind that it is hardly wasted, but rather is creating indirect but vital benefit for a broad range of users.

Drought Watch: Managing—and Learning from—Scarcity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drought Watch: It’s the Heat and the Humidity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure source: National Climatic Data Center

Drought Watch: What If 2015 Is Dry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drought Watch: What’s in Proposition 1?

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

California voters are deciding the fate of Proposition 1—a $7.5 billion water bond. If Prop 1 passes, the water sector will get a big boost in funding. Prop 1 contains $7.12 billion in new debt (the remaining $400 million dollars is money that would be re-authorized from previously passed bonds).

So what kind of water projects will be funded if Prop. 1 passes? The bond focuses mainly on water supply ($3.6 billion) with the majority ($2.7 billion) designated as matching funds for storage projects. These matching funds are intended to support up to half the costs of projects that store water either in surface reservoirs or underground aquifers, and they can only be used to fund “public benefits.” Public benefits include, among other things, better flood protection and recreation opportunities, as well as improved environmental conditions. For instance, expanding surface reservoirs makes it possible to store more cold water, which can be released during warm months to support salmon habitat. Likewise, expanding ponds to recharge groundwater basins can create bird habitat.

The California Water Commission will determine which storage projects receive these funds through a competitive process. The rest of the water supply dollars are mainly for matching funds for water recycling and desalination projects ($725 million), with $100 million each for water conservation and groundwater sustainability planning.

Proposition 1 also has funds for the five areas PPIC has identified as critically underfunded “fiscal orphans” in our recent study of water system finance: ecosystems, drinking water quality, flood protection, stormwater pollution management, and integrated water resources management. Of the funds designated for water quality improvements, $520 million is intended for disadvantaged communities and $800 million is for cleaning up groundwater basins that have been contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals. Just over half a billion dollars is designed to encourage agencies to collaborate on water management priorities, with funds going to different regions for priority projects in Integrated Regional Water Management plans. These projects would overlap with the previously mentioned categories, and they would need to improve regional self-reliance and help adapt to the effects of climate change.

Since 2000, California voters have approved six water bonds, totaling nearly $20 billion dollars. These bonds looked a little different than Prop 1. Ecosystem improvement and flood protection were the main priorities, with smaller amounts for drinking water quality, integrated management, stormwater, and water supply projects (these bonds also had large amounts for parks and public access). While these bonds provided welcome support to these areas, they also came with fiscal tradeoffs: bonds are repaid with general fund tax dollars that also support other state programs.

The current drought is likely helping the bond’s chances of passage: according to the most recent PPIC Statewide Survey a record-high 68% of all adults say that the supply of water is a big problem in their part of the state. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that while continued investments in our water system will help us be better prepared for future droughts, this bond is not designed to provide immediate relief from the current one. Most water projects take time to design and build. And, whether or not Proposition 1 passes, the state’s water system will face significant challenges that require funding sources more reliable than a bond can provide.