Tag: Drought Watch

Drought Watch: California as a Testing Ground

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

An international consortium of water economists gathered at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C. earlier this fall for two days of meetings on water policy research. The timing was opportune, as the World Bank – which provides financial and technical assistance to developing economies around the globe – recently reorganized to provide a new emphasis on water resources. The conference theme was the economics of water conservation and efficiency, with researchers looking at the role of technology, pricing, and institutions to effectively and efficiently manage water resources under conditions of increasing scarcity. In light of the national and international attention to California’s ongoing drought, I was asked to give keynote remarks about lessons from California for other regions of the world.

I highlighted four central ideas. (My presentation is 22 minutes into this video.) First, urban areas the world over can improve drought resilience by diversifying their water portfolios, rather than relying on a single source of water. Second, although conservation is important, policymakers should be mindful that improved irrigation efficiency is not a panacea to cope with drought, because much of the water “saved” is already being reused by others downstream.

Third, sustainable groundwater basin management—the approach now called for under California’s historic groundwater legislation—is an invaluable drought management tool because it means more groundwater will be available to help get through dry times. But getting there can imply costly trade-offs in basins that rely heavily on groundwater, requiring institutional and financial support to help water users make the transition.

And fourth, like California, many regions can benefit from repurposing their storage and conveyance infrastructure to better cope with droughts and the growing water scarcity expected with climate change. In particular, storing more water for dry years in groundwater basins, and using surface reservoirs for seasonal storage and flood protection, can be cost-effective ways to adapt to an increasingly variable climate.

Drought Watch: Video Seminars

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

A series of videos available online is a great resource for water wonks and newcomers alike. Researchers and cooperative extension specialists from the University of California’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, with support from the California Department of Water Resources, have put together these video seminars on drought-related water management issues. You can bone up on topics ranging from drought impacts on wildlife and groundwater basins, to the latest research on California’s climate in centuries past (and the mega-drought we experienced in medieval times), to tips for managing crops and rangeland when water is in short supply.

I contributed to the series with an overview of how water marketing and groundwater banking can help mitigate the worst economic impacts of droughts, drawing on PPIC’s ongoing research on this issue. The series is being updated regularly with new videos.

Drought Watch: Crises as Catalyst for Policy Change

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

Today Governor Brown signed three bills that require portions of the state to start managing groundwater sustainably. These bills are historic. Until today, California was the only western state that did not regulate groundwater, typically the source of more than one-third of the state’s supply, and much more during dry years.

Why, after a century of failing to address much-needed reform, has the state finally acted on this problem? It’s the drought.

The problem of groundwater overuse is nothing new in California. Calls for reform began as far back as the early 1900s, when severe excess pumping in many groundwater basins began to cause problems. Chronic overdraft—taking more out of the ground than nature puts back in—has left many basins severely depleted.

When the current drought arrived and communities and farms turned to groundwater to make up for shortages in surface water supply, a century of neglect—the hydrologic equivalent of deficit spending—caught up with California. The groundwater that, managed well, should have been cheap and plentiful, became expensive and scarce, leading to an economic and social crisis. The well-publicized effects of unsustainable pumping include sinking ground, dry wells, crumbling canals and roads, intense competition to drill deeper (and more costly) wells, the fallowing of more than 410,000 acres of farmland, and losses of more than $2 billion in farm revenues and more than 17,000 farm-related jobs. These factors combined to create pressure to tackle what had been, up to now, off limits to reform.

In our 2011 book, Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation, we note that significant advances in state water policy are often tied to droughts and floods, along with the inevitable lawsuits that follow. Extreme events like the current drought reveal fundamental weaknesses in California’s water management policies and practices. Perhaps more importantly, they create pressure on government to respond.

This is the silver lining of water crises in California: they are often the way we get things done. (The comprehensive reform of flood management enacted in 2007 was spurred on by the graphic images of Hurricane Katrina two years earlier, for example.) Indeed, one strategy for advancing water management reform is to plan and prepare for the inevitable, and then take advantage of a crisis to push ahead on needed reforms.

This year’s groundwater package is indeed historic, but California still has a long way to go in improving the way it manages water. With our changing climate, we should expect more frequent droughts and floods (and lawsuits)—so there will be no shortage of opportunities to tackle other problems in the future.

Drought Watch: Rethinking Urban Water Pricing

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

The California Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide policy last month requiring local agencies to implement drought plans, including restrictions on outdoor water use. Local agencies have responded in a variety of ways. Some have imposed mandatory cutbacks while others are still only asking their customers to make voluntary cutbacks. Mandatory water use restrictions can be more effective and, according to the July PPIC Statewide Survey, 75 percent of Californians say they strongly favor them. So why aren’t more water agencies enacting mandatory cutbacks during this crisis?

Last month, Jay Lund—a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis and an adjunct research fellow at PPIC— outlined some of the factors that might cause local agencies to shy away from mandatory restrictions. One important factor is that when conservation measures work, agencies sell less water and their revenues fall. But the costs of providing water services do not decrease as much, so agency balance sheets can end up in the red. As a result, investments in system maintenance and upgrade generally take a hit, and agencies often have to increase rates. This sends a confusing signal to customers, who just did what was asked of them.

There is an alternative: drought pricing. Charging more per gallon during drought years provides an additional conservation incentive and ensures that agencies can cover costs while they are selling less water. According to a June survey by the State Water Resources Control Board, only 4 percent of urban agencies have enacted drought pricing strategies. The city of Roseville is one community using the drought pricing tool, which was adopted—and vetted with customers—before the drought hit. In June, Roseville implemented a temporary 15 percent drought surcharge while also mandating a 20 percent reduction in water use.

Like most things that alter the status quo, drought pricing policies require effective communication with ratepayers. Agencies need to emphasize the need for higher prices alongside increased conservation during droughts to ensure customer buy-in. But a big advantage of a drought pricing policy is that customers understand in advance that prices need to go up to keep their water system solvent, rather than feeling blindsided by a rate increase after the fact. While they require additional effort—and advance planning—by local agencies, drought pricing policies result in better financials and customer relations while contributing to the primary goal of reducing water use during times of scarcity.

Drought Watch: Trends in Urban Water Use

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

Most of California is now in an exceptional drought, but water use statewide has actually increased over the last year. In response, the state has imposed short-term restrictions intended to help us get through the current drought. As state and local water agencies look beyond the current emergency for ways to adapt to a future in which droughts are likely to be more frequent and more severe, it is instructive to examine and compare urban use in two relatively normal water years, 2000 and 2010.

First, the good news: Total statewide urban water use (for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes) decreased by 12 percent from 2000 to 2010, even as California’s population increased by more than three million. Reductions have been especially significant in central and southern California, where investments in conservation programs and new technologies seem to be paying off. In the commercial and industrial sectors, water use fell 36 percent and 18 percent, respectively, while residential interior water use declined by 20 percent overall and 27 percent per capita. The Great Recession probably played a role in these reductions, so it will be interesting to see if this trend holds as the economy continues its recovery.

Now for the bad news: Outdoor water use for both residential exteriors and large (commercial or public) landscapes rose 12 percent across the state between 2000 and 2010. This trend was largely driven by increases in southern California—in marked contrast to the region’s reductions in indoor water use. And it is likely to persist as California’s population continues to grow, especially in hot and arid inland areas with a higher proportion of single-family homes (which use twice as much water outdoors per household as multi-family buildings) and large lots.

One important takeaway is that more stringent building codes, increasing efficiency requirements, and new technologies seem to have resulted in more efficient indoor water use. But when it comes to landscaping, any improvements in irrigation technology seem to have been offset by our taste for large lawns and plants that need a lot of water (and our habit of overwatering them). To encourage long-term reductions in outdoor water use, agencies can implement new pricing structures, turf buy-back programs, and public education programs emphasizing drought-friendly landscaping. After our current water emergency ends, these long-term incentives and outreach efforts can help us be better prepared for future droughts.

(The map below shows the change in per capita outdoor urban water use between 2000 and 2010 in each hydrologic region. To see details of the state’s hydrologic regions, including county boundaries, visit our Map Room.)

Chart source: California Department of Water Resources.

Drought Watch: Support for the Water Bond

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

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

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

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

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

Drought Watch: Water for the Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drought Watch: Our Thirsty Lawns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drought Watch: Putting Some Myths to Rest

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

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

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

Continue reading on Sacbee.com.

Drought Watch: Lessons from Kansas

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

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

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

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

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

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