Tag: Drought Watch

Drought Watch: Size Matters…in a Drought

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

The California Department of Public Health has identified 17 community water districts at risk of running out of drinking water this spring. This affects more than 40,000 people, most of them in normally water-rich Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. Although our early February rains have helped, they haven’t significantly changed the outlook for this year. If the drought continues into next year, many more communities will be in trouble.

State and local officials are appropriately focused on providing emergency supplies to meet health and sanitation needs, but it is instructive to examine how these communities ended up in this predicament and how they might avoid it in the next drought.

The 17 at-risk districts have three things in common:

  • They are small (with populations below 11,000—and as low as 39). The limited number of ratepayers makes it difficult to raise the capital necessary to build drought-resilient systems or take advantage of the economies of scale that come with larger water systems.
  • They have just one, or at most two sources of water, which increases their drought vulnerability.
  • They lack physical connections to other water districts. When hard times come they cannot purchase water from urban or agricultural neighbors (a good case study is the town of Lompico, near Santa Cruz).

Compare these small water districts to larger urban counterparts such as the East Bay Metropolitan Utility District, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and the granddaddy of them all, the Metropolitan Water District, which provides water to more than 14 million people in southern California. These large districts have broad-based funding, mixed surface storage and groundwater sources, and connections to multiple water networks. As a result, they are in fairly good shape in this third year of a record-setting drought. (The Metropolitan Water District may be in the best position of all: having learned hard lessons during the 1987–92 drought, ratepayers in this dry region have invested more than $3 billion to improve all facets of water management.)

Many of the more than 2,500 agencies that supply water to California’s cities and towns are at risk of severe drinking water shortages in a prolonged drought. Others could be forced to dramatically curtail water for other domestic uses, such as landscaping. When the drought emergency ends—and it will end, eventually—California policymakers may need to help many small water districts reassess funding strategies. Many districts will need to diversify their supply portfolios, and it should be possible for all but the most remote rural districts to set up water sharing with neighbors in times of scarcity and abundance.

Drought Watch: A Better Way to Manage Water for Fish

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

As California’s drought wears on, state and federal regulators will be under increasing pressure to loosen environmental standards that protect native fish and other wildlife. Relaxing flow standards in rivers and streams is always problematic; the standards exist because many native species are already in a precarious condition. But during droughts, regulators often make this decision as part of a balancing act, in order to make additional water available to cities and farms. Usually, the standards are relaxed without requiring any payment from cities or growers for the added water they receive. Yet the environmental consequences of relaxing standards can be costly, requiring special efforts to protect and recover species in other ways—such as with conservation hatcheries that help maintain populations of endangered species outside of their natural environment.

In a recent op ed in the Sacramento Bee, we joined a group of researchers from UC Davis, UC Hastings, and Stanford University to propose a new way for California to approach this challenge. The basic idea: instead of giving the water away, California should create a special environmental water market to sell to growers and cities the water made available by relaxing environmental standards. The revenues would be used to support fish and wildlife recovery. This special environmental market would be an extension of the water trading that already happens during droughts. It would help meet California’s goals of both ensuring reliable water supplies and protecting the environment, even during the dry times.

Drought Watch: Lessons from the Past

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

As California’s drought crisis unfolds, there will be calls from many quarters for extraordinary actions to help reduce the economic and social costs to communities and sectors at risk. California’s leaders in Sacramento, Washington, D.C., and around the state will need to weigh the pressure to act against the risk of making snap decisions that provide short-term relief yet have much higher long-term costs. As I describe in a commentary for the San Francisco Chronicle – written with PPIC adjunct fellow and UC Davis Professor Jay Lund – water agencies have fallen into this trap when responding to some past droughts. For instance, excessive pumping from the Delta during the 1987–92 drought contributed to the establishment of some invasive species that have plagued management of this system ever since.

Fortunately, there are also positive lessons from past droughts that can help guide today’s actions. One is that a water market – which allows those with relatively ample supplies to lease water to those who don’t – can significantly reduce costs to cities, farms, and the environment. The governor has called for steps to make this kind of trading easier. Another lesson is that communities that diversify their supply sources and establish stronger linkages with neighboring water systems are better able to weather droughts. Parts of the state that are out ahead on this – including Southern California and much of the Bay Area – are in better shape today thanks to these investment.

Drought Watch: Drought Declarations and Water Policy

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

As this year unfolds, California will have to come to grips with the significant consequences of the drought emergency declared by Governor Brown. Drought Watch will be a regular feature on this blog, tracking the drought and its policy consequences.

As droughts go, this one is both brutal and unprecedented. We are in the grips of a “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge,” a term coined by Daniel Swain of Stanford University for the high-pressure area that has been pushing storms to the north of us for over a year now. Coupled with the low rainfall and warm temperatures over the previous two years, this dry period is impressive.

Rain and snow in the Sierra Nevada—the state’s most important source of water— are at historic lows, passing our benchmark dry years of 1976–77. Statewide, reservoirs are at near-record lows. In many areas, soil moisture—a critical indicator of the health of our forest and agricultural soils—is as low as it’s ever been for this time of year. Perhaps the most significant indicator, flow in rivers, is grim, setting unprecedented records for low flows during January. Both low soil moisture and record low river flows tell us that we may be witnessing a slowly unfolding ecological train wreck from which it will take many years to recover.

Already we are seeing dramatic proposals for water rationing in communities that failed to diversify their sources of drinking water. California’s recession-proof farm community is unlikely to be drought-proof. Orchard crops—California’s famous fruits and nuts—will be especially vulnerable. The drought will also increase pressure on already over-tapped groundwater basins in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast.

History teaches us a few key lessons about drought. First, as the governor says, he can’t make it rain. He also cannot produce water where it isn’t, though he can make it easier to move water from one place to another. The declaration of an emergency gives the administration and the State Water Resources Control Board, the body that regulates water rights and sets flow and water quality standards, some additional flexibility to facilitate voluntary water transfers and—if things get dire enough—to decide who gets water in an emergency.

The second lesson is that natural disasters often spur longer-term policy changes. That will undoubtedly be the case this year, since major water policy issues are teed up for debate and decisions. The drought will influence our thinking about solutions to the Delta, our chronic overdraft of groundwater, and our struggle to balance water supply reliability and ecosystem health throughout the state.

A crisis can be useful in stimulating action. The challenge for the governor is to ensure that it leads to good policy that paves the way for a better water future—and stays away from short-term, expedient fixes. While popular in a crisis, these can make it harder to manage water when the rains return . . . and they will return, eventually.