wildfires – Public Policy Institute of California

Video: The Benefits of Headwater Forest Management

The health of California’s headwater forests is in decline, leaving them increasingly vulnerable to major wildfires and droughts that threaten the many benefits they provide. Even in the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic, California must plan for the upcoming fire season, and continue work to reduce its risks. At a virtual event last week, PPIC researcher Henry McCann described how improved management can make Sierra forests more resilient and avoid major wildfire-related disasters, and summarized the findings of a new report that identifies the benefits and beneficiaries of such management practices.

“Expanding on the pace and scale of long-term forest stewardship is going to be a heavy lift for private and public entities,” said McCann. “Developing a clear sense of the benefits and beneficiaries of improving forest health is key to motivating long-term stewardship and identifying the partners to support it.”

An expert panel moderated by study coauthor and UC cooperative extension specialist Van Butsic discussed how this translates into practice.

What does the science tell us about managing California’s wildfire- and drought-prone forests? “It tells us there are opportunities for win-win scenarios, where a forest treatment designed to reduce fire risk will likely also have other benefits—for carbon storage, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, water output,” said panelist Carmen Tubbesing, a PhD candidate in forest ecosystems and fire sciences at UC Berkeley.

Tubbesing said that we can’t implement treatments “on every inch of forest in California,” but “research has shown that even treating a fraction of a landscape can have landscape-wide benefits on a forest” and reduce wildfire risk.

Angela Avery, executive officer of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, talked about programs her agency is involved in that “combine the social with the ecological” to build more resilient forests. California needs to build a workforce that can do this work, she said, noting that community colleges might be a venue for expanding forest workforce training. Highlighting another important gap, she pointed out that “we really need additional wood processing infrastructure across the Sierra Nevada if we’re truly going to manage our forests to resilience.”

Willie Whittlesey, general manager of the Yuba Water Agency, talked about collaborative work between his agency and a forest management project to protect the watershed by restoring local forests to a resilient condition. “We didn’t know what the direct benefits would be but we knew that we wanted to prevent our watershed from undergoing a catastrophic wildfire,” he said. “We have to look long term and we have to look forest-wide. Our forests aren’t sustainable in the condition they’re in,” he added.

Panelists also explored ways to expand forest management—and to build understanding of and support for such work. Tubbesing noted that “better investment in community outreach, and putting more people with scientific backgrounds as liaisons in the communities influenced by these decisions” would be a good first step.

We invite you to watch the event video.

How Is the Pandemic Affecting Wildfire Preparedness?

A new report on the benefits of managing headwater forests to reduce wildfire risks is available here. Join us on April 30 for an online event featuring a panel of experts discussing this topic.

California has experienced catastrophic wildfires and widespread tree death in recent years that have accelerated its efforts to reduce wildfire threats to communities and improve forest health. Fortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is not deterring these efforts—though it could complicate the work. Activities must be carried out in ways that limit the risk of infection to workers, which can be difficult when managing fire and working with ground crews over days or weeks. Here we explore the impact of the pandemic on wildfire risk reduction.

Could COVID-19 affect the state’s ability to respond to wildfires this year?

Fighting wildfires is an essential service and the state’s ability to respond to wildfires this year will not be compromised by the pandemic. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the agency responsible for the bulk of the state’s wildfire response, is gearing up for the season by hiring seasonal staff and training crews for the fire line.

“Our staffing levels will be the same as last year to meet the demands of the upcoming wildfire season,” said CAL FIRE communication officer Christine McMorrow. To prevent firefighters from contracting and spreading the virus, CAL FIRE is integrating social distancing guidelines into training exercises. The agency is also considering options for making fire camps—where firefighters eat and sleep while battling blazes—less conducive to virus spread.

Could it affect vegetation management efforts?

Most vegetation management efforts have been designated as essential services and are expected to continue throughout the pandemic. Over the past year, private landowners, nonprofit organizations, local governments, water and electric utilities, CAL FIRE, and federal agencies did significant vegetation management in preparation for the upcoming wildfire season. Work on private, local government, and state lands is largely continuing as planned. Implementing entities are encouraging social distancing measures to protect crews from infection.

“We haven’t heard of major setbacks to forest health projects yet, but it is still early,” said Brittany Covich, policy and outreach manager for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state partner on many forest health projects in the region.

One major exception is national forests, which account for more than half of Sierra Nevada forestlands. On March 20, burns were suspended by the US Forest Service to avoid the spread of smoke (which can increase virus risk in nearby communities) and prevent crews from contracting and spreading the virus.

What are the potential long-term implications of the pandemic for forest management?

The economic fallout from the pandemic is forcing the state to reassess its spending priorities. This is generating uncertainty for many programs, including wildfire risk reduction. Spending in this area is one of three priorities for this year. However, it is not clear how much funding will be available for specific programs. In January, the Governor’s proposed budget included $165 million in state Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) money and an additional $250 million in funding for forest health projects from a Climate Resilience Bond intended for the November 2020 ballot.

Potential recipients of forest health funds are cautiously optimistic that some GGRF funds will remain on the table, but it remains to be seen whether the legislature and voters will be willing approve new bonds in the future.

The financial condition of state partners in fire prevention and forest health—including nonprofit organizations, local governments, and the US Forest Service—is also uncertain. “Frankly, we’re all in a wait-and-see mode, but we’re hopeful that forest management will remain a high priority,” said Covich.

Video: A Conversation with Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor Gavin Newsom’s conversation with PPIC president Mark Baldassare last week focused on energy policy and climate change. After noting that it had been one year since PG&E declared bankruptcy, Baldassare asked the governor about his vision for the future of California utilities. Newsom responded by broadening the question. “We have to start thinking about our energy future and our transportation future and our low-carbon, green growth future in a collaborative mindset.”

In this context, he continued, “PG&E’s bankruptcy has turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity for this state. . . . It’s allowed us to ask questions . . . that otherwise weren’t front and center.” PG&E, he said, has to come out of bankruptcy with a vision for the future that prioritizes long-term thinking and public safety rather than shareholder return. The bottom line? California needs a “transformatively different” utility. And, he added, “if PG&E can’t do it, we’ll do it for them.”

Key to planning for the state’s energy future is making sure it works for all Californians. Going green, Newsom said, “can’t mean more income inequality.” It has to benefit both the “haves” and the “have nots”—creating jobs and ensuring affordable energy, and mitigating the dislocation that comes with change.

Another key area is wildfire mitigation and prevention. Newsom noted that the 2019 fire season was less damaging than other recent seasons, in part because “we’ve never been more prepared.” The state has been investing in new technology that monitors and predicts wildfires, as well as equipment for suppressing fires and responding to crises.

Wildfire prevention is complex, in part because, as Newsom pointed out, the federal government owns the majority of forest land in California. “We are doing the job the federal government is no longer doing,” Newsom said, adding that “the Trump administration’s budgets have been proposing cuts to forest management.” Land-use patterns are another complicating factor. New building codes have helped recently built housing survive fires, but there are a large number of older buildings in fire-prone areas.

As Newsom sees it, the challenge of implementing the state’s ambitious climate mandates is to bring politics and policy into alignment. “Politically, I recognize that what’s necessary may be impossible. But also I recognize from a policy perspective that what is impossible has to become necessary.” The ultimate goal, of course, is to move California forward: “The world is changing. We have to change with it.”

Governor’s Budget Addresses Growing Wildfire Risks

This is the final post in a two-part series on how the governor’s budget proposal addresses natural resources. The first post looked at water and climate issues.

In recent years, California has experienced some of the worst wildfires on record, and the risk is increasing as the climate warms and precipitation becomes more variable. Governor Newsom’s proposed budget supports an array of tools for reducing the threat of wildfire. Funding for these investments would come from the state General Fund, a proposed climate resilience bond, and the greenhouse gas reduction fund (GGRF). The budget prioritizes three wildfire-related areas:

Boosting fire suppression resources: The budget would increase the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (Cal Fire), annual budget by $120 million. It would also add 677 staff positions over five years—an 11% increase in the state’s permanent firefighting force. These investments would improve Cal Fire’s ability to ramp up fire suppression efforts through a longer fire The budget also provides $9 million for the development of an interagency center to improve wildfire detection and responsiveness, as required by SB 209 (2019).
Bolstering community resilience: The budget proposes significant funding increases to make homes and community infrastructure less vulnerable to wildfire damage. It earmarks $500 million to reduce fire risks to community infrastructure, including drinking water systems, emergency shelters, and public medical facilities. It also includes $25 million for a pilot program that would provide financial assistance for home hardening (for example, switching to fire-resistant roofing) in low-income communities, as required by AB 38 (2019). Another $25 million is proposed for community resilience planning, including the development of local wildfire emergency plans. And the California Office of Emergency Services would get $50 million to help local governments prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the impact of wildfire-related power outages.
Improving forest health: Actions that help the state’s forests withstand high-severity wildfire, drought, and pests are essential to reduce wildfire threats. The budget builds on past efforts by allocating $165 million to Cal Fire’s forest health grant program. It also includes $250 million to supplement existing forest health programs funded by the GGRF. Finally, the $80 million allocation for the development of statewide LiDAR maps can help the state target its investments in forest management.

Managing the state’s climate-fueled wildfire threat requires both emergency fire suppression and risk reduction actions. Governor Newsom’s budget continues to move the state toward a useful balance of these efforts.

Governor’s Budget Seeks to Build Water Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPIC: Describe Lake County’s recent water challenges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video: Californians and Their Government

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders continue to lead the field in California’s primary race. Most Californians say President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, though views are mixed on how Democrats in Congress are handling the impeachment inquiry. In Sacramento last Wednesday, PPIC researcher Alyssa Dykman outlined these are other key findings from PPIC’s latest statewide survey, which was conducted before the November 20 debate.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning likely voters, support for Joe Biden (24%), Elizabeth Warren (23%), and Bernie Sanders (17%) is much higher than for Kamala Harris (8%), Pete Buttigieg (7%), and Andrew Yang (5%). No other candidate is preferred by more than 1%, while 9% say they don’t know which candidate they would choose.

Views on impeachment are divided along party lines: 83% of Democrats, 51% of independents, and 11% of Republicans think the president should be impeached and removed from office. Democrats are also much more likely than independents or Republicans to approve of the way the inquiry is being handled in Congress.

In other news, most Californians are concerned about wildfires (34% very, 29% somewhat) and power shutoffs (32% very, 27% somewhat). Governor Newsom gets mixed reviews for his handling of these issues: 46% of adults and 42% of likely voters approve, while 39% of adults and 46% of likely voters disapprove. Only about a third of Californians have either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in their utility providers.

Other survey highlights:

Six in ten Californians (61% adults, 63% likely voters) say things in the US are generally going in the wrong direction, but about half think the nation will have good times financially over the next 12 months.
Nearly two-thirds of adults (63%) say California is divided into the “haves” and the “have nots”; 41 percent say they are haves, while 44 percent see themselves as have nots.
Most Californians are very concerned about homelessness in their communities; majorities across regions say the number of homeless people in their local community has increased over the past 12 months.
A potential citizens’ initiative that would raise state income taxes on the wealthiest Californians to fund K–12 public schools has majority support. Fewer than half of likely voters favor two other measures—a school construction bond and a “split roll” property tax—that would benefit the K–12 system.

Video: Preparing California’s Water System for Climate Extremes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We invite you to watch the videos from this event:

Are Californians Prepared for the Next Natural Disaster?

Today marks the 30th anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake that shook Northern California. There’s a high probability that California will experience another major earthquake in the next 30 years. Given this threat—not to mention wildfires and floods—how worried are Californians about future disasters?

When asked about the potential impact of a disaster, six in ten adults are either very (28%) or somewhat (32%) worried that a household member will experience injury or property damage, or that a disaster will result in a major disruption of their household routine, according to PPIC’s latest statewide survey

Residents in Los Angeles (33%) and the Inland Empire (32%) are the most likely to be very worried, although majorities across regions are at least somewhat worried. Californians earning under $80,000 a year (35%) are twice as likely as those earning $80,000 or more (13%) to say they are very worried. Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (46%) are much more likely than African Americans (32%), Asian Americans (21%), and whites (16%) to be very worried.

Despite high levels of concern, only three in ten Californians (29%) say they are very knowledgeable about the steps they can take to prepare for a disaster, while slightly more than half (54%) claim to be somewhat knowledgeable. Knowledge of disaster preparedness is similar across regions.

Yet differences emerge across demographic groups, with higher-income Californians (37% $80,000 or more) and homeowners (36%) more likely than lower-earning residents (25% under $80,000) and renters (24%) to say they are very knowledgeable.

How prepared are Californians for a natural disaster? Residents are more likely to have a disaster supplies kit (61%) than a definite disaster plan (50%). The share of Californians who report having a supplies kit or a definite plan is slightly higher than in 2014.

Residents in Los Angeles are the most likely to report having a supplies kit (65%) or a definite plan (53%). Across racial/ethnic groups, Asian Americans are the most likely to report having a supplies kit (65%) and African Americans are the most likely to have a definite plan (64%). Californians age 18 to 34 are less likely than older residents to have a supplies kit or a definite plan.

With the ever-present threat of earthquakes, wildfires, and flooding, Californians have to be prepared for an array of natural disasters. Stay tuned to the PPIC Statewide Survey as we track residents’ perceptions on this issue.

New Laws Help Prepare Communities for Wildfire

California has taken a number of steps over the past two years to reduce the pervasive threat of wildfires to the state’s communities and mountainous forests. Last year, Governor Brown focused on fostering more active management of headwater forests to improve their resilience to fire, drought, and pests. CalFire has begun spending the $1 billion allocated for forest health and fire prevention on projects across the state. These efforts are especially important to improve the health of headwater forests, which have become overly dense as a result of fire suppression.

This year, the legislature and Governor Newsom have shifted the focus to making communities more resilient to wildfire, including efforts to improve prevention, response, and mitigation. For example, the governor’s budget included nearly $1 billion in additional funding to bolster wildfire emergency response and mitigate threats to communities. The governor also signed several new laws to address community wildfire risks. Here are some highlights:

Help homeowners and communities become more fire resistant: New laws will increase the number of homes, businesses, and other properties that are resistant to damage from wildfires. Assembly Bill (AB) 38 creates a new program that will direct state and federal money to modify buildings and manage vegetation around properties. Senate Bill (SB) 190 requires the State Fire Marshal to develop model “defensible space” guidelines that local governments can use to enforce rules on reducing flammable vegetation around at-risk homes.
Improve wildfire emergency preparedness: Several bills will improve communication about impending wildfire threats and help communities prepare, including by setting up clean air centers. SB 209 creates a centralized state office for predicting and communicating wildfire weather threats to electric utilities, firefighters, and communities. SB 670 improves local emergency operations by requiring the Office of Emergency Services to share information about outages with 911 telephone services in threatened areas.
Manage flammable vegetation: Governor Newsom’s state-of-emergency proclamation in advance of this year’s fire season temporarily streamlined environmental review for CalFire fuel reduction projects in fire-prone communities. But CalFire will need to obtain environmental permits to continue that work under non-emergency conditions. SB 632 accelerates the approval of permits for fuel reduction to mitigate wildfire risk.
Increase oversight of electric utilities: A suite of new laws increases oversight of electric utilities. SB 70 requires utilities to justify decisions not to bury power lines, which can reduce wildfire risk. Vegetation management activities required by utilities’ annual wildfire mitigation plans will be subject to increased oversight by the California Public Utilities Commission under SB 247. And SB 167 requires those plans to also evaluate how power system shutdowns can affect vulnerable populations (such as people with medical conditions) and consider ways to mitigate these impacts. SB 560 requires utilities to provide advance warning about power shut-offs to entities that are essential to wildfire response, including public safety offices, health care facilities, and mobile telephone carriers.

Reducing wildfire risk in California’s many wildfire-prone landscapes is a multifaceted issue. Improving community safety and forest health are both key components of living with wildfire. Recent state policies have expanded the tools we can use to build resilience in our communities and forests. Going forward, much more can be done to improve our ability to live with wildfire.