Impacts of the California Drought from 2007 to 2009: Surprising Outcomes for California’s Agriculture, Energy, and Environment

Pacific Institute | June 16th, 2011

California’s three-year drought, which ended with this season’s cool and wet weather, had complicated and serious impacts that have been poorly understood and reporte

California’s three-year drought, which ended with this season’s cool and wet weather, had complicated and serious impacts that have been poorly understood and reported. Some of the impacts were expected; others were surprising. The Pacific Institute has just completed a nine-month assessment of new data from California’s agricultural, energy, and environmental sectors to evaluate actual consequences of the drought for the state. Analysis of state and federal data released over the past year finds that contrary to much of the media reporting, California’s agricultural community proved flexible and resilient, generating agri­cultural revenues in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that were the highest on record. And agriculture-related occupations remained a stable portion of total jobs available in areas directly impacted by water supply restrictions. Less frequently reported were the substantial impacts on energy production and aquatic ecosystems during the drought, which were economically and environmentally significant. “More severe drought is inevitable, and the U.S. – and California in particular – has not reformed drought monitoring, evaluation, planning, and response strategies the way other countries and regions have,” said Juliet Christian-Smith, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute and lead author of the report. “To become more resilient to future droughts, it will be critical to shift from crisis-driven responses to long-term mitigation strategies.” The Pacific Institute analysis, Impacts of the California Drought from 2007-2009, focused on three drought-sensitive sectors: agricultural production, energy production, and ecosystem health.  

Implementation of the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act: A Review of Agricultural Water Management Plans

Pacific Institute | August 29th, 2013

Twenty-four of California’s agricultural water districts have submitted agricultural water management plans, leaving 55 districts out of compliance with the requirement

Twenty-four of California’s agricultural water districts have submitted agricultural water management plans, leaving 55 districts out of compliance with the requirement of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, according to a new joint analysis issued today by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute. This represents a 30% compliance rate, meaning there is much work to be done to ensure sustainable water management for the state. “California is a dry state, expected to only get drier, yet we’re also the leading agricultural state in the nation,” said Claire O’Connor, agricultural water specialist for NRDC. “It’s critical that agricultural water suppliers lead the way in planning for a drier future and encourage customers to be smarter about their water use.” Implementation of the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act: A Review of Agricultural Water Management Plans offers recommendations for those 55 water districts to participate in and comply with future legally required planning cycles, including: 1) California’s Department of Water Resources (DWR) should offer peer-to-peer workshops to assist districts with the planning process; 2) DWR should create an online clearinghouse of plans and draft plans to facilitate public comment; and 3) DWR should hold non-compliant districts accountable, and, per the Act’s mandate, refuse to consider grant and loan requests until districts submit a plan. “When water suppliers prepare plans, the public and other stakeholders can participate in important decisions, like how water efficiency measures should be implemented,” said Juliet Christian-Smith, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute. “Fortunately, we do have some good actors who are leading the way – they are setting the standard for other water districts to follow.”

Implementing a Public Goods Charge for Water

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) | July 12th, 2010

Our client asked for recommendations on how to implement a public goods charge (PGC) on water, as per the “Water Energy” section of the Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Scopi

Our client asked for recommendations on how to implement a public goods charge (PGC) on water, as per the “Water Energy” section of the Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Scoping Plan. Before considering “how,” we considered whether a public goods charge for water is the right tool. The problem we wanted to address is the negative externalities of high water consumption, including greenhouse gas emissions from the energy used to pump, transport, treat, and heat water. We gave serious consideration to two alternate strategies but ultimately decided the public goods charge for water is the best tool. We recommend a public goods charge for water because: A public goods charge for water creates a price signal for water conservation. A public goods charge for water would provide a stable, sustainable funding mechanism to support the full list of conservation and efficiency activities specified in Assembly Bill 32. The dual energy and water conservation programs specified in AB 32, which could not be fully funded through the other mechanisms we considered, will be effective to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. Our proposed implementation strategy will help institutionalize regional water agencies, which are necessary for the state’s long?term water?planning effectiveness. We then make specific recommendations about the design of the public goods charge: We recommend passing state legislation requiring all water providers to assess volumetric surcharges on each water bill where metered, or by alternate means in the short?term for areas not metered. We recommend that the funds be managed by regional joint power authorities to implement Integrated Regional Water Management Plans (IRWMPs), which must institutionalize their operating structure before this can be put in place. This will provide the necessary regional organization for effective project choices, and will reduce the number of water agencies that need oversight from thousands to 50. We recommend that the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which already has jurisdiction over the IRWMPS, provide direction and oversight to ensure that specified state goals are met and that funds are well?managed, with assistance from the WETCAT members. We recommend that the fees initially be set to raise $680 Million per year. That level of funding can be used to meet the water supply targets of Senate Bill X7?7, and to exceed the greenhouse gas emissions goals of Assembly Bill 32. We recommend that the legislation be structured with maximum flexibility to allow for future rate changes.

Implementing California Flood Legislation into Local Land Use Planning: A Handbook for Local Communities

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 1st, 2010

The potential for flooding is a significant risk for many localities in California. Flood events can cause substantial economic, social, and environmental damage. In addi

The potential for flooding is a significant risk for many localities in California. Flood events can cause substantial economic, social, and environmental damage. In addition, many flood management practices can be costly and have considerable effects on the environment. One of the most effective ways to reduce the vulnerability to potential flooding is through careful land use planning that is fully informed by and reflective of applicable flood information and flood management practices. This Handbook supports the Department of Water Resources (DWR) FloodSAFE California initiative, which is a statewide initiative to improve public safety through an integrated approach to flood management. Several bills were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007 adding to and amending State flood and land use management laws. These new laws are intended to improve local land use and other planning decisions by strengthening the link between land use and flood management. The laws contain requirements and considerations that outline a comprehensive approach to improving flood management at the State and local levels. This Handbook includes the 2007 California flood risk management legislation affecting cities’ and counties’ responsibilities related to local planning requirements such as general plans, zoning ordinances, development agreements, tentative maps, and other actions. It does not address all flood management related legislation passed in 2007. For a complete summary of California flood legislation passed in 2007, refer to the 2007 California Flood Legislation Summary and Companion Reference issued by DWR at http://www.water.ca.gov/legislation/2007-summary. pdf and http://www.water.ca.gov/legislation/2007-reference.pdf.

Implementing California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA): Implementing California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

Ostrom Workshop Colloquium Presentation | February 29th, 2016

This research effort is guided by the following overarching research question: What can be learned from existing groundwater management arrangements in Californ

This research effort is guided by the following overarching research question: What can be learned from existing groundwater management arrangements in California — adjudications, special act districts, and select AB 3030 planning processes and county ordi nances — to inform the creation of durable, sustainable groundwater management plans under California’s new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act? The current and planned research described in this presentation is being conducted with a team of researche rs at Stanford University’s Woods Institute on the Environment, Water in the West Program, and Gould Center on Dispute Resolution. Preliminary work is being supported by a grant from Stanford’s Environmental Ventures Program (Janet Martinez, PI).

Implementing Climate-Smart Conservation

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | March 4th, 2025

In our first report, Climate-Smart Tools to Protect California’s Freshwater Biodiversity (Sommer et al. 2024), we reviewed a broad suite of tools available to a

In our first report, Climate-Smart Tools to Protect California’s Freshwater Biodiversity (Sommer et al. 2024), we reviewed a broad suite of tools available to address the urgent problem of safeguarding California’s freshwater biodiversity in the changing climate. This toolbox includes some familiar approaches—such as various ways to improve freshwater habitat—as well as approaches that may be less familiar, more experimental, and more controversial. We also recommended the adoption of a climate-smart conservation planning process, involving a broad range of stakeholders, to prioritize the selection of tools within watersheds and to adaptively implement those tools. In this follow-up report, we explore the feasibility of implementing these tools and climate-smart planning in light of legal, policy, and institutional factors.2 Our analysis draws on an extensive review of the legal literature on ecosystem and protected species management, as well as interviews and small workshops with a wide-ranging set of 45 experts from all over the state. These experts are working on the frontlines of ecosystem policy and management; they include state and federal regulators, members of the environmental conservation community, legal professionals, and representatives of many entities involved in water and land management.

Implementing Ecosystem Based Management

Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum | June 7th, 2021

Implementing Environmental Justice: The New Agenda for California State Agencies

Golden Gate University (GSU) | January 1st, 2001

On October 6, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 115, the first bill explicitly enacting an environmental justice policy into California's statutes.  The bill defines "

On October 6, 1999, Governor Gray Davis signed SB 115, the first bill explicitly enacting an environmental justice policy into California's statutes.  The bill defines "environmental justice" as: "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." The environmental justice bills signed into law by Governor Davis generally refer to the term "environmental justice" as "fair treatment," but the application of this definition is not spelled out. Rather, the execution of the environmental justice definition is assigned to California's administrative agencies under a procedural scheme coordinated by OPR and  implemented, in part, by Cal EPA.9 As always, the devil is in the details, and state agencies have begun to wrestle with the statutory mandate to achieve environmental justice. The purpose of this article is to give an account of the commencement of this process and to highlight some of the issues presented to the Davis administration. Preliminarily, some background is required for context. The achievement of environmental justice does not start on a fresh slate. Federal statutes and federal executive initiatives impose separate legal requirements. These federal mandates both require actions by California state agencies and provide guidance on how to interpret the new California statutes. Thus, this article begins with an account of the legal and historical development of the concept of environmental justice.

Implementing SGMA: Results from a Stakeholder Survey

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | August 26th, 2019

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic transition to collective groundwater resource management and has the potential to signif

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic transition to collective groundwater resource management and has the potential to significantly reduce groundwater overdraft in California. A total of 260 groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) recently formed to collectively manage groundwater resources in the 127 high and medium priority groundwater basins of the state. The simultaneous formation of hundreds of new governing agencies is an unprecedented institutional effort with very few examples to learn from. As GSAs move towards the design and deliberation of their groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs), assessments on the process up until now can directly inform development processes that are still taking place. This report summarizes the results from a state-wide survey that targeted SGMA participants.

Implications of projected climate change for groundwater recharge in the western United States

Journal of Hydrology (Elsevier) | March 1st, 2016

Existing studies on the impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge are either global or basin/location-specific. The global studies lack the specificity to inform

Existing studies on the impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge are either global or basin/location-specific. The global studies lack the specificity to inform decision making, while the local studies do little to clarify potential changes over large regions (major river basins, states, or groups of states), a scale often important in the development of water policy. An analysis of the potential impact of climate change on groundwater recharge across the western United States (west of 100 longitude) is presented synthesizing existing studies and applying current knowledge of recharge processes and amounts. Eight representative aquifers located across the region were evaluated. For each aquifer published recharge budget components were converted into four standard recharge mechanisms: diffuse, focused, irrigation, and mountain-systems recharge. Future changes in individual recharge mechanisms and total recharge were then estimated for each aquifer. Model-based studies of projected climate-change effects on recharge were available and utilized for half of the aquifers. For the remainder, forecasted changes in temperature and precipitation were logically propagated through each recharge mechanism producing qualitative estimates of direction of changes in recharge only (not magnitude). Several key patterns emerge from the analysis. First, the available estimates indicate average declines of 10–20% in total recharge across the southern aquifers, but with a wide range of uncertainty that includes no change. Second, the northern set of aquifers will likely incur little change to slight increases in total recharge. Third, mountain system recharge is expected to decline across much of the region due to decreased snowpack, with that impact lessening with higher elevation and latitude. Factors contributing the greatest uncertainty in the estimates include: (1) limited studies quantitatively coupling climate projections to recharge estimation methods using detailed, process-based numerical models; (2) a generally poor understanding of hydrologic flowpaths and processes in mountain systems; (3) difficulty predicting the response of focused recharge to potential changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events; and (4) unconstrained feedbacks between climate, irrigation practices, and recharge in highly developed aquifer systems.