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’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).

Improving the Federal Response to Western Drought: Five Areas for Reform

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | January 26th, 2016

The federal government is deeply involved in western water. It is the largest landowner, major supplier of irrigation, principal supporter of the farm sector, primary sou

The federal government is deeply involved in western water. It is the largest landowner, major supplier of irrigation, principal supporter of the farm sector, primary source of water information, and chief environmental regulator. For more than a century, western states have relied on a complex partnership with numerous federal agencies to manage water. The latest widespread drought has revealed both strengths and weaknesses in the federal role. To weather a warmer and possibly drier future, and to prepare for and respond to drought more effectively , the states and the federal government must address these weaknesses and work together to strengthen their partnership. Timely solutions are critical, given the growing vulnerability of the region’s residents, businesses, and environment to drought . This report identifies a suite of federal actions that can help weste rn states better manage drought . These reforms are, by design, modest and pragmatic. They focus on enhancing existing federal capacities, rather than implementing sweeping initiatives that would require time-consuming new funding or legislation.

Increasing soil organic carbon to mitigate greenhouse gases and increase climate resiliency for California

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) | August 1st, 2018

Rising air temperatures are projected to continue to drive up urban, agricultural, and rangeland water use, straining both surface and groundwater resources. Scie

Rising air temperatures are projected to continue to drive up urban, agricultural, and rangeland water use, straining both surface and groundwater resources. Scientific studies have shown that managing farms, ranches, and public lands to increase soil carbon can increase soil water- holding capacity and increase hydrologic benefits such as increased baseflows and aquifer recharge, reduced flooding and erosion, and reduced climate-related water deficits. Coincident improvements in forage and crop yields are also indicated, while simultaneously sequestering carbon, reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases and mitigating climate change. This study was developed to consider the multiple benefits of increasing the organic matter content of soils across California’s working lands. Study results indicate that a one-time 1⁄4” application of compost to rangelands can lead to carbon sequestration rates in soils that are maximized after approximately 15 years, and more than offset greenhouse gas emissions stimulated by the compost addition for at least five decades longer. Modeled increases in total soil organic matter of 3% enhanced hydrologic benefits across 97% of working lands, and reduced climate change impacts. Economic valuation indicated all benefits increasing over time, demonstrating a large potential for the California carbon market to support incentives in regionalizing the impacts in the coming decades. Socioeconomic and related land use pressures pose barriers to implementing management practices to increase soil organic matter by driving conversion of rangeland to urban or to more greenhouse-gas emission intensive agriculture. Results can be effectively used with land use change scenarios to identify where on California’s working lands hydrologic benefits of soil organic matter enhancement coincide with development risk, highlighting counties in California in which there may be resilience to climate change when strategic soil management and land conservation are combined.

Indian Water Rights Settlements

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | November 27th, 2017

This report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as imple

This report provides an overview of Indian water rights settlements. It analyzes issues surrounding water rights settlements and the negotiation process, as well as implementation challenges and related issues for Congress.

It’s Time for States to Invest in Infrastructure

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | August 10th, 2017

State investment in transportation, public buildings, water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to creating good jobs and promoting

State investment in transportation, public buildings, water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to creating good jobs and promoting full economic recovery. States should reject the flawed economic growth strategy of cutting taxes and offering corporate giveaways, and instead identify and make investments in infrastructure that provide the foundation for a strong economy. It’s a good time for states to make those investments.

Klamath River Basin Issues: An Overview of Water Use Conflicts

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | June 13th, 2002

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating confl

Severe drought in 2001 affected the Klamath River Basin, an area on the California-Oregon border, exacerbating competition for scarce water resources and generating conflict among several interests – farmers, municipal and industrial users, commercial and sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuges, environmental groups, and Indian Tribes. The conflicts over water distribution and allocation are physically and legally complex, reflecting the varied and sometimes competing uses of limited water supplies in the Upper Basin. On April 6, 2001, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), which has supplied water to farms in the Upper Basin for nearly 100 years, announced that “no water [would] be available” for farms normally receiving water from the Upper Klamath Lake, so that scarce water could be used to protect species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Water was available to some farmers from other sources (e.g., wells and other Bureau sources); however, many farmers were not able to plant or harvest crops due to severe cutbacks in water supplies. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issues, and the water control gates were unlawfully opened by protesters. Although the Basin has received significantly more precipitation in 2002, many issues remain in dispute. In addition, several judicial decisions have affected the issues with respect to the listed species as well as tribal rights. On May 31, 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both issued Final Biological Opinions on the Bureau’s 10-year Operation Plan for the Klamath Project. The agencies found that the Bureau’s proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the two listed suckers and coho salmon, as well as result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; however, both Opinions also included “reasonable and prudent alternatives” for operating the Project that would remove the jeopardizing effects of the proposed action. However, on June 3, 2002, the Bureau formally rejected both Final Biological Opinions, but opted instead to operate under a one-year plan that it asserts complies with the Opinions. Independently, in March 2002, the President appointed a high-level working group to develop solutions. Congress has responded to the controversy in a number of ways, including holding several oversight hearings and appropriating funds for water conservation activities in the area. This report provides background on the geographic, historic, and legal underpinnings of the current conflicts. Because the report focuses on the current conflicts, it deals primarily with Klamath Project operations in the Upper Klamath Basin and effects associated with water releases from Upper Klamath Lake.

Land Transitions and Dust in the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 24th, 2022

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires groundwater users to bring their basins into balance over the next two decades. In the San Joaquin Valley, this will mean taking more than 500,000 acres of agricultural land out of intensive irrigated production. Among other issues, this could potentially lead to air quality impacts if the lands become new sources of dust, especially windblown dust, which can have numerous negative short- and long-term health and environmental impacts. In addition, the changing climate may exacerbate risks as warmer temperatures can dry out soils and increase dust emissions. The overall air quality impact of transitioning agricultural land to new uses is nuanced, but proactive management can help to identify high-risk areas and at-risk communities, and direct effort and funding to the most cost-effective interventions.

Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life Proposed Regulation Review of the Water Board’s Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA)

Mesa Water District | September 28th, 2023

Managing Drought in a Changing Climate: Four Essential Reforms

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | September 12th, 2018

California’s climate is changing. Hotter temperatures, a shrinking snowpack, shorter and more intense wet seasons, rising sea level, and more volatile precipita

California’s climate is changing. Hotter temperatures, a shrinking snowpack, shorter and more intense wet seasons, rising sea level, and more volatile precipitation—with wetter wet years and drier dry years—are stressing the state’s water management system. Recent climate projections indicate that the pace of change will increase. To avoid unwanted social, economic, and environmental consequences, the water system will need to adapt to greater climate extremes and growing water scarcity. While California is making good progress in some areas of drought management, a more focused plan of action is needed. Successful adaptation will require strong leadership at the state and local levels, and cooperation on all fronts. The 2012–16 drought—the hottest in the state’s recorded history and one of the driest—offered a window into the future under a warming climate and lessons for managing future droughts. Using these lessons as a starting point, this report offers a road map of essential reforms to prepare for and respond to droughts in California’s changing climate. Key reforms include: Plan ahead. Stronger drought planning is critically important for urban water management, groundwater sustainability, safe drinking water in rural communities, and freshwater ecosystems. Upgrade the water grid. California needs a comprehensive program to address above- and below-ground storage, conveyance, and operational challenges by mid-century, including repairing facilities that are broken, expanding conveyance and storage capacity, and modernizing and integrating operations. Update water allocation rules. California should comprehensively update its water allocation governance. The goals should be to find equitable and efficient ways to allocate limited supplies among competing demands during dry times while promoting efforts to capture and store water during wet times. Find the money. Reliable funding is crucial for adapting to climate change. New sources are needed to pay for necessary water-management investments and to fill funding gaps in the state’s water system. The focus of this reform agenda is on drought, because drought―more than any other aspect of California’s climate―reveals the vulnerabilities of watermanagement systems. Importantly, these reforms will improve drought resilience for today’s conditions, not just for the future.