Subsidized or subsidizing? Municipal drinking water service funds in California

Utilities Policy (Elsevier) | September 29th, 2022

In the longstanding debate over efficiency and effectiveness in drinking water provision between public versus privately governed systems, one of the main contention poin

In the longstanding debate over efficiency and effectiveness in drinking water provision between public versus privately governed systems, one of the main contention points is the reasons for different bill levels imposed by city-run as compared to privately owned water systems. In this study, we examine one potential explanation for disparities in bills: whether cities use their general funds to subsidize their drinking water fund operations or vice versa. Either practice goes against “user pays” principles, as pointed out by critics of municipal operation. However, the claims have not been tested empirically at scale. We extract and analyze city water enterprise fund financial data from the California State Controller Cities Raw Data of Financial Transaction Reports to empirically assess the extent to which and reasons why interfund transfers occur in California's 267 municipally owned water utilities. We find very little evidence that substantial interfund transfers, in either direction, occur between water enterprise funds and general funds within California cities, indicating that enterprise fund control measures are generally successful. These findings suggest that with proper regulation, the municipal fund subsidy debate is essentially a distraction from the real reasons why municipal and other water provider rates differ substantially.

Supporting sustainable groundwater management

California Agriculture (UCANR) | March 13th, 2018

Implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is on schedule. The first phase, completed in 2017, created a new layer of local government —

Implementation of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is on schedule. The first phase, completed in 2017, created a new layer of local government — groundwater sustainability agencies. Now, these new agencies must prepare groundwater sustainability plans. These plans will lay out a basic reckoning for every overdrafted basin: without additional water to replace groundwater pumping or to recharge aquifers, there will be less available to produce food, supply homes and businesses, and ensure there is enough water for the environment.

Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | December 1st, 2009

Stormwater runoff is a leading contributor to water pollution in urban and developing areas in the United States. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act

Stormwater runoff is a leading contributor to water pollution in urban and developing areas in the United States. Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)  requires agencies to protect water resources by reducing stormwater runoff from any federal development projects. In December 2007, Congress enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 438 of that legislation establishes strict stormwater runoff requirements for federal development and redevelopment projects.  The provision reads as follows: “Storm water runoff requirements for federal development projects. The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project involving a Federal facility with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall use site planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow.” The intent of Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) is to require federal agencies to develop and redevelop applicable facilities in a manner that maintains or restores stormwater runoff to the maximum extent technically feasible. Until recently, stormwater programs established to address water quality objectives have been designed to control traditional pollutants that are commonly associated with municipal and industrial discharges, e.g., nutrients, sediment, and metals. Increases in runoff volume and peak discharge rates have been regulated through state and local flood control programs. Although these programs have merit, knowledge accumulated during the past 20 years has led stormwater experts to the conclusion that conventional approaches to control runoff are not fully adequate to protect the nation’s water resources (National Research Council, 2008). Implementation of Section 438 of the EISA can be achieved through the use of the green infrastructure/low impact development (GI/LID) infrastructure tools described in this guidance. The intention of the statute is to maintain or restore the pre-development site hydrology during the development or redevelopment process. To be more specific, this requirement is intended to ensure that receiving waters are not negatively impacted by changes in runoff temperature, volumes, durations and rates resulting from federal projects. It should also be noted that a performance-based approach was selected in lieu of a prescriptive requirement in order to provide site designers maximum flexibility in selecting control practices appropriate for the site.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Claims of Property Rights “Takings”

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | January 7th, 2013

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines th

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) has long been one of the major flash points in debates over government interference with property rights. This report outlines the ESA provisions most relevant to the act’s impacts on private property and surveys the major ESA-relevant principles of Fifth Amendment takings law. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment promises “just compensation” when government actions “take” property. The report then summarizes the court decisions on whether particular government actions (or inaction) based on the ESA “take” private property under the Fifth Amendment. The cases to date address several kinds of ESA impacts on private property: (1) restrictions on land uses that might adversely affect species listed as endangered or threatened, and mitigation conditions to offset the impacts of development; (2) administrative delays; (3) reductions in water delivery or allowable water diversion to preserve lake levels or instream flows needed by listed fish (currently the most active area of ESA takings litigation); (4) restrictions on the defensive measures a property owner may take to protect his/her property from listed animals; and (5) restrictions on commercial dealings in listed species. To date, only one of the 18 ESA-based takings cases disclosed by research, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States, has found a taking. However, two cases, Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States and Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, have yet to be finally resolved and may or may not result in holdings that takings occurred.

The most important issue about water is not supply, but how it is used

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 14th, 2023

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: The Evolution and Implementation of Water Policy: An Historical Perspective

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 1st, 1977

This report is a history of the attempts to control the encroachment of salinity from San Francisco Bay into the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers from 1920

This report is a history of the attempts to control the encroachment of salinity from San Francisco Bay into the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers from 1920 to the present. Two basic solutions to the problem present themselves: the physical separation of salt water from fresh water by means of a barrier at some point downstream from the Delta, or the release of sufficient water from upstream storage reservoirs to drive back tidal salinity.

Thirty-Five Years of Water Policy: The 1973 National Water Commission and Present Challenges

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | May 11th, 2009

Concern about the availability and use of water to support the nation’s people, economy, and environment has bolstered interest in establishing a national water commiss

Concern about the availability and use of water to support the nation’s people, economy, and environment has bolstered interest in establishing a national water commission. The commission structure proposed in recent legislation (e.g., H.R. 135) is similar to that of the 1968-1973 National Water Commission (NWC or Commission). As proposed in H.R. 135, the commission would assess future water demands, study current management programs, and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy. Questions about a commission as an effective model and which topics a commission might consider have raised interest in assessing what the NWC recommended in its 1973 report, Water Policies for the Future, and how the issues that it identified have evolved. The NWC recommended addressing the interconnection between water development and the natural environment, implementing a “users pay” or “beneficiary pays” approach, accomplishing water quality improvements, and adapting governance and organizations to meet water challenges. Since 1973, progress has been made in some of these areas; however, few actions can be traced directly to the NWC’s recommendations. Nonetheless, the influence of the NWC on the evolution of water policy cannot be dismissed. Many of the problems that the Commission identified remain today, and some actions since 1973 have moved water policy toward alignment with NWC recommendations; others have moved it in the opposite direction of NWC recommendations. Shifts in institutional arrangements in general have reduced coordination of federal water agency activities and in many ways have moved away from NWC-recommended multi-objective or river basin planning. State-federal tensions over proper and respective roles continue to cloud resolution of difficult water resource issues and complicate coordination efforts. While many support better coordination of federal water activities and a clearer national “vision” for water management, Congress has not enacted overarching water policy legislation since the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act. Instead, water policy has largely evolved through executive and judicial actions, in many cases in response to piecemeal legislation. Congress continually modifies federal water projects through amendments to existing projects and programs through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs), Reclamation acts, water quality legislation, and appropriations decisions. Incremental and ad hoc evolution of water policy, however, is not surprising. Water management is complicated by past decisions and investments affecting a wide range of stakeholders pursuing different goals. Specifically, federal and state laws and regulations, local ordinances, tribal treaties, contractual obligations, and economies dependent on existing water use patterns and infrastructure all affect water management. Attempts to untangle such complexities involve many constituencies with differing interests, and success is difficult to achieve. Expectations for a commission to achieve change in a complex system resistant to transformation may be unreasonable; instead, the influence of a commission may lie in how its recommendations combine with other drivers to support policy evolution. This CRS report presents the NWC’s recommendations and analyzes how issues targeted by the recommendations have evolved during the intervening years. The report focuses on key federal-level recommendations, thereby targeting what has been accomplished since 1973, what issues remain unresolved, and what additional concerns have developed.

Tribal environmental and natural resource assistance handbook

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | March 11th, 1999

This handbook was developed by the Domestic Policy Council Working Group on American Indians and Alaska Natives (Working Group). The first draft of this document was poss

This handbook was developed by the Domestic Policy Council Working Group on American Indians and Alaska Natives (Working Group). The first draft of this document was possible thanks to the significant contributions of the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society. Previous drafts of the handbook were reviewed by each federal contributor and also went through the interagency review process at the Office of Management and Budget. The result is a compilation of the federal sources of financial and/or technical assistance programs available for Tribal environmental management. The handbook is intended to provide a central location for federal sources of both technical and financial assistance available to Tribes for environmental management. Many Tribes have limited environmental staffs that are faced with the challenge of addressing a broad range of environmental issues. Unlike State environmental programs that have received annual federal funding for many years, Tribal environmental programs generally must compete annually for their funds. With 554 federally recognized Tribes, there simply is not enough money to go around. Therefore, Tribal environmental staffs spend a large part of their time applying for grants and searching for sources of federal assistance. This document is an effort to assist Tribal staff in their search and hopefully save them valuable time. The handbook can also assist federal, regional, State and Local government employees in becoming better informed about the sources of environmental assistance available in order to improve customer service to the Tribes. The Working Group recognizes that this document does not contain every federal resource available to Tribes. This is an evolving document and will be updated periodically. Future versions of this document will be available on the Internet (see Comments section).

Water Quality Control Policy for siting, design, operation, and maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 19th, 2012

The purpose of this Policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health. This Policy recognizes that responsible local agencies

The purpose of this Policy is to allow the continued use of OWTS, while protecting water quality and public health. This Policy recognizes that responsible local agencies can provide the most effective means to manage OWTS on a routine basis. Therefore as an important element, it is the intent of this policy to efficiently utilize and improve upon where necessary existing local programs through coordination between the State and local agencies. To accomplish this purpose, this Policy establishes a statewide, risk-based, tiered approach for the regulation and management of OWTS installations and replacements and sets the level of performance and protection expected from OWTS. In particular, the Policy requires actions for water bodies specifically identified as part this Policy where OWTS contribute to water quality degradation that adversely affect beneficial uses. This Policy only authorizes subsurface disposal of domestic strength, and in limited instances high strength, wastewater and establishes minimum requirements for the permitting, monitoring, and operation of OWTS for protecting beneficial uses of waters of the State and preventing or correcting conditions of pollution and nuisance. And finally, this Policy also conditionally waives the requirement for owners of OWTS to apply for and receive Waste Discharge Requirements in order to operate their systems when they meet the conditions set forth in the Policy. Nothing in this Policy supersedes or requires modification of Total Maximum Daily Loads or Basin Plan prohibitions of discharges from OWTS. This Policy also applies to OWTS on federal, state, and Tribal lands to the extent authorized by law or agreement.

Water Quality Enforcement Policy

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 7th, 2017

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (together “Water Boards”) have prima

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (together “Water Boards”) have primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality in California. In the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), the Legislature declared that the “state must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters in the state from degradation....” (Wat. Code, § 13000). Porter-Cologne grants the Water Boards the authority to implement and enforce water quality laws, regulations, policies, and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters of the State. Timely and consistent enforcement of these laws is critical to the success of the water quality program and to ensure that the people of the State have clean water. The goal of this Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Policy) is to protect and enhance the quality of the waters of the State by defining an enforcement process that addresses water quality problems in the most fair, efficient, effective, and consistent manner. In adopting this Policy, the State Water Board intends to provide guidance that will enable Water Board staff to expend its limited resources in ways that openly address the greatest needs, deter harmful conduct, protect the public, and achieve maximum water quality benefits. Toward that end, it is the intent of the State Water Board that the Regional Water Boards’ decisions be consistent with this Policy. A good enforcement program relies on well-developed compliance monitoring systems designed to identify and correct violations, help establish an enforcement presence, collect evidence needed to support enforcement actions where there are identified violations, and help target and rank enforcement priorities. Compliance with regulations is critical to protecting public health and the environment, and it is the preference of the State Water Board that the most effective and timely methods be used to assure that the regulated community achieves and maintains compliance. Tools such as providing assistance, training, guidance, and incentives are commonly used by the Water Boards and work very well in many situations. There is a point, however, at which this cooperative approach should make way for a more forceful approach. This Policy addresses the enforcement component (i.e. actions that take place in response to a violation) of the Water Boards’ regulatory framework, which is an equally critical element of a successful regulatory program. Without a strong and fair enforcement program to back up the cooperative approach, the entire regulatory framework would be in jeopardy. Enforcement is a critical ingredient in creating the deterrence needed to encourage the regulated community to anticipate, identify, and correct violations. Formal enforcement should always result when a non- compliant member of the regulated public begins to realize a competitive economic advantage over compliant members of the regulated public. The principle of fairness in enforcement requires that those who are unwilling to incur the expenses of regulatory compliance not be rewarded for making that choice. It is the intent of the State Water Board that formal enforcement should be used as a tool to maintain a level-playing field for those who comply with their regulatory obligations by setting appropriate civil liabilities for those who do not. Appropriate penalties and other consequences for violations offer some assurance of equity between those who choose to comply with requirements and those who violate them. It also improves public confidence when government is ready, willing, and able to back up its requirements with action.