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 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.

Improving Adaptive Management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | January 1st, 2016

Adaptive management is a science-based, structured approach to environmental management. It aids decision-making in the face of uncertainty about outcomes by emphasizing

Adaptive management is a science-based, structured approach to environmental management. It aids decision-making in the face of uncertainty about outcomes by emphasizing the acquisition and use of new knowledge, experience, and stakeholder input in management of natural resources under changing conditions. The Delta Reform Act of 2009 calls for adaptive management of efforts to make water supplies more reliable and ecosystems healthier. It is often talked about, but as a comprehensive, science-based process, adaptive management is little used in the Delta. This is not a unique situation; many environmental management programs around the world have encountered difficulties in managing natural resources adaptively. The Delta Independent Science Board (Delta ISB) reviewed how adaptive management is perceived and used in the Delta and how it might be applied more efficiently and effectively. This report identifies impediments to adaptive management in the Delta and makes recommendations for incorporating adaptive approaches to improve management of the Delta and its resources.

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.

Inaction’s Economic Cost for California’s Water Supply Challenges

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | May 14th, 2025

California’s water system is in for challenges in coming decades as climate, groundwater policy, and environmental regulations reduce availability and increase variabil

California’s water system is in for challenges in coming decades as climate, groundwater policy, and environmental regulations reduce availability and increase variability in water supplies for agricultural and urban uses. A previous report estimated 4 to 9 million acre-feet (maf) per year of unavoidable reductions in existing water supplies, 12% to 25% of today’s water use (Lund et al. 2024). This report estimates the economic costs of not responding to these reductions in water availability.

Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | February 26th, 2013

The purpose of this Supplement is to encourage the inclusion of proactive wetland management into watershed plans because wetlands play an integral role in the healthy fu

The purpose of this Supplement is to encourage the inclusion of proactive wetland management into watershed plans because wetlands play an integral role in the healthy functioning of the watershed. This Supplement promotes using a watershed approach that not only protects existing freshwater wetlands but also maximizes opportunities to use restored, enhanced, and created freshwater wetlands to address watershed problems such as habitat loss, hydrological alteration, and water quality impairments. The primary audiences for the Supplement are members and staff of watershed organizations and local/state agencies. This document is a Supplement to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Watershed Planning Handbook. It conveys information on recently developed approaches and tools for assessing wetland functions and conditions, the results of which assist decision makers in determining where in a watershed existing and former wetlands can best be restored or enhanced, or where wetlands can be created to optimize their functions in support of water quality and other watershed management plan goals. The Supplement also discusses wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation techniques and reviews the considerations involved in deciding how best to undertake a wetlands project. EPA’s Watershed Planning Handbook and other scientific resources emphasize the importance of the watershed as a management unit in which elements and processes operate over different spatial and temporal scales. The literature also emphasizes the importance of planning and implementing projects aimed at protecting or restoring water quality (or meeting similar goals) within the context of the watershed.

Information for the Future: The West Side San Joaquin Valley Project

West Side San Joaquin Valley Coordinating Council, University of California, Water Resources Center | September 1st, 1970