Fish and Game Commission Twenty-Second Biennial Report for the Years 1910-1912

State of California | December 31st, 1912

Fixing the Delta: How Will We Pay for It?

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | August 4th, 2009

This report examines the question of how to pay for urgently needed investments in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. For years, stakeholders have been at odds over bene

This report examines the question of how to pay for urgently needed investments in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. For years, stakeholders have been at odds over beneficiary financing (charging those who use the water). But recent federal intervention to save endangered fish species and the decline of state and federal funding sources may finally break the impasse. This report situates the beneficiary payment debate in historical, legal, and political context. It also explores how this kind of financing might work for several “big ticket” items: water conveyance facilities, storage reservoirs, environmental mitigation, and levee improvements.

Fourth National Climate Assessment Chapter 25: Southwest

U.S. Global Change Research Program | November 23rd, 2018

The Southwest region encompasses diverse ecosystems, cultures, and economies, reflecting a broad range of climateconditions, including the hottest and driest climate in t

The Southwest region encompasses diverse ecosystems, cultures, and economies, reflecting a broad range of climateconditions, including the hottest and driest climate in the United States. Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah occupy one-fifth of U.S. land area, extending across globally unique ecosystems from the Sonoran Desert to the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Coast. The region is home to 60 million people, with 9 out of 10 living in urban areas and the total population growing 30% faster than the national average. The Nation depends on the region for more than half of its specialty crops such as fruits, nuts, and vegetables. The Southwest also drives the U.S. technology sector, with more than 80% of the country’s technology capitalization located in California. Click here for all chapters of the Fourth National Climate Assessment.

Fundamentals of estimating the net benefits of ecosystem preservation: The case of the Salton Sea

Hydrobiologia (Springer) | July 15th, 2008

This article, both theoretical and methodological in nature, argues the potential merits of using a net benefits’ framework as a tool to aid policy-makers in their eff

This article, both theoretical and methodological in nature, argues the potential merits of using a net benefits’ framework as a tool to aid policy-makers in their efforts to compare Salton Sea restoration alternatives and inform the public as to the potential magnitude and distribution of trade-offs associated with each alternative. A net benefits approach can provide a more accurate comparison and evaluation of the potential net returns from public spending on Salton Sea restoration than what wouldbe provided under the suggested criteria of current legislative mandates. Furthermore, a net benefits framework provides a more lucid and systematic accounting framework by which to enumerate the full array of benefits and costs of each alternative for policy analysis. Finally, net benefits’ analysis serves to add transparency to the decision-making process sothat the public gains an understanding of how its scarce resources, including both financial and natural capital, are being appropriated. Additionally, we illustrate and emphasize the importance of estimating the non-market values associated with many of the ecosystem services provided by the Salton Sea and describe the major techniques that do so.

Funding Mechanism Inventory and Evaluation

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 13th, 2018

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of th

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of the current and novel funding mechanisms, as well as assumptions used in the funding analysis (described in Funding Scenario Analysis supporting document). The Funding Mechanism Inventory and Evaluation supporting document evaluates the current and novel funding mechanisms available to implement water resources management actions. Funding mechanisms need to be appropriate for the management actions being funded (i.e., have a nexus and applicability), be available when needed (i.e., have inter-annual reliability), and have political support (i.e., political viability). Many potential funding mechanisms are available for financing water resources management from State, local, federal, or private sources. Any of these could be applied for different capital and ongoing management actions. This document discusses a range of funding mechanisms and their potential use for capital or ongoing management actions. For capital management actions, the mechanisms include (1) existing, authorized funding streams, such as the State general fund or local taxes and assessments, and (2) limited-duration capital finance mechanisms, such as general obligation (GO) bonds or local bonds. Ongoing management actions are best supported by consistent reliable funding from mechanisms such as general fund, taxes, rates, or assessments. The characteristics of each funding mechanism are detailed in this document and are important considerations for the funding analysis in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. Novel mechanisms are included in the funding analysis for demonstration and are not a substitute for the studies and legislation required for creation of these mechanisms. Local and federal mechanisms also are included to provide an understanding of historical and future cost sharing potentials. For additional information on historical expenditure levels of State, local, and federal funding mechanisms, seeHistorical Expenditures and Current and Future Funding Needs supporting document.

Funding Scenario Analysis

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 13th, 2018

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of the fundin

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of the funding analysis as well as the scenarios evaluated by the funding analysis. This supporting document provides the analysis called out for in the California Water Plan Update 2013 Finance Planning Framework Component 8, which recommended the development of a decision support system (DSS) to provide guidance to the State on tradeoffs in a funding plan. To respond to this recommendation, this supporting documentation describes a funding tool used in the funding analysis and how scenarios were used in the tool to evaluate tradeoffs of different approaches to funding the recommended actions described in Chapter 3 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The funding analysis used information about historical expenditures and funding need developed in the Historical Expenditures and Current and Future Funding Needs supporting document and information about existing and novel funding mechanisms developed in the Funding Mechanism Inventory and Evaluation supporting document. 

Funding Water in Times of Financial Uncertainty: The Case for a Public Goods Charge in California

Stanford University | January 15th, 2015

Funding for water-related public purpose projects has become increasingly scarce in California. Utilities are facing new challenges that require additional capital while

Funding for water-related public purpose projects has become increasingly scarce in California. Utilities are facing new challenges that require additional capital while the state’s legal system has restricted the ability of local governments to raise funds. This fiscal landscape requires the water sector to find new ways to finance water-related public interest projects, including conservation and efficiency programs, monitoring and evaluation, and infrastructure maintenance and modernization. California must also generate supplementary funds for new water technology research, development, and dissemination if the state is to continue to grow despite dwindling water supplies. In recent decades, California has relied heavily on general obligation (GO) bonds to finance a variety of water-related projects. GO bonds, however, are unreliable funding mechanisms as they require voter approval if they survive the legislative process, and they can be costly in the long run as they are repaid with interest. Additionally, GO bonds violate the beneficiary-pays principle as the entire state repays a debt that benefits taxpayers in certain regions more than others. This research paper looks at a supplemental funding mechanism, a Public Goods Charge (PGC), as an additional way for California to provide for water investment in the future. In a PGC scheme, ratepayers are charged a small, usage-related fee, and the funds are subsequently allocated to public interest projects at the local, utility, state, and broader scales. This method was used to fund electricity public purpose programs in California from 1998-2011, resulting in over $5.8 billion collected by the state’s three main Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), with additional funds collected by local Publicly Owned Utilities (POUs), for energy innovation over 14 years. Utilities and the state as a whole benefitted economically and environmentally from the increased funding for energy efficiency, renewables, and research and development. The electricity PGC helped to transform California’s energy landscape into one that includes more modern and sustainable infrastructure systems. Significant energy savings were also achieved during the PGC era.

Further Trade Wars Will Harm California Agriculture

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | September 30th, 2024

As protectionist policies gain momentum in the United States, the future of California’s agricultural trade faces pessimism. With proposals to expand tariffs on imports

As protectionist policies gain momentum in the United States, the future of California’s agricultural trade faces pessimism. With proposals to expand tariffs on imports from China and other nations, California farmers—who depend on global markets as an outlet for their almonds, wine, and other agricultural goods—are aware that there would be trade retaliation from our trading partners. If a significant new trade war develops, California could see a quarter of its agricultural exports wiped out, costing the state’s economy $6 billion annually.

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | May 30th, 2014

The Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses are part of a continuing effort by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop improved guidance on the preparati

The Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses are part of a continuing effort by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop improved guidance on the preparation and use of sound science in support of the decision-making process. This document builds on previous work first issued in December of 1983 as the Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis (U.S. EPA 1983) and later revised in the late 1990s. In September of 2000, the EPA issued its Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (Guidelines) (U.S. EPA 2000b), revised to reflect the evolution of environmental policy making and economic analysis that had accrued over the decade and a half since the original guidelines were released. At the time of release, EPA committed to periodically revise the Guidelines to account for further growth and development of economic tools and practices. In an effort to fulfill that commitment, this document incorporates new literature published since the last revision of the Guidelines. It describes new Executive Orders (EOs) and recent guidance documents that impose new requirements on analysts, and fills information gaps by providing more expansive information on selected topics. Furthermore, a loose-leaf format has been adopted to facilitate the incorporation of new information in the future. This new, more flexible format, in addition to the electronic release of the document, will allow future updates and additions without requiring a wholesale revision of the document.

Handbook for Assessing Value of State Flood Management Investments

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 1st, 2014

Millions of people and over half a trillion dollars in assets are exposed to flood risk in California (DWR 2013a). This remains the case even as State, federal, a

Millions of people and over half a trillion dollars in assets are exposed to flood risk in California (DWR 2013a). This remains the case even as State, federal, and local flood management agencies have worked for decades to reduce the risk and consequences of flooding in the State. The people of California have shown that they understand the increasing flood risk due to population growth, environmental concerns, climate change, and land use practices, and they are willing to invest in flood risk management projects. This requires the public agencies responsible for California’s flood risk management to demonstrate the value of those investments both before and after they are implemented. This Handbook for Assessing Value of State Flood Management Investments (HAV) supports that effort.