California Ag Network

Tag: PPIC

  • Water in 2021: Looking Back on a Year of Extremes

    In California, 2021 was a year that climate change hit home. The increasingly frequent, warmer droughts that climate scientists have been predicting have arrived. Although this past December brought some welcome storms, California remains in the grips of an historic, fast-moving drought that has followed close on the heels of the last one. The non-partisan PPIC Water Policy Center tackled the thorny issues of this moment—as we often do—by providing data and analysis to inform tough conversations about managing drought today and into the future.

    In May, for example, we hosted a virtual event, “Is California Ready for Drought?,” which examined how to avoid the worst outcomes. We forecast where drinking water wells were likely to go dry this year and next, in an effort to help communities better plan for the future. And then we looked at solutions, releasing an updated fact sheet about groundwater recharge, one of the best hedges against drought.

    But we didn’t just look at the human impacts of the drought, we also examined the severe costs to wildlife and the environment. Our researchers, with 2021-22 CalTrout Ecosystem Fellow Sarah Null and other partners, wrote about the challenges facing reservoir operators, who are struggling to manage water effectively for both people and the environment. And we released Advancing Ecosystem Restoration with Smarter Permitting, a report examining how the state could speed ecosystem restoration efforts to meet the biodiversity crisis head-on.

    The state experienced yet another year of record-breaking fires, driven by decades of fire suppression and fuel build-up, made worse by higher temperatures and the lack of rainfall. We evaluated current forest stewardship efforts and brought together a panel of experts to discuss both what’s possible and what’s needed to better protect the state from catastrophic wildfire. We followed that event with a four-part blog series that laid out how to build capacity for long-term forest stewardship. And we interviewed one of the state’s premier experts on forest fires: UC Berkeley’s inimitable Scott Stevens.

    As California confronts its many water and headwater forest challenges, it faces yet another controversial question: how to pay for needed changes. We released fact sheets about water affordability and paying for California’s water system, two increasingly urgent issues. We championed the importance of ensuring access to safe drinking water, including for California’s tribes. And we released Groundwater and Urban Growth in the San Joaquin Valley, a report that looks at how to ensure a smooth transition for the valley’s groundwater-dependent cities and suburbs as the region adapts to less groundwater pumping under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

    We also took the conversation around California’s water system in new directions. Improving California’s Water Market looked at how both water trading and formal programs to store water underground could help water users manage scarcity; the report also laid out practical ways for local, state, and federal agencies to make the process easier. And we explored top priorities for California’s water, recommending a swifter transition to groundwater sustainability and other urgent actions.

    California faces serious challenges around water—and the ground is shifting beneath our feet. As the panelists at our fall policy conference on responding to the changing climate noted, it’s time to think big and look for effective, equitable solutions. And apparently, many of you agreed: we saw between 1,200-1,500 registrants for each day of our three-day virtual conference. We gathered a stellar group of panelists that included Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources; Tim Ramirez of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board; Rosemary Menard of the City of Santa Cruz; Don Cameron of Terranova Ranch; and Adel Hagekhalil of the Metropolitan Water District. They spoke about what’s keeping water managers up at night, whether it’s making our infrastructure climate-ready, paying for a resilient water system, or embracing transformative change.

    We know that changes are coming in water, and we need to prepare. We also know that PPIC must remain a non-partisan, trusted source of information for difficult debates about our water future. This year, we will take on some vexing problems, including how to store water for the environment, how to prepare better for drought, and how to manage land transitions as irrigated cropland declines in our warming, drying climate.

    All this work relies upon you, our ever-expanding family of agency staff, community and environmental groups, growers, researchers, water managers, and others. We appreciate your help, your engagement with our work, and your willingness to listen to our analyses and ideas. We couldn’t do this without you.

    Finally, look to our weekly blog to keep you up to date on pressing issues in water and watershed health. Who knows—if this winter continues to be wet, we may get to write about too much water for a change! — By Ellen Hanak, Public Policy Institute of California

  • Improving California’s Water Market

    Water trading and banking are important tools that can help California bring its groundwater basins into balance by the early 2040s, as mandated by the 2014 Sustainable Water Management Act (SGMA). But the expansion of the state’s water market still faces some bottlenecks, including aging infrastructure and complex regulations. The stakes for preserving California’s groundwater are rising, however, as is interest in improving the state’s water market.

    “Groundwater…is a really important drought reserve for California,” said Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center, at a virtual event last week. “By the time you get into the second and third dry year, you really need to lean on your groundwater very heavily. One of the challenges in California is that we’ve been leaning on it too heavily.”

    Water trading and banking can help. Hanak and PPIC research fellow Andrew Ayres convened a panel to discuss a new report about how to improve the state’s water market in order to aid SGMA implementation and increase drought resilience across the state.

    “Water trading, whether it’s temporary, over a long-term basis, or a permanent sale, can significantly lower the cost of managing water demand,” said Hanak. She said flexible water trading within the San Joaquin Valley, for example, could reduce the cost of getting basins into balance by about two-thirds—thereby saving jobs and preserving the region’s economy. Groundwater banking is also a key tool for augmenting the water supply and managing increasing climatic risk, she said.

    But creating effective and responsible water markets within the state will take work. Andrew Ayres moderated a discussion with three experts about the challenges and opportunities they face.

    Kathy Cortner, general manager of the Mojave Water Agency, described her basin as something of a groundwater success story. After an adjudication process that lasted six years, the basin entered into a judgment in 1996. “What that judgment did was set the framework for allocating a base water right. Over time, the judgment called for a rampdown…it provides a path for people to adjust to a declining amount of water to pump.” There were difficult years, she said, but trading allowed farmers to adjust gradually.

    Stephanie Anagnoson of Madera County says her county has land in three sub-basins. The county is the lead groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) for ground-water dependent lands in these basins. The GSA has been working to address groundwater overdraft through a portfolio of programs, including aggressive recharge activities and land repurposing. It is also one of the first to adopt groundwater allocations under SGMA. “What would have been helpful for us was step-by-step [information] on how to develop an allocation, because that took about two years,” Anagnoson said. “And while there are some white papers, there certainly wasn’t state guidance on that.” The GSA has also been exploring the establishment of a groundwater market for trading allocations of sustainable yield—initially with a tool that allows water users to simulate trading.

    Thaddeus Bettner of Glenn Colusa Irrigation District said that despite glitches with water markets, things are improving. “DWR has been great about funding the development of our GSPs…We really appreciate the groundwater division in DWR for that effort,” he said. Furthermore, “DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation have also developed on an online approval process [for surface water transfers] that has been really helpful to expedite the process.” Still, hurdles remain.

    Near the end of the discussion, Ellen Hanak shared the news that 15 minutes before the event began, the governor had signed several bills that include money for improving the state’s water resilience, including a new program for multi-benefit farmland repurposing under SGMA. “I know it’s small, but it’s a piece of good news,” she said, ending the event on a positive note for a drought-plagued state.

    We invite you to watch the event video. — By Sarah Bardeen, Public Policy Institute of California

  • New Opportunities for Trading Surface Water in the Sacramento Valley under SGMA

    New groundwater agencies in the Sacramento Valley are currently finalizing plans to manage their groundwater basins for long-term balance, as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Successful stewardship demands good information not only about groundwater conditions, but also about surface water availability. To help build shared understanding of surface water for agriculture—the valley’s main water-using sector—we produced a new dataset showing how access to this vital resource varies across irrigated farmland in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta. This effort builds on previous Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) work in the San Joaquin Valley, making it now possible to assess surface water conditions across the entire Central Valley.

    Although the Sacramento Valley is currently mired in extreme drought, higher precipitation and the presence of major rivers mean that its basins tend to replenish more readily and recover more quickly after drought. Nonetheless, SGMA implementation here will likely entail some pumping cutbacks to avoid significant undesirable results of groundwater use. As in the San Joaquin Valley, some areas face heightened risks of drinking water wells going dry when pumping causes groundwater levels to fall. Because the Sacramento Valley’s basins are relatively healthy, the region will need to pay greater attention to avoiding impacts of pumping on river flows, which can adversely affect downstream water users, including the environment.

    Sacramento Valley surface water is spread unevenly

    The water rights and contracts held by a water district determine the amount of surface water available to its growers. The interactive map below illustrates average surface water availability from various federal, state, and local projects. Districts with less than 3 acre-feet (af) per acre regularly require supplemental groundwater; those with much less are fundamentally reliant on pumping. The valley-wide average is approximately 2 af/acre, but individual district access ranges from over 6 af/acre to none.

    Substantial variation arises both across basins (Vina averages less than 0.5 af/acre, versus more than 3.5 af/acre in Butte) and within (for example, Sutter and Colusa basins contain both areas rich in surface water, and areas without any). We found similar patterns of haves and have-nots within the San Joaquin Valley.

    Diversity in water availability and cropping patterns creates incentives for water trading

    The Central Valley also has a wide diversity of crops, and cutting back on pumping will be more costly for some crops than for others. Trading water—both within and across basins—can help lessen private and regional economic losses by keeping the most productive lands irrigated. Such trading already helps farmers manage the costs of surface water cutbacks during droughts, and incentives to trade will grow as SGMA limits groundwater availability.

    Within the Sacramento Valley, water trading will be especially valuable for the large areas of  high-earning perennial orchards—such as almonds, walnuts, or grapes—that have insufficient surface water but cannot be fallowed like annual crops. Approximately 70% of perennial crop acreage in the Sacramento Valley averages less than 2 af/acre of surface water; nearly 60% is on lands relying almost entirely on groundwater. Other lands may have water to trade, including those where rice is grown, helping to avoid very costly shortfalls for perennial farmers in the future.

    There will also be demand for Sacramento Valley surface water beyond basin boundaries—or outside of the region altogether. The San Joaquin Valley has almost three times as much perennial crop acreage in groundwater-reliant areas. For the past three decades, Sacramento Valley growers have routinely sold water to San Joaquin Valley farmers and coastal urban communities during droughts. SGMA implementation will increase this demand, but it could also increase local pressure to keep this water at home, to balance local basins.

    Although groundwater conditions are generally strong in the Sacramento Valley, the fact remains that 60% of all agricultural lands are in areas with average surface supplies below 3 af/acre. Farmers will need to adapt as groundwater becomes scarcer, especially during drought. Trading can help facilitate this adaptation. A new PPIC report on this topic identifies key barriers to water trading and explores innovative new approaches, such as expanded groundwater banking arrangements. — By Alex Ehrens, Joy Collins & Andrew Ayres, Public Policy Institute of California

    Note: This research was supported with a grant from the Water Foundation. The underlying data and additional notes on surface water availability in the valley can be found in Data Set: PPIC Sacramento Valley and Delta Surface Water Availability.

  • Will Drought Fan the Flames this Fire Season?

    Will the current drought increase the chances of another bad fire season this year? We talked to Scott Stephens―a fire ecologist at UC Berkeley and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center research network―about the risks, and what can be done.

    How might drought conditions affect this fire season? 

    With very low moisture levels in vegetation in landscapes across the state, I have no doubt we’re looking at very challenging conditions. Dry vegetation makes fire behavior more extreme. We’ll probably get to typical fire season moisture levels six weeks early this year because of the drought. Scientists at San Jose State and elsewhere have found record-low fuel moisture levels in vegetation in the South Bay, and we’re just in May. The good news is that the drought has kept the grasses low, which should reduce flame length.

    In your opinion, how well prepared are we for wildfire this year?  

    We are getting more prepared, especially on the fire suppression side, which is incredibly important in a state with a volatile, dry-summer climate and 40 million people. CalFire hired 1,400 new firefighters this year, replaced its helicopters, and added a fleet of fire engines. There’s also greater awareness by the public—people are creating more defensible space around their properties and being more careful to avoid ignitions.

    But there are two fundamental areas that need to change for California to have a better outcome. People must get better prepared for the inevitability of fire. I think we’ve under-appreciated how vulnerable so many communities are to fire—there are hundreds up and down the state. Climate change is making the risks worse with higher temperatures and more drought. CalFire has a “ready, set, go” policy to help people deal with fire risks, which is helpful, but I’d like to see more emphasis on the readiness piece.

    In Australia, there is a culture of community preparation for wildfire emergencies. California has begun to do more—for example, with fire safe councils—but in Australia a professional service is involved in helping develop neighborhood plans and other preparations. It’s similar to our agricultural cooperative extension service, which is really effective. Oregon created a service like this two years ago.

    The second piece is getting the landscape better able to handle fire and climate change. Our forests are just too dense, making them susceptible to disease, drought, and extreme wildfire. I’ve been working with a number of California tribes, and they have witnessed profound changes in the composition of the state’s forests. A restoration strategy can get forests in a condition that reduces tree mortality during droughts.

    We’ve done very little prescribed burning in this state, and especially in the coastal mountains. The fires in the coastal area last year created a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. We can build upon that with prescribed burns to increase fire resistance in those areas.

    Every one of last year’s fires had a restoration component, because they helped thin overly dense forests and removed flammable underbrush. Even the Creek Fire, which had a huge section that experienced the most severe fire conditions, also had lower-severity burn that helped restore the landscape to a healthier state. So even the worst fires that cause the most damage have some beneficial aspects to them. But the price is too high—both to people and the landscape. We need to create better conditions in the untouched forests adjacent to burn areas to help stop the next extreme fire.  We have to focus more on reducing the density of the green and worry less about the parts of the forest that are already dead.

    What gives you hope looking forward?

    At the state level, we’re seeing greater attention to wildfire issues at all levels, from the governor’s office to the various agencies. I applaud the state and CalFire for trying to do something about it. I’m excited about the funding that’s going toward home hardening and forest management; I’ve never seen that kind of money for this work in my entire career. I do wish we’d started earlier, though. The Biden‒Harris administration hasn’t weighed in yet, but the vice president is well aware of the issue. I’m hopeful that they will energize more work in this area. — By Lori Pottinger & Sarah Bardeen, Public Policy Institute of California

  • Can Dryland Farming Help CA Agriculture Adapt to Future Water Scarcity?

    Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) — Large areas of California farmland, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, face future restrictions on groundwater pumping to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. We talked to Caity Peterson—an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center and a consulting agroecologist—about a joint research project* on the potential for dryland farming to reduce the amount of land needed to be retired from production to balance water budgets.

    Caitlin Peterson is an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center and a consulting agroecologist

    PPIC: What is dryland farming, and how might it help the San Joaquin Valley achieve groundwater sustainability?

    CAITY PETERSON: Dryland farming can mean different things, but at a fundamental level it means growing crops using primarily soil water and rainfall rather than irrigation. In California, rain comes in winter, so dryland farming here usually means winter crops such as small grains, forage crops, and pastures. Our project will also look at cases that use a small amount of supplemental irrigation to get the crops started.

    Many basins in the San Joaquin Valley will have to reduce groundwater pumping, whether due to SGMA requirements or simply the increased frequency of severe droughts. This means that some crops may no longer be viable on some lands in the future. While it’s expected that some retired lands will be used for large-scale renewable energy or natural habitat, there’s concern about a lot of farmland coming out of production at once and of land being fallowed for a long time. That can have serious drawbacks, including soil erosion, air quality impacts from dust, and economic losses. Dryland farming could reduce those problems. On some marginal lands dryland farming could be a permanent solution, while other lands may be irrigated as usual but switch to dryland practices in drought years. It will depend a lot on where you are in valley, because there is wide geographic variability in rainfall and other factors.

    PPIC: What are some constraints to this approach in the valley, and are there opportunities that could help make it succeed?

    CP: Dryland farming is not an easy proposition, primarily because of the valley’s climate. It’s a semi-arid zone, and it’s very difficult to produce anything—especially in the southern reaches—without irrigation. Some people are attempting forms of dryland farming in these areas, but it’s risky. Some years you may get a good crop, but you can regularly get years where it doesn’t rain for a couple of weeks, which can ruin a newly planted crop. The other major constraint is the economics. The valley has an extremely valuable ag economy, with some crops like almonds pulling in $7,000-$8,000 per acre. But the commodity crops suited to dryland farming are more like $200 an acre. We also have relatively small-sized farms and higher production costs compared to other dryland farming areas, which makes it hard to compete.

    As for what might make this work, a couple of things have come up in our conversations with our project advisors and stakeholders on the role that public and private incentives might play. We’re assuming that having some sort of production would be better than having nothing in the ground because it reduces the negative impacts of fallowed land. But given the economics, we’d have to help farmers cover their losses. Incentives could come from federal and state programs, or emerging climate markets that could reward carbon storage in soil. Corporate responsibility initiatives might be willing to pay for sustainability practices on farms that supply their markets. And then there’s the dairy industry, which is so fundamental to California agriculture; dryland farmers could get a premium for dairy forage or silage, especially in dry years when there’s a shortage of good pasture.

    PPIC: What knowledge gaps need exploring to determine if this is viable in the valley?

    CP: One of the big obstacles is we don’t know the value of some of the benefits of keeping land in production rather than fallowing it, and who benefits—for example, from improved water infiltration or better air quality. We need to explore ways to measure these benefits and verify them. We also need more information on how to grow dryland crops in this part of California—for example, which crops and which varieties would work, and how can we reduce the risks of crop failure from unreliable rainfall. It would also be nice to know more about who is innovating in this area and learn from their experience. And finally, any solutions we come up with will have to be geographically specific to deal with the climatic variables across the valley. That will require a lot of coordination with stakeholders across the valley to create customized solutions for different areas.

    Lori Pottinger, Public Policy Institute of California, Center Communications Manager

    * The project, “Incentivizing Climate-Smart Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley,” is a joint venture between PPIC, UC Davis, UC Merced, Fresno State, and the Central Valley Community Foundation. The work is supported by the California Strategic Growth Council’s Climate Change Research Program with funds from California Climate Investments—Cap-and-Trade Dollars at Work.

     
    Article by Lori Pottinger, Public Policy Institute of California