Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817

Authors

Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817

Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817

Tagged with:

Event Briefings

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3721 (48) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(9) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(46) "eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "678444" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["_video_url"]=> string(0) "" ["_wpmf_gallery_custom_image_link"]=> string(0) "" ["_gallery_link_target"]=> string(6) "_blank" ["wpmf_pdf_embed"]=> string(4) "link" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6322) "Building Bay Area Drought Resilience July 18, 2017 David Mitchell, Ellen Hanak, Ken Baerenklau, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Henry McCann, María Pérez-Urdiales, Kurt Schwabe Supported with funding from California Water Service, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency What is urban drought resilience?  Ability to weather droughts without significant social and economic disruptions  Two components: – Supply investments that reduce risk of extreme shortages – Short-term demand management 2 Key takeaways from the latest drought  Urban suppliers were generally well prepared, and economy remained robust  State conservation mandate showed Californians can respond quickly to call for rationing  But mandate disrupted local programs, created uncertainties about future state and local roles  State, locals need to align policies and expectations to build resilience for future droughts 3 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 4 Many lessons learned from past droughts Supply emergencies were wake-up call for urban suppliers. Their response:  Invested heavily in drought preparation (e.g., storage, interties)  Launched long-term conservation programs  State actions supported local drought resilience Emergency pipeline, San Rafael Bridge (1977 drought) 5 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 6 Concern over drought severity prompted unprecedented mandate  State assumed suppliers weren’t doing enough  Main reasons given for conservation mandate: – Insuring against longer drought – Helping those in need – Changing social norms on water use Governor Brown announces mandate April 1, 2015 7 Californians responded immediately to governor’s call Gallons per capita per day (moving annual average) Water use per capita 250 Governor’s mandate Governor’s mandate 225 declared entered into effect Self certification period started 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 San Joaquin Valley Northern California Statewide Southern California Central Coast San Francisco Bay 8 But the mandate posed challenges for many utilities  Disconnect between mandate levels and local conditions  Compliance challenges for suppliers with high targets  Scaled-back use of drought supplies  Intensified financial impacts Suppliers’ opinion of mandate targets 44% 27% 26% 2% 1% Much more Somewhat than more necessary than necessary Right amount Somewhat less than necessary Much less than necessary 9 State relaxed mandate in 2016, let suppliers pass a “stress test”  Most utilities (83%) were prepared for extended drought without mandatory conservation  Central Coast remained most vulnerable  Water savings remained high Average statewide water savings (compared to 2013) 10% 24% 20% State-promoted conservation Statemandated conservation Self-certification 10 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 11 1. Coordinate drought contingency planning and implementation  Issue: The disconnect between state and local views on local preparedness reflects an information gap  Actions: Improve quality and transparency of information – Switch from “better safe than sorry” mandate to “trust but verify” stress test approach – Make monthly water use reporting permanent 12 2. Foster water system flexibility and integration  Issue: Continued efforts needed to improve supply side  Actions: – Support regional integration – Lower regulatory hurdles to water trading, non-traditional supplies – Reduce uncertainties about state policies affecting local supply investments Water recycling facility, El Segundo 13 3. Improve utilities’ fiscal resilience during drought  Issue: Widespread fiscal vulnerability among public agency suppliers  Actions: – Locals need more proactive drought pricing and communication strategies – State can help address Prop. 218 cost-of-service issues Share of suppliers experiencing (%) Change in net financial position 14% 46% 21% 45% Greatly reduced Somewhat reduced Drought-related Mandate-related 14 4. Address shortages in vulnerable communities and ecosystems  Issue: Simply saving water in cities does not address hardships elsewhere  Actions: State must lead, cities and farms can help – Improve small community water supplies – Promote watershed health East Porterville residents get connected to safe tap water 15 5. Balance long-term water use efficiency and drought resilience  Issue: Long-term savings have benefits, but can make it harder to cut use quickly during droughts  Actions: Address the tradeoffs – Allocate some savings to a “reliability reserve” – Update water shortage contingency plan requirements – Incorporate reliability goals into long-range plans Gallons per capita Water production 250 2013 2015 200 150 100 50 0 JAN MAR MAY JUL SEPT NOV 16 Cooperative efforts can help protect Bay Area from severe drought impacts  Because conditions vary greatly, local suppliers are best placed to prepare for and manage droughts with: – Supply portfolios – Short-term demand management  State and regional cooperation should focus on areas that require leadership: – Incentives, support for local action – Flexibility to reallocate scarce supplies – Protection of vulnerable communities, ecosystems 17 Building Bay Area Drought Resilience July 18, 2017 David Mitchell, Ellen Hanak, Ken Baerenklau, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Henry McCann, María Pérez-Urdiales, Kurt Schwabe Supported with funding from California Water Service, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency About these slides These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Ellen Hanak (hanak@ppic.org; 415-291-4433) Thank you for your interest in this work." } ["___content":protected]=> string(230) "

Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817

Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(107) "https://www.ppic.org/event/building-bay-area-drought-resilience/eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(11037) ["ID"]=> int(11037) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "4" ["post_content"]=> string(47) "Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-07-18 11:56:28" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(10311) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(47) "Event Slides Bay Area Drought Resilience 071817" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(42) "eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(46) "eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "678444" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["_video_url"]=> string(0) "" ["_wpmf_gallery_custom_image_link"]=> string(0) "" ["_gallery_link_target"]=> string(6) "_blank" ["wpmf_pdf_embed"]=> string(4) "link" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(6322) "Building Bay Area Drought Resilience July 18, 2017 David Mitchell, Ellen Hanak, Ken Baerenklau, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Henry McCann, María Pérez-Urdiales, Kurt Schwabe Supported with funding from California Water Service, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency What is urban drought resilience?  Ability to weather droughts without significant social and economic disruptions  Two components: – Supply investments that reduce risk of extreme shortages – Short-term demand management 2 Key takeaways from the latest drought  Urban suppliers were generally well prepared, and economy remained robust  State conservation mandate showed Californians can respond quickly to call for rationing  But mandate disrupted local programs, created uncertainties about future state and local roles  State, locals need to align policies and expectations to build resilience for future droughts 3 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 4 Many lessons learned from past droughts Supply emergencies were wake-up call for urban suppliers. Their response:  Invested heavily in drought preparation (e.g., storage, interties)  Launched long-term conservation programs  State actions supported local drought resilience Emergency pipeline, San Rafael Bridge (1977 drought) 5 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 6 Concern over drought severity prompted unprecedented mandate  State assumed suppliers weren’t doing enough  Main reasons given for conservation mandate: – Insuring against longer drought – Helping those in need – Changing social norms on water use Governor Brown announces mandate April 1, 2015 7 Californians responded immediately to governor’s call Gallons per capita per day (moving annual average) Water use per capita 250 Governor’s mandate Governor’s mandate 225 declared entered into effect Self certification period started 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 San Joaquin Valley Northern California Statewide Southern California Central Coast San Francisco Bay 8 But the mandate posed challenges for many utilities  Disconnect between mandate levels and local conditions  Compliance challenges for suppliers with high targets  Scaled-back use of drought supplies  Intensified financial impacts Suppliers’ opinion of mandate targets 44% 27% 26% 2% 1% Much more Somewhat than more necessary than necessary Right amount Somewhat less than necessary Much less than necessary 9 State relaxed mandate in 2016, let suppliers pass a “stress test”  Most utilities (83%) were prepared for extended drought without mandatory conservation  Central Coast remained most vulnerable  Water savings remained high Average statewide water savings (compared to 2013) 10% 24% 20% State-promoted conservation Statemandated conservation Self-certification 10 Outline  Lead-up to the latest drought  State action and local responses during this drought  Lessons for the future 11 1. Coordinate drought contingency planning and implementation  Issue: The disconnect between state and local views on local preparedness reflects an information gap  Actions: Improve quality and transparency of information – Switch from “better safe than sorry” mandate to “trust but verify” stress test approach – Make monthly water use reporting permanent 12 2. Foster water system flexibility and integration  Issue: Continued efforts needed to improve supply side  Actions: – Support regional integration – Lower regulatory hurdles to water trading, non-traditional supplies – Reduce uncertainties about state policies affecting local supply investments Water recycling facility, El Segundo 13 3. Improve utilities’ fiscal resilience during drought  Issue: Widespread fiscal vulnerability among public agency suppliers  Actions: – Locals need more proactive drought pricing and communication strategies – State can help address Prop. 218 cost-of-service issues Share of suppliers experiencing (%) Change in net financial position 14% 46% 21% 45% Greatly reduced Somewhat reduced Drought-related Mandate-related 14 4. Address shortages in vulnerable communities and ecosystems  Issue: Simply saving water in cities does not address hardships elsewhere  Actions: State must lead, cities and farms can help – Improve small community water supplies – Promote watershed health East Porterville residents get connected to safe tap water 15 5. Balance long-term water use efficiency and drought resilience  Issue: Long-term savings have benefits, but can make it harder to cut use quickly during droughts  Actions: Address the tradeoffs – Allocate some savings to a “reliability reserve” – Update water shortage contingency plan requirements – Incorporate reliability goals into long-range plans Gallons per capita Water production 250 2013 2015 200 150 100 50 0 JAN MAR MAY JUL SEPT NOV 16 Cooperative efforts can help protect Bay Area from severe drought impacts  Because conditions vary greatly, local suppliers are best placed to prepare for and manage droughts with: – Supply portfolios – Short-term demand management  State and regional cooperation should focus on areas that require leadership: – Incentives, support for local action – Flexibility to reallocate scarce supplies – Protection of vulnerable communities, ecosystems 17 Building Bay Area Drought Resilience July 18, 2017 David Mitchell, Ellen Hanak, Ken Baerenklau, Alvar Escriva-Bou, Henry McCann, María Pérez-Urdiales, Kurt Schwabe Supported with funding from California Water Service, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency About these slides These slides were created to accompany a presentation. They do not include full documentation of sources, data samples, methods, and interpretations. To avoid misinterpretations, please contact: Ellen Hanak (hanak@ppic.org; 415-291-4433) Thank you for your interest in this work." ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-07-18 18:56:28" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(42) "eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-07-18 11:57:03" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-07-18 18:57:03" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(85) "http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/eventbriefing_bayareadroughtresilience0717.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }