The drought second-guessing comes amid a near-record dry January and February. While most of the focus on the return of the drought has been on Southern California, downtown San Francisco and downtown Sacramento have also gotten close to negligible precipitation this year.

Californians depend on the Sierra snowpack for significant amounts of water supply when it melts in spring and early summer. While overall conditions aren’t as dire as at the peak of the 2012-2017 state drought, some data are daunting. The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that water in the Lake Tahoe region snowpack is one-fifth the average level seen in late February. Strikingly, at the Fallen Leaf measuring station at the 6,242-foot-level, the Times reported there was no snowpack at all.

There was better news elsewhere. The National Weather Service told the Times that the snowpack at the Heavenly Valley site at the 8,534-foot elevation was nearly half of normal. The Hetch Hetchy reservoir in the Yosemite Valley was at 79 percent of capacity earlier this month, water officials said.

Still, the overall picture was troubling enough that state leaders are being urged to make permanent the unprecedented mandatory conservation rules ordered by the governor in 2015 and partly suspended in 2017. In an editorial last week, the San Francisco Chronicle called for “strict 25 percent conservation orders for cities and towns, along with a long list of prohibitions for ordinary citizens and businesses.”

30-year-plus drought in Southwest called possible

The skirmishing over conservation policies and second-guessing over whether it was premature to call the drought over last year are dominating the headlines for now. But some climate scientists warn that this short-term focus is questionable. They note that just as global warming has changed the basic weather patterns in Alaska by thawing the permafrost normally seen year-round in much of state, the American Southwest could face a harsh new default long-term weather pattern. On science websites, there’s a debate over whether the “mega-drought” that a February 2015 NASA study warned about has already begun.

According to Ben Cook, climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the study’s lead author, “Natural droughts like the 1930s Dust Bowl and the current drought in the Southwest have historically lasted maybe a decade or a little less. … What these results are saying is we’re going to get a drought similar to those events, but it is probably going to last at least 30 to 35 years.”

Cook put the current chances of the Southwest facing a drought that lasted more than 30 years at 12 percent.

Felix Kogan and Wei Guo of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in a paper published in August 2015, argued that the dry weather seen in the Southwest from 2006-2015 already fit the definition of a “mega-drought.” The claim was based on how dry, hot conditions had created unusually heavy “vegetation stress” – the negative effects that severe climate conditions can have on a plant’s metabolism, growth or development.

“Among Western states, California was the most severely drought-affected, especially in 2014, when areas of stronger than moderate vegetation stress reached 70 percent,” Kogan and Guo wrote.

Last week, meeting in Sacramento, members of the state Water Resources Control Board put off for the time being a decision on whether to make the old drought conservation rules permanent.

But the move looks inevitable. Water board chairwoman Felicia Marcus said at the meeting that such restrictions are “the least we should do,” according to an Associated Press report.

A series of budget bills are a great example of the truism that Emanuel had detailed. In early April, for instance, Gov. Jerry Brown had announced in a statement the end to emergency water-use restrictions (in all but four counties) that had been implemented as a result of the five-year drought. That relaxation of state-mandated water-conservation rules was expected after a season of record rainfall and floods in much of the state.

But Brown also noted that climate change remains a major threat and that another drought could be right around the corner. Water officials concurred.

“The statewide emergency clearly is over, but it makes sense to continue to assist areas where emergency drinking water projects are still needed in hard-hit areas. We also understand the need for continued water waste prohibitions and reporting requirements as a ‘bridge’ to permanent measures under the long-term conservation framework issued in final form today,” according a statement from the Association of California Water Agencies.

Indeed, the governor’s conservation ideas are now included in a package of water-related trailer bills. Trailer bills implement the already passed state budget, and are supposed to be technical in nature. But governors often use these bills to quietly pass substantive measures – and to do so without full hearings and vetting. In this case, three bills, by Assembly member Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, make permanent a variety of wide-ranging conservation edicts.

For instance, Assembly Bill 1667 “applies the requirement to adopt an agricultural water management plan (AWMP) to all agricultural water suppliers,” according to the official bill analysis. It also “applies agricultural water supplier efficient water management practices … to all agricultural water suppliers (and) requires AWMPs to have a drought plan.”

AB1668 “creates a new drought response plan by making numerous changes to water supply planning and drought planning to incorporate climate change, enhance water supply analysis, and strengthen the enforceability of urban water management plans … and drought contingency planning.” AB1669 requires the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Water Resources “to adopt long-term standards for urban water conservation and water use.”

Not all water officials are supportive of the approach. “Governor Brown’s water legislation is seeking to give unlimited power and control, minus any oversight or accountability, to an agency with the competency of Caltrans and the compassion of the Franchise Tax Board,” said Brett Barbre, vice president of the Municipal Water District of Orange County and a director of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The fear is the bills would give state agencies permanent drought-style emergency authority to demand water-use cutbacks on municipalities and businesses.

This certainly jibes with the governor’s stated goal of making conservation a “way of life.” And while Brown did remove those emergency water restrictions, he has not rescinded his May 2016 executive order, issued in the thick of the drought, that details a host of conservation measures.

One calls for a permanent framework of water restrictions that push urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent by 2020 using strategies such as strengthened standards to reduce per-capita water use and restrictions on industrial water use. Another imposes permanent restrictions on hosing off sidewalks, watering lawns and washing cars. Yet another one calls for the completion of detailed management plans by agriculture water users.

These are restrictions the governor has long advocated. Most Californians understand the need for water conservation and have largely exceeded the tough standards the state government has imposed. They also realize that this year’s wet season could easily be followed next year by a dry one. But critics also question some of the government’s own water policies.

For instance, as I reported in 2015, federal and state officials were lowering water levels at the massive New Melones Reservoir and draining Lake Tulloch to help a dozen hatchery fish make their way to the Pacific. As Californians cut back on watering their lawns, their officials were draining water supplies for questionable purposes. Irrigation officials in the Sierra foothills were wondering why the state wasn’t prioritizing water needs at the apex of a drought, or at least able to temporary halt these fish-related water flows during a time of scarcity.

Furthermore, officials at the California Coastal Commission continue to delay approvals for a Huntington Beach desalination plant over concerns about the effect of the plant’s proposed ocean-intake pipes on microscopic plankton. 

But the big news for now is that the governor’s trailer bills are moving forward – and they attempt to turn the drought crisis into permanent water policy. 

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

How Obamacare repeals would affect some Californians

Good morning. Happy Monday. It seems like both the country and state are in a holding pattern until January when Trump will be sworn in, a new Congress starts and the California legislative session begins. 

Democrats in the Legislature have made it clear in recent weeks that everyone should expect fights with the feds over immigration, while Republicans in D.C. are prioritizing an Obamacare repeal. But details are sketchy. 

One thing is for sure: Even though Republicans have taken control of D.C. on an anti-Obamacare platform, there could still be many upset people, depending on how the replacement system is structured. 

In fact, Bakersfield.com/Kaiser Health News talked to some of those upset people in the Bakersfield district of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. But no matter what happens, there will be people both upset and pleased. 

In other news:

• Fate of the CA GOP: “Many say the party needs to soften its posture on undocumented immigrants and social issues in order to attract more Latino, Asian and young voters. Others, particularly in the GOP’s traditional voter base, counter that Trump’s victory nationwide is proof that a stronger stance is called for. At stake is the very relevance of the Republican Party in California.” The Orange County Register has more. 

• Mismanagement of a gov’t program?: “The Metropolitan Water District’s massive $340-million turf rebate program — which helped thousands of Southern Californians rip out their lawns in favor of drought-tolerant landscaping — was plagued by poor planning and oversight by the agency, a new audit found.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

• Racial profiling: “Police officers in California will soon track the race of those they pull over for traffic stops or encounter in the street, according to proposed guidelines released Friday by Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris,” reports the Los Angeles Times. 

• Drought: “October was wet, November dry. And December? The soft but steady rains this weekend were enough to push the Sacramento region to 155 percent of normal precipitation for the season. … And there’s more to come. … So what does that mean for California’s drought, now entering a sixth year? While Northern California has seen a wet start to winter, the situation is more complicated across the state. Central and Southern California continue to experience unusually dry conditions. And even in the north state, it’s not clear how the rest of the rainy season will shape up.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till January. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @SpokeAna

GOP lawmakers from California and their supporters are accused of offering solutions that abandon responsible policies that follow federal law in protecting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary’s ecosystem and its endangered species.

Democratic lawmakers from California and their supporters are accused of being too concerned about preserving the Delta at any cost, and in doing so showing indifference to the fate of poor people in the Central Valley who need agricultural jobs.

Both parties in Congress have been knocked for their inability to work together on a crucially important issue.

But recent media coverage has had a third focus of criticism: the Obama administration, which has been depicted as distracted and detached when it comes to helping California deal with its mass water shortage.

No ‘dynamic federal leadership’

Perhaps the toughest assessment yet came last week from the McClatchy newspaper chain’s Washington bureau. McClatchy’s Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee papers gave it prominent play. Here’s a sampling:

With more than 70 percent of California now classified in a state of “exceptional” or “extreme” drought, Uncle Sam is floundering.

 

“We need leadership from the federal government,” pleaded Cannon Michael, a politically engaged farmer from Los Banos in California’s acutely dry San Joaquin Valley.

 

But so far, dynamic federal leadership has been lacking. Some of that is inevitable. Western water use poses too many inherent conflicts to unify all factions. Some people refuse to be led, and the drought is, at bottom, a state matter. Certain federal shortcomings, though, seem like self-inflicted wounds. …

 

The Obama administration lacks confirmed leaders in key positions. Four top water-related jobs at the Interior Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House Council on Environmental Quality have remained vacant for months, at least in part because of resistance from Senate Republicans. …

 

President Barack Obama has not used his bully pulpit to persistently drive a Western water agenda. He has visited California 28 times during his presidency, but his lone trip to the state’s San Joaquin Valley, ground zero for the drought, occurred 18 months ago.

 

“I think the Obama administration is missing a golden opportunity to provide leadership,” Dan Beard, a Democrat and former Bureau of Reclamation commissioner, said in an interview. “So far, we’ve had nothing but radio silence from them on the drought.”

Congress setting a bad precedent?

But the White House rejects the narrative that it has done little. And CQ Weekly’s most recent analysis of Washington’s response to the drought depicted the most consequential federal failure in the drought response to lie with Congress. It noted the Obama administration had ordered $110 million in emergency drought relief measures to help Western states with most going to California. CQ Weekly said the inability of Congress to respond was particularly ominous for the future of federal environmental policies:

For the most part, the debate is not bogged down by partisanship — in fact, some Democrats are sounding like Republicans on select issues. Members of both parties want to help quench California’s thirst by directing more pumping from two massive government water projects and boosting water storage for times of need.

 

But divisions over states’ rights, the environment and the role of agriculture have left many in Washington at odds, and attempts to tackle the problem in previous years have foundered. Still, how Congress deals with drought in California could set a standard for policy reforms across the United States, as droughts affect more regions and science suggests such environmental disruptions could become increasingly common as the Earth’s climate warms.

The CQ Weekly piece praised Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is cited by virtually all Washington reporters who write about the federal response to California’s drought as being the adult in the room. Her reputation for centrism has often been boosted by her environmental moderation.

But after more than nine months of stop-and-start negotiations, Feinstein still hasn’t hit on a deal that both House Republicans and a majority of the Senate will accept.

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A strong majority of Californians say they support tougher limits on greenhouse gas emissions and more ambitious renewable energy goals to combat climate change, according to a statewide poll released late Wednesday.

Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said global warming is contributing to California’s ongoing drought. About half said global warming is a “very serious” threat to the state’s future, according to the poll, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a San Francisco-based nonpartisan research center.

“At a time when many Californians are making a connection between the current drought and climate change, there is strong support for expanding the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s president, in a news release.

Results of the survey — titled Californians & the environment — are based on phone interviews with 1,702 California adult residents from in July.

Of those who took part, 44 percent said they were registered Democrats; 28 percent were Republicans; and 24 percent independents or decline-to-state voters, according to the institute.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said they believe there’s a connection between the drought and global warming, while 28 percent said they saw no link.

Spray irrigation on a field in the Imperial Valley in southern California. This type of irrigation is more efficient than flood irrigation that is popular in this region. Still, in the high temperatures of this desert region a lot of the water evaporates, leaving the salts, that are dissolved in the Colorado River water that is used, on the soil.

The institute has not asked that question in the past, said PPIC spokeswoman Linda Strean.

California is mired in its fourth straight year of severe drought. While not going so far as to say climate change has caused the drought, recent scientific studies have said global warming exacerbates the extreme high pressure systems that block rainfall in the Western United States.

PPIC’s past surveys have found strong support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including majorities across party lines a decade ago who favored California’s landmark emissions reduction law, AB32. That law requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

It was signed into law in 2006 by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“A strong partisan divide has opened up since then,” the institute observed in its release.

Now, 79 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of independents favor the law compared with 46 percent of Republicans, the institute said.

The poll also found that large majorities of Californians favor new, more aggressive goals for combating climate change.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they support a proposal to require half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030. And 73 percent favor cutting petroleum use in vehicles by 50 percent.

Those are key pieces of Senate Bill 350, a bill introduced earlier this year by Senate leader Kevin de Léon.

Other findings from the PPIC survey include:

• 88 percent of adults favor building more solar power stations in California.
• 78 percent want to boost tax credits and other incentives for rooftop solar panels.
• 49 percent favor building the Keystone XL pipeline, while 38 percent are opposed.
• 56 percent oppose increased use of fracking to extract oil and natural gas. It’s the highest level of opposition since PPIC started asking about it in 2013.
• 53 percent approve of Gov. Jerry Brown’s job performance, while 47 percent approve of the way he handles environmental issues.
• 39 percent approve of the California Legislature’s job performance.
• 57 percent approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance.
• 29 percent approve of Congress’ performance.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chris@calwatchdog.com or on Twitter @ChrisTheJourno