Content uploaded by Juliet Christian-Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Juliet Christian-Smith on Jan 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Sustainability Science
ISSN 1862-4065
Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-014-0269-1
Maladaptation to drought: a case report
from California, USA
Juliet Christian-Smith, Morgan C.Levy
& Peter H.Gleick
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Japan. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
CASE REPORT
Maladaptation to drought: a case report from California, USA
Juliet Christian-Smith
•
Morgan C. Levy
•
Peter H. Gleick
Received: 2 January 2014 / Accepted: 16 September 2014
Springer Japan 2014
Abstract The interactions between natural water avail-
ability and societal water demand and management are
complex. In response to gaps in empirical research of the
adaptive capacity of social and environmental systems to
climate stresses, we provide an assessment of responses to
water scarcity during a multi-year drought in California. In
particular, we use Barnett and O’Neill’s (Global Environ
Change 20:211–213, 2010) criteria for maladaptation to
examine responses in the agricultural and energy sectors to a
multi-year (2007–2009) California drought. We conclude
that despite evidence in both sectors of resiliency to the
impacts of the drought, some of the coping strategies adopted
increased the vulnerability of other systems. These other
systems include California’s aquatic ecosystems and social
groups that rely on those ecosystems for their health or
employment; future generations whose resources were drawn
down in the near-term, where otherwise those resources
would have been available at a later time; and current and
future generations who were, or will be, exposed to the effects
of increased greenhouse gas emissions. This case study
demonstrates that California’s current strategies for dealing
with long or severe droughts are less successful than previ-
ously thought when short- and long-term impacts are evalu-
ated together. This finding is particularly relevant given
projections of more frequent and severe water shortages in the
future due to climate change. This study recommends a shift
from crisis-driven responses to the development and enact-
ment of long-term mitigation measures that are anticipatory
and focus on comprehensive risk reduction.
Introduction
The interactions between natural water availability and soci-
etal water demand and management are complex. In particular,
extreme events such as floods and droughts impose manage-
ment burdens and costs that are not completely understood.
Here, we provide an assessment of complex responses to water
scarcity during a multi-year drought in California, with a focus
on the agricultural and energy sectors.
According to the California Department of Water
Resources, water years 2007–2009 made up the 12th driest
3-year period in California’s recorded climatic history
(DWR 2010). From a purely hydrological perspective,
droughts in the late 1920s, 1970s, and 1980s were more
severe (Table 1). The 2007–2009 drought, however, coin-
cided with a period of increased demands for freshwater,
changes in operating rules at reservoirs, and increased
environmental protections that reduced pumping of water
from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta to state and fed-
eral water users south of the delta (DWR 2010). Among the
sectors affected by reduced water availability were agri-
culture and energy production.
Droughts are severe climatic events through which we
may gain insight into our response to both natural climate
variability and weather events that are expected to occur as
a result of climate change. Climate change research has
brought new attention to studies of social and
Handled by Soontak Lee, Yeungnam University, Korea.
J. Christian-Smith (&)
Union of Concerned Scientists, Oakland, USA
e-mail: jchristiansmith@ucsusa.org
M. C. Levy
University of California, Berkeley, California
P. H. Gleick
Pacific Institute, Oakland, USA
123
Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-014-0269-1
Author's personal copy
environmental system adaptability. Vulnerability and
resilience literature provide a common framework for
understanding social and environmental system response to
stresses through analysis of ‘‘adaptive capacity’’ (Engle
2011). Due to remaining gaps in empirical research of the
adaptive capacity of both social and environmental sys-
tems, scholars encourage historical studies of individual
climatic events (such as droughts and floods) that are
representative of the types of climate stresses that will be
faced as a result of longer-term climate change (Engle
2011).
Although defined variously throughout climate change
resilience and vulnerability literature, the term ‘‘adaptive
capacity’’ refers to the ability of a sector or group to avoid
risk; conversely the term ‘‘vulnerability’’ refers to an
inability to do so (Ribot 2011; Engle 2011; Smit and
Wandel 2006; Smit 1993; Burton 1997). Generally, it is
thought that a system more exposed and sensitive to a
climate stimulus will be more vulnerable, and a system that
has more adaptive capacity will be less vulnerable (Smit
and Wandel 2006). Yet, the literature also recognizes that
adaptive responses can be ‘‘maladaptative’’ (Smit 1993;
Burton 1997). Barnett and O’Neill (2010) define malad-
aptation as action taken to avoid or reduce vulnerability to
climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the
vulnerability of other systems. They provide several char-
acteristics of maladaptive behavior: actions that increase
emissions of greenhouse gases, disproportionately burden
the most vulnerable, have high opportunity costs, reduce
the incentive to adapt, or create path dependencies that
limit future generations (Barnett and O’Neill 2010).
Here, we situate our empirical analyses of the responses
of the agricultural sector and energy sector to the
2007–2009 California drought within the context of cli-
mate change resilience and vulnerability literature. We find
that despite both sectors being resilient to the impacts of
the drought, in terms of maintaining production levels, they
do so by relying on a series of coping strategies that
increased the vulnerability of other systems. In particular,
drought responses increased emissions of greenhouse
gases, had high environmental opportunity costs, and led to
a reduced incentive to adapt. We conclude that the
responses of the agricultural and energy sectors during the
2007–2009 California drought led to increased vulnera-
bility of ecosystems and social groups that rely on those
ecosystems for their health or employment.
Methods
To characterize social and environmental response to
drought, we analyze a set of empirical indicators over a
period of at least a decade to ensure that we examine the
drought within its larger temporal context. For the agri-
cultural sector, we use agricultural acreage, yield, agri-
cultural revenue by county and/or water district, and
agricultural employment data collected by the US
Department of Agriculture, the California Department of
Food and Agriculture, County Crop Commissioners, indi-
vidual water districts, the US Census, and the California
Employment Development Department. Using these data,
we examine trends in the agricultural sector, including:
• gross agricultural revenue,
• economic productivity of agriculture,
• economic productivity of agricultural water use, and
• agricultural employment.
Given the diversity of agricultural water suppliers, and
supplies, across the state, we provide an overview of trends
in the agricultural sector statewide during the drought
period and then focus on a case study of the Westlands
Water District (Westlands) to explore local adaptation
efforts, such as groundwater pumping. There is no single
‘representative’ agricultural water district in California,
due to varied geography, microclimates, and agricultural
production. However, Westlands is a useful case study as
one of the largest agricultural water users in the state and
also as a district that is highly vulnerable to drought
impacts.
For the energy sector, we examine trends in:
• California’s electricity generation (by source),
• costs to rate payers, and
• greenhouse gas emissions.
This case study addresses the following questions:
• How did agricultural and energy production change
during the 3-year drought according to the indicators
described above?
• What adaptation efforts were employed in each sector?
•
What components of the observed adaptation were
maladaptive, and to what effect?
Table 1 Drought severity in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Valleys
Drought
period
Sacramento Valley
runoff
San Joaquin Valley
runoff
MAF/
year
% of average
1901–2009
MAT/
year
% average
1901–2009
1929–1934 9.8 56 3.3 56
1976–1977 6.6 38 1.5 26
1987–1992 10.2 58 2.8 48
2007–2009 11.2 64 3.7 63
Source: DWR (2010)
MAF million acre-feet
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
• What are the lessons learned about the resilience of
freshwater-dependent sectors to more frequent and
more intense drought events expected with climate
change?
The answers to these questions help us understand
resilience to future droughts in California and elsewhere,
and are particularly relevant given projections of more
frequent and severe water shortages in the future due to
climate change (IPCC 2013; DWR 2008). A recent study
states that critically dry water years in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys are expected to be about 8 and 32 %
more likely by the latter half of the twenty-first century,
respectively (Null and Viers 2012).
Results
Agriculture
During droughts, such as the 2007–2009 drought, Califor-
nia’s agricultural sector employs several coping strategies
to maintain production and reduce the economic and social
impacts of water shortages. These coping strategies include
increased reliance on local groundwater, temporary water
transfers among users, fallowing farmland, and the alter-
ation of cropping patterns and changes to the types of crops
cultivated (Michael et al. 2010). There are few institutional
or legal constraints on California groundwater extraction,
and as a result the average groundwater depletion (or total
extraction volume) doubled during the 2006–2010 time
period (Famiglietti et al. 2011).
As a result of these complex factors, the state’s 81,500
farms and ranches generated $34.8 billion in gross revenue
for their production in 2009—the third highest year on
record and just below the all-time high of $38.4 billion
reached during 2008, the second year of the drought
(USDA-NASS Agricultural Statistics 2000–2009). The
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA
2010) reported that the state’s agricultural sales for 2009
ranked behind only 2008 and 2007 as third highest on
record (sales and revenue are adjusted for inflation).
Statewide, harvested acreage has been declining over
the past decade, even during periods of more abundant
water. The rate of decline in acreage actually slowed
between 2007 and 2009 (USDA 2000–2009). In general,
annual crop acreage has been gradually decreasing, as
annual crops are being replaced by higher-value perennial
crops, particularly fruits and nuts (USDA 2000–2009).
Based on county crop reports over the last three decades,
we conclude that yield or unit of crop per acre has fluc-
tuated from year to year, but only dropped below 2006 (wet
year) levels only once during the drought and in a single
crop category—in water-hungry and low-value field and
seed crops—during the final year of the drought (2009).
The average total combined yield of irrigated crops in
California was higher during the drought period
(2007–2009) than prior to the drought (2000–2006). A
closer study of data from county crop reports and irrigation
districts reveals varied responses to drought between and
within individual counties. For instance, while the total
gross revenue of Fresno County agriculture increased by
2 % during the drought years, gross revenue in neighboring
Kern and Kings Counties declined by 9 and 19 %,
respectively. While Fresno, Kern, and Kings Counties all
fallowed land at higher rates during the drought, nearby
Tulare County did not. In fact, Tulare County harvested
more acres in both 2008 and 2009 than it did in 2006,
considered a wet water year.
The drought period coincided with a national and global
recession, complicating the analysis of drought impacts.
From 2005 to 2009, unemployment almost doubled state-
wide from 5.4 to 11.3 % (EDD 2011). Michael et al. (2010)
found that over the same time period, crop production and
agricultural support jobs declined by 1.5 % (2,500 jobs) to
2.3 % (3,750 jobs) in the San Joaquin Valley. However,
California Employment Development Department data
(2011) indicate that employment sectors other than farm-
ing, fishing, and forestry saw the most severe declines in
employment in the San Joaquin Valley; employment in
farming, fishing, and forestry either remained stable or
increased as a percentage of the total jobs available. We
note that communities within the San Joaquin Valley have
had the highest levels of unemployment and poverty in the
state for decades, in both wet and dry years (Villarejo and
Redmond 1988).
A case study: the Westlands Water District
California water districts were created over the past century
to manage agricultural water rights and water contracts,
and to distribute water from state and federal water projects
to individual farms. More than 500 water districts currently
supply water for agricultural purposes in the state. Impor-
tantly, while water district boundaries are often different
from county boundaries, watershed boundaries, or
groundwater boundaries, their record keeping relates
directly to water supply, making them useful for under-
standing the specific relationship between water use and
agricultural production.
Westlands is one of the largest agricultural water dis-
tricts in the state, serving more than 600,000 acres of
farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in
Fresno and Kings Counties. It has the state’s largest federal
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
water contract, and is allocated over one million acre-feet
annually, accounting for 30 % of total water exported south
of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta Vision Task
Force and ENTRIX, Inc. 2008). However, Westlands water
contract is relatively ‘‘junior’’ and, therefore, it is often the
first region to be affected by water shortages. Furthermore,
Westlands lies above the Tulare Basin aquifer, which
experienced rapid declines during the drought period
(Famiglietti et al. 2011). Thus, Westlands is a useful case
study as one of the largest agricultural water users in the
state and also as a district that is vulnerable to drought
impacts. We note that there are many different types of
agricultural water districts and sources of water supply,
meaning that both drought impacts and adaptations are
varied across the state.
During the 2007–2009 drought, federal Central Valley
Project (CVP) water allocations were reduced. During this
period, Westlands shifted to other water supply sources,
namely groundwater (Fig. 1). For example, Westlands used
315,000 acre-feet groundwater in 2007 (a year during
which the district received 50 % of its CVP allocation) and
480,000 acre-feet in 2009 (a year received 10 % of its CVP
allocation). This amount of groundwater pumping is just
under the levels reached during the severe 1976–1977
drought, when pumping also increased to nearly 500,000
acre-feet (WWD 1996). By utilizing alternate water sup-
plies, particularly groundwater, as a drought response
Westlands’ total water supply was only reduced by 3 % in
2006; 13 % in 2007; and 28 % in 2009 (compared to the
average water supply between 1993 and 2009). Thus,
groundwater pumping allowed Westlands to adapt to
reduced CVP deliveries during the drought.
Changes in land use also played a role in drought adap-
tation. Irrigated crop reports from Westlands summarize
cropping patterns within the district between 2000 and 2009
(Fig. 2). These reports show that fallowed acreage increased
substantially during the drought in comparison to previous
years. In 2000 and 2006 (normal and wet water years,
respectively), Westlands fallowed roughly 45,000 and
55,000 acres. During the 2007–2009 drought years, the dis-
trict fallowed between 99,663 and 156,239 acres annually.
The value of crops produced at the district level is not
available from the district crop reports themselves, and is
estimated by combining district irrigated crop reports with
relevant production value information available at the
county level. Here, we use the district’s irrigated crop
acreage information and the production values from Fresno
County crop reports to generate an approximation of crop
values over the drought period compared to past years. The
results show that total production values by acreage peaked
in 2007 and then slightly declined in 2008 and 2009
(Fig. 3).
In 2007, the total value of Westlands’ harvested acreage,
in terms of estimated gross revenue from irrigated crops,
reached an all-time high of $1.6 billion (using Fresno and
Kern County Crop Reports 2000). However, there was a
significant decline in annual gross revenue in the district
over the course of the drought (2007–2009), compared to
the pre-drought period (2000–2006). Yet, the decrease in
gross revenue was proportionally less than the drop in total
applied water; as a result, there was a significant increase in
the annual estimated value per acre-foot (AF) applied water
(or the economic productivity of water). During the
drought, the economic productivity of water was 30 %
higher than during the pre-drought period.
Energy production
California is fortunate to have extensive hydroelectric
power capacity. Hydroelectricity is relatively inexpensive
Fig. 1 Westlands Water District water supply sources, 2000–2009.
Source: WWD (2011a). Water supply is reported in acre-feet. ‘‘Net
CVP’’ is CVP allocation adjusted for carryover and rescheduled
losses; ‘‘Groundwater’’ is total groundwater pumped by the WWD;
‘‘Water User Acquired’’ includes intra-district transfers between
private landowners; ‘‘Additional’’ includes surplus water, supplemen-
tal supplies, and other adjustments
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
compared to almost every other form of electricity gener-
ation, it produces few or no greenhouse gas emissions, and
is extremely valuable for satisfying peak electricity
demands and meeting the needs of daily electricity demand
fluctuations. The latter is often the most difficult and costly
forms of demand to satisfy. The amount of hydroelectricity
that can be generated in any given year, however, is
directly related to river runoff and the amount of water
stored in California’s reservoirs (Gleick and Nash 1991;
Christian-Smith et al. 2011).
During droughts, total hydropower production drops in
close relationship to the amount of water flowing in
California’s major rivers. Figure 4 shows total hydro-
electricity generation in California from 1983 to 2009,
plotted together with the unimpaired natural water flows
(reconstructed total natural flows excluding diversions and
withdrawals) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
over the same period. The correlation between the two
curves is strong: when runoff falls, hydroelectricity
production falls, and when runoff is high, hydroelectricity
production increases.
In an average year in California, around 15 % of the
state’s electricity (excluding imported power from outside
the state) is generated from hydropower facilities. The
total fraction of the state’s electricity produced by
hydropower has been falling over the past quarter century
as demand for electricity has continued to grow, but
installed hydroelectric capacity has remained relatively
constant (see Fig. 5, which shows the percent of total
California electricity generation produced by hydropower
plants). The ability to expand California’s hydroelectric
capacity is limited. Few undammed rivers, little unallo-
cated water, and growing environmental and economic
constraints have all contributed to the difficulty of adding
new hydropower capacity.
Figure 6 shows total electricity produced for California
from 1997 to 2009 by major generating sources. During dry
years, hydroelectricity production as a fraction of total state
Fig. 2 Cropped and fallowed
acres in Westlands Water
District, 2000–2009. Source:
WWD (2011b). There was a
significant decline in total
cropped acreage over the course
of the drought, compared to pre-
drought acreage, which
remained relatively steady from
2000–2006
Fig. 3 Estimated gross revenue, Westlands Water District,
2000–2009. Source: WWD (2011b) and Fresno County Annual Crop
Reports (2000–2009), Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner’s
Office. Value is estimated by applying the calculated annual crop
production value per acre, according to crop type, from Fresno
County to annual harvested acreage of the same crop type in
Westlands. This method is used because only acreage, not yield, is
reported by the district. Although the district also serves a portion of
Kings County, the majority of the district’s land is in Fresno County.
Values are in 2010 dollars adjusted for inflation
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
electricity demand can fall to under 10 %. During these
periods, lost hydropower is typically made up by burning
natural gas and by increasing purchases from out-of-state
sources. Because the cost of generating electricity with
natural gas is substantially higher than the cost of pro-
ducing hydropower, droughts lead to a direct increase in
electricity costs borne by California ratepayers (Gleick and
Nash 1991; Christian-Smith et al. 2011).
Figure 5 demonstrates that the growth in overall elec-
tricity production has been dominated by increases in
natural gas generation. Hydroelectricity fluctuates with
hydrologic conditions, coal generation has declined, and
renewable and other in-state production has increased, but
at a slower rate than natural gas production.
In the drought years of 2007, 2008, and 2009, hydro-
electricity production accounted for only 9, 8, and 10 % of
Fig. 4 California
hydroelectricity generation
(solid line) from 1983 to 2012
together with unimpaired runoff
from the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers (dashed line),
showing the strong relationship
between river flow and
hydropower generation. Data on
energy generation in California
comes from the California
Energy Almanac database, at
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/
electricity/electricity_
generation.html. (Accessed June
2014). Data on unimpaired run-
off in the Sacramento-San Joa-
quin Rivers come from: DWR
(2014) California Data
Exchange Center. http://cdec.
water.ca.gov/water_supply.
html. (Accessed June 2014)
Fig. 5 California electricity
production by generating source
from 1997 to 2009. Data from
the California Energy
Commission. (http://
energyalmanac.ca.gov/
electricity/index.html#table)
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
the state’s overall electricity generation, respectively,
as compared to an average of 15 % during 1983–2001
(McKinney 2003).
Discussion
Barnett and O’Neill (2010) offer five characteristic mal-
adaptations to climate change: actions that increase emis-
sions of greenhouse gases, have high opportunity costs,
disproportionately burden the most vulnerable, reduce the
incentive to adapt, and lead to path dependency. Here, we
find that several of the adaptive strategies employed by the
agricultural and energy sectors during the 2007–2009
California drought indicate maladaptation.
Increasing emissions of greenhouse gases
Using California Energy Commission estimates of hydro-
electricity generated in an average year compared to gener-
ation during the 2007–2009 drought, it is possible to
calculate the extra natural gas burned during the drought.
During the drought, approximately 30,000 GWh of lost
hydropower were made up with additional natural gas gen-
eration. The average levelized cost of California’s in-service
combined cycle gas turbines (around 11.5 cents per kWh)
compared to the levelized cost of hydroelectric facilities
(around 6 cents per kWh) gives an estimate of the added cost
to California ratepayers of around $1.7 billion over the
course of the drought (Christian-Smith et al. 2011).
In addition to these direct economic costs to consumers,
there are indirect environmental costs associated with the
additional combustion of natural gas, including increased
air pollution in the form of nitrous oxides (NO
x
), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides (SO
x)
, particu-
late matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon
dioxide (CO
2
), the principal greenhouse gas responsible for
climatic change. Using standard emissions factors from the
California Air Resources Board and the California Energy
Commission (see Table 2) for conventional combined
cycle natural gas systems, the drought led to the emissions
of substantial quantities of these additional pollutants (see
Table 3). In particular, nearly 13 million tons of additional
(net over emissions in an average year) carbon dioxide was
released during the drought, or roughly a 10 % increase in
average annual CO
2
emissions from California power
plants, along with substantial quantities of NO
x
, VOCs, and
PM. The 0.070 lbs per MWh emissions factors of NO
x
and
0.208 lbs per MWh VOC represent approximately a 10 %
annual increase of these pollutants into local air/watersheds
during the drought; NO
x
and VOC are known contributors
Fig. 6 California
hydroelectricity as a percent of
total State electricity generation.
The fraction of electricity
provided by hydroelectric
systems has fallen over the past
quarter century as overall
electricity production has
grown. Data from the California
Energy Commission
Table 2 Criteria pollutant emissions factors (pounds per MWh) for
conventional combined cycle natural gas generation
Criteria pollutant NO
x
VOC CO SO
x
PM10 CO
2
E missions factors
(Ibs/MWh)
0.070 0.208 0.024 0.005 0.037 815
CATEF—California Air Toxics Emission Factor Database (2011).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/catef/catef.htm
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
to the formation of smog, triggers for asthma, and have
other negative impacts on human and environmental health
(Gleick and Nash 1991).
These estimates are conservative, assuming that all
additional natural gas combustion came from more envi-
ronmentally friendly combined cycle systems. The eco-
nomic costs of conventional or advanced simple cycle
natural gas systems are three to seven times higher than the
cost of combined cycles, and emissions are also higher due
to lower efficiencies of combustion. Thus, the drought
imposed additional direct and indirect impacts to air quality
and California ratepayers.
High environmental opportunity costs
The groundwater basins that underlie the Central Valley
contain one-fifth of all groundwater pumped in the nation
and are, in effect, California’s largest water reservoirs
(Faunt 2009). The agricultural sector’s current drought
adaptation strategy relies largely on additional groundwater
pumping from these basins, which are already stressed;
thus increased groundwater pumping represents a high
environmental opportunity cost.
A United States Geological Survey (USGS) long-term
analysis of groundwater levels in the Central Valley based
on GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment)
satellite data found significant declines in groundwater
levels over the last 40 years (Faunt 2009). These declines
have been primarily driven by the overdraft of the Tulare
Basin in the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley.
Between 1962 and 2003, an average of 9.1 million acre-
feet of water went into storage annually, and an average of
10.5 million acre-feet was removed annually (Faunt 2009),
for a net average annual overdraft of about 1.4 million
acre-feet. Groundwater overdraft is particularly severe
during dry periods, when the data show that not only the
Tulare Basin but also the Sacramento Valley and San
Joaquin Basins pump more groundwater than is
replenished.
Famiglietti et al. (2011) found that groundwater levels in
the San Joaquin Basin dropped by 2–6 feet per year from
October 2003 to March 2009, while groundwater levels in
the Sacramento Basin dropped by a less extreme 0.3–0.5
feet per year over that same time period. Overall, the
Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basin lost approximately
25 million acre-feet over the time period—roughly the
capacity of Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the USA
(Famiglietti et al. 2011). Westlands’ groundwater condi-
tions report shows that local groundwater surface elevation
decreased around 50 feet during the 2007–2009 drought
(WWD 2014, Fig. 5).
Given the naturally low rates of groundwater recharge in
the San Joaquin Basin, combined with projections of
decreasing snowpack (Cayan et al. 2006) and population
growth, continued groundwater depletion at the rates esti-
mated are unsustainable, with risks for economic and food
security in the USA (Famiglietti et al. 2011). In addition,
although not yet quantified, there are increased energy
requirements and greenhouse gas emissions associated with
increased groundwater pumping from declining ground-
water tables.
Reduced incentive to adapt
Farmers have access to emergency aid, loans, and insur-
ance programs that cover part of farmer and rancher losses
from drought, floods, and other disasters. Farmers used
these programs during the drought to supplement lost farm
income due to drought impacts on crops and livestock; we
only consider crop losses. Crop insurance policies pay
farmers for losses related to either below-average yields
(crop yield insurance) or below-average revenue (revenue
insurance). With subsidies, most farmers pay around
40–50 % of crop insurance premiums.
Table 4 summarizes California’s drought-related agri-
cultural losses compensated through the USDA Risk
Management Agency crop insurance policies, totaling $20
million over the drought period. The vast majority of
drought-related crop insurance payments were made for
field crops, primarily wheat, oats, and barley. Only in five
cases during the drought period were crop insurance pay-
ments made for crops other than field crops.
Half of the payments were made during the last year of
the drought, indicating that impacts were becoming more
severe as the drought persisted. In the final year of the
drought, 2009, crop insurance payments in California
totaled more than $11 million. Farmers and ranchers in the
San Joaquin Valley Counties took out the highest number
of drought policies, and received the most in total payment
for drought losses between 2007 and 2009.
Looking only at Fresno County, which houses the
majority of Westlands Water District acreage, we found
declines in harvested acreage, but simultaneous increases
in gross revenue during the drought. The total gross
Table 3 Total air emissions from additional natural gas use during
the 2007–2009 drought (tons)
Criteria pollutant NO
x
VOC CO SO
x
PM10 CO
2
Additional
emissions (tons)
1,110 3,300 380 80 590 12,900,000
CATEF—California Air Toxics Emission Factor Database 2011.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/catef/catef.htm
NO
x
nitrous oxides, VOC volatile organic compounds, CO carbon
monoxide, SO
x
sulfur oxides, PM10 particulate matter (with a
diameter of 10 micrometers), CO
2
carbon dioxide
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
revenue of Fresno County agriculture increased 2 % during
the drought years, and has increased 35 % since 2000.
Despite the relative robustness of Fresno County agricul-
ture, Fresno County farmers and ranchers received the
highest total drought-period insurance payments in com-
parison to other counties. Over 200 drought insurance
policies were paid in Fresno County during the drought,
totaling $10 million.
Conclusions
California’s agricultural and energy sectors sustained high
production levels during the 2007–2009 drought. We find
that despite both sectors being resilient to the impacts of
the drought, in terms of maintaining production levels, they
do so by relying on a series of coping strategies that
increased the vulnerability of other systems. In particular,
drought responses increased emissions of greenhouse
gases, had high environmental opportunity costs, and led to
a reduced incentive to adapt.
During this 3-year drought period, California’s hydro-
power was roughly halved. This lost hydropower was
replaced with the purchase and combustion of additional
natural gas. We calculate that electricity ratepayers spent
$1.7 billion to purchase natural gas over the 3-year drought
period, emitting an additional 13 million tons of CO
2
(about a 10 % increase in total annual CO
2
emissions from
California powerplants). The substitution of hydropower
with natural gas also released substantial quantities of
harmful pollutants, including nitrous oxides, volatile
organic compounds, and particulates.
In addition, although total agricultural revenues
remained high during the drought, the increased ground-
water pumping that in part sustained agricultural produc-
tion would not provide water security in the face of a
longer or more severe drought. The agricultural sector’s
increased reliance on groundwater from overdrafted aqui-
fers also increased energy demands and led to drastic
declines in groundwater tables. Finally, crop insurance
programs under the federal Farm Bill may have reduced the
incentive for farmers to adapt by providing subsidized
drought insurance for some farms growing water-intensive
crops in the Central Valley of California.
We conclude that the responses of the agricultural and
energy sectors during the 2007–2009 California drought
Table 4 USDA drought-related crop insurance payments in California, 2005–2009
Country 2005 2006 Crop insurance payments Payments 2007–2009
2007 2008 2009 Policies Avg Per policy
San Joaquin Valley $6,275 $98,000 $1,719,211 $3,845,991 $9,244,370 $14,809,572 598 $364,589
Sacram ento Valley $0 $0 $223,968 $148,851 $150,519 508,026 57 $120,038
Southern California $0 $739,512 $l,015,797 $908,983 $1,512,755 $3,437,535 164 $156,517
Central Coast $518 $2,151 $255,703 $350,138 $489,093 $1,094,939 117 $75,953
Other $3,001 $0 $3,549 $65,663 $59,885 $129,098 15 $79,943
All Regions $9,794 $839,663 $3,218,233 $5,319,626 $ll,456,622 $19,994,481 951 $27,484
USDA Risk Management Agency. Cause of loss historical data files: summary of business with month of loss. 2005–2009
Table includes annual crop insurance payments made to agricultural producers for ‘‘drought’’ losses only. The average per-policy payment
amounts for counties are annually weighted averages. This table includes all drought-impacted counties reporting ‘‘drought’’ losses in California
between 2005 and 2009. Payments are in dollar amounts reported for that year
Table 5 Crisis-driven responses and mitigation measures for
drought-affected sectors
Sector Crisis-driven response Mitigation measure
Agriculture Use insurance, grants and
loans to reduce short-
term economic impacts
Plant drought-resistant
crops
Expand short-term
groundwater mining
Adjust grazing schedules
and intensity
Fallow land or alter
cropping patterns on an
annual basis
Improve soil moisture
management
Implement conjunctive
management
Provide better/affordable
access to efficient
irrigation technologies
and products
Energy Purchase natural gas to
replace hydropower
Expand energy
conservation and
efficiency programs
Implement energy short-
term demand reduction
Diversify the state’s energy
portfolio with a focus on
renewable energy
sources
Raise energy rates to
encourage conservation
Expand transmission
capacity with
neighboring states,
particularly those with
renewable energy
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
led to increased vulnerability of ecosystems and social
groups that rely on those ecosystems for their health or
employment. For California to become more resilient to
future drought conditions (as of publication, California had
entered into yet another multi-year drought), it will be
critical to shift from crisis-driven responses to the devel-
opment and enactment of long-term mitigation measures.
Crisis-driven responses, such as increased use of fossil
fuel-based energy sources, groundwater pumping, and
reliance on crop and drought insurance, may harm future
generations. Table 5 compares crisis responses with miti-
gation measures for some of the sectors affected by
drought. As this table suggests, a number of mitigation
measures are available within different sectors, and miti-
gation strategies in one sector can have a positive effect on
other sectors. For example, improvements in the efficiency
of water use in the agricultural sector can minimize that
sector’s reliance on the existing supply and reduce
unnecessary water use. Therefore, water efficiency
improvements can help maximize the current supply and
reduce the drought’s impact on other sectors, such as the
environment, if water savings are left in-stream or explic-
itly committed to environmental flow needs (Gleick et al.
2011). Likewise, improving soil moisture management can
improve the efficiency of agricultural water use, with
benefits for the economy such as increased farm revenues
and decreased payouts in the form of federally subsidized
crop insurance.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank all those who have
offered ideas, data, information, and/or comments on the report,
including Lucy Allen, Damian Bickett, Jeff Cesca, Mike Colvin,
Heather Cooley, Sean Dayyani, Russ Freeman, Michael Hanemann,
Matthew Heberger, Phuong Lao, Jeanine Jones, Kelly Krug, Igor
Lac
´
an, Kristin Macey, Guy Masier, Paul Mendoza, Tracy Pettit-
Polhemus, Spreck Rosekrans, Tina Swanson, Dave Runsten, and the
many county agricultural commissioners and their staff. This research
was supported by the Panta Rhea Foundation, the Flora Family
Foundation, and the Pisces Foundation.
References
Barnett J, O’Neill S (2010) Maladaptation. Glob Environ Change
20(2010):211–213
Burton I (1997) Vulnerability and adaptive response in the context of
climate and climate change. Clim Change 36(1–2):185–196
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2008) Managing
an uncertain future: climate change adaptation strategies for
California’s water. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/
docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (2010) Califor-
nia’s Drought of 2007–2009: an overview, Sacramento. http://
www.water.ca.gov/drought/docs/DroughtReport2010.pdf
California Employment Development Department (EDD) (2011)
Labor force and unemployment data. Labor force and unem-
ployment data, California LaborMarketInfo. 2005–2010. http://
www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=164
Cayan D, Maurer EP, Dettinger MD, Tyree M, Hayhoe K (2006)
Climate scenarios for California. CEC-500-2005-203. Calif Clim
Change Cent, Sacramento
Christian-Smith J, Levy M, Gleick PH (2011) Impacts of the
California drought from 2007–2009. Pacific Institute, Oakland,
California. http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/
02/ca_drought_impacts_full_report3.pdf, p 103
Cooley H, Christian-Smith J, Gleick PH (2008) More with less:
agricultural water conservation and efficiency in California.
Oakland, California: Pacific Institute. http://www.pacinst.org/
reports/more_with_less_delta/more_with_less.pdf
Delta Vision Task Force and ENTRIX, Inc. (2008) Overview on
central valley project financing, cost allocation, and repayment
issues. http://deltavision.ca.gov/ConsultantReports/CVP_Finan
cing_and_Repayment_Summary_9-18-08.pdf
Engle NL (2011) Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob Environ
Change 21:647–656
Famiglietti JS, Lo M, Ho SL, Bethune J, Anderson KJ, Syed TH,
Swenson SC, de Linage CR, Rodell M (2011) Satellites measure
recent rates of groundwater depletion in California’s Central
Valley. Geophys Res Lett 38:4. doi:10.1029/2010GL046442
Faunt CC (ed) (2009) Groundwater availability of the Central Valley
Aquifer, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1766. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1766/PP_1766.pdf
Fresno County, Department of Agriculture, and Agricultural Com-
missioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures. (Fresno County)
(2000–2009) Annual Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report.
Annual Crop Report. http://www.co.fresno.ca.us
Gleick P, Nash L (1991) The societal and environmental costs of the
continuing California drought. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Institute for
Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. http://
pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/05/societal-enviro
mental-cost-drought.pdf. Accessed June 2014
Gleick PH, Christian-Smith J, Cooley H (2011) Water-use efficiency
and productivity: rethinking the basin approach. Water Int
36(7):784–798
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding trans-
formations in human and natural systems. 1718 Connecticut
Ave., NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20009: Island Press
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) Climate
change 2013: The physical science basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/
report/ar5/wg1/#.UnFWjuKmZf8
Kern County (2000–2009) Department of Agriculture, and Agricul-
tural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures (Kern
County) Annual Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report. Annual
Crop Report. http://www.co.fresno.ca.us
McKinney J (2003) California hydropower system: energy and
environment. California Energy Commission. http://www.
energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-10-30_100-03-018.PDF
Michael J, Howitt R, Medellin-Azuara J, MacEwan D (2010) A
retrospective estimate of the economic impacts of reduced water
supplies to the San Joaquin Valley in 2009. http://forecast.
pacific.edu/water-jobs/SJV_Rev_Jobs_2009_092810.pdf
Null SE, Viers JH (2012) (Center for Watershed Sciences, University
of California, Davis) Water and energy sector vulnerability to
climate warming in the Sierra Nevada: water year classification
in non-stationary climates. California Energy Commission.
Publication number: CEC-500-2012-015
Ribot J (2011) Vulnerability before adaptation: toward transformative
climate action. Glob Environ Change 21(4):1160–1162
Smit B (ed) (1993) Adaptation to climate variability and change.
Environment Canada, Guelph
Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulner-
ability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):282–292
Tulare County (2000–2009) Department of Agriculture, and Agricul-
tural Commissioner/Sealer of Weights and Measures (Tulare
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
County) Tulare County agricultural crop and livestock report.
Annual Crop Report. http://www.co.tulare.ca.us/government/
agricultural
USDA Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) (2009) ERS/USDA
briefing room—farm and commodity policy: program provi-
sions: crop yield and revenue insurance. ERS briefing rooms.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/farmpolicy/insure.htm
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS)
(2000–2009) USDA NASS California Agricultural Statistics,
Crop Years 2000–2009. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_
State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/Reports/
index.asp
Villarejo D, Redmond J (1988) Missed opportunities: squandered
resources—why prosperity brought by water doesn’t trickle-
down in the California Central Valley. The California Institute
for Rural Studies, Davis
Westlands Water District (WWD) (1996) Groundwater Management
Plan. http://www.westlandswater.org
Westlands Water District (WWD) (2011a) Annual water supply and
use. http://www.westlandswater.org/resources/watersupply/sup
ply.asp?title=Annual%20Water%20Use%20and%20Supply&c
wide=1440
Westlands Water District (WWD) (2011b) Westlands Water District
Crop Acreage Reports. 2000–2010. http://westlandswater.org/
Westlands Water District (WWD) (2014) Deep groundwater conditions
report. http://www.westlandswater.org/long/201405/2013-Deep-
Groundwater-Conditions-Report.pdf?title=Deep%20Ground
water%20Conditions%20Report%20%28Dec%202013%29&c
wide=1920
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
