California’s Adaptation to Climate Change

1. California’s Adaptation to Climate Change A Task Force of the Pacific Council on International Policy Dan Mazmanian, Task Force Director Transatlantic Climate Bridge on Climate Change and Energy Free University of Berlin Nov. 28-Dec. 5, 2009 1

2. The Challenge • “We have to adapt the way we work and plan in order to manage the impacts and challenges that California and our entire planet face from climate change.” • Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger • November 2008

3. The Response Executive Order S-13-08, directing the Natural Resource Agency to bring together all relevant state agencies in drafting a climate change adaptation strategy that could carried out under the aegis of each of the contributing agency The draft report can be viewed at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/

4. Why the Task Force? • The Task Force in view of the need to develop state policies and decision- making capabilities to govern , fund ,and implement a viable adaptation process over a multiple-decade timeframe • Considerations: • Science of climate change (what is known, how urgent?) • Political and public policy context (AB32, recession, fiscal constraints, Resource’s Adaptation Strategy) • Intended audience (policy opinion leaders, the public, candidates in the 2010 state elections, others)

5. Task Force members Co-Chairs: William K. Reilly, Mason Willrich, Patrick Lavin Members: Rafael Jose Aguilera Audrey Chang Cynthia L. Cory Bryant Danner Ron Gastelum T.J. Glauthier Lee K. Harrington Robert M. Hertzberg Winston H. Hickox Loren F. Kaye Kaylynn L. Kim Jane C.S. Long Sunne McPeak Michael J. Rubio Rebecca Shaw Dan Sperling Pete Wilson Diane Wittenberg Jim Wunderman John E. Bryson, co-chair PCIP

6. The task force mission Focus: Climate change threats, vulnerabilities, range of possible responses, implications for action Goal: Develop an adaptation implementation strategy for California Product: Recommendations that engage policy makers and the broad public (to be released disseminated in the spring of 2010)

7. Determining Threat &Targets Sub groups need to focus on both threats that are near and long-term, most probable, and will have significant impact Devastating High Impact/Magnitude Timing/Urgency Low Low Low High Low High Certain Resources Required Probability

8. Climate change threat: sea-level rise • Increased sea-level rise of 17” by 2050 and 55” by 2070-2099 • or higher depending on mitigation efforts • Risks of Coastal Flooding in Low-Lying Areas: • More People and Assets At Risk • Increased Risk of Inundation of Public Infrastructure • Levees and Structures Requiring Retrofit • Increased Erosion of Beaches, Cliffs and Dunes: • Private Property and Structures at Risk • Beach Recreation and Tourism –Decreased in Select Areas • Greater Expenditures for Beach Maintenance • Increased Saltwater Intrusion into Coastal Groundwater Resources: • Agricultural Land degraded by Saltwater • Coastal Wetlands Loss and Replacement

9. Population at Risk • 480,000 people • 300,000 workers • Large numbers of low-income people and communities of color

10. Property at Risk

11. Wetlands and Sea Level Rise • Some wetlands may become permanently inundated if sea levels rise faster than they can respond • California has already lost 96% of its wetlands, at a great cost to the state • Wetlands are vital for: • flood protection • water quality improvement • wildlife habitat • recreation • carbon sequestration Image courtesy of BCDC

13. Climate change threat: snowpack and precipitation • Precipitation variability with snowpack decrease up to 90% by 2099 • More Winter Precipitation Falling as Rain Instead of Snow • Intense Rainfall Events - More Frequent and/or More Extensive Floods/Droughts - More Frequent and Persistent • Decreasing Water Quality: • Longer Low-flow Conditions • Higher Water Temperatures • Higher Contaminant Concentrations Increased Risks of Coastal • Landscaped Areas and Natural Systems: • Increased Irrigation Needs • Increased Agr.Water Demands Due to a Longer Growing Season • Increased Urban Water Use, at Possible Expense of Ag.Water

14. Climate change threat: forest fires and forest communities • Temperature rise of 4 – 9 degree F by 2100 • with 200-300% increase in major forest fires by 2050 • Longer Dry Periods and Moisture Deficits • Drought Conditions • Increase Wildfire Risk • Increased Flooding & Runoff - Increases Erosion and Nutrient Loss • • Enhanced and/or Decreased Forest Productivity: • Tree Mortality • Species Migration Barriers • Invasive Species Increases • Potential for Increased Growth from CO2 • Reduction in Ecosystem Goods and Services • Economic Losses • 9

15. Three climatechange effects facing California Sea Level Rise/Flood Forest Fires Water Supply • threat • 1-2 meter sea rise by 2099 • impacts • commerce, • transportation, communities, • recreation, • marine habitat, • land use, etc. • equity and justice • costs/benefits of action • and inaction • threat • heat level rise of 4-10 degree F by 2100 • forest infestation • extreme fires • impacts • commerce • communities • recreation • habitat • forests • equity and justice • costs/benefits of action • and inaction • threat • reduced snowpack • precipitation variability • impacts • availability • distribution • storage • baseline demand • resilience • agriculture • urban • equity and justice • costs/benefits of action • and inaction

16. Analytical framework and case studies Teams will consider a range of actions that can be taken to address the hazard in a specific community Focus/ Content Sea Level Rise Heat/Fire Water Supply • Improved fire fighting capabilities • New sources; desalination • Sea walls Resistance • Risk insurance, floating foundation; • land use management • Fire proof building standards; • forestry practices, thinning • New irrigation systems, gray water, demand management, • conservation Resilience Structure of Analysis Retreat • Move to higher ground • Move out of red zone • NA Coastal & Bay Area community Sierra foothills community North Coast & Central Valley agr community

17. Scenario building: 3 teams, six steps Establish Threat/ Identify Vulnerability Set Targets Select Actions Implementation Steps/ Identify Challenges Develop Recommendations Articulate general recommendations • Develop case specific recommendations based on insights derived from the process • Site selection (real data, treated as hypothetical) • Three scenarios for the threat will be presented (Low/Moderate/Severe) • Planning targets selected • Examples: • Sea Level: 55” • Water Supply: consumption reduction of 50% • Fire: hold loss levels to late 20th century levels • Brainstorm possible actions • Narrow list based on qualitative analysis of urgency, expense, complexity, impact, etc. • Select 2-3 actions • Develop implementation plans for each action around capacity gaps in governance and funding at the state and local levels • Develop general recommendations • re: governance • funding • planning • capacity • building Expert Expert/ Sub Team Leader Expert/Sub team leaders/ Sub team Sub team leaders/ Sub team Sub team leaders/ Sub team Entire Task Force

18. Steps/Stages in developing the sub-group scenario • Threat: What is the nature of the climate change threat (characteristics, time • horizon, breadth of effect, etc.)? • The answer will be provide by our scientific experts • Vulnerability: How likely is someone, some place, to be adversely be affected • by the threat? • The answer will be provide by our experts and group facilitators • Response: Responses to the vulnerability will can conceivably range across • the three R’s (Resist, Resilience, Retreat) • The answer as to what is a “reasonable and prudent” response will be discussed and decided by the members of the group • Strategy: What policies should be enacted and carried out in light of the • responses identified? • The answer is to be discussed and decided by the members of the • group

19. Issues to consider in recommending action • Is the action specific to the threat and vulnerability? • Can it be generalized across threats and vulnerabilies? • How high a priority should be given to the recommended action? • Is it in response to an imminent threat (highly likely and relatively soon)? • Does it require a longer time horizon? • Does the action represent a solution that increases adaptive capacity (resilience) while reducing long term costs? (co-benefits, loss avoided?) • Does the action address the 3E’s (economic growth, environmental protection, equity)?

20. Considerations for the TF report Governance issues to consider: Does California need a comprehensive adaptation strategy? Should outcomes-based goals (not just process goals) be required for whatever the strategy is adopted? Where should be the locus of authority and responsibility for adaption actions be placed (local, regional, state)? What should be government ‘s role versus that of for-profit and non-profit organizations? Should comprehensive climate change planning be required at the local, county, regional and state level? Should land uses, zoning and construction regulations be alignment with threat and vulnerability forecasts?

21. Considerations for the TF report Funding considerations: Who should pay for capacity building and adaptation planning, and how? How can the costs of adaptation be turned into investments in the 21st century economy growth and more sustainable communities? What role should risk-based climate change insurance play in anticipation of climate change effects at the residential, business, and community level? Should a state/local disaster fund or “trust” be established in CA? To what extent should adaptation funding be predicated on a beneficiaries pays principle (with some underwriting for least well off)?

22. Report dissemination and outreach activities Determining target audience Selection of media campaign manager/consultant Material to be produced and medium (hard copy, electronic, interactive) Policy audiences (TF members, director, others available as speakers) Policymakers (face-to-face) Candidates and campaign staffs