investing in california’s flood future: an outcome-driven ...€¦ · california’s flood future...

Investing in California’s Flood Future: An Outcome-Driven Approach to Flood Management

Agenda

A. Moving Beyond California’s Flood Future ReportB. Historical ContextC. Shared ConcernsD. Outcome-Driven Water

ManagementE. Findings and

RecommendationsF. Path Forward

2

Interactive Polling Instructions

Log in to hotel wifi• Network: westin meetings• Pass: FLOOD2015

Using text on your smartphone • To: 22333 • Type in message field: FMA2015• Receive confirmation text that you are in poll

3

Moving Beyond California’s Flood Future Report

6

A.

California’s Flood Future Report Recommendations

1. Conduct regional flood risk assessments to understand statewide flood risk.2. Increase public and policymaker awareness about flood risks to facilitate

informed decisions.3. Support flood emergency preparedness, response,

and recovery programs to reduce impacts.4. Encourage land-use planning practices that

reduce the consequences of flooding.5. Conduct flood management from regional,

systemwide, and statewide perspectives to maximize resources.

6. Facilitate public agency alignment to improve flood management planning, governance, and policies.

7. Develop statewide flood management investment priorities and establish sufficient and stable funding mechanisms to reduce flood risk.

7

Building upon California’s Flood Future Report Recommendations

Investing in California’s Flood Future Report:

• Detailed analysis of issues identified

• Updated proposed project list

• Holistic,outcome-drivenapproach

• Investment recommendations8

Investing in California’s Flood Future Report Seeks to Answer the Following Questions:

• How will water management be more effectively managed to identify, monitor, and deliver desired long-term outcomes?

• How can California ensure that outcomes are delivered in a cost effective way that provides best value for investment?

• How will California provide long-term, stable investment needed to deliver desired outcomes?

Investing in California’s Flood FutureReport Components and Target Audiences

10

Investing in California’s Flood Future Fits within Existing Statewide Planning

11

Historical Context

12

B.

Historical Eras

13

Early Water Management Focused onDevelopment, Regulations, and Agencies

14

Levee construction by local landowners and RDs

Local funding of infrastructure

State agency formation to manage public safety

State and Federal water legislation

Major Infrastructure Development (after 1920)

Move from local to Federal funding of Infrastructure

High Volume of Local Agency Formation

Reclamation Board, DWR, and Water Rights Commission formed

Federal and State laws about water and other resources

Agriculture1880-1938

Settlement and Local Development1840-1879

Increased State Involvement

15

Federal funding of infrastructure

Federal development of infrastructure

Minimal agency formation

Minimal legislation

End of Major Dam Development

State Funding of Infrastructure

Significant changes to agency names, missions, and structures

Flood Risk Legislation

• Significant Federal funding

• Increased State funding

WW II1939-1945

Military-Industrial Complex1946-1968

Rise of Environmental Awareness

16

InfrastructureDevelopmentslows

Increased Local and State Cost Sharing

New agencies formed to manage environmental and other resourcesState/Federal Environmental laws established

InfrastructureDevelopmentslows

Reduced Federal funding and increased State bond funding

Consolidation and Renaming of agencies

Increased Regulation of Natural Resources

• Environmental laws established

• Reduced Federal funding

• Increased State and local bond funding

Environmentalism and Regulations

1969-1989

High Tech Industry1990-2013

IncreasingResource Conflicts

17

Trend toward multiple benefit projects

Reduced Federal funding and increased State bond funding

New legislation to more effectively manage resources

New agencies for funding specific projects

• Declining environmental and natural systems

• Conflicting regulatory framework

• Increased spending on resources and short-term solutions

Sustainable Resource Management2014-ongoing

Moving Toward Sustainability

Societal values include:• Reasonable public health and safety• Economic stability• Ecosystem vitality • Other enriching experiences

18

California’s Flood Management System Is In Crisis And Not Meeting Our Societal Goals

• System needs exceed ability to pay

• Reactive decision-making and management of systems

• Myriad of agencies responsible for water management

• Conflicting reactive requirements

• A focus on short-term actions

20

Shared Concerns

21

C.

Investing in California’s Flood Future Report Information Gathering Effort

• 240+ agencies participated• All 58 counties• Data collected

included:– Agency alignment– Permitting issues– Proposed/planned

projects– O&M information– Financial mechanisms

and constraints22

Management Action Categories

24

Flood Infrastructure

Reservoir and Floodplain Storage and Operations

Operations and Maintenance

Watershed and Floodplain Management

Natural Floodplain and Ecosystem Functions

Land Use Planning

Emergency Management

Programmatic or Project Specific Permitting

Policy and Regulations

Finance and Revenue

$54 Billion of Local Agency Flood Management Proposed/Planned Projects

25

Proposed/Planned Projects Have Multiple Purposes

26

Local Agency Flood Management Proposed/Planned Projects

27

Local ProjectsCalifornia’s

Flood Future Report ($ billion)

Investing in California’s Flood Future Report

($ billion)

Central Coast $0.28 $0.58

Colorado River $0.07 $0.10

North Coast $0.11 $0.19

North Lahontan $0.02 $0.10

Sacramento River $2.32 $24.01

San Francisco Bay $1.97 $7.51

San Joaquin River $0.73 $9.35

South Coast $5.74 $6.46

South Lahontan $0.17 $0.25

Tulare Lake $0.24 $5.38

Multi-Region $0 $0.07

Total $11.65 $54.00

Sacramento River

$2.32 $24.01

San Joaquin River

$0.73 $9.35

Tulare Lake $0.24 $5.38

More Than $94 Billion of Statewide Flood Management

Proposed/Planned Projects

• $54 billion local agency projects

• $6+ billionUSACE sponsored efforts/projects

• $14-17 billionCVFPP system improvements

• $0.1 – 17 billiondelta investments

28

Shared Concerns

• Investment needs exceed ability to pay

• Inadequate understanding of flood risk

• Agencies are not aligned

• Reactive and sometimes conflicting requirements

• Outcomes are not tracked

29

Shared Concern: Investment Needs Exceed Ability to Pay

• Scant funding for long-term investment and infrastructure replacement

• Proposition 218 restrictions

• Deferred maintenance31

Shared Concern: Inadequate Understanding of Flood Risk

34

• Disconnect between land use planning and flood risk

• Increased liability and public safety risks due to development in floodplains

• Inadequate investment in risk reduction

• Deferred maintenance

More than 2,100Local Water Management Agencies

35

Shared Concern:Agencies Are Not Aligned

• Reactive agency formation

• Most agencies formed prior to environmental awareness

• Agency mission statements can be limiting

• Decisions related to flood management and land use spread among/between agencies

• Agency actions are fragmented and project-by-project focused

• Agencies have conflicting responsibilities and competing interests

• Planning processes and projects are independent or conflicted

36

Shared Concern:Conflicting Reactive Requirements

Hamper System Management

• High costs of compliance

• Lack of concern for economic impacts

• Inconsistent and confusing interpretations

38

• New and existing laws can be in conflict

• Antiquated approaches prevent flexibility or adaptability

• Long implementation times

Shared Concern:Outcomes Are Not Tracked

• Planning/projects may not consider impact on all societal values

• Laws, policies, and investments seldom evaluated against societal values

• Program level decisions not linked to effectiveness

40

Current Decisions Focused on Actions instead of Outcomes

41

Fractured, Implicit,

and action focused

Crisis oriented

with short-term focus

Reactive based on implicit

assumptions about cause and effect

Outside of management

process control

Loosely defined;

rarely trackedFocused on

actions taken

Outcome-Driven Water Management

43

D.

Why Try a New Framework?

44

• System is failing in some key ways

• Complex system makes it difficult to agree on what to change

• Current approach causes conflict and competition instead of effective collaboration

• Need approach to promote learning and adaptation

California native fishes are in sharp decline

Need to Move from Action-Oriented to Outcome-Driven Approach

45

Effectiveness is determined by the degree to which actions taken help bring about outcomes that are consistent with intent.

Outcomes are Hierarchical

46

• Level 4: Degree of Sustainability

• Level 3: Tangible Resource and Societal Conditions

• Level 2: Physical Assets and Behaviors

• Level 1: Enabling Conditions

Outcomes Are Delivered Through Different Scales of Action

47

Actions include:• Legislation• Investment• Regulation• Planning• Implementation• Outreach• O&M

A Question of Scale -Moving to a River Basin Scale

48

Benefits of River Basin Scale

• Accounts for interdependencies

• Includes a diversity of perspectives

• Fosters alignment

• Generates ownership and understanding among a wide range of stakeholders

• Organizes and disseminates knowledge49

Level of Outcome Policy Scale Program Scale Plan/Project Scale

Level 4 -Sustainability

Segment 1

Level 3 –Resource & Social Achievements

Segment 9 - Set and Assess at River Basin Scale

Segment 8

Level 2 –Behaviors & Physical Assets

Segment 3 Segment 5 Segment 7

Level 1 – Enabling Conditions


50

Segmenting a Complex System

Why Use the Water Management Effectiveness Framework?

• Set intent

• Assess effectiveness

• Identify and prioritize promising changes to the system

• Organize implementation of intended actions

• Observe and learn about system function

51

Setting Intent at Level 4

Define Sustainability

An ongoing, resilient, and dynamic balance between societal values

52


Define Tangible Resources and Societal Achievements Examples:• Limit development on

floodplain X to a value of $Y• X Acres of added functional

habitat• Zero lives lost due to

flooding

54

Setting Intentat Level 2

Define Desired Changes to Physical Assets and Behaviors Examples:• X miles of levee to Y

standard• Consideration of flood

risk in land use zoning decisions

55


Identify Necessary Enabling Conditions Examples:• $X funding authorized for

Program Y• Objectives defined for

Program Y or Project X• Functional system for

tracking effectiveness

56

• Clear and concise goals (intended Level 4 outcomes)

• Specific, tangible, and observable intended Level 3 Outcomes

• Alignment and common understanding

• Stable funding mechanisms

• Specialized programs, plans, and projects with clear authorities

• Commitment and ability to evaluate effectiveness

• Capacity to adjust intent and actions

• Public and stakeholder understanding and support

58

Assessing Level 1 Effectivenessat the Policy Scale of Action

Level of Outcome Policy Scale Program Scale Plan/Project Scale

Level 4 -Sustainability

Segment 1

Level 3 –Resource & Social Achievements

Segment 9 - Set and Assess at River Basin Scale

Segment 8

Level 2 –Behaviors & Physical Assets


Level 1 – Enabling Conditions


61

Segmenting a Complex System

A Project-Scale ExampleThe Cosumnes River Floodplain Restoration

• Floodplain restoration to restore valley oak riparian vegetation

• Purchased and managed by coalition of NGOs, State, and Federal agencies

• Agricultural levees breached to reconnect historical floodplain

• Ecological achievements observed: – Improved wetland and successional

communities (including valley oak)– Restored access to floodplain habitat

for salmon– Reproduction of a number of native fishes

63

Source: Quinn and Viers, 2006

A Project-Scale ExampleCosumnes River Floodplain Restoration

Level 3: Tangible Resource Conditions

64

Return of Valley Oak Riparian Habitat Accelerated Growth Rates for Chinook Salmon

Photo: Carson Jeffres


Level 2 Outcomes: Physical Assets and Behaviors • Purchase of 60 properties/easements

(nearly 46,000 acres of land between 1984-1998

• Levees breached in 1995 and 1997 to reconnect the river and floodplain

• Ongoing research and reporting by UCD and TNC

• Funding received from the Packard Foundation, the CBDA, CDFW, BLM, TNC, Ducks Unlimited, and DWR

•65

Photo: Carson Jeffres


Level 1 Outcomes: Enabling Conditions• Ongoing cooperative partnership between TNC, BLM, DWR, CDFW,

Ducks Unlimited, SLC, private landowners, EBMUD, and others

• Intent is clearly articulated and updated

• Funding committed from the Packard Foundation, CALFED, TNC, etc.

• Monitoring plan in place

• Ongoing research is supported and encouraged

• Yearly reports and papers published documenting evolving understanding of the dynamics between management actions and ecological outcomes

66


Level 4: Sustainability

67

??

??

??

??

Why Implement the Water Management Effectiveness Framework?

• Clearer and consistent INTENTfor agencies and investment

– Reduction in conflicting mandates

• Increased local control deciding which ACTIONS best achieve intended OUTCOMES within river basin

– policy-level advocacy around intent, instead of actions

• ASSESSMENT leads to improved learning and understanding over time about how actions influence outcomes

• Improved enabling conditions and behaviors lead to more EFFECTIVE WATER MANAGEMENT68

Findings and Recommendations

69

E.

Findings and Recommendations

70

Regional Need and Management Actions Findings

71

• Ease Proposition 218 requirements (Level 1)

• Increased public education about risk awareness and preparedness (Level 1)

• Improved emergency preparedness and response (Level 2)

• Reduce vulnerability and potential liability from deferred maintenance (Level 3)

Flood Risk Awareness Findings

72

• Balance risk and reward on floodplains (Level 3)– Legislation to link land use decisions

to water/flood management (Level 1)

– Understanding and identifying acceptable flood risk (Level 1)

– Technical assistance with climate change and sea-level rise (Level 1)

– Avoid flood risk escalation on strategically located floodplains (Level 2)

– Technical assistance with assessing flood risk and communicating risk (Level 2)

Agency Alignment Findings

73

• Expand authorities, governance structures, and realign agency missions around intended outcomes (Level 1)

– Establishing enabling conditions by adopting holistic missions, goals, and authorities

– Align missions and purposes

– Adopt societal goals

• Implement resource management at a river basin scale (Level 2)

• Identify and establish regional collaboration (Level 1 and 2)

Environmental Compliance and Permitting Findings

• Improvements to existing permitting process (short-term)– Incorporate urgency of public safety into

permitting process (Level 1)

– Set up regional resource agency review groups to address permitting conflicts (Level 1)

– Allows credit for the restoration components of projects (Level 1)

– Work with Federal permitting agencies to delegate authority to California agencies including USACE (Level 1)

– Allow public safety projects to move forward while negotiating compensatory mitigation (Level 2)

– Work on cooperative agreements for work sharing on permit review (Level 2)74

• Transition to outcome driven permitting procedures (longer-term)– Improve agency alignment including

establishing enabling conditions (Level 1)

– Provide adequate funding for permitting agencies to review documents (Level 1)

– Implement resource management at a river basin scale (Level 2)

– Review impacts and identify mitigation on a regional or watershed basis (Level 2)

– Establish programmatic permitting (Level 1)

Investment Strategy Recommendations Findings

75

Implement the Water Management Effectiveness Framework• Adopt unambiguous societal goals (Level 1)• Ensure that stable and sustainable funding

mechanisms exist (Level 1)• Realign state services to a river

basin scale (Level 1)• Develop a system for identifying,

tracking, and reporting intended and actual outcomes at the following scales (Level 1):

– 4 levels of outcome– 3 scales of action– Geographic scale

Recommendations to move towards Sustainable Flood Management

Recommendation 1:

Commit to consistent, ongoing State investments to deliver specific long-term outcomes to provide and improve flood management statewide.

Recommendation 2:

Modify and align the delivery of State services related to water and flood management around a consistent set of intended outcomes, and track results over time.

Recommendation 3:

Remove obstacles within State government control that hamper effective local flood management.

Path Forward

77

F.

Path Forward:What California Needs to Do

78

• Identify intent and adopt societal values • Move from action-based to outcome-driven approach• Focus on long-term measurable outcomes and adapt over time• Identify stable and ongoing funding sources• Track and measure actual results against intended outcomes• Invest in policies, programs, and projects that support societal

values

Questions?

79

?

investing in california’s flood future: an outcome-driven ...€¦ · california’s flood future...

Documents