Preparing California for a changing climate

Louise Bedsworth & Ellen Hanak

Received: 13 August 2009 /Accepted: 21 June 2011 /Published online: 11 October 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

It has become clear that in addition to taking steps to reduce the emissions that cause globalwarming, individuals and institutions need to take steps to prepare for the inevitable effectsof climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007; National ResearchCouncil (NRC) 2010). Even under the best-case scenario, some amount of warming appearsunavoidable, and with that will come rising sea levels, increases in the frequency ofextreme events such as droughts and floods, risks to public health, and threats toecosystems and species. Although adaptation planning is gaining momentum, climatepolicy continues to focus predominantly on efforts to reduce emissions (Cruce andHolsinger 2010; Harrington 2010; NRC 2010; Cruce 2009; Heinz Center 2007).

In December 2009, California became the first U.S. states to adopt a comprehensivestatewide adaptation strategy (California Department of Natural Resources 2009).1 Thestrategy, which outlines near- and long-term adaptation approaches in seven sectors (publichealth, biodiversity and habitat, ocean and coastal resources, water management, agriculture,forestry, and transportation and energy infrastructure), was completed in response toExecutive Order S-13-08, issued a year earlier. The effort was coordinated by the CaliforniaDepartment of Natural Resources, with sectoral analyses led by different state agencies.

The Executive Order also called for the formation of two panels to provide additionalguidance on adaptation. First, it called for the creation of a National Academy of Sciencespanel to inform California on planning parameters for sea level rise, which will affect notonly the state’s 1,100 mile ocean coastline, but also the vast network of bays and channelsthat form part of the San Francisco Estuary. Oregon and Washington states have joinedCalifornia in sponsoring this panel’s work, which is expected to be released in spring 2012.

Second, the Executive Order called for the formation of a Climate Adaptation AdvisoryPanel, tasked with identifying the largest risks to the state and make recommendations forreducing vulnerability. This panel, which included key business leaders and former state and

Climatic Change (2012) 111:1–4DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0247-x

1Other states are developing adaptation strategies or have completed analysis of adaptation to specificimpacts (e.g., sea level rise). For more information on activities on other states, see: http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/adaptation_map.cfm.

L. Bedsworth (*)Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, USAe-mail: louise.bedsworth@opr.ca.gov

E. HanakPublic Policy Institute of California, 500 Washington Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA

federal officials, was convened by the Pacific Council on International Policy. The panel’s report,released in late 2010, examined risks and potential responses in three areas: sea level rise, watersupply, and forest and range land wildfires (Pacific Council on International Policy 2010).

The California Climate Adaptation Strategy and the Pacific Council report provide bothgeneral and sector-specific recommendations for adaptation, using new and existingtechnologies and tools. Both reports also identify some key governance and institutionalissues that require further examination.

The articles in this special issue take a closer look at the institutional framework foradaptation: How can current regulatory and institutional structures support or hinder theimplementation of adaptation strategies, and what institutional changes might be needed toenable more effective responses to climate threats? Institutions are of central importance toadaptation, for two reasons: They shape market and regulatory conditions under whichindividuals make their own decisions (e.g., to invest in air conditioning and insulation intheir homes, to purchase hazard insurance or relocate away from vulnerable zones); andthey are also directly vulnerable to climate change in their roles as investors ininfrastructure and managers of public resources.

The articles look at adaptation and readiness in six particularly vulnerable sectors inCalifornia: water resources management (Hanak and Lund 2011), coastal management (Hanakand Moreno 2011), electricity (Vine 2011), public health (Bedsworth 2011b), air qualityplanning (Bedsworth 2011a), and ecological system management (Barbour and Kueppers2011). The papers build on current information regarding the likely impacts of climate changein California (summarized in Mastrandrea and Luers 2011) and examine whether currentregulatory, institutional, and technological tools are adequate to deal with these impacts. Thework was completed as part of a research project for the Public Policy Institute of California,with additional funding from The Nature Conservancy, Pacific Gas & Electric, and the NextTen foundation. Taken as a whole, these articles show grounds for both optimism and concernwhen it comes to the state’s readiness to deal with the effects of climate change.

On the positive side, several sectors have access to tools and experience that will help themweather the coming changes in the climate. In particular, the electricity and water supply sectorsboth have experience with long-term planning and responding to uncertainty and variability insupply and demand – characteristics that are anticipated to intensify with climate change. As aresult, both sectors are relatively well-positioned to adapt: they have already begun to assessnew vulnerabilities and to consider investment strategies that can build in more resiliency.Another advantage in these sectors is the ability to draw on a rate-payer base to fund adaptationplanning and investments – funds that are much harder to come by in sectors that rely ontaxpayer support. Although the public health sector, severely resource-constrained, someexisting tools – such as heat emergency plans and disease tracking - will facilitate handling theincreased health risks associated with a changing climate.

In several other sectors, adaptation challenges raise numerous red flags. Ecosystemmanagement faces particularly grave obstacles to successful adaptation, and climate changewill compound a range of existing stressors on terrestrial and aquatic habitat. As suitablehabitat and food sources for species shift with the changing climate, failure to considerspecies’ future well-being could put many more species at risk of extinction. Some existingtools are suitable – notably, the creation of habitat corridors and the use of broadecosystem-based management approaches. But current state and federal species protectionlaws – which focus on species that are currently at risk of extinction, to the exclusion ofothers - are ill-equipped to protect species from future risks.

Climate change will also exacerbate existing tradeoffs in coastal management. Rising sealevels put infrastructure, housing, recreational resources, and coastal ecosystems at risk.

2 Climatic Change (2012) 111:1–4

Coastal armoring, such as sea walls, is a technological solution that can provide someprotection for infrastructure and housing, but at the expense of public access to beaches andprotection of coastal habitat. California’s institutional and regulatory framework alreadyseeks to address these tradeoffs, by requiring regulatory review of all new coastalconstruction, including coastal armoring. The California Coastal Commission’s current “nofurther armoring” policy aims to limit additional requests for armoring as the coastlinecontinues to erode. But with accelerating sea level rise, this policy may become untenable.Systematic analysis is needed to inform an overall strategy on which areas to protect andwhich to abandon, allowing shorelines and habitat to migrate inland.

These analyses illustrate that some important adaptation actions need to be taken as soonas possible. Early actions are essential, when the impacts of climate change will beirreversible, have unacceptably high costs, and/or when adaptation strategies will requirelong lead times (Schneider et al. 2000). For example, in the area of ecosystem management,decisions need to be made soon to designate areas that should be protected to ensureadequate habitat for future conditions – a shift beyond current policies, which aim to protect“critical habitat” under current conditions. In addition, infrastructure and land usedevelopment decisions need to made today that account for the increased risks associatedwith climate change from rising sea level, higher winter and spring flood flows, andwildfires. Failure to do so could result in significant losses of infrastructure, housing, andnatural resources. These types of decisions are likely to be contentious because they involvecosts to landowners (who may lose the ability to earn revenues associated with newconstruction) and local governments (who may lose tax revenues); strategies to mediatethese conflicts will be an essential part of effective adaptation.

In other cases, near-term actions may be less costly and contentious, but equally important.In some sectors, for instance, inventorying existing tools and resources and developingstrategies to update them for impending changes can be done at low cost. Public health is a casein point: building on existing heat emergency, disease tracking, and vector control programswill be an important part of climate preparedness. Similarly, in the water supply sector,promoting near-term strategies that will be valuable under any future scenario – such asconservation, increased use of recycled wastewater, conjunctive use of groundwater and surfacewater, and water marketing – can build resiliency into the system. In contrast, it makes sense todelay costly decisions on new surface storage infrastructure until there is a better understandingof how precipitation patterns will unfold, since more surface storage will be less valuable if thefuture is not only warmer, but also drier. Institutional reforms will be needed to implement manyof the near-term strategies.

Taken as a whole, the articles in this issue shed light on the challenges that Californiawill face as it prepares for climate change. In addition to the physical and behavioralchanges that will be needed to reduce the risk, government also needs to consider thesuitability of current regulatory and institutional frameworks to implement these changes.The steps being taken in California can provide insights for other states and the nation asthey consider how to prepare for climate change.

References

Barbour E, Kueppers L (2011) Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changingCalifornia. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0246-y

Bedsworth L (2011a) Air quality planning in California’s changing climate. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0244-0

Climatic Change (2012) 111:1–4 3

Bedsworth L (2011b) California’s Local Health Agencies and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0245-z

California Natural Resources Agency (2009) 2009 California climate adaptation strategy. CaliforniaDepartment of Natural Resources, Sacramento

Cruce TL (2009) Adaptation planning – what US states and localities are doing. Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change, Washington, DC

Cruce TL, Holsinger H (2010) Climate change adaptation: what federal agencies are doing. Pew Center onGlobal Climate Change, Washington, DC

Hanak E, Lund J (2011) Adapting California’s water management to climate change. Climatic Change.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0241-3

Hanak E, Moreno G (2011) California coastal management with a changing climate. Climatic Change.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0243-1

Harrington W (2010) Promoting innovative climate adaptation through federalism. Resources for the Future,Washington, DC

Heinz Center (2007) A survey of climate change adaptation planning. The H. John Heinz Center for Science,Economics, and the Environment, Washington, DC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: synthesis report: contributions ofworking groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climatechange. IPCC, Geneva

Mastrandrea M, Luers A (2011) Climate change in California: scenarios and approaches for adaptation.Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0240-4

National Research Council (2010) Adapting to the impacts of climate change. The National AcademiesPress, Washington, DC

Pacific Council on International Policy (2010) Preparing for the effects of climate change – a strategy forCalifornia. Los Angeles.

Schneider SH, Easterling WE, Mearns LO (2000) Adaptation: sensitivity to natural variability, agentassumptions and dynamic climate changes. Climatic Change V45:203–221

Vine E (2011) Adaptation of California’s Electricity Sector to Climate Change. Climatic Change.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0242-2

4 Climatic Change (2012) 111:1–4