University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?

(USC Thesis Other)

A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
A TIME OF CRISIS: THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE
AND WHAT CAN CALIFORNIA LEARN?

by
Marguerite Julia Rose Wheeler

University of Southern California
Price School of Public Policy
A Professional Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of Doctorate of Policy, Planning, and Development

Dissertation Committee

Professor Daniel Mazmanian
Committee Chair

Professor Hilda Blanco

Ronald R. Gastelum

August 2016

i

To Auggie, you were a prince among men who stood by me every step of the way.

ii

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………… viii
Summary Statement ………………………………………………………………………… x
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………... 1
Comparing California/Australia……………………………………………………… 2
Australia’s Millennium Drought……………………………………………………... 2
California’s Current Drought………………………………………………………… 3
Opportunities for Reform…………………………………………………………….. 5
Research Problem…………………………………………………………………….. 7
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………… 9
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 9
Comparison between Australia and California: Overview…………………………... 11
Australia………………………………………………………………………. 11
California……………………………………………………………………… 12
Comparison between Australia and California: History…………………………….. 17
Australia………………………………………………………………………. 17
California……………………………………………………………………… 18
iii

Comparison between Australia and California:
Agriculture and Responding to Droughts…………………………………………….. 21
Australia……………………………………………………………………… 21
California…………………………………………………………………….. 21
Comparison between Australia and California: Institutions………………………... 23
Australia……………………………………………………………………… 23
California……………………………………………………………………... 23
Comparison between Australia and California: Beyond Boundaries—
Managing Watershed Across State Lines…………………………………………….. 24
Finding Solutions: Policy Reform and Other Tools to Address Water Scarcity…….. 25
National Policies……………………………………………………………………… 27
Australia…………………………………………………………………….... 27
California……………………………………………………………………… 31
Policy Reform………………………………………………………………………… 34
Australia………………………………………………………………………. 37
California……………………………………………………………………… 38
Water Markets: A Critical Tool for Water Managers………………………………... 41
Australia………………………………………………………………………. 41
iv

California…………………………………………………………………........ 41
Australia and California: Lessons Learned………………………………………....... 45
Chapter 3: Case Studies…………………………………………………………………….... 48
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………... 48
California and Australia: Comparable Challenges…………………………………... 50
Comparisons between Australia and California……………………………………… 51
Settlement…………………………………………………………………….. 51
Climate Comparisons…………………………………………………………. 51
Population Distribution and Projected Growth………………………………. 52
Economies…………………………………………………………………….. 53
Eras of Development of Water/Water Rights………………………………… 53
Infrastructure……………………………………………………………….... 58
Water Demand Profiles……………………………………………………..... 61
Major Interstate Watersheds Supplying Agriculture and Urban Demands….. 61
Over Allocation of Water Resources…………………………………………. 63
New Approaches to Water Management…………………………………….. 63
Environmental Concerns…………………………………………………….. 66
v

Recent Water Policies………………………………………………………… 67
Water System Funding……………………………………………………….. 72
Water Governance……………………………………………………………. 73
Addressing Challenges of Multi-Year Droughts……………………………………… 76
Australia’s Millennium Drought (1997 – 2009)……………………………………… 76
Australia’s Response to the Changes in Water Management………………………… 82
Water Management…………………………………………………………… 82
Australia’s Water Reform: The End of One Era and Future Policy Needs…. 84
California’s Current Drought (2007 – 2009 and 2012 – 2015)……………………… 85
Sharing Lessons Learned: Delegations Seek to Understand
and Apply Australian Lessons……………………………………………………….. 88
Chapter 4: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. 91
Theoretical Orientation……………………………………………………………….. 91
Research Problem…………………………………………………………………….. 91
Research Questions…………………………………………………………………… 92
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………. 92
Case Studies…………………………………………………………………………... 93
Interviews…………………………………………………………………………….. 94
vi

Interviews Conducted………………………………………………………… 95
Australia…………………………………………………………….... 95
California……………………………………………………………... 96
Interview Questions…………………………………………………............... 97
Australia………………………………………………………………. 98
California……………………………………………………………… 99
Stakeholders Interviewed……………………………………………………. 100
Australia……………………………………………………………… 101
California…………………………………………………………….. 101
Purpose/Contributions to Practice…………………………………………………… 102
Chapter 5: Interviews……………………………………………………………………….. 103
Introductions………………………………………………………………………… 103
Australian Perspectives……………………………………………………………… 103
Insights and Lessons Learned……………………………………………………….. 104
Californian Perspectives………………………………………………………………144
Lessons Learned for California……………………………………………………… 284
Author’s Lessons Learned…………………………………………………………… 288
vii

Summary of Perspectives by Stakeholder Group……………………………………. 291
Australia……………………………………………………………………… 291
California…………………………………………………………………….. 301
Appendix: Biographies of Those Interviewed………………………………………………. 316
Australia……………………………………………………………………………... 317
California…………………………………………………………………………….. 326
Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………………. 352

viii

Acknowledgements
I learned more through the process of this dissertation than I could have imagined at the
start. I am grateful to many people who helped me along the way. My doctoral advisory
committee made the process a wonderful learning experience; they challenged and supported me
at the same time. I know how fortunate I am to have had the opportunity to work with each of
them and to have actually enjoyed my defense meeting. I had the opportunity to be part of a
dialog among such great leaders in their own respective fields. Dr. Dan Mazmanian knew just
when and how to nudge me along or tell me “well done”. It is thanks to Dan that I selected the
topic of what Australian lessons could be applied in California. He inspired the topic and
provided direction on how to take an approach from a perspective that had not been explored.
Dr. Hilda Blanco provided great insight and direction that influenced how I presented the data
from the interviews. I had the honor or working for Ron Gastelum early in my career. He
served as a reference for me when I applied to USC and I immediately asked him to be a member
of my committee, not knowing my topic would be related to water. I was more than a little
intimidated to sit across the table from him and present my opinions on water as he a renowned
leader and someone I have admired for years. I thank each of you for your contributions. The
highlight of my experience at USC was when you all stood and shook my hand at the end of the
defense meeting.
I am very grateful to everyone I interviewed. I had worked with some, knew others and
enjoyed meeting some for the first time. I learned something from EVERY interview and as I
read through my notes, I often laughed at some of the conversations as I learned about so much
more than water. I realize how fortunate I am to have had the opportunity to talk to and learn
from water industry, business sector and agriculture leaders from California and Australia. I am
ix

very grateful that you took the time to teach me. Everyone shared visions for solutions on
complex issues and an optimistic outlook for the future.
I am very fortunate to work at Metropolitan Water District, a great organization, and for
an inspiring leader. I thank Steve Arakawa for his support as I worked my way through classes,
interviews and the dissertation. I learn from him every day and he is one of the smartest men I
have ever known. I am also grateful to Jeff Kightlinger for allowing me to work on Bay-Delta
Initiatives.
I have a very supportive team of allies. I can’t thank you enough for being part of my life
and supporting everything I attempt without question. You believe in me more than I believe in
myself. Thanks to Brad, Claire, Diane, Elaine, Jeremy, Mary, and Metra. With you at my side, I
can do anything. Thanks to my family, John, Jo, Jake, Auggie, Pete and Lillie. You are with me
every step of the way on every journey I take.
Finally, Thanks to my Timmy. We have been through so much together. You have
always supported and encouraged me in everything I do. You know just when and how to
convince me that I can do anything. I can’t wait to see what comes next, but I promise it won’t
involve any classes that require papers---it is a deal!

x

Summary Statement
California and Australia face similar challenges and share comparable histories and
climatic conditions. California is doing everything Australia has done to address its water issues
to varying degrees, but not with the urgency, or commitment of financial resources and use of
governmental powers to achieve rapid and systemic change in how water is allocated and paid
for by users in the urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors. California has not responded to
its current drought crisis nearly to the extent that occurred in Australia. This is largely explained
by the vision and determination of Australia’s political leaders at the federal level to effect major
changes in Australia's economic competitiveness and their commitment to the funding required
to overcome obstacles and put in place the new policies and Australia’s extended drought.
Australia’s policy reform process was initiated prior to the drought and positioned the
country to respond to the Millennium drought and prepare for future that is certain to be different
due to increasingly variable climatic conditions. Both California and Australia have and can
continue to learn from each other, while making public policy and resource allocation decisions
as necessary and feasible in the different and always changing political and economic
circumstances each faces.

--Thanks to Ron Gastelum, member of my dissertation committee for his thoughtful and insightful
assessment of the dissertation upon which the above summary is based.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
1

Chapter 1
Introduction
California plays a critical role in national and international economies. In 2013, the
California economy ranked eighth in the world at $2.2 trillion (Garosi & Sisney, 2014).
California is not only the largest economy in the United States, but it also has the highest
population with approximately 38.7 million people as of January 1, 2015 (California Department
of Finance, 2015) and expected to grow to 50 million 2049 and reach 52.7 million by 2060
(California Department of Finance, 2014). California is the nation’s largest producer and
exporter of agriculture products, producing $54 billion in crops in 2014 and the state was also the
sole producer of 14 crops in the nation in 2013 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2015).
California faces an uncertain future. The state is currently challenged by a broad range of
policy issues including an education system that is ranked 29th in the nation for graduation rates
(class of 2009–10) (Public Policy Institute of California, 2012), transportation, public safety, and
shifting economic demands, but one issue that goes back to the formation of the state is
California’s ability to manage its water resources. The state’s water management system has
evolved over that last 150 years to meet changing needs, but the system must continue to evolve
to meet the future demands due to projected impacts of climate change, ongoing population
growth, aging infrastructure and a fragmented governance system that manages its water
resources. Hanak, et al. emphasize the critical role water resources play in California,
“Water lies at the heart of California’s economy and quality of life, and Californians face
tremendous water management challenges. The state’s variable climate subjects it to
periodic droughts, and climate change is likely to increase the frequency and severity of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
2

these events. The water supply network is also vulnerable to catastrophic interruptions
from large earthquakes and floods. Hundreds of thousands of residents and billions of
dollars in property are exposed to high levels of flood risk, and this risk is likely to
increase with warming winters and accelerating sea level rise.” (Hanak, et al., 2011).
Comparing California/Australia
Hanak coined the term “New World Ecosystems” referring specifically to Australia and
California noting that they differ from the other Mediterranean regions in the world such as
Spain and Israel because Australia and California were settled within the last couple of hundred
years, therefore ecosystems are not completely managed and there are still remnant of the natural
ecosystems and native species (Hanak, 2015). There is an opportunity and desire in both regions
to address environmental issues within the natural ecosystems.
As noted above, droughts regularly occur in California. The state has experienced dry
years during 40 of the last 118 years (Public Policy Institute of California: Water Policy Center,
2015). Australia has experienced major droughts in 82 out of 150 years dating back to initial
records (Heberger M. , 2011). Smith characterizes Australian hydrology as “water being in the
wrong place or arriving at the wrong time.” (Smith, 1998). The same can be said for hydrology
in the western United States and specifically in California.
Australia’s Millennium Drought
Australia faced a similar crisis recently during an extended drought referred to as
“Millennium Drought”. The Millennial Drought lasted from 1997-2009. The impacts of the
Millennium Drought on Agriculture were significant, including a 50 percent decrease in sheep
production, which at one time outnumbered people ten to one in Australia. In 2002-03 alone, the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
3

drought caused a loss of $7.4 billion in production and a loss of approximately 70,000 jobs
(Heberger, 2012). Restrictions limited urban water use to indoors only (Doolan, 2014).
California’s Current Drought
The current crisis comes as California experienced its fourth consecutive year of drought,
the eighth of nine years of drought and set many hydrologic records including the driest period
statewide (2012-2015) (CVP and SWP Drought Contingency Plan Part I: December 2015 and
January 2016, 2015), the hottest year in recorded history in 2014 (National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration, 2014), the lowest snowpack in 500 years (Belmecheri, Babar, Wahl, Stahle, &
Trouet, 2016) and record low allocations for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and the State
Water Project (SWP) (CVP and SWP Drought Contingency Plan Part I: December 2015 and
January 2016, 2015).
The estimated economic cost of the 2014 drought was $2.2 billion and an estimated loss
of approximately 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs (Howitt, Howitt, Medellin-Azuara,
MacEwan, Lund, & Sumner,, 2014) (Howitt, et al). The current crisis has focused the attention
of policy makers and national leaders on the need to improve how water is managed in
California.
On January 17, 2015, Governor Brown declared a state of emergency, directing “state
officials to assist farmers and communities that are economically impacted by dry conditions and
to ensure the state can respond if Californians face drinking water shortages and directed state
agencies to use less water, hire more firefighters, and initiated a greatly expanded water
conservation public awareness campaign” (Governor Brown, 2015). As the drought continued,
on April 1, 2015, for the first time in the state’s history the Governor directed the State Water
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
4

Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in urban areas across
California to reduce water usage by 25 percent (Governor Brown, 2015). In November 2015, the
Governor signed another executive order extending mandatory water reductions through October
2016 if the drought continues through January 2016 (Governor Brown, 2015).
As of November 17, 2015, the drought was affecting more than 37 million Californians
and 100 percent of the state experiencing abnormally dry conditions, 97 percent moderate
drought and 45 percent of the state experiencing exceptional drought conditions (Fenimore,
2015). California’s climate conditions are very challenging; there is no “average” year. Annual
precipitation patterns vary greatly between frequent floods and prolonged droughts are all a part
of the State’s hydrologic cycles (California Department of Water Resources, 2015).
A report by the Public Policy Institute of California outlines the investments made by
local, state and federal agencies to implement a wide range of conservation programs to respond
to the current drought conditions and notes that “decisions are being made on an emergency
basis with the hope that the next winter will bring much-needed rain” (Hanak, et al., 2015). The
report goes on to outline potential impacts and management challenges if the drought continues.
Including:
 Urban: large metropolitan areas will require continued investments in conservation and
developments of new supplies, while communities relying on a single-source supply may
face shortages and require the development of additional sources.
 Agriculture: farming could be impacted with economic of approximately $2.8 billion, by
fallowing about 550,000 acres of land due to potential shortfalls of 2.5-3.0 million acre-
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
5

feed per year. This loss would impact approximately 10,000 farming jobs and 21,000
jobs within the state’s economy.
 Rural communities: Rural communities relying on shallow wells would need emergency
assistance as the wells go dry and land fallowing impacts air quality and economic
conditions for farming communities.
 Environment: low water flows coupled with high temperatures impact ecosystems,
which provide habitat for fish. In addition to extinction of native fish, there would be
economic impacts to commercial fishing and recreation. Reduced water in the Pacific
Flyway decreases the food supply for migrating birds and impacts bird populations.
Forests through the state are impacted as the high temperatures and dry conditions lead to
higher chances for wildfires, which have ling-term impacts to communities, watersheds,
wildlife, infrastructure, and air quality. (Hanak, et al., 2015)
Opportunities for Reform
A benefit of a crisis like the current drought is that it can result in reforms that would
otherwise be unlikely. Increases in public awareness and the need for stakeholders to work
together created a unique opportunity to advance public policy governing groundwater
management (Peel & Choy, 2014). In May 2015, Californians ranked water and the drought as
the most important statue issue. By nearly double, those polled by the Public Policy Institute of
California, stated water and drought (39%) as the most important state issue, followed by jobs
and the economy (20%) (Baldassare, Bonner, Kordus, & Lopes, 2015).
The California drought was covered in a wider range of national news and publications
including the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, late-night talk shows and even found its way into
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
6

Rolling Stone, when recording artist Moby was interviewed and went into detail not only about
water use in California, but water allocation and water rights, “The way water is allocated in
California is so complicated and so byzantine. A lot of legislators don't want to deal with it
simply because it's complicated.” (Jarvis, 2015) He then went on to describe his experience with
record companies in the late 1990s, when executives did not acknowledge change was happening
and ignored iTunes and Napster, stating that he feels “Governor Brown and the legislature are
taking a similar tactic to water that the record companies took to Napster. They want to pretend
that things are going to go back to a much easier, simpler status quo. But they're not.” (Jarvis,
2015)
The current crisis has resulted in adoption of policies to address historic problems. The
Governor signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, including three bills, SB 1168
(Pavley) SB 1319 (Pavley) and AB 1739 (Dickinson) to strengthen local management and
monitoring of groundwater basins on September 16, 2014. An increased awareness of water
issues and impacts on communities provided an opportunity to engage the public and resulted in
the passage of Proposition 1 by 67.1 percent statewide. On November 4, 2014, Californians
passed Proposition 1, authorizing $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds for a broad range of
water projects including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection
and restoration, and drinking water protection (California Secretary of State, 2014).
A benefit of crises like the current drought in California and Australia’s Millennium
Drought is that they can result in reforms that would otherwise be impossible or at the very least
unlikely. This professional dissertation explores the conditions that facilitated Australia’s water
policy reform, which was initiated before the onset of the Millennium drought, including
institutional, environmental, political, economic, leadership, public engagement and other
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
7

factors. The study will look at what factors led to the tipping point which provided the
opportunity for significant changes in Australian water policy and what factors may allow
California to implement similar long-term policy changes.
Research Problem
Water in California is the center of a web of interrelated issues including energy use,
environmental sustainability, economic viability and national food supply security. California
plays a critical role nationally and internationally, but without sustainable water resources,
California’s ability to maintain its standing in the global economy and remain a viable place to
work and live is uncertain. Conflicts around water are becoming more complex due to a
complicated array of water laws and policies dating back to California’s admission to the United
States in 1850, increased environmental regulations, declining ecosystems, growing populations,
increased demands on aging infrastructure and the impacts of water scarcity.
This Research focuses on the institutional, environmental conditions, political, economic,
leadership and other factors that provided the tipping point to allow Australia’s water policy
reform and what factors would be necessary to provide a tipping point for California to
implement similar water policy reforms, including the conditions that existed in Australia that
provided the opportunity to make significant changes to policy which impacted long-term water
management challenges. Interviews of experienced leaders in California and Australia
representing diverse perspectives in both regions provide insights on the challenges facing
California, priorities for water policy reform in California, and lessons learned in Australia.
The research supports California’s future advancement by providing a summary of the
perspectives of diverse leaders on water policy concerns, potential solutions, and drivers to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
8

consider for implementing water policy reform to improve water resource management and
address current challenges that impact the state’s long-term sustainability and economic vitality.
Research builds on existing research that compares the Australian and California experiences by
adding the perspectives of more than 30 stakeholders currently addressing water challenges in
Australia and California.
The policy implications of addressing California’s water management challenges, how
the state’s governance over water will evolve and how lessons learned from Australia may be
applied are unknown, but may shape the state’s future and its ability to support a global economy
and an estimated 50 million people while sustaining its rich natural resources.
The following chapters include a review of the existing literature on comparisons of the
Australian and California experience; a case study outlining the similarities shared by the two
regions and summarizing how each addressed the challenges facing them during extended
droughts; description of the methods used for this research, a summary of the interviews
conducted showing trends from the interviews, concerns, solutions and visions for the future.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
9

Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter summarizes research related to the water scarcity challenges faced by
Australia and California and the policy reform efforts and development of tools to address these
challenges and provide reliable supplies for the future, including the institutional, environmental
conditions, political, economic, leadership and other factors.
The issue of water scarcity is not unique to Australia and California. The twenty-first
century brings new challenges to water management around the globe. Cooley, et.al., (Cooley, et
al., 2014) describe the growing challenges of water management due to the growing population,
developing countries shifting towards meat-based diets, climate change, water scarcity, and the
current and past degradation of ecosystems, which increase the cost of treating water and have
long-term impacts on water sources. The chapter goes on to explore the connection between
water, energy and food, noting that these systems are most often managed and governed by
separate institutions and emphasizes the need to “better understand the interdependencies and
manage these interdependencies”(Cooley, et. al). The chapter also details the dependencies of
agriculture and energy on water, as well as the large amount of energy required to transport, treat
and distribute water to consumers.
Christian-Smith, Gleick, and Cooley (2011) focus on water resource management in
South America, Australia, the European Union and Russia, noting that while the policies will
vary due to different politics, the approaches provide useful information. The chapter provides a
series of common themes to consider including “clarify institutional roles and responsibilities,
decentralize water management and increase stakeholder participation, collect more
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
10

comprehensive data, apply modern economic principles, integrate climate change, and transition
from increasing water supply to reducing water demand.” The authors provide global
perspectives with insights as to how other regions faced with similar challenges are responding
as the world population grows and regions are faced with limited water resources to support
growing populations. They include a discussion of existing federal policy and some
recommendations for improving water policies, including thoughts on what may be feasible in
the United States. (Christian-Smith, Gleick, & Cooley, The World's Water: The Biennial Report
on Freshwater Resources, 2011)
Gleick called for a new approach fourteen years earlier in “The Changing Water
Paradigm: A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resource Development”, where he observes
the changes in water development being driven by environmental, financial, and social
constraints whether or not water supplies are scarce. He notes the change in developing systems
to supply water as the construction of large projects slows and the demand to reallocate resources
and implement efficiency programs grow due to the ability to meet needs with less resources,
fewer impacts to the natural ecosystems and lower costs. He notes the shift from historically
large projects to smaller local projects that use innovation to develop new supplies and are
managed locally, noting that locally developed projects are often more cost effective. Gleick
emphasizes the importance of developing an ethic of sustainability, looking at how to meet needs
for water within the limits of our resources without impacting natural systems and cycles which
are critical to our overall well-being. He calls on planners to apply new principles of
sustainability and equity to meet competing interests. (Gleick, 2000)
Most recently, Patrick explores global water scarcity (Patrick, 2015). The article
provides an excellent overview of the current issues of water scarcity with examples from the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
11

United States, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and China. He explores the issues of water scarcity,
including the physical causes, political and regulatory challenges, global impacts, the connection
between energy generation and water and key drivers of scarcity (food chain, salinity of arable
land, droughts, biofuels, population growth and shift to meat-based diets). Patrick then offers
solutions to address the growing challenges. He calls for expansion of virtual water trade for
food and other water/energy intensive products, better coordination between water users to
reduce consumption within watersheds/groundwater basins to improve efficiency and increase
water quality without negative impacts to the economy, reduce food chain waste, improve
agriculture yields through innovation (irrigation, technology and plant science) and consideration
of alternatives.
Hanak coined the term “New World Ecosystems” referring specifically to Australia and
California noting that they differ from the other Mediterranean regions in the world such as
Spain and Israel because Australia and California were settled within the last couple of hundred
years, therefore ecosystems are not completely managed and there are still remnant of the natural
ecosystems and native species (Hanak, 2015). There is an opportunity and desire in both regions
to address environmental issues within the natural ecosystems.
Comparison between Australia and California: Overview
Australia
Crase discusses Australia’s climatic conditions, noting the great variations between
tropical conditions in the north and temperate conditions in the south (Crase, Water Policy in
Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty., 2008). The variation in climate conditions
and high evapotranspiration result in very low rates of runoff compared with other continents,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
12

requiring larger storage systems than most other places. (Crase and O’Keefe) Smith noted, “that
an Australian water reservoir can only achieve the same level of reliability as those in Europe if
it is six times larger to allow flexibility to meet demands” (Crase & O'Keefe, 2011). Crase and
Gandhi note that while Australia is often referred to as the driest continent on earth, it is more
accurate to “describe Australia’s water resources as highly variable in spatial and temporal
terms.” (Crase & Gandhi, 2009)
Australia has experienced major droughts in 82 out of 150 years dating back to initial
records (Heberger, Australia's Millennium Drought:Impacts and Responses, 2011). Smith
characterizes Australian hydrology as “water being in the wrong place or arriving at the wrong
time.” (Smith, 1998). The same can be said for hydrology in the western United States and
specifically in California.
California
As California enters the fifth year of drought, many comparisons are being made to
Australia’s Millennium drought and the extensive water policy reform that was implemented
early this century. Sessions have been added to conferences and special workshops held to learn
from the Australian experience and apply approaches used to respond to unprecedented drought.
Svendensen (Svendensen, 2012) notes the primary elements of the Australian water
policy reforms are being implemented in the United States on the Colorado and the
Sacramento/San Joaquin rivers, but specifically points out one key difference, Australians have
completed the development and testing stage and have implemented reforms as one
comprehensive and integrated package. He goes on to state that “as management practices in the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
13

United States continue to develop and evolve, a comparison of experiences would be most
beneficial to both sides.” This dissertation seeks to do just that.
Woods Institute for the Environment’s Water in the West at Stanford University hosted a
two-day workshop entitled “Water Governance and Climate Change” in conjunction with a
similar workshop through a videoconference held at Melbourne Law School in Australia in
September 2014. Participants included thought leaders from both regions representing academia,
science, key stakeholders, regulatory agencies, private research institutions and private industry.
Peel and Choy wrote a report entitled “Water Governance and Climate Change: Drought in
California as a Lens on Our Climate Future.” (Peel & Choy, 2014), which captures the authors’
analysis of the findings of the workshop. The report outlines the seven key findings, relevant
comparisons to Australia’s experience and identifies areas requiring additional research. The
key findings were:
(1) California is capable of managing water supplies during prolonged droughts with
acceptable economic consequences, assuming optimal water use which will require better
tools to manage supplies during shortages and minimize impacts to communities and the
environment;
(2) Disasters create an opportunity for policy reform;
(3) Planning is critical—advanced planning can improve water management in wet and dry
periods. Managers should not just develop plans, but should know how and when to
implement the necessary tools;
(4) Decision making process needs to be flexible. California’s system needs to increase
flexibility through better planning, data and coordination between state and federal
agencies, but with commitments to achieving outcomes such as environmental protection;
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
14

(5) Infrastructure plays a critical role. Strategic investments can reduce and increase the
resiliency of supplies. The use of desalinization had mixed response because it is hard to
know if the costly investment is justified to respond to future droughts;
(6) Importance of environmental flows. Environmental flows are often impacted during a
drought even though managers work to minimize impacts to species and ecosystems.
Improving environmental reserves and development sustainable tools for allocating
environmental water to the highest priority in dry years is critical for the future; and
(7) Drought response based on an emergency response framework can improve coordination
of government agencies. The impacts of the drought have not been equally felt
throughout the state as some communities have been impacted more than others. A better
understanding of the communities most vulnerable to drought would provide a focused
response in future droughts.
Peel and Choy provide insight into the Australian experience in the areas of water law
reform, use of desalinization as a source and environmental water reforms implemented
during the Millennium Drought. Finally, they summarize key topics, requiring additional
research, and form a research agenda for future consideration, which includes:
(1) Extreme events: what events (droughts/floods), what likelihood and how extreme
an event should be included in planning?
(2) Tools: What tools are necessary to manage conflicts and tradeoffs? What
regulator or operational barriers currently exist and is it possible to address
barriers through reform?
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
15

(3) Planning: How can plans be improved to meet future conditions, be better
implemented and how can multiple plans be integrated to best manage water in
the future?
(4) Values: How can water be used for optimal purposes without sacrificing societal
values? How are tough choices about where water goes during times of drought
made when there are impacts to individuals (businesses) and species?
(5) Innovation: Is technology the answer? Are there tools that can reduce the impact
of climate change and help guide critical decisions?
(6) Cost-benefit analysis: What is the value of increased reliability? How do
communities make the best investments to improve reliability?
(7) Local solutions: How can the successful programs implemented at the local level
be shared so communities can learn from each other?
(8) Environmental water tools: What tools are necessary to aid in protecting and
managing environmental water? How should environmental water be allocated?
(9) Behavior in ordinary years: How is water managed in “ordinary years” to lessen
the impacts of drought?
Peel and Choy close by challenging leaders to take control and develop institutions and rules
that minimize economic and environmental impacts when the next severe drought hits.
The Public Policy Institute of California held a conference in January 2015, “Managing
Drought”. Leaders from state and local agencies and stakeholder groups focused on California’s
drought from urban, agriculture and environmental perspectives. The Australian experience was
used as a comparison, noting the region has a similar climate and economy. “Policy Priorities
for Managing Drought” (Mount, et al., 2015) captures the discussion at the conference, noting
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
16

that Australia’s Millennium Drought provides a useful case study for California. The authors
acknowledge that reform is necessary and it won’t be easy. There are obstacles including
institutional and political hurdles, as well as objections from those who prefer the status quo.
They note that Australians implemented these reforms during their decade long drought, and
while it was difficult, it prepared them for the next drought. The authors stated that “California
needs to do the same”. They offered four areas for policy reform:
1. Manage water more tightly with better information
2. Set clear priorities, objectives and expectations
3. Promote reasonable use and robust supplies
4. Modernize environmental drought management
The Public Policy Institute of California’s “California Water Myths” (Hanak, et al.,
California Water Myths, 2009) introduces the complex water systems in California; both
physical and political, noting the existence of myths that impact the development of effective
policies and increase economic and environmental costs. The authors focus on eight water
myths and provide their perception or opinions of reality for each:
(1) California is running out of water
(2) (Insert villain here) is responsible for California’s water problems
(3) We can build our way out of California’s water problems
(4) We can conserve our way out of California’s water problems
(5) Healthy aquatic ecosystems conflict with a healthy economy
(6) More water will lead to healthy fish populations
(7) California’s water right laws impede reform and sustainable management
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
17

(8) We can find a consensus that will keep all parties happy
This report provides valuable insights regarding common myths about water in California
and responses based on facts. While there may not be universal agreement with each response,
the report is useful and documents key challenges facing water managers and policy makers in
California.
Comparison between Australia and California: History
Australia
Musgrave describes the development of water resources in Australia during the 19
th
and
20th centuries as “making the desert bloom”, noting the philosophy was closer to the European
approach of engineering resources rather than the indigenous population’s management of
natural resources for the long-term future. They note that at the same time, institutions and water
rights were established giving states rights to manage water, shifting away from riparian rights.
This approach continued until the 1960s when the idea of continued development and its impacts
started to be questioned. Environmental concerns started to arise in the 1970s and 1980s. They
outline five key policy reforms including an agreement to cap exports from the Murray-Darling
basin. The National Competition Policy Framework resulted in the formation of the Council of
Australian Governments (CoAG); CoAG initially established the Water Reform Framework in
1994, “which resulted in the federal government taking a prominent role in managing conflict
between states by using their fiscal resources; the establishment of the National Water Plan for
Water Scarcity in 2007, which included $10 billion for infrastructure to improve water systems
and environmental concerns, with an additional $3 billion to “buy back water rights in over
allocated systems.” They discuss the approach of using public funds to address over allocation
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
18

and environmental issues and to buy water rights from willing buyers has been questioned by the
agriculture community, concerned with third-party impacts and by economists who question the
accuracy of the reported water savings and concerns about policies that result in significant
investments of public funds in irrigation infrastructure. The final message drawn by Crase and
Gandhi is “modifying the rules by which water is managed and allocated is not simple task, even
in a relatively wealthy nation where agriculture plays only a modest role in the country’s
economic affairs.” (Crase & Gandhi, 2009)
Musgrave discusses that the historical use of riparian water rights, which provide water
rights to parties who own land adjacent to the source, are more practical in regions where water
supplies are more reliable as opposed to regions like Australia and the Western United States
(Musgrave, 2008). He then outlines the three phases of development, the initial settlement, the
march of irrigation and late twentieth century reforms.
California
“Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation” (Hanak, et al., 2011)
provides a comprehensive and detailed description of California’s water history, outlining four
main eras of water management in California:
(1) Laissez-Faire: Prior to California being adopted as a state, gold was discovered in
northern California. The population grew from approximately 160,000 in 1848 to more
than 1.5 million people in 1900. Hydraulic mining developed, requiring water to be
moved and pressurized to mine gold. The doctrine of Appropriate Rights (first-in-time,
first in right) was established during this time by miners to resolve conflicts over both
gold and the water used to mine gold.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
19

(2) Local Organization: Farmers who had come to California to find gold started returning to
farming in their new home. The economy shifted from gold mining to agriculture and
this shift required different water needs and required measures to control floods to protect
agriculture fields. Irrigation systems formed to serve individual farmers. Water users
formed irrigation districts and mutual water companies to operate systems and provide
water for agriculture and cities. Farmers started to purchase water rights and develop
systems including the construction of dams and canals. This development continued as
regional irrigation districts were formed to support larger systems.
(3) Hydraulic: The “build it and they will come” era. California was the fastest growing
state in the nation, requiring larger regional and statewide systems to support a growing
population and increased demands for agriculture. The federal government supported
the growth through money, expertise and assistance in developing flood management
systems. Two large federal projects, the Central Valley Project and the Boulder Canyon
Project were developed to provide flood control and water to thousands of acres of
agriculture in the central and southern parts of the state. At the state level, the
development of the State Water Project was politically challenging. Strongly supported
by Governor Pat Brown, California voters narrowly passed the Burns-Porter Act which
approved the State Water Project.
a. Regional water districts constructed projects such as the Hetch-Hetchy project,
Los Angeles Aqueduct, and Colorado River Aqueduct which together with federal
and state systems formed a significant water system to move water throughout the
state from where it naturally accumulated to regions where it was needed as the
population and economy continued to grow.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
20

(4) Conflict: Followed by an era of significant investment in infrastructure, the environment
became a stakeholder in the 1970s through the passage of a series of federal and state
laws. Starting in the 1970s, environmental laws impacted the operation and further
development of each of the water systems during the Hydraulic era.
The authors then look forward at the challenges California faces, outlining five areas for
strategic reform: the Delta, ecosystem restoration, managing the risks of floods, protecting water
quality at the source and managing water supplies. The authors propose reforms including
regulating groundwater, enhancing the water market by streamlining the environmental review
process, creating transfer clearinghouse modeled after the electricity grid’s ISO to capitalize on
California’s water infrastructure, introducing a public goods charge for water management, and
improving the governance of water through increased coordination of agencies ensuring that they
can adapt to changing needs. The title of the first chapter succinctly sums up water in California
“Floods, Droughts and Lawsuits: A Brief History of California Water Policy”.
Stanford Wood’s Institute’s Water in the West’s “Water Governance and Climate Change:
Drought in California as a Lens on Our Climate Future” provides a comprehensive review of
water in the west including the history, water management, and governance, adapting to climate
change, ecosystems, water markets, water and energy, technology and infrastructure financing
(Peel & Choy, 2014). The authors note that while some things change, the west continues to face
similar challenges. This report is an excellent primer for water in the west, providing in-depth
information on a wide variety of water related issues. The authors provide details both on the
history and the future of the issues and state that the issues don’t change—it takes decades to
realize change in issues of water in the west. I agree with the authors’ conclusion that we have
enough technical information to resolve the problems, what we need now is political leadership.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
21

Comparison between Australia and California: Agriculture and Responding to Droughts
Australia
Australia has the twelfth largest economy in the world in 2014 with $1.45 trillion (World
Bank, 2015). Heberger notes that agriculture accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of
Australia’s economy and uses two-thirds of its water supply (Heberger, 2011). He also discusses
the foundation of Australia’s water policy being designed to encourage development in rural,
arid regions of the country. Heberger noted that the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated the
drought resulted in a $7.4 billion loss in agriculture production, about 1.6 percent of Australia’s
GDP that year, and a loss of approximately 70,000 jobs in 2002-03 (as cited by Lu and Hedley,
2004) (Heberger, Australia's Millenium Drought: Impacts and Responses, 2012).
Australia’s sheep industry was among the most impacted with the sheep population being
cut by 50 percent, the lowest level since 1905. Other agriculture crops were impacted. Rice
production reached its lowest point in 2007-08. Australian rice growers faced similar criticism
as California farmers who grow a water intensive crop in a dry region (Heberger, Australia's
Millenium Drought: Impacts and Responses, 2012), but like California, Australian rice
production results in very high quality rice and high yields which get premium prices on the
international rice market .
California
California has the eighth largest economy in the world (Garosi & Sisney, 2014). An
economic analysis of the 2014 drought estimated a net water shortage of 1.5 MAF, $180 million
in direct crop revenue loss and total direct economic losses of $1.5 billion. The total economic
loss was estimated at $2.2 billion and approximately 17,100 jobs (Howitt, Medellin-Azuara,
MacEwan, Lund, & Sumner, 2014). The study concluded that California agriculture experienced
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
22

the largest reduction in water supplies ever in 2014 and predicted that drought conditions were
likely to continue into 2015. A follow-up study reported that statewide impact to agriculture and
related industries was $2.74 billion. Direct job losses in agriculture are estimated to be nearly
10,120 full and part time jobs. The authors’ project continued losses of growing to $2.8 billion
in 2016 and approximately $2.9 billion in 2017 with job losses estimated to be approximately
21,000 in each year if the drought continues (Howitt, MacEwan, Medellin-Azuara, Lund, &
Sumner, 2015). The authors suggest eight areas for public policy:
(1) Improved groundwater management. The authors note the importance of
groundwater to agriculture and there will be growing pressure to accelerate the
recently approved Sustainable Groundwater Water Management Act (SGMA),
which currently has a 27-year timeline for implementation.
(2) Data. There is a lack of statewide data on water and land use. Investments in
remote sensing systems used in other states, such as Idaho would provide
valuable information for water management and policy decisions.
(3) Water Markets and Transfers. A central clearinghouse of information on the
transfers, similar to an eBay for water or a Water ISO would provide necessary
information to buyers and sellers, without setting prices.
(4) Rural Domestic Supplies. Some rural communities were impacted during the
most recent drought with shallow wells running dry leaving unexpected
shortages. While emergency response was improved compared to the past,
better monitoring should be implemented to manage supplies in the future.
(5) Establish an impartial inter-agency consortium to develop and evaluate remote
sensing of water-use measures to improve water management.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
23

(6) Develop systems to manage the increased amount of water information data.
Comparison between Australia and California: Institutions
Australia
Crase and Dollery provide an “overview of the institutional elements that circumscribe
Australian water policy.” (Crase & Dollery, 2008). They present a detailed definition of
Australian water rights and the institutions involved with Australian water policy, including an
institutional analysis. They define the factors that support using institutional analysis as:
providing a way to address the debate of using markets to allocate water versus allowing state to
apportion water; allowing the unique nature of water being both a private and public good; the
realization that engineering cannot fix increasingly challenging scarcity issues; and allows for
both formal and informal rules. Crase and Dollery conclude that water policy reform in
Australia is inevitable, noting the changing social norms and the need for institutions to adapt.
They forecast that the evolution will result in increased investments, trade and water-use
efficiencies. In closing, they note that the institutional reform already realized has been one of
the most publicized aspects of Australia’s water reform to-date.
California
Banks outlines the institutions and policies that govern water in California, exploring the
impacts of the increasing population in the arid regions of the state and the impacts of managing
water with the adoption of the federal National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. The author
focuses on water in California, local agencies, state agencies and federal agencies involved in
administering water, providing a brief synopsis of a wide body of state policies and statutes that
address water issues. Although a bit dated, this article provides a valuable overview of water in
California and the information still applies to water in California. Although additional policies
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
24

have been adopted since this article was published, it provides a good foundation on water in
California. (Banks, 1989)
Comparison between Australia and California: Beyond Boundaries—Managing
Watersheds across State Lines
The Murray-Darling Basin is a critical source of water in Australia, serving four states:
New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory.
It generates approximately 13,000 GL of water on average (Crase & O'Keefe, Govermental
Discrimination between Sectors: The Case of Australian Water Policy, 2011), which is
equivalent to approximately 16 MAF. The Murray-Darling has been compared to the Colorado
River Basin, which serves seven U.S. states and Mexico.
Svendensen (2012) documented his personal field-trip through the Murray-Darling Basin
(MDB). He describes the Murray-Darling as having one quarter of Australia’s agriculture land
and more than half of its irrigated land. He notes that in Australia, 30 percent of agriculture is
produced on five percent of irrigated agricultural land. Svendensen provides a clear and concise
summary of how the Australian government responded to the increasing impacts to the Murray-
Darling ecosystem by capping withdrawals from the river and implementing instructional reform
that created the Murray-Darling Commission, responsible for coordination and management of
the basin.
Hillman analyzes the MDB from an ecological perspective, looking specifically at the
impacts to the MDB environment and how to manage the needs of the ecosystem with direct
human use (Hillman, 2008). He explores the impacts of flows on key species of fish, water
birds, terrestrial plants, and water plants as individual species as well as their natural connections
to the watershed as a system. He concludes that in order to best manage the system, a balance
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
25

needs to be achieved, which requires water efficiency by both the ecosystem and human uses.
According to Hillman, the following are required to achieve this balance: significantly increased
knowledge of the connections between hydrology and ecosystem needs, tools to best manage
ecological reserves and storage for human use, and development of additional ways to provide
water for ecological uses in addition to the traditional approach of store and release are required
to achieve this balance.
Finding Solutions: Policy Reform and Other Tools to Address Water Scarcity
It is critical to understand the problems that exist in order to develop effective policies
and other tools to solve them. The Reason Foundation published a policy brief in July 2015,
which outlines Australian water reforms starting in the 1990s, the results achieved through the
reforms and what California can do to apply similar reforms to address similar challenges facing
the state (Bennett & Morris, 2015). The authors identify key problems facing California as the
state considers water policy reform and describe the issue and/or offer suggestions to provide:
(1) Water rights. The requirement that appropriative water rights must be put to
reasonable and beneficial use. The authors suggest that the requirement either be
removed or refined to include storage for later use, which would encourage users to
store water for use or transfer during dry years;
(2) Regulation. Government regulators, now the State Water Resources Control Board,
were given the authority to allocate new water rights in 1914. The purpose of this
change was to ensure that decisions on allocations were based more scientifically than
previous practice. The authors note that since 1914, approximately five times more
water rights have been allocated than is available in California during an average
year.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
26

(3) Public sector ownership of water rights. Most of the water rights allocated since 1914
have gone to government agencies, which lack incentives to use water most
effectively resulting in lower than market prices and water waste. The authors also
point out that in their opinion, government agencies lack incentives to make
investments in storage and conveyance. They also state that government agencies
charge arbitrary prices for water.
(4) Government restrictions on water transfers. Transfers are limited by regulators,
especially if the transfer involves the federal government. The authors explain that
short term transfers are typically impossible due to the lengthy National
Environmental Policy Act permit process, which can take years.
(5) Mandated allocations of water for “environmental” uses at a zero price. The authors
detail the results of existing state and federal regulations that require approximately
half of the water in California be allocated to the environment. Their concern is that
water for environmental purposes has been mandated, not voluntary and that existing
water rights holders have not been compensated. The current policies create a
disincentive for water rights holders to store and transfer water.
The report provides a comprehensive look at the reforms, noting that Australia’s reform
process started in 1994 when there was agreement at the Council of Australian Governments to
separate water titles from land titles, develop water markets and allocate water for environmental
flows.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
27

National Policies
Australia
Australia’s national water reform evolved from a broader reform effort initiated in the
early 1990s, long before the beginning of the Millennium Drought. Australia’s water reform was
part of a broad spectrum of policies including reforms to public monopolies and other
government businesses, structural reforms, and sector specific reforms focused on energy, gas,
transportation and water (Banks, Philip, & Fitzgerald, 2005).
Prime Minister Keating announced the establishment of a major independent inquiry into
competition policy in Australia on October 1992 (Kain, Kuruppu, & Billing, 2003), led by a
three-person independent committee chaired by Frederick Hilmer, which became known as the
Hilmer Committee. The Hilmer Committee submitted a report to the Heads of Government in
1993 that recommended policy reforms in six areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007):
(1) Extend the reach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) to unincorporated businesses and
State and Territory government businesses so that the competitive conduct rules
(contained in Part IV of the Act) apply to all business activity in Australia;
(2) Provide for third party access to nationally significant infrastructure;
(3) Introduce competitive neutrality so that government businesses do not enjoy unfair
advantages when competing with private businesses;
(4) Restructure public sector monopoly businesses to increase competition;
(5) Review of all laws which restrict competition; and
(6) Extend price surveillance arrangements to State and Territory government businesses to
deal with those circumstances where all other competition policy reforms prove
inadequate.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
28

The Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) established in 1992, is comprised of
officials including the Prime Minister, State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers and the
President of the Australian Local Government Association (Council of Australian Governments,
2015). CoAG agreed to the competition policy principles articulated in the Hilmer Committee
report in February 1994 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). CoAG adopted a water reform
framework in February 1994, which identified that improved management of Australia’s water
resources is a national issue (Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales, Victoria,
Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, 2004).
The National Water Initiative (NWI) agreement included commitments to:
(1) Prepare water plans with provision for the environment;
(2) Address over-allocated or stressed water systems;
(3) Introduce registers of water rights and standards for water accounting;
(4) Expand the trade in water;
(5) Improve pricing for water storage and delivery; and
(6) Meet and manage urban water demands.
Under the NWI, CoAG created a new body, the National Water Commission(NWC) in
2004, to oversee implementation of the reform program and serve as an independent authority
providing advice to the CoAG and the Australian Government on national water issues (National
Water Commission, 2015). As an independent statutory body, the NWC is responsible for
driving national water reform, including administering the NWI, monitoring the implementation
of plans required by the NWI, reviewing progress of the states, and administering funds
associated with the NWI (Donnellan, 2007). McKay, as cited by Donnellan, noted that the
CoAG reforms provided financial incentives to Australian states of $16 billion and the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
29

requirements of these reforms were based on the view that separate bodies would promote
greater levels of transparency, reduce conflicts of interest and promote accountability
(Donnellan, 2007).
The NWC was required to provide progress reports to CoAG on the NWI through
biennial assessments, which were submitted in 2007, 2009 and 2011. An amendment to the
NWC Act was passed in 2012, changing reporting periods from biennial to triennial. The final
report, Australia’s Water Blueprint: National Reform Assessment was published in October 2014
(Australian Government National Water Commission, 2015).
Tony Abbott was the 28th Prime Minister of Australia, serving from 2013 to 2015 and
Leader of the Liberal Party from 2009 to 2015 (Liberal Party of Australia, 2015). Under
Abbott’s leadership, there was an effort to abolish the NWC. In November 2014, Hannam
wrote, “South Australia's Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham said the purpose of the
commission had been fulfilled and its roles would be taken over the Productivity Commission,
saving the budget $20.9 million over four years” (Hannam, 2014). Adam Lovell, executive
director of the Water Services Association of Australia, opposing the effort stated “It's
complacency gone mad, we'll have no focus at a national level on water", and Stuart Khan,
Associate Professor at the School of Civil Environmental Engineering at the University of New
South Wales, said "Simon Birmingham's assertion that 'the purpose of the NWC has been
fulfilled' is akin to saying 'water management in Australia is fixed and there's nothing more to
do, this is a patently ridiculous assertion ... and the looming east coast drought will make that
clear for all." (Hannam, 2014)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
30

Despite opposition by many involved in water management, the National Water
Commission Act of 2004 was repealed, and the National Water Commission abolished. The
responsibilities of the NWC were separated and assigned to four existing government agencies
(National Water Commission, 2014):
 Productivity Commission: took over responsibility of the triennial assessments of
progress toward achieving NWI objectives and outcomes by state and territory
governments and the independent audit of implementation of the Murray-Darling
Basin Plan and associated water resource plans as statutory functions. As well the
biennial National Water Planning Report Card which is produced under the
triennial assessment.
 The Department of the Environment is now responsible for assessing milestone
payments to the Murray-Darling Basin states against the performance milestones
specified in the National Partnership Agreement on implementing Murray-Darling
Basin reform. The Department of the Environment will also provide advice on the
status of implementation of the NWI to the Clean Energy Regulator as required
under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.
 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences
(ABARES) is responsible for monitoring water markets and producing an annual
water markets report.
 The Bureau of Meteorology is working with state and territory governments and
the water industry to continue the national performance reports for the urban
water sector, which will provide an important annual snapshot of this section of
the industry.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
31

California
Water has played a critical role in the development of the United States. The challenges
faced and management of water varies significantly by state. To further complicate this,
watersheds often cross boundaries whether local, regional, state or national. Christian-Smith
(2012) describes water in the western United States as being historically contentious because
development is dependent on reliable water supplies. Population growth in the southwest has
increased the need for reliability (Christian-Smith, Gleick, Cooley, Allen, Vanderwarker, &
Berry, 2012).
There is a debate over whether water should be managed at the local, regional, state or
federal level. Christian-Smith et al, state:
“Here it is, the year 2001, and we still don’t have a coherent federal water
policy, in spite of repeated calls for action for more than half a century. Of course,
hundreds of federal laws and regulations govern a plethora of water related
programs and activities…What is missing is a rational, consistent, comprehensive,
and yet concise federal policy … Considering that water is widely recognized to
be the looming resource issue of this century, the lack of clear and succinct
federal policy is troubling.”

(Christian-Smith, Gleick, Cooley, Allen, Vanderwarker, & Berry, 2012). They also note
that “Important water laws are out-of-date or are not effectively or equitably enforced” and
“institutions put in place in the 20th century to manage our water needs are often inadequate,
inefficient and uncoordinated.” The debate continues as to the role of the federal government in
managing water. Some call for a national water policy, as Galloway does in “A Plea for a
Coordinated National Water Policy,” (Galloway, 2011).while others support control of water
management at the local level, claiming “One size fits all national policies cannot address the
unique and diverse circumstances in the west” (Keppen, Sawyers, Raeder, & McFarland, 2008)
.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
32

Davis not only acknowledges the key role that water has played in the development of the
western United States, noting that “since 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation alone has spent $21.8
billion to construct 133 water projects.” (Davis, 2001) She goes on to quote that the Western
Water Policy Advisory Commission “commented the west’s water is made to work incredibly
hard”. The author provides unique insight as she explores water policy from a different
perspective, discussing that water users’ values impact how water policy is developed. The
following seven water values are outlined:
(1) Economic development
(2) Individualism
(3) Efficiency
(4) Traditional use
(5) Equity
(6) Ecology
(7) Spiritual values
The article also describes types of water policymaking:
• Distributive
• Allocative
• Redistributive
• Cooperative
The author concludes with an observation that water policymaking is more complex than ever
and while cooperative approaches hold hope, the other deeply entrenched types will continue to
make collaboration a challenge. This article provides the institutional aspect of policymaking,
but explored the personal side or values that drive policy.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
33

Looking forward, Boulicault and Schempp address the challenge of implementing
policies that may be wonderful in theory, but are not implemented well (Boulicault & Schempp,
2014). The methodology used included primary and secondary source research and discussions
with state agencies, municipal water providers and non-profits. The report focuses on the west,
noting that the location can influence the success of implementation of a policy or program. The
five considerations are: social and political dynamics; physical landscape, economics, law, and
administrative capacity. The report concludes that “water management is challenging…there are
many great ideas out there…the key will be making the most of them”.
Western Water Policy: The Challenges and Opportunities of Our Times, Family Farm
Alliance is a report prepared for the Family Farm Alliance, submitted to the Obama-Biden
Transition Project in 2008. The report provides a snapshot of the current challenges from the
family farmer’s perspective (Keppen, Sawyers, Raeder, & McFarland, 2008). The report details
the challenges facing farmers, specifically related to western water policy and discusses the
importance of agriculture in the United States. It includes a comparison to the percentage of
income spent on food in the United States to other countries, which shows that Americans spend
a very small amount (9.7%) of their average annual income on food compared to other countries
that range from 20% to 73%. The authors argue that agriculture water cannot continue to be
transferred to urban communities to meet growing demand. The following policy
recommendations are outlined to balance the needs of competing interests for water in the future:
adopt a goal to remain self-sufficient in food production to ensure food security; balance
continued growth (demand) by state and local governments with ongoing dependence on water
transfers from agriculture and rural communities by developing alternatives; balance
socioeconomic environmental needs through western water laws and environmental laws; one
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
34

size fits all national policies cannot address the unique and diverse circumstances in the west
(local programs); address aging infrastructure; develop new supplies to meet recreational and
environmental needs, allow for population growth and protect the economic vitality of the west;
prioritize and coordinate research; and manage the federal forest lands and watershed. This
report calls for leadership from all levels (local, state and federal) to meet the challenges and
provide opportunities for the future, providing detailed information from the agriculture
perspective.
Policy Reform
Bennett and Morris outline reforms implemented in Australia beginning in the early
1990s and identify approaches that may be applicable in California and other regions that face
similar challenges (Bennett & Morris, 2015). The briefing paper includes a good comparison of
the physical, hydrological, and water demand conditions in Australia and California. Unique to
other publications, the report includes an excellent overview of the context of the reforms and
succinctly summarizes the obstacles to implementing similar reforms in California. The authors
raise the following key issues and offer their opinions on how the issues may be addressed or
how reforms may provide beneficial changes to the current conditions:
(1) The “use it or lose it” provision: Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution,
which requires water rights holders to use their allocation of water during wet years
or lose the right to that water. The authors suggest that if this requirement were
removed or changed to include storage for future use, water rights holders would have
an incentive to store water for future use or to sell to other users in dry years.
(2) Bureaucratic control: The State Water Resources Control Board was given the
authority to allocate new water rights in 1914. The intent was to ensure that water
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
35

rights were allocated more scientifically. The authors note approximately five times
the amount of water available in California has been allocated since that time and
they view the State Water Resources Control Board as part of the problem.
(3) Public Sector ownership of water rights: Most water rights allocated since 1914 have
been allocated to government agencies. The authors note that government agencies
do not have an incentive to guarantee that water is put to its best use and the rates
charged are often less than the cost of water would be in an open market. This can
lead to waste and water not being used for its highest value or best purpose. The
authors also note government agencies may lack incentives to make cost-effective
investments in water storage and conveyance, and the rates they charge for these
services are arbitrary.
(4) Government restrictions on water trades: Water trades in California have been
limited by regulatory agencies. The permit process is challenging and can take
several years, making short-term trades difficult.
(5) Mandated allocation of water for “environmental” uses. Nearly half of California’s
water is allocated to the environment. The authors note the issue is not the water
being used for the environment, but instead that the allocation is mandated, not
voluntary and water is taken from water rights holders without compensation. This
again leads to a disincentive for water users to develop storage and water transfers are
not used to their full potential.
Looking at Australia as a model, it is noted that California currently has many similarities
to water management in pre-reform Australia, including centralization of control, over allocation
of supplies/rights, restrictions on trading and conflicts between the environment, agriculture and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
36

urban users. Bennett emphasizes three key reforms in Australia: 1. Separate water and land
titles; 2. Develop water markets; and 3. Allocate water for environmental flows. The authors go
on to offer six recommendations, primarily based on the Australian experience:
(1) Remove the beneficial use requirements or expand its definition to include storage;
(2) Establish a streamlined and inexpensive process for determining the actual amount of
water allocated to each water rights holder;
(3) Remove restrictions on trading water
(4) Sell or lease water storage, transfers and supply infrastructure owned by government
agencies to private companies
(5) Convert municipal water agencies to private, mutual water companies; and
(6) Stop mandating environmental diversions and develop a system that enables the
purchase of water rights by groups concerned about protecting habitat and species.
Bennett analyzed Australia’s reforms, concluding that changes have improved the
environmental management of water, but “remain far from ideal”. He goes not to explain; initial
efforts that capped the allocation of water did not result in additional water for the environment
so the government subsidized water conservation and created a new agency to purchase water for
environmental use. Bennett states that “while this was certainly an improvement, the agency
charged with buying and allocating water is highly centralized and does not necessarily allocate
water to the environmental uses that citizens might prefer”.
The authors emphasize that California can improve on the Australian approach by
decentralizing the management of environmental water. They contend that if environmental
stakeholders are allowed to identify the best use of water, they could choose to focus on a
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
37

specific species or could sell or lease water for other uses. Money generated by water transfers
could be used to support broader programs. Bennett and Morris go on to discuss that California
seems to be “heading in the opposite direction by increasing centralized control on the state’s
water”. They caution that this will not lead to sustainable supplies or resolution of disputes
between stakeholders.
Australia
Crase and O’Keefe explore Australia’s water reform, noting the lack of understanding of
river and groundwater supplies and their relationship to exporting water for human use is
equivalent to the understanding of people’s preferences on how to pay to improve the
environment. They emphasize the challenge for policy makers in making decisions within the
limits of existing science and information provided by special interests to advance their own
priorities. They explore market-based approaches to address ecosystem issues and note the
economic and political costs for policy makers, concluding their hope that past investments in
market-based approaches and a better understanding of related property rights will allow for
increased uses of market-based alternatives in the future (Crase & O'Keefe , 2008).
Crase takes a retrospective look at the Australian water reform process summarizing key
findings and outlining themes for future consideration. He presents two primary drivers of
reform being increased awareness of the need to address environmental issues, increasing the
sustainability of natural systems and the treatment of water as an economic good, shifting control
from states to individuals through a market approach. Crase also describes the tension of
Australian’s calling for policies that not only limit future impacts to sustainable ecosystems, but
also seek to improve impacts caused by past overallocation of water. He goes on to outline
lessons that can be learned from the Australian reform experience, including the role markets
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
38

play; determining the impact of water markets on supply reliability, particularly during dry years;
the rights of irrigators to retain water rights to maintain their systems; the need to address
“environmental externalities” caused by trade; and notes that Australia had the luxury of a strong
economy during the process that may not exist in other regions experiencing reform efforts. He
concludes that “today’s policy choice becomes tomorrow’s policy constraint”. He closes with a
quote widely attributed to Mark Twain regarding water in California, “whiskey is for drinking
and water is worth fighting for.” (Crase, 2008)
California
As noted earlier in this chapter, California’s water laws are complex and go back to its
formation as a state. The California Court of Appeals stated, “The history of California is
written on its waters” after reviewing 37 years of litigation regarding water rights and water
quality in the Bay-Delta (Marsh & Prows, 2010). The authors describe recent landmark
legislation passed in 2009 as the “next chapter in California’s infamous water wars”. The article
details the current crisis, providing a historical perspective of how California has developed
policy and water laws and describes the components of the heavily negotiated water package of
2009. The water package included four components. This article focuses on SB7X1, which
“Established a new independent agency, the Delta Stewardship Council with the mission of
achieving state mandated coequal goals for the Delta. Coequal goals mean the two goals of
providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing
the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances
the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an
evolving place. (CA Water Code §85054)”. The authors conclude that the legislation “may only
amount to modest reform, its new agencies and authorities have a tremendous opportunity to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
39

build on existing efforts to develop a comprehensive conservation plan for the Delta.” The
article presents one piece of the 2009 legislation, the history that led to the need for the
legislation and thoughts on its potential impact, providing an account of the details of negotiated
water policy designed to address the complexity of the Delta, “which has over 200 federal, state
and local authorities having authority and often with competing demands”.
Water Markets: A Critical Tool for Water Managers
Water markets provide a mechanism for users to transfer water to meet demands. The
Western Governors’ Association and Western States Water Council define a water transfer as “a
voluntary agreement that results in a temporary or permanent change in the type, time or place of
use of water and/or a water right” and state that water transfers can be “local or distant, sold,
leased or donated, and can move water among agricultural, municipal, industrial, energy and
environmental users (Iseman, Brown, Willamson, & Bracken, 2012).
Water markets play an important role in the future of water management in Australia and
California. Langsford, Man, and Hirsch discuss the similar challenges faced by California and
South East Australia as the struggle to balance agriculture and urban needs with growing
populations and increasingly uncertain climate conditions. The authors explore the similarities
of the two regions, noting California’s influence on Australia’s irrigation policy dating back to
1887 when the Chaffey brothers applied their experience from California when they arrived in
Mildura (Langford, Man, & Hirsch, 2015). The authors go on to provide a good overview of the
development of water markets in Australia and California, providing examples of specific water
transfers, benefits, the challenges and the critical role they will play in the future. The limited
amount of water transferred from agriculture to urban uses distinguishes the use of markets in
Australia and California. The authors’ detail that the first transfer from agriculture to urban uses
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
40

occurred during the Millennium drought when Adelaide purchased a relatively small amount of
water (1% of the total Murray volume) was acceptable. Melbourne Water and the Victoria
government later made investments in modernizing agriculture systems with saved water to be
distributed equally to Melbourne, the irrigators and the environment, but faced challenges.
Melbourne made the investments to improve agriculture systems and built a pipeline to move the
water, but no water has yet been transferred due to rural versus city politics.
The authors outline lessons learned from Southeast Australia and California for regions
throughout the world as they prepare for and respond to water supply issues caused by
population growth and climate change. They emphasize the importance of water efficiency to
allow the current water supplies to meet the growing demands in agriculture, urban and industrial
uses in the future and draw on examples from Southeast Australia and California with water
transfers and the development of water markets. Key lessons learned include:
(1) Lower value uses of water will likely shift to higher-value uses in all sectors,
including agriculture, urban and industrial. The authors provide an example in
Australia, where farmers lost 70% of their water allocation, and yet the crop
values declined by only 20%;
(2) California and the American Southwest are more advanced with transfers from
agriculture to urban uses, despite complicated water rights/water laws that can
impede water transfers;
(3) If storage is available, it is more cost effective to purchase water during wet
years when prices are low than the more traditional approach of transferring
water during dry years to meet and immediate demand; and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
41

(4) There is an ongoing shift from low-value crops to high-value crops, typically
means a shift from seasonal crops to permanent crops, which can result in less
water available for water transfers. The authors note that there is a need to
consider how to provide cost-effective options for producing low-value
seasonal crops for consumption.
Australia
Rolfe provides a comprehensive look at the use of water markets as part of Australia’s
water reform efforts. Water trading has been a very important component of addressing the
water supply challenges faced during the Millennium drought. Rolfe describes how the use of
water markets turned out to be more complex than initially thought because variation in
externalities was difficult to address with consistency. He provides a detailed account of the
development of water markets in Australia including the existence of barriers such as hydrologic,
political and infrastructure, and concerns of moving water from agriculture to urban sectors
(Rolfe, 2008). All of these conditions exist in California as it looks to the development of a
water market as a solution for the future. Rolfe acknowledges the challenges faced in developing
effective water markets and concludes that more research is necessary in Australia.
California
Currie explores the formation of a water market for California State Water Project water.
It outlines three conditions required for the formation of a market: 1. Commodity must be fully
identified and the ownership must be known; 2. Information about the commodity supply and
demand—potential buyers and sellers must be known; and 3. Physical and legal flexibility must
exist. The article goes on to state that all conditions are met in the case of the State Water
Project, and that the development of a water market needs to be assessed on a case by case basis,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
42

including any external impacts of water transfers (Currie, 1985). The article makes a strong
argument for establishing a water market for State Water Project supplies. This issue has been
discussed for decades and there is still not an easy answer, due to potential third party impacts,
existing water rights and the inextricable fear by some users that their water rights will be
negatively impacted by the establishment of a water market. This supports my research by
showing the potential of a water market for the State Water Project. The added flexibility of
being able to transfer water between willing buyers/sellers could provide a critical tool for
addressing California water challenges.
The Western Governors’ Association (Iseman, Brown, Willamson, & Bracken, 2012)
provides a comprehensive look at the role of water transfers in the western United States, past,
present and future. The report includes detailed discussions on the policy issues including
exploration of the often challenging third party impacts to local communities, agriculture, and
the environment; the legal framework (state and regulatory) and the types of agreements
typically used with transfers; obstacles encountered with implementing water transfers; and tools
for states to use to help address the common challenges of third party impacts. This report not
only provides detailed information on water transfers and tools for implementation, but includes
three case studies providing examples of actual water transfers. The major conclusions of the
report are that transfers are happening and will continue to be a critical tool in the future to meet
a growing demand where supplies are limited. Transfers provide the ability to respond to needs
during droughts and will increase to meet environmental and recreational needs; states currently
play and will continue to play an important role in enforcing water rights, balancing the needs for
increased demand and preserving the environment; there is a need to mitigate the impacts on
rural communities that typically experience the third-party impacts of water transfers; states need
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
43

to share information and learn from each other as transfers are implemented. The report calls for
future research on improving data associated with transfers, impacts to food security, how
transfers can be used to respond to drought, how the economic, environmental and social impacts
of transfers can be mitigated and how the tightly held “use it or lose it” doctrine can be balanced
with the need to conserve and put water to its “best use”. One final area of future research,
which is critical, is the federal government’s role in transfers, specifically existing statues,
regulations, and permitting processes. This report provides a detailed discussion on water
transfers and issues apply to both Australia and California although the examples and regulations
are different, the obstacles, stakeholders and the need for future development are the same.
A symposium on “New Directions for U.S. Water Policy” sponsored by The Brookings
Institute, The Hamilton Project and Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment
was held in October 2014. One of the presentations focused on a discussion paper entitled
“Shopping for Water: How the Market Can Mitigate Water Shortages in the American West”,
which outlines five proposals for how markets can be used to “increase flexibility and resiliency
in water management” (Culp, Glennon, & Libecap, 2014). The discussion paper begins by
exploring impacts of the current drought in the western United States and noting the importance
of water to the economy, stating “water fuels the American economy just as oil does”. The paper
notes the growing concern of businesses regarding future water supplies and specifically, within
California, the dependence on water within the Silicon Valley stating that water is “as critical to
the high-tech industry as it is to irrigated agriculture”.
The five proposals presented in the discussion paper include: (1) Reform legal rules that
discourage water trading to encourage short-term water trading; (2) Create basic market
institutions to facilitate trading of water; (3) Use risk mitigation strategies to enhance system
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
44

reliability ; (4) Protect groundwater resources and (5) Continue and expand federal leadership.
The authors discuss the benefits of markets in other settings and describe how the market can
play a role in addressing water challenges in the western United States including protecting the
environment, managing groundwater, delaying or avoiding new infrastructure. For example,
market pricing can encourage conservation in urban areas and provide incentives to farmers for
implementing water efficient practices if the water saved can be transferred on the market.
Hanak and Stryjewski report on the status of the use of water markets and transfers in
California, including the history of the water market in California, the use of the water market for
environmental uses/mitigation, implications to policies and recommendations for the future
(Hanak & Stryjewski, 2012). The report provides the following recommendations for continued
development of the water market and the use of water transfers to meet future demands in
California:
(1) Address infrastructure weaknesses in the Delta;
(2) Clarify and simplify the institutional review process for transfers while balancing the
needs of the environment and impacts for other users;
(3) Strengthen local groundwater management to support both marketing and
groundwater banking;
(4) Develop models for mitigating the economic effects of large-scale land fallowing
deals;
(5) California should continue to pursue environmental water purchases; and
(6) Address risk management, possibly by including high-level state and federal officials
to coordinate transfers, facilitate discussions and lead the development of the water
market in California.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
45

Australia and California: Lessons Learned
Many comparisons have been made between how Australia and California are responding
to an increased need to manage their water resources and balance the needs of their urban, rural
or agricultural and environmental demands. Australia began an aggressive water reform effort
over 20 years ago and although significant improvements have been achieved, recent changes in
political leadership have resulted in what some fear as a step backward. Many see California as
currently being in the position Australia was in 2005, uncertain if they are in the middle of an
extended drought or nearing the end of a drought cycle.
A few themes emerged after researching and discussing issues with those involved in
water resources in both regions. The regions are absolutely comparable based on history, water
rights and current challenges, there are lessons to be learned from work being done in each
region, and the need to improve water management will only increase as both regions are certain
to have increased demands due to population growth and forecasted economic growth, and both
regions are certain to have to manage water supplies in an increasingly uncertain future due to
projected impacts of climate change.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
46

Bennett & Morris
Boulicault &
Schempp
Brown et. al
Christian-Smith et.
al
Cooley et. al
Crase & Dollery
Crase & Ghandi
Crase & O’Keefe
Davis
Gleick
Hanak
Hanak & Stryjewski
Hanak et al.
Heberger
Keppen et al.
Lansford, Man &
Hirsch
Marsh & Prows
Mount et al
Patrick
Peel & Choy
Svendsen
Climate change X X X X
Comparisons of
Australia/California
X X X X X X X C X X X
Crisis is an opportunity for
reform
X
Degradation of ecosystems X X X X X
Economics X X
Federal water policies X X
Food supply X X X
Groundwater X X
Infrastructure weakness X
Institutions/Governance X X X X X
Local/Regional/National control X
Political challenges X
Population growth X X X X X X
Regulatory challenges X X
Water rights/laws X X X X X X
Water scarcity X X X X
Water/Energy Nexus X X

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
47

Bennett & Morris
Boulicault &
Schempp
Brown et. al
Christian-Smith et.
al
Cooley et. al
Crase & Dollery
Crase & Ghandi
Crase & O’Keefe
Davis
Gleick
Hanak
Hanak & Stryjewski
Hanak et al.
Heberger
Keppen et al.
Lansford, Man &
Hirsch
Marsh & Prows
Mount et al
Patrick
Peel & Choy
Svendsen
Advanced water planning X
Balancing interests X
Collect more comprehensive data X X X
Convert public agencies to
private
X
Cost-benefit analysis X
Environmental flows X X
Environmental water tools X X X X
Flexible decision making process X
Governance (decentralized) X X
Governance: Coordination X X X X X
Groundwater management
Implementation of policy X
Infrastructure X
Irrigation technology X
Stakeholder participation X X X
Sustainability X X X
Values (societal) X
Water markets and transfers X X X X X X
Water Resource Management X X X X
Water-use efficiency programs X

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
48

CHAPTER 3
CASE STUDIES
Introduction
BizFed, a California-based business organization sponsored a day-long seminar on water
policy in June 2014. Dr. Wade Graham of Pepperdine University and the Glen Canyon Institute
opened the session by providing an overview of water issues and encouraging business leaders to
get involved. Dr. Graham began the day by noting:
We have a water government system that's been pushed to the brink, by drought in
particular, but we all know I think that drought didn't cause it. Drought is normal here,
normal in California. Forty of the last hundred years are drought years, so at some level,
we also know that we have a water institutional framework with water management that
keeps us at some level in crisis. Drought didn't cause it. (Graham, 2014)
Dr. Graham then outlined the unique characteristics and challenges of water management
including:
1. A system of property rights secured in the 19th century. During the gold rush,
who got the land became a water rush, and now it's been codified into laws, first
in time, first in right.
2. A system with no economic rationality. Some get a huge amount of water, while
others get none; with no regard whatsoever to the value in economic terms. The
system is full of perverse incentives, including a legal disincentive to conserve
and it is rife with subsidies.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
49

3. It is a system of institutional inefficiency, overlapping agencies at the local, state
and federal level, working across purposes and enforcing contrary laws.
4. There is not much information about how much water is actually used.
5. Groundwater is unrestricted and pumping is unquantified in most places.
6. A massive amount of energy is used in the system to move water and treat it, but
there's no connection between energy and water in planning or price.
7. There are far too many claims to available water. Every river system is over-
allocated to ridiculous multiples, as much as 5 to 1 in some cases.
8. Population is growing. Most of those people are settling in southern coastal cities,
which are far from water sources in the north
9. There are over 150 years of impacts to the environment, including degraded
ecosystems, loss of wetlands and estuaries converted to farmland and urban areas,
species that are being lost and rivers that don't reach the sea.
10. Environmental protection is achieved more through lawsuits than statute, and
often only when the species is at risk of extinction or public health is threatened.
The process is slow, costly, divisive, and it ultimately doesn't achieve the right
results.
11. Climate change is making everything worse. It's redistributing precipitation to
where we don't want it. There is increasing flooding, increasing drought so we're
under stress.
Dr. Graham then noted that “I could be talking about California when I'm talking about
Australia, at least until 2007 when Australia responded to incredible stress and strain and
experienced an actual revolution”. (Graham, 2014)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
50

California and Australia are alike in many ways. They share a similar history, similar
development, similar water laws, similar water challenges and a similar commitment to
continuing to understand more about their challenges while developing diverse solutions as the
people in both regions understand too well that water is critical to their future.
California and Australia: Comparable Challenges
Australia’s water history is similar to California’s, built on publicly funded programs to
manage water for development resulting in harm to the environment (Crase, 2008). The
Australian example is the most comparable to California because both regions share common
conditions and challenges including variable climate conditions that span dramatic differences in
droughts and floods, continuing population growth, distribution of population, major interstate
watersheds supplying agriculture and urban, similar water use profiles, similar economies, over-
allocation of water, and increasing environmental challenges. Both regions recently experienced
extended droughts with unprecedented impacts to residents, industries and the environment
resulting in the need to create new approaches to provide reliable water supplies for future needs.
Both regions are also addressing impacts to the environment and are now including the
environment as a stakeholder.
This section includes a summary of direct comparisons between Australia and California
and two case studies. The first case study is focused on Australia’s Millennium Drought and the
second on California’s most recent drought including information on the regions, summaries of
their water resources and how they addressed their respective crises.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
51

Comparisons between Australia and California
Settlement
Australia California
Britain started establishing colonies in
Australia in 1788. Gold was discovered in the
mid-1800s, leading to increased immigration
by people throughout the world looking for
gold. Colonization continued through 1901,
when six colonies formed the Federal
Commonwealth of Australia. (Australian
Government, Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade, 2014)
The discovery of gold in California in 1848 led
to expansive population growth, doubling
within one year between 1848-1849, as people
from all over the world migrated to California
to mine for gold. California was admitted to the
United States of America on September 9, 1850.
(Burns, 2003)

Climate Comparisons
Australia California
Australia’s climate varies greatly from
tropical in the north to temperate in the south
(Crase, 2008). Australia has experienced
major droughts in 82 out of 150 years dating
back to initial records (Heberger, 2011).
Droughts are not new to California. The graph
below shows variability in statewide
precipitation over the last 114 years.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
52

Source: Australian Government Department
of the Environment
(Bureau of Meteorology )

Source: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
National Climatic Data Center).

Source: Grame Barty (Barty, 2010)

Source: U.S. Drought Monitor (United States
Drought Monitor California Map 2/2/16)
Population Distribution and Projected Growth
Australia California
Australia’s current population is 23.5 million
and is projected to grow to 38-48 million by
2060. (Australian Bureau of Statistics)
California’s current population is 38 million
and is projected to grow to more than
51 million people by 2060. (California
Department of Finance, 2014)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
53

Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics
Yearbook of Statistics (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2012)

(United States Census Bureau, 2010)

Economies

Australia California
According to the World Bank, Australia’s
economy ranked 12
th
in the world in 2014 with
a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of
$1.45 billion. (The World Bank, 2015)
According to the State of California’s
Department of Finance, California’s estimated
2014 GDP was $2.31 billion, (California
Department of Finance , 2015) which would
place it as the eight in the world if California
was a country. (The World Bank, 2015)

Eras of Development of Water/Water Rights
Both regions initially relied on riparian water rights doctrine from English common law.
Riparian water rights doctrine “gives landholders conditional rights to access and use water
contiguous with and adjoining their land”. (Tisdell as cited in Musgrave, 2008) Musgrave goes
on to note that riparian rights “allow landholders to do what they wish with their (riparian) water,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
54

as long as they do not unreasonably interfere with other landholders by such use”. (Bates as cited
in Musgrave, 2008) Both Musgrave and Hanak note that while the riparian doctrine worked in
England, it was not appropriate for Australia or the Western United States due to the differences
in climate and rainfall conditions.
Water development in Southern California and Australia are uniquely linked through
Chaffey Brothers, who played a unique role in the development of both regions. Canadian sons
of an engineer, George and William arrived in Southern California in the 1870s. (Kershner,
1953) George and William developed 8,000-acre farm in inland Southern California by using
new irrigation methods. (Lienhard, 1988). Alfred Deakin arrived in California about this time,
leading a Victorian Royal Commission studying American irrigation practices. He noted the
climate, soil and rainfall similarities and concluded that Southern California was perfectly
matched to serve as a model for water development in Australia. Deakin convinced the Chaffey
Brothers to travel to Australia and William and George were in Melbourne by 1886. (Kershner,
1953) The Chaffey brothers established a model irrigation settlement at Mildura on the Murray
River in 1887. (Reiter, Langford, Man, & Hirsch, 2015)
The Chaffey brothers were pioneers in the development of water policy and irrigation in
Australia, driven by social policies promoting closer settlements. With this end in mind,
irrigation districts were defined in legislation, and water entitlements were allocated to
each land holding in the irrigation districts on the basis of the needs of the relevant crops.
These water entitlements were legally tied to the land holding. Irrigators could not buy or
sell water separately from land. (Reiter, Langford, Man, & Hirsch, 2015)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
55

Australia California
Progression from Common Law Rights to
Sustainable Shares (McKay, 2008)
Phase I: The Common Law
(Late 1800s-Early 1900s)
As noted above, the riparian doctrine was not
well suited for Australia’s hydrology. Control
shifted from individuals to states during the
late 1800s-early 1900s. According to
Musgrave, water policies developed in the
1880s through legislation, including the
Irrigation Act of 1886 written by Alfred
Deakin which:
 gave states the right to the use of, flow
and control of water in any
watercourse;
 stated private riparian rights could not
compromise the rights of the state; and
 Noted the importance of the rights of
the state and individual to be fully
Eras of Development
(Hanak, et al., 2011)
Laissez-Faire (Mid-Late 1800s)
Prior to California being adopted as a state,
gold had been discovered in northern
California. The population grew from
approximately 160,000 in 1848 to more than
1.5 million people in 1900. Hydraulic mining
developed, requiring water to be moved and
pressurized to mine gold. The doctrine of
Appropriate Rights (first-in-time, first in right)
was established during this time by miners to
resolve conflicts over both gold and the water
used to mine gold.
Local Organization (1860s-1920s)
Farmers who had come to California to find
gold started going back to farming in their new
home. The economy shifted from gold mining
to agriculture. This shift required different
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
56

defined. (Mulligan and Pigram through
Musgrave, 2008)
McKay summarizes the first phase as being
focused on providing water rights to users with
little consideration for the environment.
Phase II: (Early 1900s-1980s)
The second phase was focused on allocating
water. Irrigation systems were developed,
creating licenses to use the water rather than
giving rights to the water. Farmers believed
they had a right to the water and water was
rarely taken from the farmers. This led to the
over allocation of water.
Phase III: (1994)
The Council of Australian Governments led
reform efforts that provided water for the
environment and developed market reforms to
promote water trading. Extensive reforms
defined the role of the federal government or
Commonwealth in managing water policy.
Australia faced a drought and rivers were
water needs and the need to control floods to
protect agriculture fields. Irrigation systems
formed to serve individual farmers. Water
users formed irrigation districts and mutual
water companies to operate systems and
provide water for agriculture and cities.
Farmers started to purchase water rights and
develop systems including the construction of
dams and canals. This development continued
as regional irrigation districts were formed to
support larger systems.
Hydraulic (1900-1980s)
The “build it and they will come” era.
California was the fastest growing state in the
nation, requiring larger regional and statewide
systems to support a growing population and
increased demands for agriculture. The
federal government supported the growth
through money, expertise and assistance in
developing flood management systems. Two
large federal projects, the Central Valley
Project and the Boulder Canyon Project were
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
57

significantly over allocated which led to the
development of plans to address issues in many
states and territories.
Phase IV: The National Water Initiative
and Commonwealth Water Bill of 2007
The National Water Initiative focused on
developing sustainable surface and
groundwater through national consistency in
markets, regulations and planning. Initially,
there was not agreement among all states and
territories, but by 2006 all states signed the
National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI is
a commitment of the Commonwealth and
states to “recognize:
 Continuing national imperative to
increase productivity of Australia’s
water use;
 Need to serve rural and urban
environments; and
 The importance of ensuring the health
of river and groundwater systems.”
developed providing flood control and water to
thousands of acres of agriculture in the central
and southern parts of the state. At the state
level, the development of the State Water
Project was politically challenging. Strongly
supported by Governor Pat Brown, California
voters narrowly passed the Burns-Porter Act
which approved the State Water Project.
Regional water districts constructed projects
including the Hetch-Hetchy project,
Los Angeles Aqueduct and Colorado River
Aqueduct which together with the federal and
state systems formed a significant water
system to move water throughout the state
from where it naturally accumulated to regions
where it was needed because the population
and economy was continuing to develop.
Conflict 1960s-Current)
Followed by an era of significant investments
in infrastructure, the environment became a
stakeholder in the 1970s through the passage of
a series of federal and state laws. Starting in
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
58

(McKay, 2008)

the 1970s, environmental laws impacted the
operation and further development of each of
the water systems developed during the
Hydraulic era. (Hanak, et al., 2011)

Infrastructure
Australia California
In January 2015, the Public Policy Institute of
California hosted a half-day session focused on
Australia’s Millennium drought. Professor Jane
Doolan, Canberra University and National
Water Commissioner outlined the infrastructure
investments made during the Millennium
drought. Noting that these investments were
“highly controversial” all major cities invested
in desalination plants. They also interconnected
the water grid to join the systems. This allows
water to travel down a pipeline and from the
cities to rural areas using desalinated water,
although that has yet to happen. (Doolan, 2015)

Approximately three quarters of the state’s
available water falls in the upper third of the
state and more than half of California’s
population live in southern California. (Water
Education Foundation and The Edmund G.
"Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs, 1992)
This difference requires an extensive water
infrastructure system, which includes a
complex combination of federal, state,
regional and local systems that move water
from the north to the south and from the east
to the west.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
59

(Doolan, 2015)

(Hanak, et al., 2011)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
60

Austin’s Summary of California’s Water Infrastructure Systems (Note: Deliveries vary depending on water availability)
CALIFORNIA WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
compiled by Maven's Notebook (www.MavensNotebook.com)
Central Valley Project State Water Project All American Canal Colorado River Aqueduct Los Angeles Aqueduct Mokelumne Aqueduct Hetch Hetchy
Operated by: Operated by: Operated by: Operated by: Operated by: Operated by: Operated by:
Bureau of Reclamation Dept. of Water Resources Imperial Irrigation District Metropolitan Water District Los Angeles DWP East Bay MUD San Francisco PUC
Built : 1930s - 1950s Built: 1960s - early 1970s Built : 1934 to 1939 Built : 1932 to 1941 Built: 1908-1913 Built: 1926-1929; second
pipeline completed 1949;
third pipeline in 1963
Built : 1914 - 1934
Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries Avg. Deliveries
7 MAF 2.3 MAF 3.1 MAF 1.2 MAF 200,000 AF 364,000 AF 265,000 AF
Length: About 400 miles Length : 600+ miles Length: 80 miles Length: 242 miles Length : 223 miles Length: 95 miles Length: 160 miles
Serves : Sacramento Valley
and San Joaquin Valley
agriculture, plus some
municipalities in the Central
Valley and the Bay Area
Serves: Northern Bay Area
and Southern Bay Area
communities, San Joaquin
Valley, Southern California
Serves: Imperial Valley Serves: Metropolitan's 5200-
square mile service area in
Southern California, which
spans from Ventura County to
San Diego County.
Serves: City of Los Angeles Serves : 35 municipalities in
the East Bay, including
Oakland, Berkeley,
Richmond, and parts of
Alameda and Contra Costa
County
Serves : The city San Francisco
and other Bay Area cities
spread across Santa Francisco,
Santa Clara, Alameda, and
San Mateo counties
Path: The Central Valley
Project does not consist of
contiguous facilities; it is
instead divided into eight
divisions, some of which
work in conjunction with
other divisions, while other
divisions operate completely
independently. The Central
Valley Project delivers
irrigation water to an area
spanning the length of the
Central Valley from Shasta
Reservoir to Kern County;
Central Valley Project water
also serves water for urban
uses in the Bay Area and
parts of the Central Valley.
Path: The 3.5 MAF Lake
Oroville reservoir is the
starting point for the SWP
system; the water then travels
down the Feather River, joins
with the Sacramento River
and flows into the Delta.
From the south Delta, it is
placed in the California
Aqueduct for delivery to the
San Joaquin Valley and
Southern California.
Branches of the system
deliver water to the northern
Bay Area, the southern Bay
including San Jose, and the
Central Coast areas of San
Luis Obispo and Santa
Barbara.
Path: Water enters the IID
system at Imperial Dam; from
there it travels 80 miles to a
point near Calexico. At the
point where the canal enters
the eastern Imperial Valley, a
canal branches off to carry
water 123 miles to the
Coachella Valley.
Path: The Colorado River
Aqueduct begins at the
Whitsett Pumping Plant,
located on Lake Havasu, about
2 miles above Parker Dam on
the Colorado River; from there
the aqueduct travels 242 miles
to Lake Mathews near
Riverside, the aqueduct's
terminal reservoir.
Path: From Mono Lake, water
flows through tunnels down
to Crowley Lake; from there
water travels through the
Owens River to the intake for
the aqueduct; from there, the
water travels through cement-
lined canals and pipelines to
enter Southern California
through the Cascades facility
located in Sylmar.
Path: The aqueduct begins at
Pardee Reservoir, travels
southwest for 95 miles
through the western foothills
of the Sierra Nevada and then
west across the Central Valley
along the Calaveras River
before crossing the
Sacramento –San Joaquin
River Delta in a pipeline.
Once the water reaches the
Berkeley Hills above the East
Bay, it is channeled into a
complex distribution system
consisting of six terminal
reservoirs (Briones, Chabot,
Lafayette, San Pablo and
Upper San Leandro) with a
combined storage capacity of
155,150 acre feet.
Path: The system begins at
O ’ Shaughnessy Dam, located
on the Tuolumne River in
Yosemite National Park,
which forms Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir; from there, the
water travels 160 miles by
gravity through a series of
aqueducts, tunnels,
hydroelectric plants, and
eight other storage dams to
the Bay Area. Near the city of
Fremont, the aqueduct splits
into four pipelines, two of
which cross the Bay to the
south of the Dumbarton
Bridge, while the other two
pipelines run to the north,
terminating at the Pulgas
Water Temple.
Facilities: 18 dams and
reservoirs, 11 power plants,
three fish hatcheries, and 500
miles of canals and
aqueducts.
Facilities: 34 storage facilities,
20 pumping plants, four
pumping-generating plants, 5
hydroelectric power plants,
and about 700 miles of canals,
tunnels and pipelines.
Facilities: Over 3000 miles of
canals and drains, and ten
reservoirs, with a total
storage capacity of more than
3,300 acre-feet.
Facilities: 5 pumping plants, 63
miles of canals, 92 miles of
tunnels, 55 miles of conduit,
and 144 underground siphons
Facilities: 14 hydropower
facilities, 5 storage reservoirs,
142 tunnels totaling 52 miles
in length, 12 miles of inverted
steel siphons, 24 miles of
unlined conduit, 37 miles of
open, cement-lined conduit,
and 97 miles of covered
conduit
Facilities: Mokelumne River
water is collected in the
Pardee Reservoir and flows
90 miles from Pardee to the
Bay Area via the Mokelumne
aqueduct system consisting of
three large diameter steel
pipelines.
Facilities: 280 miles of
pipelines, over 60 miles of
tunnels, 11 reservoirs, five
pump stations and two water
treatment plants
(Austin, 2015)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
61

Water Demand Profiles
Australia and California have comparable water demands by use as shown below.
Australia California
2011-12 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013)
Agriculture 60%
Water Supply/Sewage 13%
Household 11%
Mining 4%
Manufacturing 3%
Electricity/Gas 2%
Other 7%
Developed Water (Delta Stewardship Council,
2013)
Agriculture 54%
Environment 32%
Urban 14%

Major Interstate Watersheds Supplying Agriculture and Urban Demands

Australia and California both have large watersheds that cover multiple states and
provide water to support urban and agricultural needs.
Australia California
Murray-Darling Basin
The Murray Darling Basin covers four states:
 New South Wales
 Victoria
 Queensland
 South Australia
and the Australian Capital Territory. It
generates approximately 13,000 GL of water
on average (Crase & O'Keefe, 2011), which is
equivalent to approximately 16 MAF.
Colorado River

The Colorado River provides covers seven
states:
 Arizona
 California
 Colorado
 Nevada
 New Mexico
 Utah
 Wyoming
and the country of Mexico. “The naturalized
flow of the Colorado River has varied between
5.3 and 24.0 million acre-feet per year at Lees
Ferry from 1906-2006 with an average of
15.1 MAF. (Guido)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
62

Australia California

(Southwest Climate Change Group, 2013)

(Murray Darling Basin Authority)

(Metropolitan Water District, 2016)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
63

Over-Allocation of Water Resources

Australia California
Australia’s water resources are over-allocated
as shown in the map below.
A study released in August 2014 concluded
that the water allocated through California’s
appropriative water rights system is five times
more than the overall mean supplies
(Grantham and Viers). (Grantham & Viers,
2014)

(Barty, 2010)

Source: (Grantham & Viers, 2014)

New Approaches to Water Management

Australia California
Water management in Australia is currently
undergoing fundamental and far reaching
reforms. Distribution of water has changed
from one single, clear objective—extraction for
Under Governor Brown’s leadership, the
California Natural Resources Agency, the
California Environmental Protection Agency,
and the California Department of Food and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
64

Australia California
agriculture and urban water supply—to a more
complex goal of ensuring sustainability and
certainty for human consumption, production,
the environment and the welfare of water-
dependent communities. (Lukasiewicz, Syme,
Bowmer, & Davidson, 2013)
In January 2007, Prime Minister John
Howard released a National Plan for Water
Security, which included $10 billion and 10
points focused on improving Australia’s
management of water including:
1. A nationwide investment in
Australia’s irrigation infrastructure to
line and pipe major delivery channels;
2. A nationwide programme to improve
on-farm irrigation technology and
metering;
3. The sharing of water savings on a
50:50 basis between irrigators and the
Commonwealth Government leading to
greater water security and increased
environmental flows;
Agriculture developed the California Water
Action Plan, which was released in 2014
(Governor Brown, State of California, 2014).
Ten key actions were identified in the plan to
be implemented in the next five years that
address urgent needs and provide a foundation
for the sustainable management of California’s
water resources. The Governor linked the
Water Action Plan to the budget to provide a
funding source for the actions.
1. Make conservation a California way of
life.
2. Increase regional self-reliance and
integrated water management across all
levels of government.
3. Achieve the co-equal goals for the
Delta.
4. Protect and restore important
ecosystems.
5. Manage and prepare for dry periods.
6. Expand water storage capacity and
improve groundwater management.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
65

Australia California
4. Addressing once and for all water
over-allocation in the Murray-Darling
Basin;
5. A new set of governance
arrangements for the Murray-Darling
Basin;
6. A sustainable cap on surface and
groundwater use in the Murray-Darling
Basin;
7. Major engineering works at key sites
in the Murray-Darling Basin such as
the Barmah Choke and Menindee
Lakes;
8. Expanding the role of the Bureau of
Meteorology to provide the water data
necessary for good decision making by
governments and industry;
9. A Taskforce to explore future land
and water development in northern
Australia; and
10. Completion of the restoration of the
Great Artesian Basin. (Howard,
7. Provide safe water for all communities.
8. Increase flood protection.
9. Increase operational and regulatory
efficiency.
10. Identify sustainable and integrated
financing opportunities.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
66

Australia California
2007)
In 2015, the Australian Government
published a white paper outlining its plan to
further develop the farming sector,
acknowledging its contributions to the
Australian economy. The white paper provides
a framework for $4 billion of investments in
five areas, two of which directly relate to
water: building infrastructure for the 21
st

century and strengthening Australia’s approach
to drought and risk management through
$3.3 million of investments to provide
accurate, more local and more frequent
seasonal forecasts. (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2015).

Environmental Concerns
Australia California
Overuse, pollution, increased salinity, and
drought threatened Australia’s Murray-Darling
River Basin (“MDB”), which includes
drainage of twenty-three rivers, more than two
The Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta is the
center of one of California’s most important
water supplies, serving 25 million Californians
and provides water for crops that account for
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
67

million people and nearly forty percent of
Australia’s agricultural revenue. (Axelrod,
2011)
approximately half of the nation’s fruits, nuts
and vegetables. The ecosystem has been
altered over the last 150 years through the
construction of levees, introduction of
nutrients, contaminants, and non-native
species, causing the loss of nearly 98 percent
of the native habitat. (California Natural
Resources Agency, 2013)

Recent Water Policies
Australia California
In 1995 the Australian, State and Territory
Governments agreed to a program of
competition policy reform. National
Competition Policy (NCP) and related
reforms provide a timely, coordinated and
comprehensive approach to reform across all
levels of government, including electricity,
gas, road transport and water.
Independent estimates were produced of the
likely benefits in terms of growth and tax
revenues. The Federal Government agreed to
During the current drought, California has
enacted a number of bills through the state
legislature and implemented policies through
regulatory agencies:
 2009 Water Package negotiated by the
state legislature and signed by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger included four
policy bills an
$11.14 billion bond. The bond
subsequently was delayed until 2014,
when a modified bond of $7.5 billion
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
68

share the fiscal dividends with the States if
they met their commitments, with the
payments schedule outlined in the
agreements.

Specific water reforms included institutional,
pricing and investment measures, and the
implementation of arrangements that allow
for the permanent trading of water
allocations. (Commonwealth of Australia,
2015)
The four policies approved were:
o SB 1: Co-Equal Goals:
established a framework to
achieve the co-equal goals of
providing a more reliable water
supply to California and restoring
and enhancing the Delta
ecosystem
o SB 6 Groundwater Monitoring:
required, for the first time in
California’s history, that local
agencies monitor the elevation of
their groundwater basins to help
better manage the resource during
both normal water years and
drought conditions
o SB 7 created a framework for
future planning and actions by
urban and agricultural water
suppliers to reduce California’s
water use. For the first time in
California’s history, this bill
requires the development of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
69

agricultural water management
plans and requires urban water
agencies to reduce statewide per
capita water consumption
20 percent by 2020
o SB 8 improved accounting of the
location and amounts of water
being diverted by recasting and
revising exemptions from the
water diversion reporting
requirements under current law.
(California Department of Water
Resources, 2009)
 The 2014 Water Bond passed on
November 4, 2014 (White, 2014). The
bond included:
o Regional Water Reliability ($810
million)
o Safe Drinking Water
($520 million)
o Watersheds and Flood
Management ($1.89 billion)
o Water Recycling ($725 million)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
70

o Groundwater Sustainability
($900 million)
o Storage ($2.7 billion)
(Association of California Water
Agencies, 2014)
 September 2014: The Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act was
approved. The package of three
legislative bills:
o Provides for sustainable
management of groundwater
basins
o Enhances local management of
groundwater consistent with
rights to use or store groundwater
o Establishes minimum standards
for effective, continuous
management of groundwater
o Provides local groundwater
agencies with the authority,
technical, and financial assistance
needed to maintain groundwater
supplies
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
71

o Avoids or minimizes impacts for
land subsidence
o Improves data collection and
understanding of groundwater
resources and management
o Increases groundwater storage
and removes impediments to
recharge
o Empowers local agencies to
manage groundwater basins,
while minimizing state
intervention
o SGMA requires local agencies to
establish a new governance
structure, known as Groundwater
Sustainability Agencies, and prior
to developing groundwater
sustainability plans for
groundwater basins or sub-basins
that are designated as medium or
high priority. (California
Groundwater, 2016)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
72

Water System Funding
Australia California
Australia invested billions of dollars in water
infrastructure over the last decade.
In 2007, Prime Minister Howard included
$10 billion for water security in a National
Plan for Water Security. Among other things,
this plan provided money for nationwide
investments in irrigation infrastructure to line
and pipe major delivery channels (Howard,
2007).

In 2015, The Australian government
established a $500 million National Water
Infrastructure Development Fund including
$50 million for planning and $450 million to
help build that infrastructure. State
governments, Territory governments, and the
private sector will add to the funds to develop
required infrastructure.
The government recognized the importance of:
 Ensuring the right water infrastructure
is developed in the right place;
The Public Policy Institute of California
reported that most of the investments in
California’s water systems are by made by
local agencies (84%) followed by state (12%),
with only a minor amount coming from the
federal government (4%). (Hanak, et al.,
2014). Although Hanak’s recent report was
based on annual water system spending (2008-
11), the report notes that historically,
California’s water systems have been “almost
entirely locally funded, including flood works,
irrigation canals, and large-scale storage and
conveyance systems to bring water and
hydroelectric power to growing urban
areas.”(Hanak, et al., 2014). Hanak goes on to
discuss the likelihood that state general
obligation bonds are likely to be less available
in the future due to the existing bonds and the
cost of the bonds and federal money
availability will likely decrease (Hanak,
Chappelle, Lund, & Misczynski, 2015).
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
73

 Long-term maintenance costs should
not be imposed on users where the
returns do not justify the outlays; and
 Good planning and contributions from
a number of sources are required.
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2015)

Water Governance
Australia California
Australia’s water is controlled by state and
territory governments, which “are responsible
for managing water resources to achieve the
public and private benefits of water”
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2014).
The national government’s role changed
beginning in 1994 when the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) developed
the National Water Initiative (NWI).
The NWI addressed water management
issues at a national level, reflecting the
imperative for national compatibility and a
strategic, coordinated approach to
managing connected water systems.
California has a vast and interconnected
infrastructure system controlled by a
decentralized form of governance, which
includes federal, state, regional and local
authorities, public and private water agencies,
and tribal governments (California Department
of Water Resources, 2014) (As noted above, it
is unclear how many agencies govern water in
California although the Department of Water
Resources estimates the number to be
approximately 3,000.)
The institutions that govern
California’s water resources have evolved over
the last 160 years as the needs of the state
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
74

Ultimately, all state and territory
governments and the Australian
Government through COAG committed to
implementing the NWI.

evolved during the eras mentioned above.
Decentralized management has been seen as
important because it allows for management,
planning and policy making to meet local
needs. This complex system can lead to
competition between agencies, conflicting
policies and ineffective governance (California
Department of Water Resources, 2014) An
example of the complexity is the current Delta
Plan, which governs the Sacramento/San
Joaquin Bay-Delta (See Page 28).
The ability to make decisions at the local level
is seen as critical, in part because the landscape
of California is so varied and the needs of the
citizens and businesses are different and the
recent and projected trends show the majority
of investments are made by local agencies.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
75

(Water Education Foundation, 2013)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
76

Addressing Challenges of Multi-Year Droughts
Australia has experienced major droughts in 82 out of 150 years dating back to initial
records (Heberger, Australia's Millennium Drought:Impacts and Responses, 2011). Smith
characterizes Australian hydrology as “water being in the wrong place or arriving at the wrong
time.” (Smith, 1998). The same can be said for hydrology in the western United States and
specifically in California.
Australia’s Millennium Drought (1997 – 2009)
Australia’s Millennium Drought, also referred to as the “Big Dry” led to extensive
changes in how Australia manages its water. The drought, lasting more than a decade impacted
Australia’s “environment, economy, and national psyche” (Heberger, 2011). Australia’s water
policy reform began well before the Millennium drought. The Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) established in 1992, comprised of officials including the Prime Minister,
State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers and the President of the Australian Local
Government Association (Council of Australian Governments, 2015). COAG agreed to the
competition policy principles articulated in the Hilmer Committee report in February 1994
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). COAG adopted a water reform framework in February
1994, which identified that improved management of Australia’s water resources is a national
issue (Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South
Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, 2004). The National Water Initiative (NWI) was a
blueprint for governments to “increase the efficiency of Australia's water use, leading to greater
certainty for investment and productivity, for rural and urban communities, and for the
environment” (Australian Government Department of the Environment).
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
77

The NWI required , state and territorial governments to prepare comprehensive water
plans, achieve sustainable water use in over-allocated or stressed water systems, introduce
registers of water rights and standards for water accounting, expand trade in water rights,
improve pricing for water storage and delivery, and improve urban water management
(Australian Government Department of the Environment).
Peel and Choy discuss the centralization of the Murray ‐Darling Basin:
The Murray- ‐Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) – to develop a Basin Plan to be
implemented by sub-plans at the water management scale. A central feature of the Basin
Plan, adopted in late 2012, was the “environmentally sustainable limits” (known as
sustainable diversion limits or SDLs) it places on water withdrawals (surface and
groundwater) from the Basin overall, and for each individual catchment and aquifer in the
Basin. The Basin-wide SDL effectively “caps” the amount of Basin water available for
consumptive uses. The Water Act required the SDL to be set at a level that reflected an
environmentally sustainable level of take that would not compromise key environmental
assets, ecosystem functions, environmental outcomes or the productive base of water
resources. In the Basin, water users can trade water either by selling their water allocation
for a single year or their water access entitlement (Peel & Choy, 2014).
The National Water Commission (NWC) was established to “provide independent
assurance of governments' progress on water reform and promote the objectives and
outcomes of the National Water Initiative.” (National Water Commission)
The following timeline from the NWC’s First Annual report outlines the
development of the NWI and the NWC:
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
78

DATE EVENT

25 June 2004

The Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative (NWI)
was signed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories with the
exception of Western Australia and Tasmania at the Council of Australian
Governments meeting.

12 September 2004

The Prime Minister announces $2 billion investment in water initiatives, later
called the Australian Government Water Fund.

24 October 2004

The National Water Commission Chief Executive Officer is announced.

17 December 2004

The National Water Commission Act 2004 receives Royal Assent.

15 February 2005

The Commission becomes a Prescribed Agency under Financial
Management Accountability Act 1997.

10 March 2005

The Chair and commissioners are announced.

22 March 2005

Commissioners hold their inaugural meeting in Canberra on World Water
Day.
Source: National Water Commission 2004-05 Annual Report (National Water
Commission, 2005)
Signatories to the NWI were required to develop plans outlining how they would
implement its requirements, including timelines for implementation of agreed actions. The
NWC was responsible for accrediting the plans and providing a benchmark for assessing future
water reform progress. The NWC certified all nine implementation plans by 2007 and advised
COAG that they were NWI-consistent. (National Water Commission)
Jane Doolan, Professor University of Canberra and member of Australia’s National
Water Commission presented an in-depth overview of Australia’s Millennium drought at the
Public Policy Institute of California’s one-day conference in January 2015. She described the
drought as hitting southeastern Australia, severely impacting the Murray- Darling Basin, noting
drought went from 1997 through to 2009. She went on to describe the severity as the longest, the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
79

deepest and the most severe on record, noting the worst case climate change predictions for the
region being a reduction of 44% of inflows by 2050 and they were experiencing conditions much
worse than that, noting that people were very engaged around the drought and willing to accept
that this was their future. (Doolan, 2015)
Professor Doolan outlined the impacts to the urban sectors: “all of our urban cities
around the country had stage 4 restrictions, indoor use only, and we were carting water to
many small rural communities for years, which is very expensive. In terms of irrigation,
the high reliability entitlements were starting the years at somewhere between 0 and 10%
and there was no water against the low. The annual crops of rice and cotton, there was
none, or very, very little during that period. The perennial crops of vines and orchards
which use the high reliability product, after that 2006-07 year, people were sacrificing
one-third of those. So it was pretty terrible. There were mental health impacts, there were
huge job losses, we had foreclosures, and farm suicide rate increased significantly. And
we can even detect the impact at the national economic level.” (Doolan, 2015)
She went on to explain that they “looked at the environmental, social, and economic
implications of every decision.” Australians responded to drought as the new normal rather than
trying to survive until the next rain. Doolan discussed the development of the enhancements of
the Victoria water grid to allow water can travel physically back and forth between regions, “so
theoretically we could have water from the desal plant in Melbourne move and be used in the
Murray system. We haven’t, because it’s highly controversial, but it is enabled to occur”
(Doolan, 2015).

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
80

She summarized the changes Australia made in response to the Millennium Drought:
 Economic, social, environmental outcomes were considered together
 Changed the philosophy from “we need to get through this” to “this is the future”
 Increased efficiency by all sectors
o Urban: built pipelines and interconnectors to develop a water grid that moves
water around, implemented efficiency programs that reduced urban per capita use
by 43 percent and developed new sources including recycled water, stormwater,
groundwater, trading, and desalination;
o Rural: on-farm and irrigation systems: developed a strong water market, allowed
carryover and system reserves, made significant investment in irrigation
modernization and developed farm planning and on-farm efficiencies; and made
environment policy practical, pragmatic, and easily understood. (Doolan, 2015)
Australia invested heavily in desalination during the Millennium Drought to secure
reliable supplies for its future. Seawater desalination plants were built in every large city at a
cost of more than $10 billion (Rogers, 2014). Rains and floods came the year that plants went
online, shifting the need from managing for a drought to managing floods. Citizens reacted as
the rains came because they were left with the bill for large capital investments. Annual
increases as high as $200 were experienced in Melbourne and Sydney’s plant is costing
consumers approximately $200 million a year, or about $100 a year for every water user even
though no water has been produced since 2012 (Ferguson, 2014) .
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
81

Water reform in Australia shifted again in 2014, when a change in government led to the
end of the NWC. After ten years, the NWC was abolished and its responsibilities dispersed to
other government agencies listed below (National Water Commission, 2014):
Agency Responsible (Post-NWC) Oversight
The Productivity Commission  Triennial assessments of progress toward
achieving the National Water Initiative
objectives and outcomes by state and
territory governments
 Independent audit of implementation of the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan and associated
water resource plans as statutory functions
 Biennial National Water Planning Report
Card which is produced under the triennial
assessment.
Department of the Environment  Assessing milestone payments to the
Murray-Darling Basin states against the
performance milestones specified in the
National Partnership Agreement on
implementing Murray-Darling Basin
reform.
 Provide advice on the status of
implementation of the National Water
Initiative to the Clean Energy Regulator as
required under the Carbon Credits (Carbon
Farming Initiative) Regulations 2011.
Australian Bureau of Agricultural
and Resource Economics
 Monitor water markets and producing an
annual water markets report.
Bureau of Meteorology
(working with state and territory
governments and the water
industry)
 National performance reports for the urban
water sector
(National Water Commission, 2014)
According to Albert Van Dijk, a Professor of Water Science and Management, Fenner
School of Environment & Society at Australian National University, Australia is not prepared for
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
82

the next “Big Dry”, stating that while the “Australian government spent more than $25 billion to
respond to the Millennium drought, droughts are wickedly complex disasters, that each is bad in
a different way, and that we basically have very few means to prevent their impacts” (Van Dijk,
2013).
Australian’s Response to the Changes in Water Management
“Water is an astonishingly complex and subtle force in an economy. It is the single
constraint on the expansion of every city, and bankers and corporate executives have
cited it as the only natural limit to economic growth.” Margaret Catley-Carlson, Vice-
Chair, World Economic Forum
Water Management
Australia invested heavily in desalination during the Millennium Drought and dramatically
increased capacity. The increased capacity of desalination and recycled water by major capital
cities is shown below in Figure ES3 from the latest National Water Commission (National Water
Commission, 2014). The chart also shows that urban water use decreased during the drought and
then began to increase after the drought crises ended.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
83

(National Water Commission, 2014)
According to a recent study completed by the University of Technology Sydney and the
Pacific Institute, there has been a minimum amount of bounce back, due to a combination of
behavioral and structural water efficiency changes implemented. The report notes that estimates
of savings from restrictions will need to be revised for future drought planning due to demand
hardening. (Turner, White, Chong, Dickinson, Cooley, & Donnelly, 2016). The authors go on to
state that "While regulations were in place and some official monitoring occurred, penalties were
rarely used. Compliance with restrictions was achieved through engendering community support
and monitoring. “
The study provides insight and supports using real-options approach, the author’s note
that “specific water supply or demand measures are pursued when certain criteria are met”. The
appropriate approvals and permits are put in place beforehand so that implementation or
construction of the measure can be initiated immediately, and there is sufficient time for the
project to be implemented before it is needed.” (Turner, White, Chong, Dickinson, Cooley, &
Donnelly, 2016).
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
84

Energy use has increased in some of the capital cities since the Millennium Drought due
to the implementation of recycled water, desalination plants and associated interconnecting pipe
grids that require additional pumping, increasing the amount of energy used for water. (Turner,
White, Chong, Dickinson, Cooley, & Donnelly, 2016).
Peel and Choy report on the impacts of the 2007 Water Act, noting that as of
August 31, 2014, the Commonwealth environmental water holdings totaled 2,183,712 megaliters
(or 1.77 million acre- ‐feet) of registered entitlements. (Peel & Choy, 2014) The authors explain
that the “Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) has the purpose of “protecting
or restoring the environmental assets of the Murray- ‐Darling Basin.” The CEWH holds the
federal government’s environmental water holdings, which are acquired through a combination
of investment in water- ‐saving infrastructure, water purchases (buy backs) and other water
recovery measures. Acquisition by the CEWH of water access entitlements has created a reserve
of environmental water that is outside of the consumptive pool and available to the environment
even in times of severe drought.” (Peel & Choy, 2014)
According to the Australian Water Association, “Reform in Australia’s water sector led
to an increase in productivity of more than 50 per cent and water use efficiency. The mining
sector is a world leader in the reuse of water, mine water use efficiency and in the securing of
water supplies in remote, difficult-to-serve areas.” (Australian Water Association, 2014)
Australia’s Water Reform: The End of One Era and Future Policy Needs
As noted above, the Australian government announced the closing of the National Water
Commission effective at the end of 2014. Karlene Maywald, Chair of the Council of Australian
Governments submitted the fourth assessment of the NWI, noting it is the 10
th
anniversary of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
85

NWI and reflecting on the significance of the progress made due to the water reforms. She notes
the “strong support from successive federal, state and territory governments, backed by a sound
COAG assessment framework delivered by the National Water Commission.” (Australian
Government National Water Commission, 2014) She went on to “All parties recognize that
good water management fundamentally underpins economic, social and environmental outcomes
across Australia”. The report provides details on the results achieved over the past 10 years of
water reform in Australia and states that the “greatest opportunities ahead lie at the intersection
of water policy with other public agendas such as regional development, indigenous wellbeing
and energy policy.” She notes that the policy needs of Australia’s future involve infrastructure,
industry and markets.
Water Access Entitlements and Planning: Under the NWI, entitlements were to be
“exclusive, unbundled from land, mortgageable, tradeable and defined as a long-term right to a
share of water available in the system”. (Australian Government National Water Commission,
2014) The 2014 assessment reports that there has been “ongoing but incremental progress” and
that varied interpretations have led to different water rights arrangements for extractive
agencies.” The unbundling of water entitlements has taken place primarily in regulated water
river systems. The unbundling of entitlements has provided benefits to entitlement holders in
providing flexibility in managing their water. (National Water Commission, 2014)
California’s Current Drought (2007 – 2009 and 2012-2015)
“I think the drought will test our imagination and our science, our technology and our
political capacity to collaborate.” Governor Brown (Western Governors' Association, 2015) .
California experienced dry years in 2007-09. The state returned to wetter than average
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
86

conditions in 2010 and a wet year in 2011. Water stored from the wet year in 2011 lessened the
effects of a dry year in 2012, when most of California began to experience drought conditions.
California set records with 2014 ranking the third driest on record in terms of statewide
precipitation and with the three-year period of water years 2012-14 ranking as the driest
consecutive three-year period on record (Jones, 2015). California is currently experiencing one
of the most significant droughts in the state’s history.
According to the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (2016), “California has just ended its fourth consecutive year of below-
average rainfall and snowpack, and Water Year (WY) 2015 was the eighth of nine years
with below-average runoff. This extended drought has produced chronic and significant
shortages to municipal and industrial, environmental, agricultural, and wildlife refuge
water supplies and led to historically low groundwater levels.” (California Department of
Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2016)
Cities and towns throughout California’s Central Valley were forced to provide water
deliveries and community showers when resident’s wells ran dry (Rocha, 2014). Every year of
the drought has added new management concerns; the challenge of managing limited reservoir
water supplies for multiple uses has never been more difficult (California Department of Water
Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2016)
At the state level, Governor Brown established an Interagency Drought Task Force in
2013 to “provide a coordinated assessment of the State’s dry conditions and provide
recommendations on current and future state actions. The response to this statewide disaster
requires the combined efforts of all state agencies and the state's model mutual aid system to
address” (California Drought, 2014). The Drought Task Force was led by the Office of the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
87

Governor of the State of California, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Governor’s
Office of Emergency Services, California Department of Food and Agriculture, State Water
Resources Control Board and the California Department of Water Resources. The Task Force
communicated on a daily basis, forming a collaborative drought operations team able to address
issues in real time (Western Governors' Association, 2015).
Governor Brown declared a state of emergency in January 2014 (Office of Governor
Edmund G. Brown, 2014). As of August 2015, state and federal agencies have funded
emergency drought relief and water system investments totaling approximately $3.5 billion, local
water agencies worked collaboratively to lessen regional water shortages, and farmers, nonfarm
businesses, and residents across the state are implementing conservation measures to stretch
available supplies. (Hanak, et al., 2015).
On April 1, 2015 Governor Brown issued an executive order requiring the State Water
Resources Control Board to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide reduction of 25 percent of
1.2 million acre-feet of potable water by February 2016 (Governor Edmund G. Brown, 2015).
On February 25, 2016, the State Water Resources Control Board reported that more than 1.1
million acre-feet of water has been conserved (State Water Resources Control Board, 2016).
Local and regional water agencies across California responded to the drought and the
Governor’s mandated conservation by investing additional resources in existing programs and
implementing innovative programs designed to save water. Programs across the state include
diverse approaches ranging from mandated restrictions to education, outreach, rebate and
incentive programs, infrastructure improvements and new devices (Association of California
Water Agencies).

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
88

El Nino was predicted to be the answer to California’s water crisis in 2015. California
has not experienced the wet year that was anticipated, “predicted to be the most intense El Nino
recorded, officials said it was not as severe as expected” (Theobald, 2016). Even though
California has not received the record rains predicted for 2016, it serves as an example of the
fundamental problem facing California, being able to manage the resource when it is available
and store it for the dry times or move it to where it is needed. The California Department of
Water Resources is tracking the amount of water that could have been captured and stored while
complying with existing environmental regulations and standards. Approximately 486,000 acre-
feet have water could have been captured between January 5 and March 3, 2016, which could
have supplied water to 3.6 million people for one year (Department of Water Resources, 2016).
Sharing Lessons Learned: Delegations Seek to Understand and Apply Australian Lessons
Over the last two years, there has been great interest in learning how Australia managed
through the Millennium drought and implemented progressive water reform to address
significant water challenges. At the invitation of Governor Brown, a delegation of Australian’s
toured California in December 2014 to experience California’s current drought and provide
insights and lessons learned from their experience. (Australian Water Association, 2014) In
2014, TreePeople and The Energy Coalition led a delegation of local, state and federal level
policymakers and agency leaders to study Australia’s Millennium Drought best practices and
their application in California. (TreePeople, 2016) California officials traveled to Australia in
2015, a delegation of four senators and seven Assembly members Pro Tem Kevin de León,
“studied critical water infrastructure and met with Australian officials and lawmakers to discuss
the economy, drought response, and climate change.” (California Delegation Concludes
Australia Study Trip, 2015)
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
89

A number of conferences and seminars featuring lessons learned from Australia’s
Millennium drought were held throughout the state, hosted by water agencies, government
officials, business organizations and academic institutions. There is an emerging focus on
implementing Australian approaches to respond to California’s drought. For example,
Australia’s approach to water markets has found its way to the California’s legislature with two
bills currently being considered, AB 1755 (Dodd, D-Woodland) and AB 2304 (Levine, D-
Petaluma).
AB 1775 would require “the department to establish a public benefit corporation that would
create and manage a statewide water information accounting system to improve the ability of the
state to meet the growing demand for water supply reliability and healthy ecosystems to integrate
existing water data information from multiple databases and an online water transfer information
clearinghouse for water transfer information that would include, among other things, a database
of historic water transfers and transfers pending responsible agency approval and a public forum
to exchange information on water market issues. The act would create the Water Information
System Administration Fund for the improvement of water data and for the purposes of the act.”
(Dodd, 2016)
AB 2304 would “establish the California Water Market Exchange, governed by a 5-member
board, in the Natural Resources Agency. This bill would require the market exchange, on or
before December 31, 2017, to create a centralized water market platform on its Internet Web site
that provides ready access to information about water available for transfer or exchange. This
bill, for all transfers and exchanges of water occurring on or after January 1, 2018, would require
the submission of certain data and information to the market exchange and the payment of an
administrative fee to the market exchange, as specified. This bill would require the market
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
90

exchange to develop specified procedures in consultation with federal, state, and local agencies.”
(Levine, 2016)
While there is growing interest in applying elements of Australia’s water reforms, Peel and
Choy caution that there are “significant differences between water management systems in
Australia and the United States limit the possibilities for simply transplanting Australian reforms
in a U.S. context.” (Peel & Choy, 2014) The authors go on to list key elements that could inform
California’s policy makers as they consider similar challenges faced by Australian’s as they
developed and implemented water reform, “(1) the value of a shared national vision; (2) treating
water not as a matter of “right” but as a shared resource; (3) good processes of intergovernmental
cooperation in water management that focus on hydrological not territorial boundaries; (4) better
information on water use to support allocation decision- ‐making; (5) tackling the sustainability
of current water use using tools that incentivize water efficiency; (6) considering greater
development of water markets to optimize water use; and (7) incorporating flexibility in water
allocations to reflect changing conditions.” (Peel & Choy, 2014)

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
91

Chapter 4
Methodology
Theoretical Orientation
According to Creswell, there are many forms of pragmatism, but pragmatism as a world
view is developed from actions, situations and consequences (Creswell, 2014). The
philosophical assumption that underlies the method and shapes the research of this professional
dissertation is pragmatic as the research arises out of the current circumstances in California and
seeks to explore solutions to the state’s current condition of unreliable water supplies and options
for providing sustainable and reliable water supplies for the future.
Research Problem
Water in California is the center of a web of interrelated issues including energy use,
environmental sustainability, economic viability and national food supply security. California
plays a critical role nationally and internationally, but without sustainable water resources,
California’s ability to maintain its standing in the global economy and remain a viable place to
work and live is uncertain. Conflicts around water are becoming more complex due to a
complicated array of water laws and policies dating back to California’s admission to the United
States in 1850, increased environmental regulations, declining ecosystems, growing populations,
increased demands on aging infrastructure and the impacts of water scarcity.
Research will focus on the institutional, environmental conditions, political, economic,
leadership and other factors that provided the tipping point to allow Australia’s water policy
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
92

reform and what factors would be necessary to provide a tipping point for California to
implement similar water policy reforms.
Research Questions
The following research questions provide a framework for the research:
1. What conditions existed in Australia that provided the opportunity to implement
reforms through the National Water Initiative?
2. To what extent are the reforms adopted in response to the drought in Australia
expected to be sustainable under changed political and drought conditions?
3. Are the conditions in California today comparable to those that triggered
Australia’s National Water Initiative approach?
4. To what extent is it imaginable and or plausible that key features of Australia’s
National Water Initiative can be applied to water reform in California?
5. What conditions in California may allow or prevent the application of the key
features of the Australian approach?
Methodology
Qualitative research is used to address social or human problems. The process includes
emerging questions, data collected by the participant and the researcher interpreting the data.
(Creswell, 2014). This project will use mixed methods. Per Creswell, researchers using mixed
methods approach with a pragmatic worldview, “The study begins with a broad survey in order
to generalize results to a population and then, focuses on qualitative, open-ended interviews to
collect detailed views from participants…” (Creswell, 2014).
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
93

Research includes a review of the history of California water policy and the factors that
existed when major changes occurred. For example, southern California’s early development
during the beginning of the 20
th
century focused the creation of vast networks of infrastructure
that supported growth for over 100 years. At the beginning of the 21
st
century, agencies were
forced to adjust their policies to meet continued growth and demands while addressing
environmental issues caused by development completed during the 20
th
century. Policies of the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Los
Angeles International Airport and the Metropolitan Water District have all shifted to focus on
cost-effective programs and environmental sustainability (Erie & Mac Kenzie, 2010).
Case Studies
Simons defines a case study as “an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the
complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, programme or system in a
real life context...to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice
and civil or community action” as cited in Thomas (Thomas, 2011). The case studies in this
professional dissertation are situational in that they explore particular events and the set of
circumstances or set of conditions that occurred (Thomas, 2011), specifically Australia’s
Millennium Drought (1997-2009) and California’s current drought, (2007-2010 and 2012-2015).
The case studies provide a comparison of the similarities and differences between
Australia and California conditions impacting water management including:
 Overview
 Current and projected population
 Economies
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
94

 Governance
 Ecosystems
 Climate/Precipitation/Climate Change
 Water Resources
 Water use
 Laws and regulations
 Infrastructure
 Multi-state watersheds
 Addressing Challenges of Multi-Year Droughts
 Australia’s Millennium Drought (1997 – 2009)
 California’s Current Drought (2007 – 2015 with one wet year)
Interviews
Beck and Manuel state that interviews are a good method, “if you want to explore a trend
or an experience looking for themes” as cited by Wilson (Wilson, 2012). Wilson goes on to
define the benefits of different types of interviews, noting that semi-structured interviews allow
for more flexibility. She also notes that they involve having a set of guiding questions that will
keep the interview on track, while allowing the researcher to follow topics of interest during the
interview without having to adhere to a structured set of questions.
The interviews included in this professional dissertation are semi-structured and use an
instrument that is based on open-and closed-ended questions and both emerging and pre-
determined approaches related to the research questions of:
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
95

1. Conditions and factors that facilitated Australia’s National Water Initiative, the
results as of 2015 of the National Water Initiative’s new institutions/institutional
redesign, policies, laws, regulations, and programs.
2. Current initiatives and plans for the future to build on successes or refine initial
plans for the future.
3. What factors could make a similar approach work in California?
Interviews of California and Australia stakeholders provide insights from experienced
leaders that supplement existing research in the case studies and provide a vision for water policy
reform in California. The research focused on determining the conditions that existed in
Australia, which provided the opportunity to make significant changes to policy which impacted
their long-term water management challenges.
Interviews Conducted
Interviews were conducted both in-person and over the phone with pre-selected
stakeholders based on the perspective they represent. In some cases the stakeholder was
identified through research, position as a leader at a given institution or recommended by another
stakeholder. Although requests for interviews were sent to representatives of the perspectives
selected and listed below, not all requests were granted. The criteria used to determine which
stakeholders would be selected for interviews were:
Australia
Council of Australian Governments: responsible for implementing the National Water
Initiative.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
96

State agencies: Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and
Tasmania have implemented the plans differently and are responsible for planning, laws
and regulations.
Urban agencies: Local governments are responsible for directly serving the customers.
Indigenous Australians are recognized as stakeholders under the National Water
Initiative.
Agriculture: Agriculture users are stakeholders under the National Water Initiative.
California
Government agencies responsible for managing California’s water systems: These
agencies manage the infrastructure and in some cases provide funding for the
development of new sources.
Agriculture users: Agriculture uses most of the state’s developed water supply. Farmers
have a vested interest in long-term water supply reliability and improving water quality.
Other stakeholders and the public are often unaware of the recent shifts to higher-value
crops being produced and significant investments made by farmers in technology
resulting in advances in water-use efficiency.
Urban users: Local and regional water agencies supply most of the state population with
water and have made significant investments in developing local supplies and paying for
state and federal infrastructure.
Environmental groups represent the newest stakeholder in water conflicts; the state’s vast
natural resources and the environment which makes California a place where people want
to live and work.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
97

Regulatory agencies involved with implementing water policies and regulations because
they have the authority to regulate and manage California’s water resources.
Special interest groups focused on public policies such as The Public Policy Institute of
California and The Pacific Institute, which research and publish on a mix of policy issues
in California including water.
Business Associations/Economic Development Institutions representing the business
sector.
Water Industry Associations that provide policy recommendations to policy makers based
on input from members representing urban and agriculture water interests.
Native American Tribes hold water rights in California. Tribes are also unique in that
they are sovereign nations, which impact the development or expansion of some water
facilities that are on lands adjacent to infrastructure.
Representatives of the other six states that hold water rights to the Colorado River. The
Colorado River is over-allocated and California depends on supplies for a significant
portion of its overall water portfolio.
Academic/Research professionals working on water policy issues.

Interview Questions
The following questions were used to guide the discussions, although some interviews
included additional topics depending on the knowledge, interests and priorities of those being
interviewed.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
98

Australia
1. What environmental conditions, political, institutional, economic, leadership or other
factors facilitated Australia’s National Water Initiative?
2. What was happening at that moment that created a tipping point providing an opportunity
for change?
3. What resulted from the National Water Initiative’s new institutions/institutional redesign,
policies, laws, regulations, and programs?
4. What do you think are the most important changes made?
5. What is the current status? What is being done now? Has progress continued, stalled or
reverted?
6. How did Australia address the impacts of transitioning to a new paradigm? Were there
individuals or groups that “lost” something? How were those losses addressed?
7. Were there any constituencies that did not have a voice? If so, how were their concerns
addressed?
8. How were programs funded under the National Water Initiative?
9. What role did leadership play in the National Water Initiative? At what levels (national,
territories, regions, and cities)?
10. What role did public interest play? How did the public engage in the water crisis?
11. Have you observed any changes since the immediate crisis of the Millennium drought
ended? If so, would you do anything differently in the future to ensure that the benefits
realized during the crisis continues once it is over?
12. In retrospect, what would you have changed?
13. What question should I have asked you that I didn’t?
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
99

California
1. Do you think the current conditions in California pose a serious crisis to water
management? If so, what factors contribute to the seriousness of the current condition?
If not, why not?
2. Are you familiar with Australia’s Millennium Drought and their National Water
Initiative?
3. If yes, do you think it was effective? What aspects do you think were most effective/least
effective?
4. If yes to number 2, how applicable are the Australian approaches to California?
a. What specifically do you think could be applied in California and why?
b. If not, why not?
c. What barriers exist in California that would prevent adoption of policy reforms
adopted in Australia?
5. If you could change California’s water or related environmental policies, which policies
would be your top priorities?
6. It is likely that with any change there could be winners and losers. How would you
address those stakeholders that may lose something for the greater good of the state?
7. Do all constituencies in California have a voice in water policy? If not, how can those
who currently do not have a voice be given one?
8. How should water projects (infrastructure, demand-side management, technology) be
funded in the future?
9. What role does leadership play in addressing California’s water issues? What can be
done to prepare future leaders to engage in water policy?
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
100

10. What role does the public play in water policy? How effective are current programs in
engaging the public? Should anything be done to encourage more public involvement?
11. California has enacted changes to water management in recent years. Will these changes
have a significant impact in the future? Are there other issues that are currently being
discussed, or should be addressed? How can benefits of policy changes made during a
crisis be assured to continue after the immediate crisis has passed?
12. Do you see barriers for adopting any major changes to California water? If so, what are
they? Do you see any ways to remove the barriers?
13. If you were given the power and resources tomorrow that allowed you to do ANYTHING
to improve California’s water management for the future, what would you do?
14. What question should I have asked you that I didn’t?
Stakeholders Interviewed
The individuals listed below were interviewed between April 2015 and September 2015.
A biography of each is included in Appendix A.
Australia
Australia
Name Organization
Shaun Cox
Former Managing Director
Melbourne Water
Darryl Day
Executive Director Water Directorate
Department of Land Resource Management
Jane Doolan
Commissioner
Fellow in Natural Resource Governance

National Water Commission
University of Canberra
Alex Gardner
Professor
Law School
The University of Western Australia
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
101

Name Organization
Richard Kingsford
Professor

University of New South Wales
Adam Lovell
Executive Director
Water Services Association of Australia
Mark Pascoe
CEO
International Water Centre
John Ringham
CEO
South Australia Water
Tony Slatyer
First Assistant Secretary
Department of Environment

California
Name and Title Organization
Joe Byrne, Chair California Water Commission
John Chandler Chandler Farms
Heather Cooley, Director, Water
Program
Pacific Institute
Lucy Dunn, President/CEO
Chair of R.E.A.L. Coalition
Orange County Business Council
Steve Erie, Professor University of San Diego
Tony Fellow, Board Member Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD
Randy Fiorini, Owner
(Also Chair of Delta Stewardship
Council)
Fiorini Ranch (Turlock)
Beau Goldie, General Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District
Victor Griego, Water Education for Latino Leaders
Joe Grindstaff, General Manager Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(Past ED of Delta Stewardship Council)
David Guy, President Northern California Water Association
Garth Hall, Deputy Operating Officer Santa Clara Valley Water
Ellen Hanak, Director Public Policy Institute of California
Water Policy Center
Andy Lipkis, Founder and President Tree People
Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Debra Man, Assistant General
Manager/Chief Operating Officer
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Felicia Marcus State Water Resources Control Board
Sunne McPeak, President Delta Vision Foundation and
California Emerging Technology Fund
Wendy Mitchell, Commissioner The Coastal Commission
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
102

Name and Title Organization
Pat Mulroy (Retired) Southern Nevada Water Authority
Roger Patterson, Assistant General
Manager, Strategic Water Initiatives
(Formerly with United States Bureau of
Reclamation)
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Tim Quinn, Executive Director Association of California Water Agencies
Lester Snow (Retired) Department of Water Resources
Maureen Stapleton, General Manager San Diego County Water Authority
Gary Toebben, President/CEO Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Kathy Tiegs, President ACWA and
Board member Cucamonga Valley MWD
Association of California Water Agencies and
Cucamonga Valley MWD
Rob Renner, Secretary, Board of
Trustees
Water Research Foundation
Mike Wade, Executive Director Farm Water Coalition
Robert Wilkinson, Professor University of Santa Barbara
Roy Wolfe, Board Member (Past) American Water Works Association

Purpose/Contribution to Practice
Research supports California’s future advancement by providing a summary of the key
factors or conditions necessary and the implications to California of implementing water policy
reform to improve water resource management and address current challenges that impact the
state’s long-term sustainability and economic vitality.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
103

Chapter 5
Interviews
Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed summary of the interviews conducted and presents the
Australian perspective, the California perspective, and lessons learned by the author in
conducting the research. Interviews were conducted both in-person and over the phone with pre-
selected stakeholders based on the perspective they represent. In some cases the stakeholder was
identified through research, by position as a leader at a given institution, or as recommended by
another stakeholder. Interviews focused on the challenges faced by Australia and California, and
the policy reform efforts and development of tools to address these challenges and provide
reliable supplies for the future, including institutional, environmental, political, economic, and
leadership conditions, as well as other factors. A table summarizing key responses is included at
the conclusion of this chapter.
Australia Perspectives
Nine interviews were conducted between April and September 2015. I had the unique
opportunity to talk to a diverse group of Australian leaders who were involved in Australia’s
water reforms. Each one took time to share their experience and provided great insight into not
only the facts of what happened but their real-life experiences including the good, the bad, and
the ugly. Some of the experiences they shared were very difficult and I learned great life lessons
from their reflections. I was struck that every one of them knew exactly what was happening at
the time in California water issues. We had very interesting discussions on California’s
Groundwater Sustainability Management legislation and the day-to-day impacts of our drought.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
104

When I asked what lessons California could learn from them, many shared that one of the first
things they did when they realized they were in a serious drought in the early 2000s was come to
California to learn what we had been doing since the early 1990s in conservation. I was very
impressed that they were so knowledgeable about us and it occurred to me that we should seek to
learn from each other and not only in a time of crisis.
Name Organization
Shaun Cox
Former Managing Director
Melbourne Water
Darryl Day
Executive Director Water Directorate
Department of Land Resource Management
Jane Doolan
Commissioner
Fellow in Natural Resource Governance

National Water Commission
University of Canberra
Alex Gardner
Professor
Law School
The University of Western Australia
Richard Kingsford
Professor
University of New South Wales
Adam Lovell
Executive Director
Water Services Association of Australia
Mark Pascoe
CEO
International Water Centre
John Ringham
CEO
South Australia Water
Tony Slatyer
First Assistant Secretary
Department of Environment

Insights and Lessons Learned
The following section provides a summary of the insights of the Australian leaders and lessons
learned based on their experience with Australian water reform and the Millennium drought.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
105

What environmental conditions, political, institutional, economic, leadership or
other factors facilitated Australia’s National Water Initiative?
The water reforms had nothing to do with the drought. The water reforms started
during the early 1990s, when under a reformist government, Australia established a
national competition policy. The agenda of reform was based around economics and
making the country more competitive by increasing productivity. The government
incentivized states if they successfully implemented the policies, which addressed not
only water, but a broad range of issues including gas, electricity, ports, rails and roads.
Key elements included establishing independent regulation, corporatization or
privatization of public utilities, and separating policy regulators and service delivery.
The next step, through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) again, was
effectively addressing resource assessments, planning, management and further reform
on the water utility side. I think it would be very difficult in the United States with your
form of government.
What was happening at that moment that created a tipping point, providing an
opportunity for change?
There was general agreement that there was no initial tipping point, as reform
efforts began long before the Millennium drought. There were, however, underlying
economic and environmental drivers. One leader explained that “we just believed that
our system wasn’t sufficiently robust to withstand future emergencies.” Another noted
“the political landscape in Australia is similar to the United States. If you develop good
policies, it is only a matter of time before the political landscape allows for them to be
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
106

implemented. You have to make sure you are adopting the right policy, and then as the
governments become politically ready, they can progressively attach themselves.”
Through the reform efforts, Australians were prepared to respond to the drought
because they had policies and tools in place. The single advantage to the National Water
Initiative (NWI) is that it was signed off by all the states, so all the states have agreed
with the government that this is our plan in the future.
A leader noted that “the institutional issues were all against us. In the federal
government, we were very fragmented, so for example, water issues were in the hands of
the agriculture department at the time and the agriculture department was very
conservative. It didn’t want to change things, so an intervention occurred through the
Deputy Prime Minister. There was good leadership at the federal level that allowed the
change.”
Another reflected on “a combination of early science and ongoing science around
the state of the rivers. He referenced the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling
Basin. There was growing discussions about the state of the Murray River by the
government, fishermen, indigenous leaders and the public. Science was showing that
hundred-year-old trees were dying.”
What resulted from the National Water Competition Policy and the National Water
Initiative’s new institutions/institutional redesign, policies, laws, regulations, and
programs?
During the interviews, I was asked or encouraged to revise this question to
include the National Water Competition Policy. I was also told it was important to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
107

include the National Water Competition Council and the National Water Commission.
Both organizations were established to oversee implementation of the policies and
instead served to facilitate rather than police implementation of the established policies.
There was a feeling that the country was stepping into unchartered territory and these
organizations, particularly the National Water Commission, provided research and
support that advanced reform efforts.
The National Competition Policy addressed a lot of microeconomic reform issues
so that the federal government could put some incentive money on the table for the states
to implement, including issues with far greater impact in the urban water industry than
the National Water Initiative. Some examples included corporatizing the water
authorities, putting in place skills-based boards, and separating policy regulation from
delivery. There was more about per-cost pricing in the NWI as well, but I think a large
amount of the reform that has happened in the urban water industry was more related to
the NCP than the National Water Initiative.
The National Water Initiative coincided with an agreement to establish the
National Water Commission, which was charged with reviewing the reform progress
against the National Water Initiative. Both federal and state governments, and the
COAG, agreed to the National Water Initiative as a reform agenda. In this way, the
National Water Commission had legislation that was agreed to by the states in order to
monitor that reform, together with substantial initial funding in order to influence and
drive support for that reform. There was policy work and supporting tools around
groundwater, water planning, drinking water supplies, small community, and safe
drinking water.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
108

One official reflected that “water is a state-based right and under a state's
constitution.” That's why it was important to have all the states sign on to these objectives
and provide support for the National Water Initiative. Certainly, the National Water
Initiative for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was far more comprehensive for rural waters
and environmental waters than it was for urban water. The first thing the Initiative did
was to set up the National Water Commission, an independent statutory body that was
government funded but reported directly to the prime minister when initially set up. I
think that was the single cleverest step that they put in place, independent from a
government department.
One Australian noted that “there were a number of aspects of what I'd call water
policy as opposed to water utility policy by the number of aspects of water policy around
understanding the resource, the asset and monitoring the establishment of how much can
be sustainably used to water planning process and then an allocation. I think one of the
most significant reforms has been the interaction of marketplace mechanism to providing
of water.”
The reform efforts made the industry match fit, so when the drought did come,
Australians were in a far better place to be able to respond to it. For example, they had
become quite efficient, and then when there was sufficient capacity to go and raise
capital, they had independent economic regulation so there weren't “these constraints you
have got in the U.S. around raising capital. We had the capacity to fund the debt and the
financing associated with that capital and we had the capacity to deliver the infrastructure
as well.” One Australian reflected about an organization he led at the time, sharing that
the capital program increased from 14 million dollars to 1 billion dollars per annum. “We
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
109

had the capacity to gear up for that, because we were match fit and we were actually able
to gear up and deliver that. A lot of organizations would implode with that kind of
influx, I suppose. I can't overemphasize how influential those two reforms were in
making industry match fit.”
Because of the NCP people were prepared to do things that they otherwise
wouldn't have been able to do. During one of the interviews, a leader explained that,
“We've gone from a country that 10 years ago did not have one desalination plant
servicing urban water to every major urban center in Australia having a desalination plant
connected to it. We also had the institutional arrangements that can respond to that,
which you know as well. You're just in this huge conflict in the courts around the
environmental issues, especially with moving desalination plants whereas we were able
to move through that very quickly because the institutional arrangements were quite
clear. Policy is separated from regulation which is separated from delivery. It was, I think
to that end, quite a success I suppose in terms of making the industry ... Not just the
utilities but the broader industry that wraps around it match fit to better respond.”
Someone commented on the current debate of “whether what we did in response
to the drought was the right thing but to me that's different to having the capacity to
actually respond to the drought at the time. I think certainly in hindsight there are things
we could have done better in our response to the drought.”
As I was interviewing Australians, an effort was underway to eliminate the
National Water Commission and reposition its functions under other organizations within
the Australian government. Most of those interviewed expressed concern over the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
110

pending change. One person explained, “Effectively, the change of government came in
2013. They decided to close a number of federal government activities as a budget saving
measure but a lot of it was political. The National Water Commission was included in
that.” There was strong support for keeping the NWC, with strong arguments presented,
pleading for it not to be closed down from a utility perspective because the reform agenda
was, and is, not over. It still needs to continue. There's more work to be done.
What do you think are the most important changes made?
Responses were diverse and provide insight for Californians as we attempt to address
similar challenges. It became clear that that while there are many similarities, it is critical to
understand the differences between Australia and California when attempting to implement
effective water policies.
 People's gardens in Australia are a bit like those in the U.S. We have both European
and plant landscapes that are exotic, and Australians lost large proportions of their
gardens in that time. It was absolutely dramatic.
 Making businesses both financially self-sustaining and independent. Doing this all of
a sudden makes them grown up and they grow up in so many different ways. Because
businesses hadn't been regulated, they didn't have to get very mature about asset
management. For example in Australia, we were pretty ordinary at asset
management. Our response to asset management was just to build stuff. If something
broke we just went and built a new one. When you get this cross regulation and these
independent regulators really putting the blowtorch to you, you have to think about all
your business inputs and so it's asset management. It's managing your finances,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
111

managing your debt more prudently, but then it gives you the capacity to then be
reasonably nimble in response to change and major catastrophes when you have to.
 Ability to respond at a national level. Australia's federation works reasonably well. A
lot of people wring their hands about our federation and agonize over the lack of
cooperation but I reckon I just don't say anything until I go to the U.S. I didn't really
understand it until I did one of those conferences and talked about it over in
Washington. I had a couple days and I just walked up and down the mall and went in
and out of some of the museums. From that I got to, not understand well, but better
understand your form of government. It seems to me it has been devised out of a
hatred for the British Westminster system, so they put in place all of these checks and
balances which doesn't allow any one individual or any one group to have any power
and make decisions. I can see why they did it but I think it's coming around to bite
them in the ass now where they just don't seem capable of showing that federal
leadership and the whole thing is driven by bloody lobbyists with their own vested
interests.
 Buying back water at a market price from irrigation enterprises. There was no cost to
them. People could exit the industry. The other major sweetener was the government
investing in the people who remained in terms of improving their efficiency and
potentially adding more water for their irrigation.
 Setting up the National Water Initiative. I think it was extremely important setting up
the National Water Commission as an independent body reporting straight to the
Prime Minister. Reporting across the triple bottom line and so having the evidence
that good, calls on environmental water societal impacts economic impacts absolutely
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
112

100% having customer support for what was done. Sydney, for example (and this
applies to other capital cities too), is locked into a 25% reduction in water use. So
we've tracked that and even now when there's no other restrictions in fact the dams
are pretty much full, and water use is still 25% less of what it was pre-drought. So
that means that mandatory restrictions, the water saving measures, have just changed
behavior for good. So it can happen, but it takes time.
 The most important thing we did in the National Water Initiative was to have the big
idea was that you could accomplish this. .. The Holy Grail was to maximize water use
efficiency, get the maximum benefit you can from every bit of water you have, and
conversely if you're looking at it from an environmental perspective, learn how to
achieve your given economic minimum amount of water taken from the environment.
 The change we pursued was to try to crystallize the value of our water access in
government products. It doesn't sound very big but in fact doing that it allowed us to
maximize the utility and productivity of the water resources. What we did was to
think of a single idea in the National Water Initiative. In fact it's about all the high-
minded stuff about water planning and sustainability, and la dee dah dee dah was to
ensure that if the state granted an individual a right to access water under particular
conditions, which we call an "access entitlement" here, then we needed to remove
sovereign risk from that grant and we needed people to be able to rely on the grant of
that entitlement as if it were property-like ... or as if it had property-like attributes.
Now you might say, “Gee, that sounds very dangerous because you need the
government to be able to manage water use, and you can't privatize it all,” but of
course none of this was a privatization. Instead, the water stays in the ownership of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
113

the people through what we call a "Crown." Water in Australian is a Crown asset, it's
vested in the Crown, and it’s not vested in individuals and that these entitlements are
rights the Crown gives to people to access water under particular conditions. The
trick is to enable those rights to be treated like any other property product; that is, you
should be able to take one of these things to the bank and borrow money against it.
You use that money then to invest in water use efficiency on your farm, and then you
should be able to trade those rights. So, if by investing in water use efficiency on your
farm, you only need 80% or 50% as much water as before, then you should be able to
sell off the remaining 50% and still maintain your production. The other thing about
these rights of course is that they have reliability attaching to them of a whole lot of
different types. We have many, many different rights products, with different
reliabilities attaching to them, and this is the beauty of the Australian Water
Entitlement System: it self-adjusts to the amount of water available. The idea in all
that was pre-existing, and the states that invented these water rights are regimes
themselves. What the National Water Initiative did, was that it laid down joint
common standards for the integrity of these water rights products, which meant that if
you as an Australian held one of these water rights products, you could use it as a
bankable instrument and that was in my opinion the single most important reform that
the National Water Initiative embodied because it gave confidence that these
instruments wouldn't be revoked by a stroke of a Minister's pen, or be subject to a
whole lot of other sovereign risks that will carry with them the water access that they
were, according to their reliability that went with the right. If you had a life security
entitlement, you knew that in a wet year you'd get lots of water, in a dry year you'd
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
114

hardly get any, but you knew that there would be rules about that which you would
rely on.
 The National Initiative framed core principles which still stand today and I think are
of interest all around the world because they're straightforward and when you give out
are obvious. Getting them written down was incredibly difficult. The answer to that
question written in that water initiative is simply this. If there's less water available
due to natural factors like a drought or climate variability, then the water entitlement
holder bears the risk. The water entitlement holder. If there's less water, though,
because of a policy decision of a government to earmark water for some other
purpose (whatever that might be, typically the environment), or for other purposes
too, such as the government wanting to earmark water for recreation purposes, or this
sort of thing, and then the government bears the risk. The government making that
policy decision bears the risk. If the reason that there's less water available is due to
improved knowledge about the sustainability of water in that system, (let's say it's a
groundwater asset and you thought that the recharge rate was something but it turned
out to be something else because you got better hydrology and better data), then
there's a sharing risk between the entitlement holder and the state government and the
federal government, the 3-way sharing formula. That basically (the agreement around
that) just defused all these arguments and tensions and legal challenges and the rules
were just written in words of one syllable and were very, very clear.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
115

What is the current status? What is being done now? Has progress continued, stalled or
reverted?
The responses varied as to the current status, but there seemed to be general agreement that
progress was made with the implementation of the National Competition Policy and the National
Water Initiative.
 You've got a new generation of people, both at the policy level and also at the
political level, that don't understand how these organizations have been set up. As a
result, there's tending to be a political influence coming in, and that was one of the
purposes of the reform, to try to break the nexus with that. Not exclusively, because at
the end of the day they are a monopoly and governments still underwrite. As you're
finding in the US, governments do underwrite the risk of communities running out of
water, so there has to be that connection with politics but you also don't want the
daily meddling as well.
 One way you have to respond to these droughts, particularly when they're right on top
of you, is you have to spend lots of capital. There's no way out of that. If you could
plan better and get community involvement, there'd be non-capital solutions around if
you're able to put in place interventions ahead of the drought, so reducing demand,
looking at more recycling, those sorts of things, but those aren't interventions you can
bring in that have any real effect in the middle of the drought. They've got to come in,
but they won't solve the problem by themselves.
 In Australia, it is all around cutting costs. There is all that good thinking, the planning
work, and the asset management work. The next generation of discussion that's
happening in Australia now is how water can contribute to the livability and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
116

resilience of cities, which I'm a real fan of. All that higher order aspirational stuff is
starting to become a second place agenda to businesses responding to noise from
politicians and customers about their water bills being too high. There's carnage all
over the place where people are cutting workforce by 20% and 30%. That is the other
factor that's influencing the landscape in Australia.
 People are not just talking about the price of water, but they're also talking about the
value customers are getting. They're actually starting to look at alternative ways of
presenting themselves to customers. There's some good work happening in the U.S.
around the use of apps and smartphones and those sorts of things and trying to put in
smart and digital medium so that customers have greater choice and control over their
water use. There is a fair bit of that going on as well. I think in many ways the U.S. is
perhaps ahead of us on that, and I think that's partly because ironically in Australia
we can't get a positive financial business case up around that, so we hold back on it a
bit whereas the U.S. you plunge into it. It just blew our socks off that someone like
New York just got up one morning and said, oh we're going to replace all our meters
with smart meters, you know? You couldn't do that in Australia because you couldn't
make the business case stack up. I suppose because places like New York do it, that
starts to influence the cost structure of doing those sorts of things in Australia. All the
sudden it starts to become more beneficial and cost effective to do it, so you are
starting to see some of that happen over here as well.
 One of the interesting things is the construction of the desalination plants. In
hindsight what we should have done is talk about these things not being a drought
response but as a key part of a building a resilient community and resilient city. The
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
117

customers see value after the drought, cause if you talk about it as a drought response;
they go, “Well you were all a bunch of idiots, you didn't see the drought was going to
break.”
 We're back into a lot of arguments. The irrigation industry is now blaming the
government initiatives for the dire straits they are in terms of not having enough
water. They're using the idea that it's less to do with the climate and politically they
are mounting an attack on the environment and how much water to take and we
currently have a very conservative government that has ceased buying water back
even though they haven't met their target. So the policy could change in terms of the
environment currently. Even though they say they're committed to restoring the
amount of water to the rivers, they're hoping to get that by improving efficiencies of
the way the rivers are managed, but there's certainly a certain amount of cynicism
about whether that's possible.
 From a city perspective, we are not envisioning any major new supplies having to be
available for the next decade for any of the capital cities in Australia. There are a few
regional areas that will need some better water security, so I'm not discounting that
investments are required in some of those areas, no doubt about that. But on the
whole, for the big cities, water is secure. So we are moving out of a regime of policy
on the run and I think we are moving much closer to a range of customer choice and
livable cities. The two major challenges we have in the mid-term are: (1) what’s best
practice in customer engagement? and (2) For the services that utilities deliver, for the
water security they deliver, what's best practice? In customer engagement, we are
very much watching the UK model here. We're doing a lot of work with the UK, and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
118

are talking a lot to the UK model because their last regulatory price setting just
finished this year, and it completely focused on customer value, on customer
engagement. It is always likely to move to this, and there are a couple reasons for
that. It's mostly because in a privatized setting the regulator in the UK wanted to
make sure that customers were on board. The other big goal that we've got on the
table is livable communities. We are all about managing the urban water cycle so that
we are producing livable cities, and not everything from making sure that we have
clean tap drinking water to making sure that were safely disposing of treated water,
all the standard staples. But also increasing amenity parks and gardens by better use
of water whether it be storm water or some other water. Indirect health benefits by
having the availability of parks and gardens that are available for use, and that people
are having to use, connecting people with water and or finding a lot now is what we
call capital uplift so people who live near water are seeing better returns on their
property. Because they're taking concrete channels out and putting natural waterways
in. So there is naturalizing which increases property value. There are a whole range of
reasons we’re trying to get to the livability outcomes, and again that can be supported
by customer engagement and customer choice rather than the utility coming in and
saying, “This is lower and are you happy with that?” Too bad if you don't.
 Customers are driving change. There is a new paradigm. Customers want a choice of
solutions and to be able to make the choice not in the midst of panic or urgency. I
think that will be the key thing over the next two years and incorporating those
livability aspects.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
119

 We've got a lot of people saying "Oh, the Water Commission's gone so Canberra
doesn't care anymore, which is not true. We have a Department of Environment in
Canberra where the ownership of that national legislation sits. We have formed the
Murray-Darling Basin authority, but that's only one river basin. We have instituted
change in the way that the states manage water.
 The National Water Initiative itself is being implemented by each state in its own
way. They are implementing it in their own interest and in their own way. We have
had three independent assessments done of this implementation by the National
Water Commission.
 The most important thing is that in our Murray-Darling Basin area, which is our most
important agricultural area, we have basically given a fit to National Water Initiative
principles through a federal government intervention. We basically forced the states
to comply so this happened back in 2007 with our Murray-Darling Basin reform
package.
 We introduced a Commonwealth law called, The Commonwealth Water Act, which
superimposes over all the states, water management rations, a Commonwealth
framework and all the Commonwealth framework entails. First of all, we set the
limits on how much water can be taken for consumption in the basin, which are
called, “external diversion limits," so the Commonwealth determines on an average
annual yield basis how much water can be taken. The states then do their water
planning, and their water planning has to comply and conform to that. The other thing
we are doing through a new institution called, "The Commonwealth Environmental
Water Holder." Whenever we recover water for the environment using
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
120

Commonwealth money, and we buy that water from people who own different
entitlement classes, then that is vested in this Commonwealth institution, the
Commonwealth environment water holder who is required by law to use that water
for environmental benefit and one of the many principles of the National Water
Initiative was that the environment should itself have the same rights to water as any
other water user.
 Another National Water Initiative principle that is important is around cost recovery.
One of the principles in the National Water Initiative is that water users should pay
the cost of storing and distributing the water that comes to them, and under the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
determine the cost, and it's a pricing regulator for water in the basin. There's the cost
of storing and delivery which has to be cost recovered under the principles of the
National Water Initiative, so there are no subsidies there. The other cost is the market
value of the water, of the water entitlement, so because it's freely tradable, water
entitlement products have their own market value. If you want to go up and set up a
farm in Australia, an irrigation farm, you have to first of all pay a water delivery
provider for the cost of getting water to you, but you also have to buy water on the
market, buy water entitlement on the market at whatever is the going market price.
That becomes an asset in your hands. You can then sell that if you want to give up
farming or if you discover that you only need half as much water because you've
improved your water use efficiency, then you can sell off a part of your entitlement.
 One other thing which is late breaking news is that last week the government
announced policy on the development of Northern Australia. This is now the great
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
121

tropical band of Australia that is very lightly populated and very underdeveloped and
a key feature of that announcement was that the national water principles are applied
for any water development in northern Australia. We will have some resources to
assist states with new water development projects but they will only get that money if
they've implemented the National Water Initiative in their state.
How did Australia address the impacts of transitioning to a new paradigm? Were there
individuals or groups that “lost” something? How were those losses addressed?
The responses to these questions were complex and varied although there was general
agreement that the country was better as a whole after the implementation of the water reforms.
 I guess that's a question that could be a day's long workshop I suppose. I'll try and
summarize it by saying that there were some community losses. In the urban
community there weren't any losses, I think there was only upside. I can't think of any
of the customer base really lost as a result of the reforms in urban water. It's really in
rural water. It's that social adjustment where water shifted away from certain
communities, because it never should have gone there in the first place. Irrigating
areas where it was just unsustainable to irrigate, for example. There have been those
sorts of losses. That's just been a hard swallow; I think that's the only way you can
respond to that. What people are now seeing is because they've stuck with the
reforms, they're seeing that there is an upside. They're actually seeing these massive
dips in productivity. I'm doing some work in northern Victoria. They've seen a
doubling of milk production in that area and it's obviously partly due to the market,
because people have got to buy the stuff. They can double the production because
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
122

they've become much more efficient in their water use and it's changed the way in
which farmers are using the water which is helping to be able to respond to the
advance from China. I guess having a clear vision for the future is the key to working
through that, and being able to communicate that vision.
 The other thing though, with the introduction of markets in northern Victoria, (and
this is something you haven't done in the U.S. because of those separated water arcs
from property rights), is this has actually allowed people to get out of unsustainable
areas with money in their pockets. Now they might sell off a property that is no
longer sustainable because it makes no sense to irrigate it, but what they've got is
water. They can actually sell the water to somebody else in a completely different
township, so they've actually got something of value to actually sell. That seemed to
be quite a big way of triggering that social and economic adjustment on some parts.
 I suppose the other loss is that the reform certainly would have a shrinking of the
utilities, the urban water utilities. I can't remember the exact numbers, but it went
from something like 6,000 people down to 800. It had gotten silly. As an organization
had its own dry cleaner's shops, it had its own hairdresser; it used to build its own
building. It got out of control. There was nothing to be lost about losing those
elements, but what was lost through some of the reforms was some really core
expertise. In the drive toward efficiency, there were some key functions that they
didn't understand were key and that got chopped. We lost people's understanding of
assets, or understanding of water resource planning, so there has been a need to
rebuild some of that expertise. There hasn't been the investment in graduates the way
there was in the past and I think that's the industry largely, but you see that as a
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
123

problem. If you look around Australia at the moment, there's not an obvious
generation of future leaders that are going to run the water utilities in Australia
coming through. I think that probably highlights that lack of investment in people
over that period of time. That doesn't mean that the organization should have stayed
fat and lazy, but in making the transition they should have been a smarter approach to
managing talent, which I think is probably a key element.
 People talk about the towns losing because there's less irrigation industry in a rural
town. There are fewer jobs, less people buying groceries, less traffic, less industry, so
certainly there are arguments by some towns that the water reformers considerably
impacted them. On the other side of the ledger, people are saying there are more
floods, there's more long-term sustainability, and tourism has picked up in some
places, and there's better fishing. Non-use people have benefited by the reform.
 I think probably the biggest losses were in the trade-offs in the environmental water
and agricultural areas. But because water markets came in successfully, a lot of
people used to argue why the hell is Australia growing rice in the middle of the
desert? Rightfully the market actually sorted that out. They went out of business.
They couldn't survive. They had to trade out of that. The basis of that happening was
putting in really good measuring systems. It's that old paradigm that if you can't
measure it, you can't manage it. And so putting in those good measurements systems
so people knew where the water was going, and where it was coming from, that
introduced the idea that they could manage Australia's water accounts with far better
data than guessing. Or just having people putting down their own well and lying
about the amount of water they were getting out. I think people lost, businesses lost,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
124

and sectors lost but I think overall the introduction of particulates into the Murray-
Darling basin has been a huge success. The crops, the businesses that can survive in
drought, and let's face it, there is a huge drought happening now in Western New
South Wales in Queensland. You're not hearing about it because it's not Sydney or it's
not Brisbane. But on the other side of the Great Dividing Range there is a huge
drought happening right now. There are farms going out of business. You get back
now to drought assistance and I think that's another difficult policy area for the
government. About the extent to which they provide drought assistance and how
much you just keep buying farmers out of the market, look, I don't have an answer for
that, it is just challenging. But, having said that, I think overall having the markets
has worked out.
 I think there are local circumstances that have political dimensions to them like some
of the communities that were very reliant on water for agriculture. For example, when
it was understood that there wasn’t as much order to be available, or if the practices
were inefficient. There was some pain associated with that process, so that there were
mechanisms such as water buybacks that were put in place in the Murray-Darling
Basin. Every part of Australia, as you would appreciate, is different. Murray-Darling
Basin had an issue of overallocation of water needed to address that. I have to say
that the combination, through the reform process of investing more money, and
getting governments at all levels to increase the capacity around the water
assessment, worked. Then there was the water budget reporting that was set up into
the Bureau of Metrology, which was given responsibility to develop a special report
card on how much water was in their system, and how much was being used. There
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
125

was a lot of capacity buildup through that process to capture the data and to analyze
and report that data. In each jurisdiction, there was a lot more effort put into the water
resources’ distant areas and developing water plants, doing modeling of groundwater
and service water systems, and then saving water in the system, the impact of
instruction and recharge events, identifying who were the competing users, and
allocating water. The urban situation and water is a big part of the economies, but a
lot of effort was expended to address that, particularly bringing in water sources that
were climate independent such as desalinization and so forth and the cities.
 In the rules, if I say we got this agriculture and the industry, there was a lot of work
done in different levels of security of water supply as part of the water allocation
process. There was a whole increased sophistication of thinking, including a bunch of
principles, and the management of water allocation, and the introduction throughout a
lot of Australia, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin, on water trading. I think
that for those marketplace mechanisms and water trading, we want to go to arguably
the highest value, and this has probably been one of the biggest drivers of change
behavior and change communities and economies, especially local economies.
Therefore, pain associated with that has I think been very minimal. You don’t hear
too many stories of how to base it as a result.
 There are some of those things that we've yet to understand and the sociologists will
probably telling us some stories in ten years’ time. I think overall we've probably
achieved some level robustness in our water management legislation regulation policy
I suppose. There's been, as I said, the water, because water management was
delegated to the states, to the state government, I think that's where's there's been also
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
126

quite significant institutional change that's not as obvious to an international audience
because you tend to look at a nation and look for the national government and the
national policies.
 With the National Water Initiative itself, it sounds a bit trite to say so but there were
really no losers. This was just a policy framework; it didn't in itself have legal effect.
I guess you could class as losers people who previously might've expected to be
granted water rights free by the government; however, under National Water
Initiative principles, they would have to pay for these water rights, but they didn't
have any voice because they are future users. In fact, they realized that there was no
process, and this was welcomed by the user community because they would have a
stronger class of asset in their hands, so nobody objected to paying for something that
would then have a property-like characteristic which they could then take to the bank
and borrow against, of course.
Were there any constituencies that did not have a voice? If so, how were their concerns
addressed?
There was general agreement that everyone had a voice, but that some voices were louder
or heard by more people than others.
 I don't know that any constituents didn't have a voice but many constituents had less
of a voice. I think the environment groups had a reasonable voice and the irrigators
had a very strong voice. There were indigenous groups that perhaps didn't have as
strong a voice. There were a lot of grazing interests who depend on floods who had a
voice but didn't necessarily have the resources to lobby as well as others. I think one
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
127

of the issues was really about the resources the irrigation industry had that allowed
them to lobby for what they wanted.
 I think urban water customers didn't have the best voice, so a lot of solutions were
rammed down their throats. In 2006, very unfortunately, the government took to the
election the choice of either desalinization or internal potable reuse. The government
took desalinization, the opposition took internal potable reuse, and effectively made
customers vote on that. Customers were not given a voice. They were given a binary
system, yes or no. I think that's just awful. To be honest, I think urban water
customers were not given an adequate voice during the drought. And again I think
that's another reaction to what we’re seeing now. We’re going to right that ship quite
a bit to make sure customers are much more engaged.
 I'm sure there were constituencies that didn't have as strong a voice as others. I
suppose that's always the case. You mentioned indigenous communities and I think
that they as a community in Australia nearly always are the last voice to be heard.
Indeed, our indigenous community is a bit like the North American indigenous people
tend to be: the ones who tend to live in the rural spaces where a lot of this impacts the
greatest. I think the farming communities actually do have a strong voice and I think
that might be the case in the US, although I'm not clear. We do have a National
Farmer's Federation in Australia as well as state-based similar organizations who are
very strong so I think they had a good voice. I think the environment has enjoyed a
pretty good voice in the last ten or fifteen years in Australia. While I say that
environment groups are being the voice for the environment, we do actually now have
science-based allocations of water for the environment, though some of my scientist
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
128

friends would disagree with that comment. . I think some of the small businesses
perhaps didn't get as strong a voice in the urban communities. There weren't large
proportions of the industry that were impacted because the urban communities tended
to water allocation, and no one ran out of water. People went very close to running
out, and maybe in some of the small rural communities we did actually run out of
water, but the major urban centers did not. I should describe Australia a little bit
here, in that Australia only has a tenth of the population of the US, whereas the
country's about the same size. We're characterized, as I said before, as people living
within 100 kilometers of the coast. We also actually live in big cities.
 I think I can answer your earlier constituency question generically by saying that I
don't know ... but I guess one of the downsides is “leadership” and I put that in
inverted commas, since it sometimes means that engagement and consultation aren't
done particularly well. It’d be fair to say that some of the reforms were really driven
from the top down and not necessarily where there was good community engagement.
I generically say that if you had the time, an area where you could improve and do
better would be better engagement.
 Specifically around our indigenous community, I don't think the water reforms have
affected them so much. There are a whole bunch of other things that we've kind of not
done well that have disaffected them, but I don't know if the water reforms have
affected them much. Interestingly, there's almost a silver lining for them, because
there's now within our market framework a capacity for environmental water--
something they would have felt was missing in the previous regime. Areas where
they used to live, hunt, gather and so forth were degraded significantly in the past
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
129

regime because there weren’t environmental flows going through. Now we actually
have not only the environmental entitlements, but we're also figuring out how to use
that environmental water better.
 They're probably seeing a restoration of areas they hadn't seen before. The
environmental side is a key part of that, trying to bring the hydrological cycles back
to better levels.... You'll never get it back to what it was, but by getting it close, the
indigenous communities were certainly very appreciative and it seemed to be what
they were seeking.
How were programs funded under the National Water Initiative?
There was a general understanding that the programs that accompanied the National
Water Initiative were paid for by the government and used as an incentive to get states to sign on
to the agreement.
 All of our programs were funded by the government and we're still paying them off
through water rates with some cost subsidy from taxes, but we're essentially pay-for-
use, at least in the cities. We're absolutely pay-for-use in the cities. Our cities are fully
water metered. People pay just for how much they use. The pricing policies vary.
 One of the things that occurred in that first phase of reform from the early 90’s to the
early 2000’s, was a “pace pricing.” We've had this situation in some cases from the
80’s actually but largely through the 90’s. Australia then moved to an urban space
option where a user pays more than full cost pricing. In contrast, we don't have full
cost pricing in the rural sector, and I'm not sure that we ever will. We certainly do in
the cities. Universal measuring I think is a reasonable statement for households and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
130

businesses in Australia. What we've done in Australia is we've largely corporatized
our water in the urban water sector. When I say corporatized, we haven't privatized.
There's a distinction. What we've established since the time during the 90’s in our
water utilities is that although most are publicly owned, they are to be managed in a
commercial way. We've established this corporatization approach which leaves the
establishment of an independent board still reporting, in which the shareholder is still
the government, but also an independent board.
 The National Water Initiative was not a funding program. There were a couple of
programs that were announced at the same time to incentivize states to implement the
National Water Initiative, but they've all run their course and there were lots of little
urban projects and things like that which were mainly more for political reasons than
policy reasons.
 The big funding programs and the ones that have been rolled out now in the Murray-
Darling Basin are under a separate wave of reform. Those are funded by the
Commonwealth government directly through general revenue, through general
taxation revenue and they are very costly programs. They are costly programs but
there has not been any public criticism of the cost of those programs. That is partly
due, as I said, that the culture in Australia is such that people all feel that effective
water management is fundamentally in the national interest and is an important
government objective. We have lived and braved water scarcity all throughout our
history. You will find in other countries like Israel and other dry countries that you
have similar public cultures. Water, if there's a dry spell, ranks right up there with
national security as the things that people worry about the most. Much higher than the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
131

cost of living, education, and all these other things people also worry about. If there
were a public opinion poll during a drought in Australia, and if the urban water
storages were falling low, water just scores as very, very high. Later, when the
drought breaks, then everybody forgets about it.
What role did leadership play in the National Water Initiative? And at what levels
(national, territories, regions, and cities)?
Everyone interviewed agreed on the importance of leadership in guiding the National
Water Initiative and the water reforms. The examples given varied and some looked to the
future to envision what would be needed for the next round of reforms.
 I have a theory that it's almost driven by social media, where people are responding to
the headline of the day, rather than showing leadership and thinking decades ahead
about the betterment of the country. They're just worried about what the headlines are
doing and they're knee-jerking and responding to that. That seems to be very much
the case in Australia, both at state and federal levels. It's been 20 years since we've
seen governments that have demonstrated really good leadership in Australia, but as
I've said I think there's a bit of that going on in the U.S. as well.
 Everybody has a different twist on history of course, but my twist on this whole thing
is this really started under a labor government led by two Prime Ministers, one called
Bob Hawk and one called Paul Keating. Keating was the Treasurer and then Bob
Hawk ultimately became the Prime Minister. I suppose to me a lot of these reforms
probably started under their leadership initially. They then got driven hard within
particular states by leaders. There was political leadership, but then my recollection of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
132

the people that were leading the water industry back 20 years ago, they were certainly
a cut above ... I put myself in this not being at their level, but they seemed to be a cut
above everybody else in terms of being able to drive this change and really push it
forward. I think leadership is important.
 Without leadership of those governments signing up and all the negotiations that went
on behind the scenes to make that possible, without that agreement of the latest
wanting to change, it would never have come to pass.
 Then we've had strong leadership in the implementation. The leadership in the
National Water Commission has been exemplary. I've been dealing with, I suppose,
looking at a lot of reform around the world. Ken Matthews, who was Chair and Chief
Executive of the National Water Commission, did an incredible job. His ability to
influence at the highest level from prime ministers to CEOS and water utilities to
water departments and those jurisdictions were exemplary. His vision, his drive, and
passion influencing capabilities were a big part of this test of the work that the
National Water Commission was able to do, and with subsequent chairs, there have
been three outstanding people. It wouldn't have happened without the quality of
leadership at that level, highly respected, highly regarded, and highly effective in
terms of what they were able to achieve.
 I think leadership was very important. I think the federal government's leadership was
critical but there was bi-party support for it. Both major parties were supporting what
was going on. I think that was very important. I think ultimately it was also leadership
by environmental groups, and discussion in the media at critical times when decisions
were being made. Scientists certainly contributed to the debate. A lot of those sorts of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
133

things were important. I think the states were difficult because they were losing
power and I think that was challenging.
 Huge. We've got to have people, leaders who are absolutely willing to engage in the
debate, engage the community in the debates, and make bold decisions that are based
on robust information. And not unnecessarily based on a gut feel or something else
such as some other sort of whim. There have been plenty of leaders in this area. I
think Karlene Maywald is one of the best leaders I've seen in this space. She was a
nationals person who could talk across the city/country divide. So she could talk to
country people about agricultural water use but then she also had that street credit
across both sides and she could make calls to people like John Quates, who was the
Minister for water in Victoria and who is also a great leader. He is now leading a lot
of the discussion around livable cities and water's role in livable cities. People like
Ken Matthews who is the CEO of the National Water Commission. Absolutely, one
of the most professional public servants you’ll ever come across, extremely
considered, “let’s not make decisions based on urgency, but rather, think it all
through. A fantastic leader.
 I think that that lack of political stability is a real problem. People that led reform
were in for two, three or even four terms, and that stability really helped to drive
some of those reforms and push them forward. At the moment in Australia, you're
seeing changeovers of government for every term, pretty much, and that's really
unproductive.
 As you observed, one of the things I've done in this business is create a leadership
program. This answer's going to be obvious. Leadership at all levels is critical. Can I
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
134

put it in these terms: we’ve had champions and leaders who were absolutely
important. But, for the future, it's our currently emerging leaders who are the
important ones. That's why we focused on targeting our leadership development at
that level, at the thirty-five year olds. I think that leadership, political and professional
and technical leadership has been really important for us.
 There was a high level of agreement that reforms of this type were in everybody's
interest. However, each of those leadership groups did have to do a lot of work with
their memberships in order to bring people along. In the political leadership for
example, the Deputy Prime Minister had to do an awful lot of work with the rural
politicians who represented the farmers and the small irrigation dependent
community, and the industry leaders had to do an awful lot of work with all the
different sector groups, you know the cotton growers and the rice growers, the nut
growers and all the other same people you have in California. The environment
leaders had to do an awful lot of work with their mass memberships to persuade them
that an agreement of that type was in everybody's long-term interest. It was only
possible because of the government stepping in and forcing those conversations to
happen. That was the most important leadership, at the end of the day.
What role did public interest play? How did the public engage in the water crisis?
Response varied from state to state and how the state governments reacted. I interviewed
someone from Brisbane who noted “the government was very proactive in influencing behavior
on water use in the urban environment. We were in the situation where there were billboards
when you arrived in Brisbane at the airport that had images of dry dam. Dead, you know the bed
of the dam being dry and cracked. The image continued through to television reporting each
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
135

evening about what the water use had been in the city and what the current levels were in the
dam. We had a little hourglass, a million hourglass timers issued to homes, encouraging people
to have four minute or fewer showers. There was a very strong campaign that meant that if you
didn't know about the drought, you were asleep. People's gardens in Australia are a bit like the
U.S. We think we're European and plant landscapes that are exotic and people lost large
proportions of their gardens during that time. It was absolutely dramatic.” Water use shifted
back after the crises was over, but not back to the levels before the Millennium drought.
 I think there was support in the public and I think that's partly because of the narrative
that's been going on for fifty to sixty years.
 I think they kicked in at various points. It's very hard to know what the great in
Washington are saying until they actually vote. I'm sure people were regularly writing
letters to ministers and so on in different areas. The environment groups were good
about informing the public about what was going on.
 So much came down to positive messaging. When they first announced all the
manager restrictions, a lot of utilities had water police go around. Thankfully that
didn't go on for too long. It became a front-of-mind issue but thankfully it didn't go on
for too long, I think once people got into the groove, there were those big signboards
about, in Brisbane, tracking towards target 140. It was visible all the time. Absolutely
all the time, visible on all of their buses and that sort of thing. This is great; it just has
to be visible and positive. Messaging is key.
 One of the things that really got people afterwards was a graph of Melbourne supplies
if they hadn't put in any water conservation or water efficiency measures in place.
They would've twice run out of water with nothing in storage. It was an aftereffect,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
136

but people said, “Oh shit. We came that close?” That hardens people. It's real. You
cannot have cities running out of water. One of my reflections here is that there's not
a great degree of urgency and we had a degree of urgency. People felt that, it was
palpable.
 Victoria established a target of 155. People generally had a look at what Perth then
was doing and said "Okay. This target idea seems reasonable." I think the lesson here
was not only establishing a target, but also providing the community feedback with
how they're doing. The same way that we modify behavior in our children is instant
feedback. I think some of the new technologies in water measuring are potentially
quite effective. This is for water and energy. In fact, we're the nation of smart
metering, where you might have in fact have a little something or other digital
readout before the refrigerator, that tells you what your water use is at the moment,
and another one that says what your energy use is. Some of these smart metering
technologies, I think, are things that can modify behavior.
Have you observed any changes since the immediate crisis of the Millennium drought
ended? If so, would you do anything differently in the future to ensure that the benefits
realized during the crisis continues once it is over?
Responses varied, with some noting the change in government as having more influence
on the recent changes than the end of the Millennium drought.
 I think the benefits are still continuing. I don't necessarily think the changes have
been a result of the Millennium drought breaking. It's more around the politics of
having a conservative government, which has as one of its partners, the National
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
137

Party, which has its electric mainly in rural Australia. They have been lobbied hard to
change some of these policies. Not only the federal government changed, but also the
state government changed, and became much more favoring of the rural electric.
 We’re seeing backsliding from some of the states around cost reflective pricing.
That's an absolute fundamental. It's a terribly murky thing. What you get is a local
government, massive subsidies, so they'll keep the water business in.
 We swapped from water being the issue of the day to energy being the issue of the
day. Politicians might also say they lurched from one crisis to another. I think one of
the things that, to be a bit more serious, one of the things that we did achieve at the
city level is that we hard wired our houses. I think it's valid that in Brisbane now I
think everyone has, that's a big statement, but nearly everyone would have a front
loading washing machine so a washing machine that uses less water than the top
loading washing machine. I think nearly every house will have a low flow shower.
In retrospect, what would you have changed?
The responses varied greatly and provide great insight for Californians, as we are in the
midst of implementing water reform.
 I think the next level of change is going to have to occur in our built environment. This
goes for water and energy. I refer here to some also Australian language, and a different
language that's developing in the U.S., but in Australian language we're referring to it as
water sensitive cities, or water sensitive urban design. In the U.S. I'm hearing the
language of one water, which that we should be thinking about all forms of water in our
urban environments. Storm water, wastewater, surface water from a dam, ground water,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
138

and just as an example, Brisbane has twice as much rain falling on the city then we use in
a year. What we've done in the way we've built our cities is that we've created all these
hard surfaces and when it rains a lot of the water just goes straight into the rivers directly
through a big pipe. Perhaps if we give our cities their kidneys back, we would keep our
cities cooler. We would have our creeks and waterways that were a more natural
environment rather than significantly eroded by rainfall events. We could use that storm
water perhaps to recycle and keep our cities green. Water sensitive cities. It's a $120
million research and application undertaking that's about 3 1/2 years into its life and that's
got a 9-year life. There's some interesting research that's going on in that CRC.
 Nothing. I think a few of us that have been working in this area for some time were really
ecstatic that the federal government was investing so much in the environment and
buying back water. It hasn't realized its full potential, I don't think, but that's the nature
of politics, I think. We're still going to have a huge legacy in terms of an environmental
benefit. Whether or not it's sufficient, I think that still needs to be tested, and we do have
big problems with climate change, increasing temperatures, and reduced flows into the
Murray Darling. These elements are going to play out dramatically over the next fifty
years.
 It is important to have a national leadership body that is independent and reports to the
Prime Minister. Because the role of water in Australia’s economic development. I would
definitely have that. That leadership needs to be across all areas as he needs to be in
policy, and he needs to be in monitoring all elements of water management. I definitely
would have that. I would move towards having a national regulator for water utilities
which restores.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
139

 I would review the national water, too, for urban water. I would have another look at it as
potentially a revision, not necessarily an expansion, mindful that my agricultural
colleagues have been through a lot. But I think the agricultural side of the NWR needs
looking out for, as well, just to check. Urban water definitely needs redoing. I've just got
to continually make sure that all options are on the table for whatever issue there is. All
options need to be on the table, and customers need to be engaged in all of those options
in the best way, shape or form possible. This is more than just consultation, this is more
than just going out and telling them what you can do, this is genuine concentration like
they did in the UK. In the UK they came back time and time again. If you don't
understand something, all rights will go away and we'll develop something. Don't just
treat this like a consultation process, but truly engage. I think the power of customers
being truly engaged is effective: politicians listen to that. Incentivized politicians who
were leading you got customers leading. I think that would be the ideal goal.
 I think reform is a never-ending journey, and that what was identified in the National
Water Initiative is that there wasn’t a lot of a change in pipe-to-water utility reform.
That's because from the reform agenda 10 years earlier, it was seen to have addressed a
lot of vision in a way. I think it's only now looking back 10 years that it would have been
nice to actually have spent a little more time up front, thinking about our reform agenda
or utilities, and it’s more aspirational than what it was at the time.
 But the handling of a nationally consistent equation has been really missing. Eight
jurisdictions have regulatory models that are very good, and some go a long way. We
haven't had consistent independent price setting in some jurisdictions, such as my own
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
140

that is still done by government, done for political reasons, not the right reasons, and
economically related.
 I think there hasn’t been a good integration of the reform agenda in bringing together
different regulators. The health regulator has a big influence on the cost of providing
services, and also the quality expected from a drink of water perspective. All that affects
public water supplies, even though people might drink water that's all traded to the same
standard. I hold to the requirement. I think about the driver of the cost of water. The
environment standards are driving big costs and affecting waste water treatment and we
saw the requirements, all the requirements.
 Most definitely. The really big learning in Australia was that we could have planned
better. I don't have the answer as to what “better” looks like, so this is a half-baked
response, but I think this notion of water supply planning, where you wait until the
demand line nearly crosses the supply line and then you respond by building your next
water source, is just really simplistic. The other thing we did wrong in Australia is that
we've only been here as white guys for 120 years, so we’re really only using the last 120
years’ data set to try and model the performance of our storages. It's kind of heartening to
hear you guys in the US talk about that being in the worst drought in 1200 years, so
you're obviously thinking about a longer and larger data set.
 The other change is trying to actually have a forward look that might look forward 5 or
10 years and triggering what your response should be. This is looking at performance of
your system that far ahead, rather than waiting until your supply and demand line starts to
cross, then thinking, “Well, I've got to go out and build myself a new dam,” or something
like that. Just really trying to improve the forward planning.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
141

 The other thing we tried to do is to help inform what our next sources should be. We also
tried to look at things like real options analysis in financial planning. Rather than
sticking all your money on one set of shares, or even one sector of shares like mining,
you actually try to diversify and spread and there's science behind that to try and tell you
where to spread your investment. We tried doing a similar thing around our water supply
sources, and there's still research going on to help make that better.
 No, well, as for the National Water Initiative itself, I wouldn't think it necessary to attach
those, as I said, political programs to it. I think it was good enough policy that it would've
stood up without a need for those programs, but I wouldn't have changed anything in the
National Water Initiative as it was written. , I thought it was a very good policy
statement, and it's still a good statement today, 10 years later, and I think the way we
went about it was also a good process. I wouldn't change that process. As for the current
ways of Murray-Darling Basin reform, well we're right in the thick of it, so I do reflect on
other ways it could've been done but it's too early to make a call on that.
 It's pretty obvious that in water supply, we're vulnerable right across the year because
largely we rely on the hydrological cycle to sustain our water supplies. If there is a good
thing about desalination, it’s that it breaks that nexus where you then have manufactured
water that you can rely on so you diversify your sources. If there were economists sitting
beside me, they'd be howling their heads off saying, “It's just not right that you should be
restricting supply like that,” but I think I would disagree and say the communities have
really shifted and that they can still get the outcomes they want by not using anywhere
near as much water as they used to. Somehow trying to make those permanent structural
adjustments so they can become part of the landscape.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
142

What question should I have asked you that I didn’t?
 I think the one thing that I'd probably really encourage you to think about is what
happens after the drought breaks. Going back to your previous question, that's something
I didn't include in my answer which I should've, is that we were just responding to the
here and now. We were responding to a crisis in the here and now and we weren't doing
enough thinking about what's going to happen after the drought breaks. As I said, the
thing that put us on the back side here and is still doing so, (and it's the reason I'm sitting
here as a consultant and not heading up a water authority, to be frank, is because I got
pushed out of the water authority), but it was really as a result of that we didn't think
about when the drought breaks, that people’s prices would double and we'd get this
incredible push back from communities and politicians about how we propped things up.
We didn't do the planning well.
 I think you could ask, I mean if you're interested, how this might be applicable in the U.S.
You could ask me how fundamental are these principles and how Australia-centric they
are in my opinion. That is a question that you could ask. I do think that they have global
validity. I don't think that the different constitutional arrangements and the different water
ownership arrangements materially affect the rationality of these reforms. I think that the
U.S. is able to implement win/win policy on water if you can get the water entitlement
system, water market system, and water planning arrangements right and our National
Water Initiative provides a bit of a blueprint for a starting point there. I don't think these
principles are particularly Australia-centric, I think some of them are totally universal,
and I can say to you that other major agricultural economies such as China and the U.S.,
and India and South Africa and Brazil, and all the others, are also actively considering
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
143

how these reforms could be applied in their countries. In the U.S., the starting point is at
the state government level. I think it is probably premature to imagine a federal
government intervention. The states have to put the building blocks in place in terms of
the stuff that we did 30 years ago, around the establishment of water entitlement products
that are gifts of government, that are created by government, that have property-like
characteristics rather than being private rights in themselves, you know what I mean? I
don't know whether that would require constitutional change in the U.S., but it's very
important frankly to look at the ingredients of the reform, which is the National Water
Initiative, and you first of all make sure that you have in the pantry those ingredients,
that's where you've got to start.
 It's interesting to think about the development agenda for rivers and how governments
generally, and this is true around the world, sort of stormed into building dams and
diverting water without realizing not only the environmental consequences, but the
economic consequences. We're in a state where there's a lag phase and they catch up and
it becomes a very wicked problem in terms of trying to solve them. A lot of the time the
debate revolves around people saying "there's a win-win situation here". It's certainly no
win-win. Someone's got to lose and up to now agriculture has been the big winner and it's
really how much of that water is needed to get back into the rivers and that's based on a
whole range of values, systems and economics that's not counted in terms of fish and
non-use benefits. Those are debates that will keep on coming.
I think it's right that you should be looking at that policy level because I think of one of
the things that holds the U.S. back in this reform place, it has to be things like that
Colorado River Compact developed in 1923, like we did in Australia, when developing
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
144

policies when on reflection we found that that was the most plentiful time for water
falling from the sky. There are some things that we've just got to have guts to stop. It
takes political gumption. I think, no, I think you're asking the right people.
California Perspectives
California has a diverse population, economy, environment, and history. It also has
complex water rights, water infrastructure and increasing demands on the systems. I had the
privilege of interviewing nearly 30 leaders from throughout the state in 2015. I interviewed
some leaders that I currently work with, some that I had previously worked with, and I had the
opportunity to meet others. One central thing that stands out is that every one of them is
committed to the state and to finding solutions. Their perspectives may be different, their
priorities may clash, and their solutions may be in conflict, but they are all looking to improve
California and position the state for a better future.
My interviews took me all around the state, as some took place in offices, some over the
phone, some in lobbies between meetings, some over Chinese food, and one at a great Pho
restaurant. The interviews became conversations and I am very fortunate to have had the
opportunity to discuss water, public policy, leadership and the future of California with such a
diverse and strong group of leaders. As Peter Drucker said, “the best way to predict the future is
to create it.” California has a phenomenal future if these leaders are engaged in creating it. I
completed the interviews feeling optimistic, understanding that the stakes are high and the
challenges hard, but if solutions can found and implemented, California is the place that success
can happen.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
145

The following section includes some of the responses to each of the questions asked. A
brief summary of the insights I had after talking to the group is included, followed by their
perspectives in their words.
Name and Title Organization
Joe Byrne, Chair California Water Commission
John Chandler Chandler Farms
Heather Cooley, Director, Water
Program
Pacific Institute
Lucy Dunn, President/CEO
Chair of R.E.A.L. Coalition
Orange County Business Council
Steve Erie, Professor University of San Diego
Tony Fellow, Board Member Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD
Randy Fiorini, Owner
(Also Chair of Delta Stewardship
Council)
Fiorini Ranch (Turlock)
Beau Goldie, General Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District
Victor Griego, Water Education for Latino Leaders
Joe Grindstaff, General Manager Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(Past ED of Delta Stewardship Council)
David Guy, President Northern California Water Association
Garth Hall, Deputy Operating Officer Santa Clara Valley Water
Ellen Hanak, Director Public Policy Institute of California
Water Policy Center
Andy Lipkis, Founder and President Tree People
Jeff Kightlinger, General Manager

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Debra Man, Assistant General
Manager/Chief Operating Officer
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Felicia Marcus State Water Resources Control Board
Sunne McPeak, President Delta Vision Foundation and
California Emerging Technology Fund
Wendy Mitchell, Commissioner The Coastal Commission
Pat Mulroy (Retired) Southern Nevada Water Authority
Roger Patterson, Assistant General
Manager, Strategic Water Initiatives
(Formerly with United States Bureau of
Reclamation)
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Tim Quinn, Executive Director Association of California Water Agencies
Lester Snow (Retired) Department of Water Resources
Maureen Stapleton, General Manager San Diego County Water Authority
Gary Toebben, President/CEO Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Kathy Tiegs, President ACWA and Association of California Water Agencies and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
146

Name and Title Organization
Board member Cucamonga Valley MWD Cucamonga Valley MWD
Rob Renner, Secretary, Board of
Trustees
Water Research Foundation
Mike Wade, Executive Director Farm Water Coalition
Robert Wilkinson, Professor University of Santa Barbara
Roy Wolfe, Board Member (Past) American Water Works Association

1. Do you think the current conditions in California pose a serious crisis to water
management? If so, what factors contribute to the seriousness of the current
condition? If not, why not?
There was a mix of absolutely YES and no—there is an opportunity to implement changes
that we have been developing and now is the time to take advantage of that opportunity.
 It is definitely a transformational moment especially in California. I mean, a lot of
things that everyone has taken for granted for so long have been thrown into question
and there’s a lot of realigning of relationships, a lot of rethinking of different water
uses, so absolutely. I’ve been comparing two droughts: the one on the Colorado
River Basin and the one within California. The stark difference between the two of
them is that on the Colorado, the states recognized that this could happen and put
anticipatory measures in place that would begin to curve the affected drought as you
step into it. Whereas within the state of California, with decades of inaction around
resolving the issue, the Bay-Delta is in large measure the reason why California is
going through the degree of suffering that it is right now. It was completely
reactionary, instead of being proactive by expecting it, putting measures in place,
taking advantage of what years when they occurred. To me, the story of Bay Delta is
the story of missed opportunity.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
147

 Absolutely. I think it creates a serious crisis in just the whole well-being of
California. Then, when you have this severe drought and you've got one of the largest
economies in the world, now the cut backs are affecting agriculture, which is a huge
business here. It's interesting just to walk through this area, walk through Disneyland.
It's visible in terms of the cutback in water. You can see it. I think ultimately, it'll
affect people's experience there. It's this little oasis and maybe it shouldn't be
landscaped the way it is, but I think it leads to the enjoyment of people. This is a
serious problem not only for California but the United States I think because of the
size of the economy and the size of agriculture. In terms of water management,
obviously, it's a crisis. California with this state project in the Colorado River, Owens
Valley, and all the projects that have been around historically, it's been an amazing
hundred years or more of water management, but this drought is turning it on its ear.
Yeah. It's major.
 I think of it, not as a crisis, as an opportunity. I think it's a chance to do the things that
we've known for years that needed to be done. The longer the drought goes on, the
perceived crisis gives us the opportunity to deal with things that have been
fundamentally there to do, for a long time. We're dealing some, with water use
efficiency now, the water rights system. If the drought continues another 2, 3, 4 years,
maybe we'll actually get serious about dealing with the water rights system.
Governance, we have thousands of water agencies in the state. That's way too many.
Maybe the drought will give us the cover to deal with that. We have not. I see this
more as an opportunity. Yes, it's a crisis, especially on an individual basis for some
people, when they don't have water supply, and it causes them problems individually.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
148

For the industry as a whole, it's an opportunity to change, as most of our water is done
with public agencies. Because we're public agencies, we don't restructure, the way the
private sector would. It's not nearly as easy to do, and there aren't as many drivers to
do that. I see the drought as an opportunity to help us get better.
 Of course, but it is not just California—it is the western United States including
Nevada, Arizona, Washington and Oregon. Factors impacting us now include water
policies and how water is allocated between urban, agriculture, and the environment
and the entire political structure.
 Yes, besides the lack of water and rainfall, one of those is water rights, sound water
rights, not policies but implementation of those policies. As a state, although the
Governor has his California Action Plan, we do not have a plan that addresses all the
components of water management and the one that we have has been doing a great
job for the last what, 90, 100 years, the last 100 years planning for water for human
consumption, but there hasn't been planning for environmental purposes. One of the
conflicts, there's many, but one of those conflicts is that with the supply plan for
human consumption, the environmental waters are being taking from, that so it gets
back to a zero sum game. It starts extracting from that, whereas if we were to start a
hundred years ago planning for human consumption as well as, I'll call it, "fisheries,"
we would probably have a different system, meaning we'd probably have more off-
stream reservoirs that we could use to manage the water supply for both purposes. I
think that if you spoke to the environmental community, you’d learn that they'd been
pushing these points, which haven't been resolved, but I think they have. However, I
think the issue here is that there's been a lack of resolution between government and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
149

water agencies and the public and environmental groups as a whole. This crisis has
brought it to a head where the lack of resolution has been hugely apparent to
everyone. We've tried to struggle through operating through the Delta and the upper
San Joaquin River in a crisis mode this summer. The real question is a lack of
resolution.
 Another thing that's come about that is even though people in the planning domain
have talked about climate change, there's a sort of abstract, there's been an
abstractness to that planning and their discussion. I think the prospect now that these
droughts may not be a one-time-in-a-life thing, they may be repetitive, and that I
think brings a planning crisis upon us in terms of, whether there is enough water to go
around given the lifestyle that we've had before, and there's probably not in most
years, fine, but in the critical years not. How do we plan accordingly? We've got a
whole paradigm before us now.
 One of the issues that contributed to it is the value of water. The public's valuing of
the water itself. It's only now in a drought condition that you can actually mention
and they understand the value of water. Where in previous times, when we tried to
raise our water rates to pay for infrastructure for some of the necessary programs, it
was just a small, incremental increase, meaning something like 30 cents a month.
They would be outraged over that. Last year we went out with a proposed rate
increase of 30%. It wasn't the problem; people understood the value of water more in
drought. Back then they turn on the tap, the water comes out, now they're saying hey,
there may not be water that comes out if we don't do something and that wakes them
up. People are very busy, with everything else in their lives, and we've been doing
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
150

such a good job of supplying that water and very cheaply, that that's the expectation
that the water agencies have actually developed for the community.
 The media is a significant component because they have little time to do thorough
stories, and then they do stories that are, I'll say a little on the sensational side without
getting all the facts, so there's a media component to this that's making it more
challenging. Everyone is more informed. I think that has been good. The media has
paid more attention to it, telling various stories. On specifics they have been helpful,
but then there are some media that have positions. They have positions and they don't
really have the technical information or even the willingness to understand the other
side.
 An inability of current infrastructure to adapt to the increasing fluctuation in annual
precipitation. That's Number One. Number Two, for those areas of the state that
depend upon water exported through the Delta, is the continuing decline of ecosystem
health in the Delta that further limits an already limited infrastructure system.
 Obviously it's serious, but I think people understand more and more how serious it is.
There are a lot of factors, besides the fact that we're in a fairly significant drought. I
know people like to say it's a 1200-year drought, or 1700-year drought. I'm not sure
that that's true. I've seen other things that have said that it may not be as serious in
that time frame, but that doesn't matter. A big contributor to the situation, not the
drought, I think, is lack of planning and investment that we've done in California. It's
been regionally successful, but at a state-wide level it's suffered. You can blame it on
the economy. You can blame it on a lot of things. But it really gets down to priorities
and leadership and where you're going to spend your money. It's tough in California
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
151

to get a game plan on these investments, and get equity, and who's going to pay, and
all those kinds of things. But I think we're sort of paying the price on that. As you
advance through the drought now, I think that's become more recognized by folks. To
the Governor's credit, they've put forth their California Water Action Plan that says
you've got to change the way we're doing business. We've got to make investments.
We've got to ramp up conservation throughout the state in all sectors, et cetera. I think
that's a good thing.
 The fourth year of a drought is a game changer. In the past planners planned for three
year droughts. Fourth year changes—particularly important as California and the
southwest face hotter drier conditions—highlights that we have to rethink policies
and priorities, drought proof supplies, and look at storage and how we pay for
projects. The current conditions have increased the level of state involvement—
California has reacted to the drought at a state level. San Diego took notice during
the 1991 drought and developed one of the most aggressive water management
programs and drought proofing/response. 1991 was a wake-up call and San Diego
has spent the last 20 years developing reliable supplies. They currently have 99
percent of the water they need. The State of California is using the executive
authority and regulations, which is very problematic, and because conditions vary
throughout the state—environmental conditions, sues and past investments in water
management. This minimizes the differences between different regions. Other
factors include climate and water reliability.
 Absolutely. Maybe more to the point, my point anyway, it exposes a really
fundamental weaknesses in our water management system. Even where areas are not
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
152

suffering, as in some of our cities, I think the drought has exposed some real
fundamental problems. There are those areas where we have a genuine crisis. The
drought has had significant impact on rural disadvantaged communities and the
environment. Not sufficient attention is being paid to either one of those.
 Yes, they do, although I do think that the drought is just highlighting some of the
perennial deficiencies in water management in California. These sorts of issues and
challenges have been brewing for a very long time and this is just shining a spotlight
on them.
 Yes, but it's probably overstated in the press. On the one hand, this is hydrologically
the worst drought episode that's happened on record. I've been in water management
in California and this is the fourth drought I have experienced and it is by far the
worst. Although it's in the same ball park as 1987 to 1992. From a temperature
perspective, much worse than anything we've seen before. We're setting temperature
records in California. The combination of lack of precipitation and high temperatures
are why Governor Jerry Brown went up to Phillips Snow course on April 1 and didn't
find any snow. He came down the mountain and declared mandatory rationing
everywhere in the state of California. From a hydrologic perspective this is a very
severe drought, on the other hand in the last century we've had at least 10 droughts,
10 multiple year droughts two years or more. It's not like it's something we shouldn't
be able to handle. I would point out that I think that we were much better prepared for
this drought, certainly in the urban economy, than we were for the 1987 to 1992
drought. It's notable that this is the worst sequence of dry years of the first three or
four years sequences of dry years in over 1200 years. That statistic caught my
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
153

attention. We're having a millennial drought here in California just like they did in
Australia. Ours has only lasted 4 years so far, theirs lasted 10. If you think it's
noteworthy that certainly the urban economy is facing mandatory rationing,
understand that's aimed at “ornamental” uses of water. Your front lawn. I think it's
fair to say that the fabric of our economy hasn't been touched yet. It could be that the
drought continues, and that we have to plan as though it will. My answer to your
question is “Yes and No.” This is a real significant hydrologic event, but I would
argue we're managing it better than you think when you read the newspapers.
 A crisis? You know, I don't to be honest. I guess kind of our mantra has been, yes,
we're in a challenging situation, but obviously let's not overreact. I think that's at least
been kind of the way we've looked at it. The reality is that we've had probably the
most challenging year in 2015 in the irrigation season that we've ever had in the
Sacramento Valley, as you probably know. Yet the bottom line is that we got through
the year. There was some pain, there were some people fallowing ground, people
were doing some things that in an ideal world they wouldn't have been doing. That's
for sure, but the reality is: we got through it. At least for our part of the world, I can
only speak for the Sac Valley; I don't think we've destroyed our groundwater basins.
We've, I think, been able to keep salmon and bird populations in a decent place.
Again not ideal, not everything we'd like, but we've been able to kind of manage
through the situation. Obviously we transferred some water to people in other parts of
the state that really needed it. I don't really like the word crisis.
 Needless to say, every year it stays dry, obviously, we'll just have to keep ratcheting
that up. That's just the reality of it and obviously the millennium drought that you're
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
154

looking at obviously, they got to a point where there was kind of that breaking point,
I'm guessing, right, at least politically, and I just hope we're not close to that. I still
think we have another couple of years, and of course the other thing I'd say, and I'm
sorry to ramble here a little bit, but one of the things I think is, that I praise the
Metropolitan Water District every chance we get. Because if you didn't have that
water sitting in Diamond Valley, and had done all the things you've done from turf to
conservation to desal, everything along the way, it might have been different, it
would've looked a lot more like the early 90’s. The fact that you guys had water down
there, which was huge for the whole state.
 I think a little slightly different stand is that it is obvious that we're in a very serious
situation. A year ago, maybe some people wondered about it, and I think the value of
this situation is that it exposes the tremendous vulnerability that we have to the
reliability of our system right now. The factors are how we use water, a lack of
public literacy about, you know, that we are extraordinarily wasteful compared to
other similar lifestyle countries, especially Australia, but others as well. There's a
huge amount of reduction of water use that we can do to immediately improve our
situation in terms of drought, but also in terms of the long term. Two, we aren't at all
good about leakage and other things that are inadvertently mismanagement of water.
Three, one of the things that contributes to our challenge is that we only have one
water. We flush our toilets with the equivalent of Evian. We water our lawns with the
equivalent of Evian, meaning all imported water, and public literacy about water is so
low that people don't know that there are many, many options and that the lack of
literacy about water, how it can be managed, how it can be cleaned, how it can be
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
155

recycled, causes us to only seek to deliver and use the highest quality of water for
needs that don't require that. Apparently there's a conversation that agriculture is
consuming eighty percent of California's water, but it's also feeding California, and
much of the nation and much of the world, but there are, and my focus won't mostly
be agricultural, but there are clearly opportunities, significant opportunities to switch
to more water conserving forms of agriculture to lower some of that pressure. The
federal government built/financed a water delivery system that encouraged an
agriculturally water wasting system, and because of the significance of agriculture to
the California economy and to the national economy and to the food supply, it
behooves the federal government to help reboot that system, and help farmers
convert, so they are not reliant on high water use agriculture. That's a technology
question, and maybe it's definitely a soil management question, and it may be a crop
selecting question. That's my high-level view and I don't have a whole lot more to
that except witnessing from Australia how the impact of even recycling waste water
is now supporting agriculture in some kind of surprising and inspiring ways.
 We are in a drought, and it apparently is a very unique kind of drought. It isn't a
typical drought; although California is prone to drought on occasion, but more
importantly, I think it's ... I’d like to say its man-made scarcity coupled with nature-
made drought. We wouldn't be in a pickle, but for the fact that poor decisions by our
leaders have created scarcity. That didn't need to happen.
 The drought...right up near the top of my list is basically water rights and water law.
The overallocation to agriculture as opposed to urban. It's partly cheap water, but it's
in allocation. It all has to do with appropriation. First in time, first in right. Thomas
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
156

Blithe, 1877, California. But that kind of stuff, at some point—and we're already
starting to see this right in Central Valley with the junior appropriators versus the
senior—is the 1914 water shed. Basically at some point, we really have to look at the
whole issue of the allotment of water. Remember, the environment is a major player
now in terms of water allotment. The environment, agriculture and urban. At some
point, if things get bad enough; we're going to have to revisit that. We do get water in
some places in the state. The question is: who gets that water?
 Obviously the number one issue is the drought, of course, and this is, by even tree-
ring data, perhaps the worst drought in 1,500 years, but there are some other
contributing factors. One is just the growth in population. Last time we had a very
terrible drought was in 1977, and the state was probably one-third the population it is
today and we haven't added on anything like our basic water supply infrastructure.
Local agencies have done a lot; the state hasn't done anything to really add onto the
state's backbone infrastructure. Metropolitan's built DVL and things like that, but the
state hasn't added a new facility since 1960. We've had a lot more growth. We also
have other higher demands. We added much more acreage into production of
permanent grounds. We have tightened up our demands both with more people and
more permanent crops, but we haven't added on new supplies and then finally, two
more factors, while it's related to the drought, we've never seen temperatures like this.
Higher temperatures possibly climate change related . . .most scientists are saying the
drought itself is probably cyclical, less climate change driven, but it's still exacerbated
by these high temperatures and things like that that are unusual for us. Unusually hot,
which make it that much more difficult, and then finally, I would add we've just
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
157

become much more restrictive about use of water as well. The environmental
restrictions in the Delta and elsewhere make it much more difficult to even use our
existing infrastructure, as outdated as it is. A number of factors have made it much
more difficult to manage through this drought, which was already tough enough.
 Yes. The factors include drought, people not understanding how to conserve,
education, and missing some additional outreach.
 I see it as more of an opportunity to reevaluate, if you will, the current water policy in
the state. It’s all inclusive; you have got to have diversified portfolios and the
restrictions that have been placed on senior rights holders, the marketing of the water,
the wheeling of the water, all of that comes into play. Here’s an opportunity where
the statewide water infrastructure has been stressed for the last four years, and what
are we going to do to repair if it goes on, or, what are we going to do to repair so that
this doesn’t have to repeat itself next time the drought rolls around? Another aspect
that comes into play is the new generation of thinking. You’ve got a lot of
generational farmers in the Central Valley, San Joaquin area. You’ve got generations
of water professionals that maybe have conducted business in a certain way. I think
with this new generation coming in, and some new innovative thinking, and
innovative technologies, things have to change. We can’t keep operating the way
we’ve done for the last 20, 30, 40 years. I think just from an operational standpoint,
people are operating differently. They’re looking at all alternatives. To me the local
control is critical. The folks up in Sacramento can’t be telling everybody what to do.
They need to rely on those with boots on the ground to make the changes.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
158

 I think what we're seeing is the system of water rights playing out so that the system's
being managed the way it was intended as water rights developed over the years in
California. No, I don't think that we're seeing a crisis in water management. We're
seeing the water rights system implemented the way it was envisioned.
 Absolutely, although I hesitate on the term "crisis" because that's kind of what was
wrong, but I think the seriousness of the situation is certainly there. The reason I react
a little bit to "crisis" is because people tend to not necessarily do the smart things in a
crisis, they just react. I think this is an opportunity to be smart and really understand
the question: “What does long term, sustainable water management really look like?”
How to think about that as the goal rather than just quick responses to a perceived
crisis that may actually exacerbate the problem, in some cases, or at least not help
with long-term solutions. I think right up near the top of the list, has to be a rather
serious lack of good information on the table in order to manage water resources. I
frame it that way because I think a lot of the data actually exists, but for various
reasons, different entities have different perceptions in terms of their interests, in
terms of putting that information out. I think that information piece and how that
would extend to how much water ... I'm thinking broadly here, but how much water
actually fits California. When and where? That goes to the basic science of the
precipitation and run-on. The snow melts and so forth. Do we really understand well
enough that initial point and where does it go and how is it used? I know I'm hitting
you with a very high level, but the more I think about it, it seems like that's the way
that we've got to start. I tell people that we've got record high employment in the
agriculture sector in California as we go into the fourth year of a drought. People just
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
159

shake their heads, no, no, no. People are out of work. Farmers are having a horrible
time. Some of them are having a rough time, but in the aggregate, it's actually
increased employment. We have record profits and productivity on everything from
table grapes to canning tomatoes to some of the different kinds of crops. The alfalfa
guys are doing really well right now. There's some real interesting contradictions or
anomalies when you start to think about, "What do we mean by crisis here?" I've seen
people that are really doing well and others that are really scrambling. Some agencies
are doing a terrific job in management and others are really playing catch up. It's all
over the map.
 The most common one that people talk about is climate change. I'll back up and say,
from a water utility perspective, talking to managers in California, in fact throughout
the United States is this: the biggest issue that they all face with regard to water
management, and everything else falls out of that, is uncertainty. It used to be very
easy years ago in water management, to look at the number of people you had and
then look at your demand and then draw a straight line or something like that out to
the future, and then say, "We use this much water now, we got this many people,
we're going to use this much in the future, and there's not much of an issue." Because
of things like droughts and increasing population, increasing regulations, new
contaminants, rising prices for water, and aging infrastructure, it's the uncertainty that
managers have to deal with, and things like climate change are just one piece of the
pie. To me, the biggest factor is the inability to predict the future at a time when
you're constrained by impacts from climate change and water quality and financial
issues, and dwindling supplies.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
160

 There are some obvious things. I wasn't a big proponent of climate change, but I think
climate change is real. When you look at this year, the past few months, and you see
that Seattle last month had nine days with 90-degree weather; there's something going
on. When you look at California, these are historic temperature readings in California
this year, and we don't even have them on the books. I think that's a big thing, this
whole area of dealing with climate change. Another thing too is agencies like the
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District have been very visionary.
Twenty years ago we decided to change our focus and move to recycled water, as did
the Orange County people. If we didn't have that to bank on right now we'd be in
serious trouble. On the other hand, we haven't done a good job in some respects, in
storm water. We talk a good deal about it, and I know there's some legislation now to
try to capture that water, but we've done too much talking in the area of storm water
capture.
 The data has shown that this is one of the most severe droughts that we have on
record, and it is not only the lack of precipitation, which is obviously problematic, but
also the high temperatures that we have been having. 2014 was the hottest year on
record, and 2015 is sort of leaning that way as well. It is really the severity of the
drought, but then too you have been thinking that yes, perhaps, we have had drought
even more severe based on precipitation. But the fact of the matter is we have more
people than we did a thousand years ago. So, it is the combination of the severity of
the lack of precipitation and temperature but also the demands we have been placing,
and really I think, I do not know to what degree you are stepping out of the urban
box. We have been so reliant on ground water, even in average years we are very
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
161

fortunate to have ground water in California and it can really be a buffer when surface
water is limited. Unfortunately, we have not been managing that resource for decades
with that in mind. I think that is making this even more severe, particularly in the
outer coastal areas.

2. Are you familiar with Australia’s Millennium Drought and their National Water
Initiative?
Approximately 20 percent of those interviewed were very familiar with
Australia’s Millennium Drought, 60 percent were generally aware of the Millennium
Drought but were not aware of specific details, and the remaining 20 percent just knew
that it had happened.
3. If yes, do you think it was effective? What aspects do you think were most
effective/least effective?
There was general agreement that changes were effective, but the examples of the success
varied greatly. There was some acknowledgement that the policies that worked in
Australia could not just be implemented as is, in California. While there are many
similarities, there are significant differences that need to be considered when evaluating
what approach can be translated.
 We are learning from their experience. As was the case here, it took Australians about
four years to wake up to the fact that the drought was potentially going to have a
severe impact on their economy. The level of commitment that they achieved to
conservation that seems to be lasting is commendable. We need to take a harder look
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
162

at our mandatory 25% reduction for conservation purposes here. That alone isn't
going to position California to weather another round of dry years. What we learned
from Australia was that they incentivized investment in sustainable approaches to
conservation, such as water recycling within a large commercial building, as opposed
to simply reducing the amount of water that's used during drought. The other thing
that we learned from them, but that I think is going to be hard to apply here, is that
the federal government contributed $30 billion dollars in support of science and
technology. That's a huge commitment. But, there are hundreds of patented products
now marketed all over the world that are a result of that investment. Obviously, many
of the things that they came up with were applied successfully in Australia. The last
thing that is pretty big is the federal government identified that they needed to
increase environmental flows in the rivers and instead of simply telling the water
agencies to release more water, they purchased or leased the water rights to
compensate the agencies for the water that they otherwise would have used for other
purposes. That's a pretty significant difference from the way we do environmental
water policy here in California.
 The very fact that they clearly had to tackle it, and they tackled it in conjunction with,
interestingly, with climate change issues, which they were very big on. I understand
that the spectrum moved way left, and now it's moving back toward a more balanced
perspective. Very good lessons learned there, whereas we in California are way left,
and haven't yet realized the balance that we need with a strong economy that couples
with good environmental protections. You can't have one without the other.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
163

 People on the street knew something about water. Talked about it, and talked about it
being in the news, each and every day. I guess we're getting there. If we got to a
Millennium Drought, we'd probably be there as well. That was memorable.
 For me, one of the things I was really interested in was at Murray-Darling. It reminds
me of the Delta, because they kept having new plans and new Executive Directors.
It's the same kind of thing: there's only so much water. If you really want to preserve
the ecosystem, you have to do something fairly drastic. I got there after, I think, their
second plan had been published, and they'd had the bonfires. The farmers had held
bonfires of the plan. It struck me that in spite of everything, we're very similar. That,
for all of our talk about public policy, they've done a really good job, but the same
forces drive every society. We have people who are interested in their livelihoods that
really care about it. In their case, agriculture was a huge driver. They did amazing
things that we can only, or couldn't, imagine doing some of the things that they did
there. If our drought goes on long enough, we might get to that point.
 I was struck by the difference between Perth, where I think they responded
incrementally, and other areas in Australia. When Perth built their desalination, they
were relatively small plants that were industrial. Expensive, but still not nearly as
expensive as what you did in Melbourne. Melbourne was this incredibly beautiful
place, with an incredibly beautiful water treatment plant that obviously wasn't
necessary, given what they had then. I came away thinking that, your response to a
drought needs to be measured, not this “everything in the world” approach. In
Brisbane, they did waste water recycling, sending water back up to a power plant for
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
164

cooling, I think. That was working. I don't think they've ever started their sea water
desalination plant in Brisbane either, or in Sydney. Perth did it right.
 I was struck by the fact that, they reorganized their governance.
 They transformed their land-use and water rights system. They decoupled water and
land-use, which allowed for markets and supported reform efforts.
 I think almost everybody I've heard says they overreacted particularly on the desal.
Then as far as the investment in that, as I understand it that's going to have some
consequences for the country financially for some time to come. I think that's the one
thing that's jumped out that I've heard from just about everybody we've talked to. The
second was, I know the folks in the agricultural community don't generally really like
the way that that whole water rights quantification, and then I don't know what you'd
call it, but that kind of trading of that water, I don't think most folks liked the way that
ended up. At least the ag people we've talked to, in the Darling Basin particularly, did
not really like the way things ended up, and again they thought that was kind of an
overreaction to a problem, and it's almost made it worse.
 The things that I think are most useful for California to consider, and those are the
things that I think are most effective, are matters related to the system of water
information and water accounting, and how that enables them to set up a water
market that was more effective and then how they did their environmental drought
planning. I think where they were least effective were in some areas where they threw
a lot of money at some problems that were probably not very cost-effective. You can't
find a single Australian economist who gives thumbs up to the kinds of rural
infrastructure investments that they made in terms of farm investments and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
165

investments in rural conveyance and irrigation systems infrastructure. Estimates that
I've heard are like $700,000 per farmer. Very expensive measures that were
politically motivated and it sounds better than it is in terms of the actual water savings
involved. Then I think a lot of people raised the question of whether they really
needed to do desal in their big urban areas, given some of the other options that they
had. In particular, their water marketing works really well within agriculture, but left
the urban sector out by and large and the onus was on cities to just invest in big
expensive projects. They did a lot of conservation, not always in the most cost-
effective ways, a lot of rebates that probably from an equity perspective didn't make
sense, where you could get rebates on high end dishwashers and things like that if you
were already relatively well to do, but lower income residents were not benefiting
from those kinds of projects, so it was throwing a lot of money at the problem in ways
that were not always cost-effective.
 I don't think they were as prepared as we were going into the drought. We've just built
a lot of infrastructure over the decades. We have a very integrated water system
throughout the state, so I don't think they were as prepared as we were going into the
drought. I think our situation is somewhat comparable. We've had 7 of the last 8 years
be extremely dry, the record-breaking drought. They have a 12-year drought. We're in
an 8-year drought right now. It's not that we're terribly different in reality then what
they did, but they were getting down to ... They only had enough water at the end of
the drought for about 30 gallons per capita per day, whereas we're trying to get people
using 150 gallons per day to drop 25%. You can see they were really in dire straits
compared to where we are today, so we aren't as severe.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
166

 Some of the things they did that I thought were very smart were adjusting their water-
rights system. They made structural changes to their water-rights system to facilitate
water marketing and they also made significant changes to how they dealt with
environmental issues on water, with the state and federal governments there taking on
the environmental responsibilities as a public requirement, allowing the water
agencies to focus on delivery of water, movement of water for that, while they took
on the environmental issues as a state and federal responsibility. Here, the state and
federal governments act as regulators, but shovel the burdens onto the water districts
as opposed to taking the restrictions and owning them. They put up billions of dollars
to allow the state and federal governments to do that. We seem to be just not willing
to do that. I think the biggest advantage they had though was two things. One is that
the drought pushed them to the crisis point that we’ve not reached yet, but if we have
four more years of drought like they did, we'll be darn close. Secondly, I think their
form of government, being a parliamentary system, where you have an executive
branch that is also the legislative branch, so two out of three branches, and one-party
control. If they get in the mindset to actually do something, it is much more
streamlined than ours that has much more checks and balances.
 There are two sets of things we can learn from them. It is really interesting what they
did in terms of efficiency because they were in a total crisis by the time they really
started acting seriously, as their drought had gone on for six years. They were also
doing far more aggressive conservation than we are at this point because they were in
such a deep hole. The conservation we are doing, the radical for this state, is really
just preventive. We're just trying to put ourselves in a position such that it doesn't get
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
167

as bad as it did in Australia, ahead of the curve. They had to deal with real emergency
response and were facing the specter of their large communities actually running out
of water. That's why they did these really aggressive conservation targets, millions in
messaging, really engaging the community with just how dire their situation was.
They had daily updates on what their storage levels were for each city. They had the
advantage that each of their cities actually knew where their water came from,
whereas in our system we don't because we have this combination of sources. You
also have frankly our water agencies not ringing the bell quite as early. On the other
hand, were we in this dire a circumstance as Australia was at the time they stepped
up, at the state level, we have been trying to get ahead of that. It's been a little milder.
Here we are faced with the knowledge that it can happen. It certainly can happen in
history. They did a lot on conservation and recycling. The biggest thing they did was
on green infrastructure. It's interesting how they did it. They did it in a way that you
can't really see. It's all underground but they spent probably billions building giant
systems and recycling facilities underneath their parks and underneath their city
streets and cisterns to capture water whenever it rained, to add recycled water and
water their parks, their ball fields and their street trees. That's really impressive.
There's a whole host of people particularly interested in that aspect of it.
 They built desal and spent billions on these facilities that have never been operated
because they couldn't afford to take the chance of running out of water. They did
everything at once. By the time they finished the desalination facilities, it rained. Now
they also did all of this conservation, recycling and storm water capture. Their water
use numbers haven't gone back up because people actually did a lot of rain barrel
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
168

capture of water, using tanks. They had big tanks. They did great grey water systems
for their yards because their conservation numbers were so low there was really only
enough water for indoors. If you wanted to keep your garden, you had to go with the
grey water system or tanks. They had a system of tanks on the outback. It wasn't an
alien idea. Through that process, it set a new normal that when the water came that
their habits or what they had implemented continued on.
 That jury is still out. I think it was effective at the time it was implemented and just as
Governor Brown right now doesn’t have a lot of arrows in his quiver to respond to the
drought, Australia was confronted with the same situation. They made some
structural changes, just like I would expect California to go through right now. That
will put them in a more proactive place but I think they’re still … what’s emerging is
some real tensions between local and federal control. I mean, I don’t think the federal
government in Australia had a lot of choices at the time but I think there’s some re-
evaluation going on and I think mothballed desalters like the ones in Sydney, I think
they stand in testament that there has to be a different way to incorporate desalination
into the overall water management strategy that isn’t the turn on, shut off syndrome.
 I think time will tell. I think you’re going to see that regimen changed a little bit in
Australia over time, especially since they’re now not in crisis mode, but I think it was
productive and that it reset the conversation once and for all in the country.
 The effectiveness of the market system that they put in place, including, purchasing
water for the environment that is definitely something that we think California needs:
a much better, more transparent water market system. Then, the clear ability to buy
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
169

water for the environment, instead of relying on regulatory approaches to try to get
sufficient water for the environment.
 The comparisons between Australia and California are overstated. For example, San
Diego gets one-quarter of the average precipitation that major cities in Australia get,
so when they do get rain, some programs such as desalination, reclamation and even
conservation can seem to be unnecessary. Temper implementation—there is a need
to match the regions with unique characteristics. For example even within California,
San Diego has great beaches and a thimble full of water where Orange County, just
80 miles away has great groundwater aquifers.
 Australia developed a comprehensive plan that integrated all aspects and all regions:
surface water management, ground water management, and storage, and then
developed a robust water market from just about nothing, and then standardized
regulations and made decisive choices on the benefits of water. For example, on the
Darling River, the decision was to choose one of three ecosystems that were failing
and save one. The government chose what would be saved—that would not happen
here.
 The Basin Plan was approved and the buyback of a considerable amount of water was
approved by a public vote, which committed about $9billion if I'm not mistaken, to
those environmental water purchases. Australia's water system differs from ours, in
that private individuals hold what they call water licenses, or the rights for water, and
individuals can buy and sell them. You don't have to be a landowner today to own a
water license. You used to have to be a landowner, but that's even changed somewhat
in the last few years. If the plan was to purchase licenses to generate an
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
170

environmental water account, if you will, then it was successful. The public was
convinced that was important and committed a lot of money to doing it. What wasn't
successful was how it affected world communities and landowners and food
production. I think we saw as the Basin Plan was being implemented, the dire concern
at the local level over third party impacts, which we've seen to a certain degree here
in California with the drought, as agricultural water supplies have declined over the
last four years. We've seen community impacts, unemployment, closed businesses,
economic hardship. That all was a big concern in Australia with the Basin Plan and
the buyback of water for the environment. At least the public had invested in the
purchase of that water, where in California it's often taken as a result of regulatory
action with no compensation. Part of the nine billion was money that was spent on
improving on farm water use efficiency, which we all agree is a good thing, and they
think is a good thing, and it's a good thing. What ended up happening, even for those
that retained some access to water for farming after the purchases that generated the
savings, the energy costs associated with newer style pressurized irrigation systems
soared, and it made it unaffordable for farmers to operate the new systems that were
installed. Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation systems that required new pumping
systems and all of that, became very expensive to run, and some farmers just
abandoned them and went back to traditional gravity irrigation methods. It wasn't all
bad, but there were other investments in land leveling and even improving gravity
irrigation to the point where it made it more efficient, and it freed up water for these
environmental buybacks.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
171

 I've been to a number of meetings in different places in Australia and I've seen the
same things here where basically people have lectured, "California should just do
what we did. Just change this. Just do what we did. Change out the water rights. For
one thing, we're at, whatever it is, a $2.3 trillion economy and we're one of the top 10
economies in the world. It's a big deal to make those kinds of changes at the scale
we're talking about. Australia is really at a very different economic scale and, that's
not dismissive, it's just that when you're dealing with an entity like Metropolitan and
20 million people, give or take, and the scale of economy, these changes are not made
lightly. I think that the political process was just different when you're dealing with
that scale of economic impact.
4. If yes to number 2, how applicable are the Australian approaches to California?
d. What specifically do you think could be applied in California and
why?
e. If not, why not?
f. What barriers exist in California that would prevent adoption of
policy reforms adopted in Australia?
There was some agreement that some of the same approaches could be used in
California, but our water rights system and our governance are barriers that could
impact adoption of reforms that were successful in Australia.
 There was some major reduction in water use in their urban areas, I think the last
numbers I saw at a national level, were that residential use is around 54 gallons per
person, per day. This was much higher obviously before the drought hit, so there was
a very comprehensive effort and investment in promoting and improving efficiency.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
172

Along with, obviously, investments in recycled water and rain water harvesting, etc. I
think we have a lot to learn there, in a lot of different aspects, how to do really
extensive efficiency programs, how to do messaging, and of course the messaging
may be different because of cultural differences. But I still think we are not all there
on the messaging and I think we have some room to learn on that issue. As for the
issues around the scale of investments and efficiency, it is obvious that they need
some major investments, and we have that here in California too, but not to that
extent. California's drought is not yet as severe as Australia's drought and not nearly
as long. If this drought continues in California, I think we will start to see even more
uptake of more of the strategies. I think there is much more recognition of the
challenges in California, I think that people do not understand quite the scale of the
challenges we face, and the fact that this is not just a drought issue. But really these
are much more longstanding challenges, as my ground water example is evidence of
that. There is still sort of a hoax, that the El Niño is going to save us, and they felt
that way too, from what I understand. It was sort of, well this is the last year, well this
has got to be it, and then at some point it was like, maybe this is never going to end. I
still think that we are in those initial stages of, this has got to be it, we have clearly hit
bottom. So, I think that is a barrier, I do think as well if that was a nationwide
drought, instead of a statewide drought, it is a little bit different. I do think that the
state has come together and is realizing that we are all in this together, but that does
not mean that at a national scale that is the case. In fact, there are a lot of people
laughing and pointing to us and saying this is what you get. So, I think that is a bit of
a barrier as well, I think that the role of government is different, water is very much
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
173

handled locally in California, and there is not quite as much a role being played by
the state or the federal government obviously, and it is different in Australia, it is just
a different culture and a different sense of water management. I think another barrier
is we are so decentralized that there are hundreds and hundreds of water agencies,
thousands of agencies.
 I hope so. The telling thing there is you've got a nation, a country that has the
population of our state so you had the federal government in their case, committed to
helping solve the problem. The biggest challenge for California is that the federal
government views it as a California problem not a national problem most of the time.
 Funding. A commitment to funding. As we talked about, the innovations that were
developed were largely the result of government grants. If you take the water, the
purchased water and the investment of science and technology, it's probably in the
$40 billion range. Here, at the federal level they talk in terms of tens of millions of
dollars. The scale of the money necessary to make a difference is going to require a
really compelling argument. I'm not sure I see that happening in the United States.
 The other piece that is of very strong interest to us is how to look at your long range
plans once you're in a drought and realize that you maybe have to revise your
planning thinking. For example, we've had long range plans to develop indirect
portal reuse, which really meant taking partly purified water as they do in Orange
County and using that to supplement groundwater recharge. We have had those plans
on the books for many years, back into the 2000s. Now a question for us is now that
we see the paradigm or the drought impact and realize this could recur, is whether
there is some advantage to moving forward, in that some of those projects were early.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
174

For example, we heard that in Australia they initiated a number of desalination
projects, for example, but maybe they were not thinking about the long-term need for
those as clearly as they could have, and so now some of those investments may be
questionable. In contrast, if the governments had just factored that into their long-
range planning, they might've had a clearer idea that okay, its needed now, it's
accelerated, but really the real purpose of this, because this is a big investment, is for
the long term. I'm not sure that the public in Australia really got that.
 In terms of what California can learn from the Australian drought, it’s really that our
water allocation system needs very significant revamping and that's going to be
challenging. I'm not sure if the will is there, but it does need to be revamped because
we have what I refer to as, "individual systems," that have been developed over the
last hundred years. However, I think we're at a point where a lot of these things need
to be not combined per se but coordinated in leveraging for the state as a whole,
because we can move water from all the way from northern part of the state to the
southern part of the state. It's all essentially interconnected one way. As for the
original water rights, I think this is a little obsolete, and that it needs to be revamped.
It doesn't mean that we'd take what Australia did, but there's lessons learned because
it'll have to be customized to our state's water supply picture and the systems we have
in place.
 They shifted to operating systems in an intergrade fashion, which would not be
possible here as you can’t integrate the State Water Project and the Central Valley
Project. They also revised their water rights and centralized the governance of water.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
175

 I think in general, the approaches are really good. It's the specifics that would be
different. They reformed their water rights system a couple of times. We need to
reform our water rights system. It would be different. I'm convinced here that, you
would leave the fundamentals alone, and you'd use reasonable and beneficial use that,
we already have in the Constitution. That would become a driving thing. We would
use adjudications, which we have the ability to do, under our system. We just haven't
ever done it. It would be essentially the same thing, but it would be done in a different
way.
 Restructuring government. We wouldn't end up with CEOs, but we would end up
with probably, county water agencies, county-wide water agencies or some other kind
of a reconsolidated mechanism for governing water. I think those things are
inevitable, and I think water use efficiency is inevitable. It's just a matter of, how
soon. It's not inevitable that it stay in government hands. They often tell people,
"Look at England. Margaret Thatcher sold them all, and divided the country into 5
different water areas, and sold the systems off to private companies."
 How to manage the environmental responsibilities. I think what Australia did there
gets a lot less attention. People like to talk about the water rights as solving the issue,
but I think actually what they did on managing environmental responsibilities was
much more important for how they were able to then proceed.
 I think some form of a market mechanism and I hate using the word market because
you say the word market and 16 people have 16 different interpretations of that name,
all the way from the water as a commodity, willy-nilly, free market to a more
regulated framework, but I think the notion is that you start moving water around to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
176

meet critical needs through some market mechanisms. I think that is absolutely
something that California has embraced in many instances and I think that’s a
strategy that will grow. To me the question is always, “When do you deploy it?” It’s
a lot less disruptive and a lot less costly if it is done earlier in the drought cycle. For
example, were there opportunities for farmers to only take out a portion of their
fields? Do some rotational following, leaving that water behind instead of storing it.
 Another opportunity is where you walk through it in a much more managed way or
else is it the kind of reactionary market? I guess this is the only way to describe what
you’re experiencing today. It’s a market of desperation. Those are a little tougher to
manage your way through. I think those kinds of market mechanisms, I think the
notion that there are certain environmental values that need to be protected even in
the worst of times, and I think this was something that was done in Australia, is worth
looking at. Maybe it’s my background. I can’t go all the way to being 100%
supportive of the very heavy federal hand that was played in Australia. I think that’s
going to be problematic in the future. That’s really tough to apply in a California
context because I think in the California context; it’s more the heavy hand of the state
as opposed to the heavy hand of a federal government. Let’s be honest, our federal
government couldn’t exercise a heavy hand right now on its best day. There are some
inherent differences there.
 The top issue I'd say is water availability. You have a large growing population, and a
decrease in terms of water supply, so it has to be dealt with. How it's dealt with
policy-wise, an edict to reduce use 25% across the board. I think this has some
unintended consequences. On those types of policies, I think it would be that if you're
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
177

going to reduce the use of water, if you could do it on a more regional basis, and if
you let the users get together to solve the problem, I think it might be better. For
example in California, if they came down to Southern California and this area said,
"Okay. We need to reduce water flow. You could get together with your agencies,
maybe with agriculture or whatever." Then say, "Okay. Here's what we have to do.
What is the best way to do this for all of us and still get to the end point and do the
least economic damage, the one size does not fit all on water policy. Even as you
look at the Western United States, or the east, or the north, or the south, whatever
within California, you have regional issues, north or south and metro area, the rural. I
think that if you could have an overall goal to, "Okay, let's manage this water
resource better." It would be good, I think, if you could let the people that are solving
the problems now work on that. If you look at California on your groundwater
replenishment districts, you're probably managing water in California better than
anywhere else in North America. The dry cities, Las Vegas and Phoenix and Denver,
all have pretty aggressive programs to reduce use in terms of turf replacement and all
the things that people do that incentivize less water use.
 I think something that will have to happen in California is looking at a different
mindset relative to how landscaping is done but to be able to do it in a gentler and
slower way. Because there are very beautiful landscapes that can be done that are
low water use and it'll just ... I think that will take time. The thing that I see with this
latest edict is it's too quick. These things take some time. I wouldn't say, “Okay. By
next year, you have to do this." It's like, "Okay.” In the next 5 to 10 years, some of the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
178

things you do the low-lying fruit you do quickly; the other things, it's a change in
culture and mindset and you work on that to ultimately reduce that use.
 The issue here is that agriculture is a 900-pound gorilla nationwide with their lobbies
and stuff but if you look at Australia like the Murray Darling which is very heavily
allocated at agriculture, the federal governments went in there and really forced some
allocations relative to agriculture and domestic use. You could talk to Adam about
that but it was a major deal. That's their major river basin there. Of course, it's widely
variable if you look at Perth versus the eastern part of the country. Everybody in
Australia lives along the coast with their major cities, and the interior of the country is
basically desert. The one thing they did there which was interesting is that Australia
put a tremendous amount of resources into desal, and all of those plants are pretty
much mothballed right now except for Perth. Perth's climate has never come back and
their river basin essentially is almost dried up but they're living off of large desal
plants and they’re successful.
 We do have a different water rights system, so often when you talk to people about,
even a more aggressive market, were, with the way they did things in Australia, you
sometimes got very negative reaction from water rights attorneys that were working
for clients that had senior water rights. I think those are some concerns that I have run
into. Also, as you know, Australia went big into the desal approach in all the major
cities and much of the California environmental communities are quite opposed to
desal.
 I think desal is a good backstop. I don’t think it’s the number one solution. I think
there are many other options that can be used. I know you’ve got the conservation and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
179

the water use efficiency, but eventually there will be demand hardening in that regard,
I believe. You’ve got the landscape transformation which is slowly grabbing hold. I
truly believe obviously, as evidenced by the dollars at Metropolitan to kick start that,
and the people who jumped on the bandwagon, plus the other local water agencies
that are also contributing to that. I think those two items right there are key. I
recognize that residential use and landscape use are a very small percentage of the
total water use in the state. I think that’s a key. I think the other area is the
commercial industrial institutional sector, their technologies and the way they do
business is changing. Their operations are changing, obviously improving. Then of
course you can tag onto that the recycling aspect of it all. It’s almost a catch-22.
Recycling is good, but as water efficiency grabs hold, and there’s less water going to
the wastewater treatment plants, obviously that’s going to impact the volume of
recycled water available for use out there also. There are multiple benefits when you
look at the whole picture. Storm water is another part of it that needs to come into
play. I’m not sure how much we can actually utilize that, but every drop counts.
 I think top line would be recognition that farmers are using water that is a benefit to
the public, that is, they grow food. We can't think of a higher or better use of water
supplies than to grow food that sustains life. Environmental benefits are important,
and they need to be balanced though with the water that we use to produce food for
people. An interesting note is we've gone through this, and that's been 2007, so that
has been eight years. Until the current year that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has
been in effect, they had what was called the “triple bottom line,” which is the same as
our co-equal goals that were identified in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
180

Australia's triple bottom line was social, economic and environmental values, and as
recently as last week, Friday the 3rd, the New South Wales Irrigators Council issued a
number of motions that they'd passed at their board meeting. One was to give equal
balance to the triple bottom line when the Basin Plan is implementing options on
water use. They're going to use a certain amount of water for environmental purposes,
or they're doing buybacks or whatever their actions are. Apparently there's not
sufficient confidence that they're paying close enough attention to the social and
economic aspects of Australia than they are the environmental aspects. I think we're
facing the same thing today in California with our regulatory structure, where we're
trying to manage salmon through a temperature control plan that was released
yesterday, in finality, by the state board and executive director. In doing that, it
severely diminishes the amount of water that's available for farms, homes and
businesses. We see the economic and the social impacts from this that are out of
balance with the environmental goals.
 The problem is no money is changing hands here, where farmers are just being told,
"You're getting cut back." We're using water for specific purposes to meet
environmental goals that are governed by the Endangered Species Act, and everyone
understands that's the overarching driver for this, but still it doesn't provide balance
for human use the way it should be.
 I think the reason why it occurred there was simply because it was a matter of
emergency, and so when you have an emergency or a crisis you can do things. We are
approaching that crisis, and the worse it gets the more these approaches that they
looked at will be translatable over here. I think the major ones to me are the water
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
181

rights, the water trading, if you will, and the consolidation within the industry.
Australia had this big push on competition, which was a major force. That came over
here in the U.S. 20 years ago and it didn't go anywhere. That really wasn't the same
driving force for us as it was for them. We had a number of buyouts by European
firms buying Atlanta water and Indianapolis, and it ended in disaster. It was different
than Australia.
5. If you could change California’s water or related environmental policies, which
policies would be your top priorities?
The top priorities included CEQA reform, reforming water rights, establishing or
improving California’s water market and governance of water in the state.
 First priority would be around securing environmental flow or setting some minimum
standards. I know that is something they have done in Australia as well, especially if
you are going to layer water trading on top of that. Ensuring that ecosystems have
some minimum flows and then human uses come after that, would be a major change
that I would make. I also think that pricing, even as a pretty hot issue with Proposition
218, used as a tool to promote efficiency, is something that we are not doing as much
as we could or should do, and there are some obvious challenges stemming from
Proposition 218 related to that. I think that those would be important priorities; I also
think of the broader way of saving rather than a specific policy. I think that a lot of
policies are embedded in this but are putting water supply and water demand and
supply management onto a level playing field. If you look at our investments and
management, they are a small fraction of what we spend on supplies, and we do not
think or talk about them in the same way. We obviously made that huge investment,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
182

$350 million, plus the regional people are putting a half a billion number on it. That is
great, but in my mind; those are the extra scale investments that we see all the time,
more in the long term. Even looking at the bonds I think that is another example to
me where efficiency investments were really low relative to a hundred million
dollars, relative to the billions we are spending on some of these other supply options.
 Data collection and transparency. I think we are doing better; obviously the State
Board is posting some of the monthly per capita numbers, to me that is just a
scratching of the surface. I think that it has been really eye-opening for people,
especially the public, and I think that water managers know their system really well,
but may not actually know what is going on in the system next door. When I look at
Australia, I am exceedingly jealous of the data and information that they have
available about penetration rates of different efficiency devices and rain water barrels.
It is just some of that basic data that is really essential for water management, even
quantifying water rights and what people are actually extracting, and ground water
pumping.
 I would start from the state level, modernizing CEQA. What we're finding is that, a
recent study by Holland & Knight just came out last week, analyzing 600 CEQA law
suits. Surprisingly, the top issues litigated were transit, renewable energy, and
housing. Not by the big name "environmental groups," but by local members just not
wanting anything. We can't meet our environmental goals without a modernization of
CEQA, and that clearly includes water. I would like to see the State Water Project
completed. It is way too overdue. At the local level, certainly Orange County has
been a leader in ground water replenishment, “toilet to tap, showers to flowers” or
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
183

whatever you want to call it, but taking waste water and reusing it. That technology is
now promulgated all over the world. They're called on as a global leader.
 People are general frustrated because all the laws we have in place right now, the
regulatory structures we have in place are meant to stop things, not get things done.
I’ve compared the Safe Drinking Water Act. the Clean Water Act and the Endangered
Species Act. They need change and immediate adaptation as the same thing as trying
to fix a Toyota Prius with a 1965 Ford Mustang owner’s manual. It doesn’t mean you
don’t need an instruction guide. Can we adapt it to current situations?
 I would not change the environmental policy.
 I think at some point, we've got to revisit the whole doctrine of first in time, first in
right.
 I think one of the things, and this is throughout the whole state in general, is that we
have to make things more workable. We have to make it simpler to do projects. We
have to make government work better with fewer restrictions, with fewer agencies,
with less permitting, and improve what we have to go through for permits. We have
to put the best people in water, and let them have the freedom, without all of these
restrictions. We have a water master, and we have all these laws, people who own
water rights.
 I would without a wholesale overhaul of the regulatory scheme I would like to create
a provision so that some of the more controversial environmental regulations could be
breached on an experimental basis. This would have to be done under very tight
controls. Just because something is a law doesn't mean that it is absolutely the very
best approach to deal with things. I think we need to have the flexibility to test some
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
184

of the regulations that we have to adhere to and experiment with perhaps other
approaches that would yield the same level of protection but provide greater
flexibility in the system.
 I would like to see organization of the environmental responsibilities with state and
federal government taking on much more of the burden of how to manage that, as
opposed to just regulating and pushing that onto water agencies, but actually taking a
management and ownership role in it, which is what they did in Australia. I think that
would definitely change the dynamics.
 My top priority would be to set standards for reasonable use, both for residential,
commercial and for Ag. I don't know exactly what they would be, but that would be
my number one thing. We're part way there. My number two thing would be,
restructuring governance. Number three would probably be water rights reform. I'd do
all of them.
 Streamlining the CEQA process. CEQA is a valuable tool. The challenge is CEQA is
accustomed not to advance things, but to stop.
 Environmental needs are just as important as Ag and urban. The doctrine of “most
beneficial” needs to be upheld.
 Allow regional agencies to develop and implement actions.
 I think that one of the things that has changed and is worth remembering is the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act that passed in 2014. It is huge and its
impact isn't immediate. The state should think about ways in some areas where there
is a huge amount of groundwater drawn down, and try to accelerate those plans.
Because California has such a swing between wet and dry conditions, groundwater
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
185

recharge really is a great strategy for getting through that with groundwater, and it
just seemed to me that accelerating implementation of some of that is possible. I
know that there was a big deal between the agricultural community and others in the
government, especially those pushing to regulations. A deal was struck with a very
long implementation timeline. I just want to acknowledge that those long timelines
sometimes are going to cut against the very beneficiaries of people who draw from
those groundwater basins, but even so I do want to recognize two things. SGMA is
good, and its implementation timelines in some cases are extraordinarily long, so it
could perhaps be accelerated.
 The concept of smart infrastructure to me is really the place we need to go. I think the
good thing I've seen about the drought is that we've gotten out of the abstract
conversation more and we've gotten down to a real practical “what can we do”
conversation. I have found that to be a real positive aspect of the drought. I think
there are a lot of people who want to make infrastructure discussions an ideological
discussion. They want it to be about growth or no growth, and of course we don't
have the luxury of making those kinds of decisions, because in water we must provide
water for whatever need exists. We have to plan for the future so we don't have the
luxury of an ideological talk. So I guess that's the thing I really like, the idea of a
smart infrastructure, and we're not talking about, for the most part, on-stream
reservoirs that arguably are having devastating effects on the environment. I think
we're looking at things like Diamond Valley Lake and Los Vaqueros, which I think
are leading examples of this real smart infrastructure and obviously a lot of the
groundwater banks and some of the groundwater conjunctive use programs. I also
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
186

think we need to provide more incentives for local and regional entities to develop
those projects.
 We have been looking at the status so far, and what if it stays dry, and how are we're
doing in different areas. The area that we are doing terribly in right now is ecosystem
management and if it stays dry for another couple of few years, we're facing the
prospect of large-scale die-offs of the water birds of the Pacific Flyway and extinction
of 18 of our native fish species including most runs of salmon and a lot of different
trout species and some other fish. It's really all in watersheds around the state and not
just specifically in the Delta. What's clear is that we do not have drought resilience
strategies for the environment and this is really problematic if you consider that
California is a place that has a lot of natural variability in it. Our native ecosystem
and the native species were evolved and adapted to handling droughts, and we've
undermined their resilience through the way we've managed land and water for the
last century or so. That's true for our forests as well, which are now so dense that
they're just tinderboxes in this kind of a drought. So thinking about how do you
rebuild environmental resilience to drought is just a major challenge for us, and I
think there are questions about what you do in the short-term response in terms of just
stopgap measures that can improve things; we have to get better at. That includes
things like sometimes acquiring water, purchasing water for use in strategic places
and not just for regulatory, approach. Then also just really making some investments
in more strategic ways than our current policies allow us to do. There's a sense in
which we need broader ecosystem strategies, and watershed strategies to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
187

environmental management rather than the emergency room approach that the
Endangered Species Act leads you to follow.
 I'm not sure I would take on much of the environmental policies. What we need
environmentally overall, and it's not just for water, is a fierce commitment to high
environmental standards, and an acknowledgement that was at the heart of public
trust, is that no man or woman can destroy what God has created. That's my
oversimplification that we have that obligation and stewardship to preserve the
environment. What I want is common sense in managing our natural resources and
an understanding in law, which is part of why there needs to be a reform of the
California Environmental Quality Act that says the state, i.e., has an obligation and a
responsibility to provide adequate infrastructure, and that embedded in that obligation
is the stewardship of the environment, high standards, and a large, what I would call
mega-infrastructure that has multi-facets of components to the solution, and once
you've gone through upfront infrastructure planning, that there's been an upfront
inclusive process. That has been subject to public input and public scrutiny, that has
been subject to environmental assessment and evaluation, what we call an EIR or EIS
today, then that plan that is the result of it is the presumed preferred environmental
alternative. That the court shall recognize a presumption that any component of it is
the preferred environmental solution, unless there's overwhelming evidence to the
contrary. That is not how CEQA works today. That's not how the NEPA works
today. It is the flip side of the experience that everything gets shut down by lawsuits,
that the intent of CEQA and NEPA are used by those who are not, first and foremost,
pursuing environmental quality. We need the money that gets chewed up in EIRs and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
188

EIR consultants, and lawsuits to actually be dedicated to the environment to restore
the environment.
 An overlay to ESA is that constituted by a state federal agreement on restoration of
the ecosystem that is founded on this concept of the notion of what is the reality of
nature. We have a multi-species ecosystem, and you have to manage today what we
have to act upon tomorrow. And then tomorrow, we'll know more. That's at the heart
of adaptive management that was embedded in actually CALFED. That was sort of a
new tenet in CALFED that gets confused by some people. Some think adaptive
management needs flexibility on standards. No, it doesn't. You actually have to be, I
use the word "fierce." You have to be so clear about where we're going in outcomes
and performance standards for the environment, and also for the system, by the way,
but for the environment, that is what you drive to, and you continue to exhaust the
plan you think represents the best knowledge today. Before you default to underlying
species-by-species regulation, changing the presumptions, CEQA and NEPA, and
having an agreement that requires actually the governor of California, the President of
the United States, because this is so big in terms of an ecosystem and so important,
and the economy of California. The water supply is so important not only to the State
but to the nation, the food production to the nation, to the world. This is a national
security issue, so you have to have the federal government be a true partner in all of
this, that says, "Here's the plan, and we are damn well going to get to these outcomes
or die doing it, and only when we've really truly exhausted it are we going to do
something else."
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
189

Groundwater management and an opportunity to look at water rights, there are no sacred
cows.
 We clearly do need a much better market and sufficient funding to be able to buy
water for the environment, so the environment can compete. I will just throw out a
couple of other issues. I think we need better "Show me the water" provisions. What I
mean by that is when somebody is adding a major new demand to a system, whether
it's a large subdivision or rural areas bringing new land into intensive agricultural
production, there needs to be a formal required evaluation to determine if there is
sufficient water to support that. I think those are two areas that need to be developed,
regardless of whether the drought is soon over or not. Also, a better integration of
environmental flood and water supply policy so that, were we have opportunities in
building flood projects, we are actually restoring flood plain habitat, which may have
the effect of changing our release patterns on some of our reservoirs, but ultimately
hopefully building greater resilience for aquatic eco-systems. I'll add just one other
policy issue that we are engaged in now, and that is to have a water fee system. Some
people would call it a Public Goods Charge. We all collect revenue to pay for some
of these things that I just talked about; some things that don't have a natural funding
source, such as the environment or disadvantaged communities’ drinking water
quality. I think that is really important, instead of depending, as California does, on
periodic water bonds to help fund projects.
 The marketing of water, having more an open market so that it’s not as restrictive.
Again, that ties into the wheeling because you’ve got to move water around from the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
190

North, the South, coastal, inland. There are a lot of areas where there’s water
available, but no real way to move it around.
 It looks to me like all the well-intentioned, environmental actions that have been
taken haven’t saved a single species, haven’t created a single habitat. It’s all been
block, block, block. Stop something from happening. I think the “habitat preservation
because habitat conservation” approach is right. I just don’t think that
environmentally people have gotten their heads around the reality of it. I’m thinking
about Bay-Delta. I mean, the Bay Delta is never going to look like it did 100 years
ago. You’ve got an artificial ecosystem up there, and I don’t think anybody is really
trying or has been successful at getting the parties to look at: where do we create
habitat, what is the new definition of sustainability for various species, and for some
form of an ecosystem in that Delta region. It’s been more reactive than proactive.
 One thing California could do that is done in pretty much all the other states I worked
is look at water rights for fish and wildlife. Most other states, you can actually secure
a water right for the in-stream flow for fishery purposes. You go through the
application and a proceeding in order to do that. You can then, the state, on behalf of
the public, they can go acquire other water rights and transfer them to beef up the
right. The way it's set up here, in order to get those benefits, it's this huge regulatory
battle, this public trust battle, or some other regulatory battle, that just seems to make
it more difficult. I know you can say, "Well, it doesn't cost the state as much money,
because they didn't have to go do a transfer." But I'm not sure, at the end of the day; it
doesn't cost us all collectively a whole lot more.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
191

 I would move the intake of the major projects up in the Delta to make the Delta
ecologically sound. I would increase our ability to move water around through a
water market.
 We need to invest in storage; we need to make sure we keep driving our per capita
demands down. We need to be recycling water a lot more than we have in the past,
and we need to be desalinating, capturing and re-using storm water, cleaning up
contaminated basins. We need to check the box next to all of the above. In terms of
surviving in the near term, I truly believe the two most important things you could do
is make sure your water market's functional and make sure that your transportation
system for water has minimal negatives for the environment.
 Balance coequal goals, between human use and environmental use. That should be, I
think, at the top of what we strive for. In doing that, there needs to be accountability
for environmental water management, and there really isn't any, other than
requirements under the Endangered Species Act, that we meet certain objectives for.
I'm trying to think of an example here, relative to salmon. We can't do certain things.
We can't pump water during certain times of the year in the Delta because of salmon
and Delta smelts. They're on the ESA threatened or endangered list. When we don't
pump that water, it stays in the Bay Delta Region, it flows out to the ocean and the
intention is that it's to help fish, yet there's no accountability that we've counted an
extra salmon or an extra ten Delta smelt. We lost almost 800,000 acre-feet of water
in 2012 that didn't get pumped, to protect salmon and Delta smelt, and the
populations continue to plummet. We think there should be some way to account for
environmental water use efficiency, the way we do for agricultural water use
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
192

efficiency and urban water use efficiency, through the water management planning
process. We're going to devote a certain amount of water, or prevent a certain amount
of water being pumped, to protect smelt. We need to be able to see a result from that
and not just throw up our hands and say, "Well we tried.” Change environmental
regulations. Allow adaptive management and water users to pay for projects, but
ensure that the money contributed goes to pay for effective projects. There are other
factors that impact Delta health in the ecosystem that aren't addressed the way
pumping restrictions are addressed, such as invasive species, predators in the Delta,
water quality, although that's getting some attention now with Sacramento Regional
Water Treatment Plant being identified as needing to reduce ammonia discharges into
the Delta. The loss of habitat in the Delta, where we channelized so much of that
region, simply pushing more water through doesn't create more habitat for smelt to
grow and get strong and live, and for salmon to grow before they make it out to the
ocean. Instead we ram tremendous amounts of water through the delta to try and push
fish out to the sea before they get gobbled up by bass, and they're still getting eaten
by bass, and the ones that make it to the ocean maybe aren't as strong as they would
be if they were growing in a more natural environment in the Delta. A broader, more
holistic approach is a better way to do it.
 A flat out requirement that all water extraction and all water use would be measured
and reported, roughly, in real time. For ground water and for surface water, there is
so much that we really don't understand. We think we do. We publish all these
reports. I'm guilty too. I use all the numbers taken from Department of Water
Resources or GS or whoever and how accurate are those numbers, give or take? 5
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
193

percent? 10 percent? 30 percent? Goodness, we've got a lot of uncertainty on some of
what we think are fairly certain numbers and I think we're going to have to get much
more clear about that in order to manage a resource as important as water in the long
term. Measurement and reporting public information on all this and I know, on all
this, that's a big deal, but if I could wave a wand, I think that would go a long way to
build a better understanding of what we're doing, what we need to do, where we have
some deficits and the rest.
 The number one policy that I think need to be addressed is water rights. I think that is
an issue that is ripe for discussion right now. California has plenty of water. Based on
the water rights, it's just screwy. It's a very challenging one, but that to me is number
one. Number two would be endangered species. I understand the approach, which is
to look at individual species one at a time, but that's not what the real world is. The
real world looks at an ecosystem approach, and in an ecosystem, some species win
out, some species lose. It's more the stability of the environment. Very hard to do.
The default: it's very easy to pick an individual species and go, "We're going to
protect that, and no matter if we know the answer on what's decline or not, we're just
going to regulate species by species." That, to me, is an outdated method.
 It would be good to have both a decent energy policy as well as a water policy.
What's going to happen, the old Ben Franklin saying that, “The value of water is not
known until the world runs dry,” and the well is running dry so you are going to get
policy changes. The key is not to make them too quick a knee-jerk reaction because
then, you get too many unintended consequences. Those are rampant for water
management, both in terms of water quality issues, and both that and quantity relative
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
194

to if you do this, people will react. To the best possible extent, you want to try to
avoid those unintended consequences.
 Water allocations need to be addressed, especially during a drought. Quick decisions
are made based on rhetoric and outdated science. There needs to be peer-reviewed
science to address actual needs.
 There are a number of things. I would say structurally how we're organized. I
wouldn't want to get rid of the environmental laws. We can make them a little more
flexible, a little more holistic, not so species-specific, but I think that's already
happening in some ways. To have that conservation plan. Structurally the governance
and water rights. If we could operate more regionally and more cooperatively. We
have what, 1,500 new water districts in the state that all have political bodies and
their boundaries are not necessarily related to anything that always makes sense. I
see Met as an entity that allows us to think more regionally. I like to say a water
project like Diamond Valley Lake. If you ever have larger providers that lead to some
regionalism, but yeah, that type of water, I hate to use the word, "consolidate," but if
we could figure out how to consolidate more. Also, to get a better handle on water
rights because the old rules to water rights, I get it. A lot of what we have is evolved
in that, has grown up around it. It's very difficult to unwind but it's convoluted and it's
not necessarily one that always leads to the best policy for a region. The current
system leads to a lot of haves and have-nots, and it doesn't make a lot of sense just
because you got there first. Also from a planning standpoint, I mean the lack of
coordination between local governments as to who's approving what developments
and the fact that we all have our own different water supplies and rationale for
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
195

justifying how they're going to issue a Will Serve letter makes it complicated, more
complicated and less coordinated. It could be probably a major undertaking.
Whether they're going to charge more for replacement water, or whatever is being
done at each individual level. I know a lot of communities that are right in that zone
and they all work on their own supplies. Very smartly working on backup supplies
and this and that, but the land use decisions in accordance with water, the Will Serve
letters are good, the water supply assessments are good, but at what point. It seems
like more coordination on that and more of a county-wide plan would be better. The
short answer is probably somewhere in regional coordination. I think SGMA is going
to do that, by the way, in ways that are beyond just the Groundwater Sustainability
Act. It's going to require people to work together and I think the impacts of it are
going to go beyond just groundwater. I think that's going to hopefully lead to better
interaction between the agencies.

6. It is likely that with any change there could be winners and losers. How would you
address those stakeholders that may lose something for the greater good of the
state?
There was a mix of opinions. Some felt there does not have to be losers, others thought
losers could be compensated, and some were concerned about disadvantaged
communities.

 This cannot be a top-down approach, we really need to bring people into the sense to
try to come up with something that meets needs, or at least that people who would be
impacted would be involved in that process. I have thought a little bit about this on
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
196

other issues, but sometimes I looked at the Netherlands, for example, when they had
to make some really tough decisions about flood and flood control and flood
management. They obviously have a lot of area below sea level and the sea-rise, etc.,
is going to get worse and they had to make some really tough decisions about moving
landslides, taking lands out of production. But, the important part was that they
brought people into that decision-making process, and I think they have come to a
better outcome. In addition, I think that there is going to be a need to compensate
people, people who may be losing their water rights. I know, for example, that this
was one of the things that Australia did as part of this water market. They invested
huge amounts of money, too; I think it was $3 million, to buy water and dedicate it to
environmental flows. Those are the types of strategies we need to be thinking about,
because there will undoubtedly be winners and losers and frankly there are right now.
I think it is having an open transparent decision-making process and then
compensating, being fair in compensation, depending on what the outcome of that is.
 It's interesting you would say "losers." I would say, “Is there a way that we could
make the system fairer? Should there be automatic water transfers?”
No. I think folks need to compete effectively, and be able to put together a good case.
The fairness of the system seems to be lost. There are folks that have historical water
rights, I think, that they were here first, so they get to draw first. At the same time,
you should be able to guess what they need and want. It shouldn't be unlimited.
Maybe there is a better system certainly based on past history, here we know what
farmer X needs from his past five years, ten years of work. We should be able to
predict now, "I know your water rights are 100, but you've only used 20 for 10 years.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
197

Maybe for the next 10, could you commit to just 20, and free up the other 80 for
somebody else,” as an example.
 The governance issue, you obviously are going to have, I mean people might say
there's less local control at some point. You're going to have a lot of people who
would not necessarily be elected to a board. The critical challenges of that may make
it impossible. No one wants to see themselves go away on something they spent a lot
of time and money invested in to become a part of. On the environmental side, that's
a balance. If you could figure out how to make ESA a friendlier version,
hypothetically there would be no winners or losers, they'd both be winners but I don't
know enough about that to be honest to know. Obviously the environmentalists would
feel like they're losing if some of the regulation was removed and replaced with
something else.
 It's all really about compensation. Understand that rearranging things like water rights
is going to be a very expensive proposition. The losers need to be compensated. What
really scares me is if the losers are the poor. You've got to have lifeline programs for
them. If the cost of water really starts to go up in subsidies. You can live without food
for what, a week or two? Water, what is it, three days? You have to protect the
vulnerable and those that really can't compete if you go fully to market the solutions
like increasing the price of water. You've got to have subsidies for the poor.
 I think you want to try and craft an approach that minimizes the losses acknowledging
that there will be losses. Keep them at a manageable level and every situation is going
to dictate a little different approach.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
198

 There are always winners and losers, but if the end result makes people’s lives better,
then proceed, because that's what government is all about, making people's lives
better, and making sure they're protected. And then the losers, I'd have them move
away. The winners will be the public; they'll be able to have a sound reliability and
quality of water. The losers will be those corporate entities that are used to making
lots of money off other entities and people.
 The only way really to address them is to get them engaged in the discussions and at
the end of the day; they may have less benefits than others. Now the only way to
address that is to help them to identify options available to them. There is usually
some other option or solution to the problem, and they just help, in terms of
identifying that. Some of the issues may likely be political. When you talk about
political losers, you may have the elected officials in those various areas that may be
losing per se 1914 water rights. Well, those folks need to have their political cover to
help be able to address that, if they vote in a particular way. I'm thinking somebody
like San Francisco, right? They have pre-1914 water rights and if San Francisco was
having a concern over losing those rights, which they do, and understandably so, their
electeds are going to need to have some kind of cover on why they made the decision
to vote for it or they may never vote for it. You've got to understand what they're
losing and help them through that. Don't just abandon them but help them through
with additional solutions or some kind of political immediate cover.
 You know, that depends on what losing means. I do not think that people are entitled
to water that goes beyond what they need for reasonable use. I do not believe in
compensating people for that. One of the big things that Australia did was, pay people
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
199

for water rights. If we could do that in a way that actually was meaningful, then
maybe I would support that. Given our system, until we reform the water rights
system, I don't think we could meaningfully do that. I'd just say, the way our system
works, under the State Constitution, nobody has the right to use water unreasonably.
I guess I'd say, "Everybody, if you're using water unreasonably, you'd get nothing.
We're not going to make you whole, at least what you might perceive as, to be
whole." I'm different maybe, than people, that way. I do believe in the market: if you
get everybody down to, what's a reasonable use, then you protect the environment,
and I think you could, and probably should, use a market mechanism to allow for
water to be moved. I guess the thing that worries me is that in California, we've been
using millions of acre feet of water unsustainably. People may believe that they have
a right to some of that. I don't think they do, and I don't think there's enough money to
pay for it. In the end you just have to say, "It's not your water, it's not a sustainable
use. You can't do it, sorry."
 I think everything that we do is trying to avoid that dynamic, right? Water transfers
being one example where you create a flexible dynamic where you don't really end up
with a loser. You kind of end up with a win-win on both sides of that and we've been
able to do a lot of that. We've figured out ways to provide water for fish, birds and
farms in our world. I don't know, I guess obviously, to me the creativity of water
management is really trying to avoid creating losers. The problem with creating
losers in this dynamic is the legislature can do what it wants, and at the end of the
day, they can create winners and losers.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
200

 The problem with creating losers in this dynamic is the legislature can do what it
wants and at the end of the day and they can create winners and losers. To me it's not,
let me just use Owens Valley as an example, I hate to use that because I don't even
like talking about it per se, to me the Owens Valley thing it was not the immediate
impact to the Owens Valley that created the problems. It was the long term effect that
has become a rallying cry for people, "Don't create another Owens Valley!" and I
don't know if L.A. even thought about that in the day. Obviously I wasn't around, but
to me it wasn't that they created a loser right away, because you can do that. It's the
long-term effect of that which never works very well to me. You end up creating
more problems in creating losers than you do in the short term. Long-term impact is
bigger than short-term impact, I guess is my point. That it doesn't matter who the
loser is. If the environmental community starts losing a couple of battles, they're
going to go out and fundraise and have something to rally around, so they'll come
back and ten years later they'll lose something nobody anticipated. That's why I think
we have to avoid that, in my view.
 The stakeholders who have lost something are mostly, in our view, farmers who have
had to fallow as much as half a million acres of farm land around the state. How do
you reconcile their water losses for a benefit? I realize some of their losses are
drought-related, but even in wet years we're not delivering all the water today that
they used to. That is a tough question. Do you try and retire land and buy farmers
out? Is it fair to starve them out? Are there ways that their investment can be
recouped in some way when we've made policy changes that affect our water supply?
I think our industry mostly focuses more on the supply side and how can we make
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
201

better use of the water that we have in the system, and the water is there that we can
capture perhaps with new storage to provide some drought relief. I think what we
need to do, is find ways to build on our water supply to meet our needs. Rather than
plodding ahead in the same scenario that we've lived in for the last ... well, when was
the State Water Project finished? Then there was the Central Valley Project, and the
last CVP piece went in place in the mid-70s. Other than local investments and water
use efficiency and some storage, and Metropolitan being the shining example of
investing in storage that has paid off through part of this drought, and the governor
and the people of the state then voted and said that we need to have more storage. I
think that's the next step, rather than throwing our hands up and saying we have to
continue to cut, cut, cut or change our system of water rights because we're in the
fourth year of a drought and it's affecting everybody, so we have to pick winners and
losers.
 Everyone must contribute. There is a need to reassess water needs. Ag needs to be as
efficient as possible. Water markets are an important component of the change.
 Urban water users dictate what they need and Ag and the environment lose. During
the current drought, Ag has lost. Farmers on the west side of the Central Valley are
farming less, and it is economically unsustainable due to the public opinion of one
species of fish.
 The state is making decisions without due consideration of economic values.
 Policies are driven by impressions and not facts.
 People always talk about the winners and losers issue. Everyone gets compensated. It
is not as if someone is put out of business and not paid for it. On the other hand, they
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
202

clearly are not in the same position they were before and many of these people would
just as soon not have dollar compensation. They want to keep living their same
lifestyle, but that simply is not doable. The world changes and changes have to be
made with it. Think of it like America went out of making steel 50 years ago, and a
lot of people were hurt and harmed by that and a lot of cities and industries were hurt
and harmed by that. What you try and do hopefully is manage smart, cushion the
blow, have job training, but the reality is you can't stop global economics and part of
that is our water system has to have change. We probably shouldn't be growing the
same crops we are today. Somewhere between 10 and 20% of the farmland will likely
have to be retired because of SGMA, the Groundwater Management Act. Much of the
Delta isn't sustainable the way it's being managed and . . . I don't know if those people
are necessarily losers. They'll still own their land. They'll still be compensated, but
they can't continue to do their same practices.
 I don't know. That is the key question I think. Usually money is the right answer but
you have to have it in order to be able to use it. That's where I'm jealous of the
Australians having a Federal government that actually put in billions of dollars to be
able to make that change. It also helped that they were so inefficient because they
could yield so much water that that also helped because you were making a change
that people could argue about in philosophical terms about even getting water to the
fish, just as we have, but there was an awful lot of money put in to ease and smooth
the transition. I don't know where that would come from, maybe if the economy
continues to grow, but I think it would be hard. In our system we don't have billions
sitting in the bank to use. We've been struggling with how to be responsible with our
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
203

funding and stuff. The Governor pushed for the bond, then we had a bond but he did
it at a prudent level based on the fact that we're just coming out of the recovery. He
also did the Rainy Day Fund because he doesn't want to be just throwing money at
things. If you have a Federal government the way it was in the '70s, that could add
billions of dollars to help make the transition to the Clean Water Act, for example,
where they gave grants for all these major sewage treatment upgrades, that would be
ideal because then you're helping people make a transition without forcing them into
bankruptcy or taking away the farm that their grandfather or great-grandfather or
grandmother had founded. I can't imagine finding any way to make that big of a
transition without being able to add large amounts of money. Even if you did, I think
people would object because folks like to continue doing what they've been doing and
certainly carrying on the tradition of their forbearers. Nothing would be easy, but I
would like a big pot of money. That would make a lot of these things easier. We
might be able to buy a lot more water for fish versus having to regulate most of it.
 I’m a big opponent to the notion that there should be winners and losers. At least you
have to redefine your win, and world of survival and adaptation and change, you have
to redefine what you would constitute as a win, but the notion that unless you
abandon that concept, then there has to be a loser at the expense of somebody having
to pay the price for somebody else who survives. You won’t make progress, because
the loser instantly starts looking at ways to manipulate the system, attack the system,
and work against whatever solution comes out in order not to be a loser anymore.
 First of all, it sort of goes with that. If somebody has a legitimate right, then they need
to be compensated for it. I think that helps a lot. It's trying to forcibly take away
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
204

something that folks have without compensation, obviously that sets up an issue.
Now, what we have—the one thing that is a problem here, I think—there are lots of
things. But one of them is, when you get into this whole water rights area, and what
people may not understand, is that for most of the state, the water rights are
unadjudicated. You don't actually know what actual right somebody has. You know
what they say they have or they may claim. That's problematic, because then it's like
you get into this, "Well, no. You really don't have that." I know people here where it
seems like “adjudication” is a nasty word. Nobody wants to do it. But it brings order
to the system, so that you then know what rights are legitimate. Then if, particularly,
if you're more of a junior user in the system or you need water for some purpose, you
know who to go to. You know who you can go make a deal with, and you know that
if you do, you can go through the transfer system, and whatever, and it will actually
work for you. It helps bring a little more order, I guess, to this winners and losers
idea, which I don't like. It really gets it a little more into a business aspect, at least as
it comes to moving water around the state, and somebody has it, and somebody else
needs it. There's a mechanism to be able to do that, as opposed to some of what we
deal with now.
 I don't know because I would say that probably you're probably going to gouge
agriculture a little bit. City's domestic use is such a small percentage of water use,
within 12%. I guess there are businesses and car washes and things like that that use
water, and bottled water companies, and who knows what? I don't know. That's a
good question. You'd have to work out a policy that somehow those groups or
industries that are getting damaged would have to have some time to react, and they
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
205

probably would need some incentive or assistance, whether it's some sort of tax
breaks or whatever to get them through. In certain industries if you cut too much,
you're not going to have that industry here and you have to look at the whole health of
the state because people move other places. This is what's happening. I think you're
seeing that in California now with the tax changes. We see it in Colorado with
companies moving to Nevada and Arizona and Colorado and with that goes some
jobs. It's not a state issue at that point then it becomes more national policy because
people can just move around and then it becomes international because they say, "I'll
just manufacture somewhere else”.
 It would be good to have both a decent energy policy as well as a water policy.
What's going to happen, the old Ben Franklin saying that, “The value of water is not
known until the well runs dry,” and the well is running dry so you are going to get
policy changes. The key is not to make them too quick knee-jerk reaction because
then, you get too many unintended consequences. Those are rampant in terms of
water management both in terms of water quality issues and both that and quantity
relative to if you do this, people will react. To the best possible, you want to try to
avoid those unintended consequences. Even the Central Valley and the Ag folks.
Right now, with SGMA, they are the sector obviously is having a real hard time. I
just truly believe that had the state not taking action, things would have gotten a lot
worse in the next few years. There would have been no controls coming on. I just
think there will be all winners and no losers.
 I think there are a lot of myths and presumptions out there about who's harmed fairly
or unfairly. Clearly people who have been taking water that isn't theirs or taking
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
206

water that is not sustainable, but getting away with it or getting subsidies that may or
may not be justified in the system. There are some that may characterize themselves,
in a way, as losers in the system.
 There is no right and no wrong answer on this. I'm not sure that there are going to be
any winners. I think it's all going to be losers. I think everyone to some degree is
going to be losing something. For example, agriculture will probably continue to lose
out, and so you're going to have job losses. A way to address that is going to be
subsidizing those communities for lost jobs. “Ecosystems might impact some of these
water transfers, so you're going to have to mitigate,” would be a way to address some
of the adverse impacts. The urban environment is going to pay for a lot more water,
and the reason is because the enviros don't have any money that they have a say-so,
and somebody's going to have to pay for it. I just see that everyone's going to get
something, but I think there's potentially going to be a lot of losers in here and it's not
clear who's going to be the biggest loser yet. It's not clear yet because we don't know
which way the winds are going to blow. For example, the drought situation in a
farming area is a disaster. The question is, when there's a hurricane or a tornado,
FEMA comes in and declares it a national disaster, and so there's FEMA funds which
are provided. A drought of this magnitude could be considered a national disaster
which would authorize federal funds to come in and address the disaster. I think of
the things that needs to be looked at is the ability to declare these types of events.
Severe droughts are a natural disaster. That will go a long ways in helping out some
of these losses, whether it's farming community, whether they’re in an urban
environment, or whether it's the environmental groups.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
207

7. Do all constituencies in California have a voice in water policy? If not, how can
those who currently do not have a voice be given one?
There was general consensus that everyone in California has a voice. Some are louder
than others and some are more engaged than others, but there is an opportunity for
everyone to be heard. The challenge may be that the issues and policies are very
complex and lead to extensive documents, as in the case of the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan, more than 37,000 pages, which is more than anyone can realistically review.
 I would not say that they have an equal voice; I think that voices are there, just not
equal. Clearly those with more money who are benefiting from a system tend to be
able to be heard more. They have more resources, they have lobbyists, they can
participate, they have access that other people do not. So, there are many voices out
there but everyone does not have an equal voice. We tend to hear from those who
have more money, and therefore more power, at the expense of others.
How can others have a voice?
 Gosh, this gets into really big political issues as well. Well, I think this is where
conversations need to be open and transparent, there are decisions and discussions
that happen behind closed doors, and openness and transparency can help remove
some of that. In addition, there can be, for example, I know there is support in things
like integration and some of the higher priorities, and to help in particular
disadvantaged communities in coming to the table. There may have to be some
support for these entities to participate meaningfully in prophecies, and then I think
there needs to be outreach if people are not able to participate, and there needs to be
outreach to those individuals or those groups specifically. I think agriculture is a
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
208

probably a good example of that, there are some that are clearly well resourced, but
there are a lot of farmers that are not, and farm workers frankly. They are often not
part of the process. It does tend to make things a bit slower but perhaps not in the
long term, because there are lawsuits and those types of things. Those are pieces of it,
I am not sure if that is the complete strategy but those are my thoughts at least right
now.
 I will say that California is just sort of a mish-mash of ... We're turning into a Greek
democracy of one man one vote, which is everyone works as philosophical, but we're
actually set up as a republic with representatives, and on top of that, a legislature that
devolves so much of its own authority to boards and commissions that have no
accountability. Therefore, it makes it tough to hold anyone accountable for making
that decision. You have to give Governor Brown some credit here for driving through
an environmental impact report on a Delta plan. At least, he is not afraid to make a
decision and say, "We're moving on this."
 Let's put it this way. I'm actually heartened that the stakeholders have increased the
last 10 to 15 years, including the environment. I'm not a rabid environmentalist, but I
do think that they need a place at the table. We didn't have that 15-20 years ago. Or
even a little. I'm trying to think who would be underrepresented at the table. Part of
the difficulty of getting things like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is that there are
so many stakeholders at the table, some of them with different points of view. That
makes coalition building a little bit harder. So many parties involved. Let's put it this
way, relative to 20 years ago, I think that it's a better representation of stakeholders,
of those affected by water decision and policy decisions.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
209

 Yes, you have been at our meetings. I grew up in water policy at the local level and
it's even more so at the local level than at the state.
 I think all constituencies have access to a voice in water policy. Whether they
exercise that or not, or whether that is effective, is a separate question. One of the
issues is a lot of people haven't paid attention to water policy until just this recent
drought. Prior to that everybody had access, they still do, it's just not on their radar.
 No, they have as much a voice as anybody does, in State Government. My experience
is, only the truly engaged and sophisticated people have a voice. Usually it takes
money, to be engaged and sophisticated. You can pretend that "Oh, we're going to
have people stand up for you." In the end I think, to some extent, people have to be
responsible themselves, for trying to have a voice. What do you do, in a state that has
almost 40 million people? How does everybody have a voice, in a state of 40 million
people? They don't.
 No, but those who lose water are finding their voices. The urban sector has the power
to make sure their voices are heard.
 I think so. Yes, that's a hard one. There is no question in my mind that, let's just use
the disadvantaged community dynamic because that's obviously one that's kind of
front and center in all our debates right now. I think we've done some things over the
years that didn't help disadvantaged communities but now they have a pretty strong
voice in this dynamic and an important voice, in my view, and one we need to take
seriously. If we don't address drinking water needs for people, why are we doing what
we're doing? I can't think of anybody. The tribal folks we kind of have a weird tribal
arrangement in California, just by the nature of the way we have these rancherias and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
210

all that. I don't know that world very well but I know they show up in meetings and
the tribal representative, I'll be honest I don't know what they're looking for, I don't
know what they want because we don't really cross paths in the stuff we do, so I don't
know if they feel they're well-represented or not. I think the major water users seem
to be well-represented.
 I actually think everybody theoretically has a voice. I think disadvantaged
communities have a greater voice in this administration than they've ever had,
primarily over the safe drinking water. We have done an amazing amount in the last
few years because of their advocacy and because of this administration's receptivity
to them as well as the legislature. There's been a sea of change on that. You have the
Human Right to Water Bill that passed a few years ago. You have the drinking water
program moved to the State Water Resources Control Board. You've got hundreds of
millions of dollars of disadvantaged communities in the recent bond. They were key
supporters of that bond. That's all very, very different.
 No. One of the things is that some of them don't have a voice. This is the most
complex issue; I've been in water of 24 years and I don't understand it at all. It's the
most complex issue in the world. When we did a video, when I first got on the Board,
the video begins with an introduction to the District and what we do. It begins by
saying the question; we went around asking people, "Where does water come from?"
They said heaven, from the pipes. People have no idea what water districts goes
through, what regulations it has, the cleaning process of water. We are not given any
more water when it rains. There's only so much water the world has. It perpetuates
itself: it evaporates, it comes back, but we're not ever going to have any new water
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
211

sources. Stakeholders don't have a say in it because they don't understand it; the
general public doesn't understand water. Some say, "Let’s just de-salt the ocean."
Well, it's energy-intensive, it's a complicated issue, there's legal ramifications
involved. I think we have to do a better job educating them about water. But why
should we educate them about water, why do they need to know where water comes
from? They're so bombarded with so much information that those in the know have to
do it for them. We also, to be honest, in the years I've been in water, get very
discouraged when we see candidates for public office who have absolutely no idea.
One of the major issues in my area is water, water contamination, water quality, and
water quantity. You have candidates running who don't know anything, and then we
have to train them. One of the problems is with term limits. I think we're doing
more. On the local level there is more training available, and more forums and
seminars for elected officials that are being held by local entities.
 I think if there were people who were less involved though in water supply issues, it
would be disadvantaged communities and tribes just because they don't have the
wherewithal to engage. On the water supply side it tends to be a fairly specific body
of people in the environmental, agricultural and urban worlds but they are obviously
in different positions. I think the Delta guys have a voice. The Delta Council certainly
gave them a place where they could be heard. They come and they are heard. I think
they're dismissed sometimes by other senior water rights holders. There were many
divides. They're coming up, of course, in this time of shortage.
 Yes, yes, absolutely. They have a right to have a voice. They, most Californians know
there's a problem. Most Californians support poll after poll after poll, "Yeah, duh, we
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
212

have to have conservation, we have to have facilities. Yeah, we want to get water
when it's surplus, don't screw up the environment and make sure my tap turns on, and
make sure we have food." That is what Californians say over and over and over again.
They agree with this common-sense approach, and they expect their elected officials
to solve it for them. "Don't make me have to do it at the ballot box." That's what also
ticks them off. Therefore, it comes right back to leadership understanding you have
to have the multi-faceted integrated solution, not a Christmas tree, not negotiating that
everybody gets a little piece of it. No, no, no, a solution that is integrated that meets
the outcomes, the goals, the performance standards, the environmental standards that
we're talking about, and what was such a marvelous breakthrough in law in the Bay
Delta and the establishment of co-equal goals.
 Probably not 100%, but a whole lot of them do. I think we make water policy in a
pretty transparent way in California. I'm sure you can find critics of that in the
environmental community or the EJ community that don't agree with that, but
certainly in my perception as a representative of 430 public agencies, all of them
operate under the Brown Act, and all of them have open meetings. I long ago stopped
believing in secret meetings or small meetings. In my world, I function in meetings
that are known to pretty much everybody and I don't try to restrict participation.
You’ve just got to slug through that process and make it work.
 Yes, it's totally changed because it used to be, “I'm the engineer. I'm the expert, and
here's what's good for you.” Now, look at Santa Cruz, it's just going through this
entire process of what is our water supply going to look like. We don't want desal.
They have all these different groups involved and trying to make a decision for the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
213

city of what is the best supply, the most environmentally sound supply, and they're
jumping through hoops trying to get everybody involved in that decision.
 No, absolutely not. Especially disadvantaged communities or another term would be
underrepresented communities. Except when you are in a drought or in a flood, the
voices in water policy are really limited to a handful of environmental organizations,
water agencies basically. It is kind of a baseball complicated topic and the only time
you get broader engagement, from business laborer and general thought leaders, is
when you have a crisis. Otherwise, it really is left to the technocrats, both on the
environmental and water agency side.
 All constituencies, I mean the people who are interested in it and want to I think
generally do. I think the Human Rights Water is an interesting one, the whole
environmental justice movement, I think that's been improving in the last couple of
years. There's much more cognizance or recognition of the plight of kind of rural and
more poor communities that aren't necessarily served by retail service and not many
mutual water companies or whatever, wells. I think that part has improved recently. I
think they definitely have a much stronger voice in Sacramento than they ever did in
the past. The environmentalists are very well represented. There is a kind of shift of
water culture. The Board is kind of pushing. I think it's generally a good thing and I
think there's definitely an emphasis on trying to change the water ethic in the State.
Some people might perceive that as losing, because maybe they've been saving water
in the past and now they have to cut back 16 more percent or 20 more or 30 more. Or
maybe they have gone out and got water storage in Central Valley so they don't really
need to be saving. I think those people might perceive themselves as losers as we
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
214

move a little bit more collectively. I think the State board is saying, "Look, we're all
in this together so we're all going to be in pain together,” and it is going to affect
overall the water ethic which I think is really interesting. I'm not sure how it's all
going to play out.
 We have a lot of different groups that are involved or impacted by water. For
instance, in San Diego County we have an extremely engaged business community,
agricultural community, and our public who are actively engaged in our water plans.
A lot of that has to do with developing a long-term plan for water reliability and then
asking them to fund what was necessary to achieve it. Engagement was critical from a
statewide standpoint .It seems to me that you have the academic community, who are
very engaged. There's a lot of input from the universities regarding water right now.
In addition, I think that some practical research is going on as well. I think the
environmental groups are very engaged and also politically well-connected. I believe
their voices are heard. What I'd say about the environmental groups is, just from my
perspective, it seems sometimes segments of that group bring competing agendas to
the table. That's always a challenge. What I don't hear much of on a statewide basis is
the general public involvement. Usually it is involvement by those that are interested
as opposed to that outreach to get the general public engagement. What's important to
them when it comes to water policy, I think doing the water bond that was a really
good period of time where there was a lot of outreach and dialogue about the bond.
This engagement seems to come only on specific issues.
 I believe all constituencies have the opportunity to have a voice in water policy. Any
voice could be heard whether or not they choose to be active and allows their voice to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
215

be heard. It remains questionable. I think there are all the water districts and the
different state-led organizations and social media and newspapers and everything
else. There’s no reason anyone’s voice cannot be heard with all of this. Actually, I
think it brought more voices out from those that we’d never even heard from before.
It’s a good thing.
 No. I don't ever think we can get to a perfect world, but I think we're doing a lot
better than we were a couple of decades ago. I think we've made real progress at all
levels and what used to be characterized as the good old boys in the back room
making deals has gone to a lot more public information, commission, discussion,
stakeholder engagement risk. I think we deserve, broadly, that the public policy
process deserves some credit for substantial improvement, but I think we've got a
long way to go.
 My perspective, having been up in Sacramento: I think everyone has had a voice
input into water policy. When it comes down to, who's paying for it? Who's got
the money? From my perspective, I see everyone at the table in the meetings I
was at. I used to be, years ago, in the original Bay Delta Oversight Committee and
Bay Delta Advisory Committee. Everyone has a voice.
8. How should water projects (infrastructure, demand-side management, technology)
be funded in the future?
There is general agreement that bonds will continue to play a role, but most of the costs
will continue to be incurred by rate payers through water rates. The “beneficiary pays”
concept was supported by most, and the idea of a public goods charge was discussed by a
few.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
216

 I think we are not going to get away from much of the funding, primarily as it is
going to come through rates. It is from the users and the beneficiaries paying for those
projects. As I mentioned, there needs to be some rate reform, so I do not think we are
going to get away from that being the primary way. I actually think that that is a good
thing, I think you need to make allowances for people that cannot afford water and we
need to do a much better job of that. Obviously, Proposition 218 puts somewhat of a
constraint on that, but I feel like in many ways subsidies have been part of the
problem. We have subsidized a lot of our major infrastructure in the state, not all of it
but some of it, and so that has artificially kept prices low which leads to waste and
inefficiency. I think shifting towards more of the users paying for those projects is
good, but I do not think that needs to be the only way, I think something like a public
good charge or something of that nature could provide some benefits. I would
probably get funds from that, I would probably get a case to ecosystem protection and
restoration, which tends to provide larger social benefit, things like low income
programs, I think that publicly funded programs would pay for that research as well. I
think that state level bonds, obviously we had a large one recently, not to say that we
should not have ever have a bond. But, I think that we need to be relying on them
less, especially for things where there are direct beneficiaries. Those would be my
key things, probably in that order as well.
 Clearly, there has to be a component of “user pays” in this, so that folks understand
what they're getting. I would say though first, very, very, very important, you cannot
talk about funding new projects without inexplicably linking that to reforms, because
your public won't go there. They already see waste, and they don't understand why
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
217

the water is flowing down Santa Ana River, in the L.A. River into the ocean, and yet
we are in a drought. We are paying more money.
 There has got to be some real reforms in the system and an understanding of why we
can't do the things we can do, and how to make it better. You demonstrate that. An
example in Orange County in transportation funding is a good one. It took Orange
County three or four times to approve the first Measure M Sales Tax Measure on the
ballot. Voters just said, "We don't believe it," but we kept saying we're going to get
some improvements. After it was done 20 years later, we went back to the voters for
Measure M2, with 70% approval, because we could demonstrate that promises made
were promises kept. Those are words government doesn't say very often, but I would
use that as a theme in water management as well. Promises made, promises kept. We
can demonstrate to you voters how we've been efficient and effective, and developed
these projects to benefit you, and ultimately the environment, the economy, and in
equity for fairness.
 They are public goods. Look, you see these issues played out constantly. The question
is, is it just the direct beneficiaries? But then you have something like MWD or
maybe some of the member agencies who didn't benefit immediately as much as
others from Diamond Valley. In that sense, it is because it's a cooperative. It's more
than just one—it's all of them. Now, this question that feeds into that whole issue of
merging water districts and water agencies. You achieve real economies of scale with
public works projects. It's hard to sort of separate this question from the whole
question of the institutional structure for capital project funding. To me, MWD is the
great success story of a regional cooperative approach. I think I'd like to see other
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
218

areas of California adopt the MWD approach. Basically, that's a two-tiered approach.
You may have a number of agencies, but you're all part of a larger cooperative.
 I think the very best way is to provide incentives. There are responsible agencies at
the local level throughout California. If they are given goals and provided some
assistance financially, it's likely to happen. The best example I can think of in
California is solar energy. There was a 2.85% public goods charge that was applied to
everybody's electrical bill. Those agencies who were local providers were able to
keep that money and reinvest it locally in support of demonstration projects and
furthering solar energy. On top of that, the state provided investment tax credit, the
federal government provided an investment tax credit, and part of that 2.85% public
goods charge at the local level was used to provide offsets. So essentially five years
ago you could install a solar system in your house and only have to contribute about
one-third of the total cost after the tax incentives were applied and that put it into a
five-year payback. That's compelling and a lot of people would do that and a lot of
people have. In fact, a lot of the incentives are starting to dissipate because it was so
successful. There's not the sense of urgency to expand the solar footprint as there was
five years ago.
 Ideally this would happen through revenue bonds or pay-as-you-go that is related to
water charges. Every time we do a general obligation bond, which I have been part of
and supported in the past, you are effectively subsidizing water and keeping the price
artificially low, or artificially lower. I think we need to rely more on rates and the
public goods charge, and those types of funding sources. The other issue that is a little
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
219

more complicated, to try and bring in private sector investment, which has a better
water market, might be effective in doing.
 You can't just tax the public. We're going to have to use the funding mechanisms we
have now. Part of it is contributions by the federal government. We couldn't clean up
the contaminated aquifers if we didn't have federal funds. We have our two
congressmen and two senators who have pushed for federal funds; and that is
essential. I think we're going to get more creative with going after grants. Federal
grants, state grants. Our district's been kind of successful in that area. We also have
the opportunity to have standby charges, and that's very important.
 This is through the water rate structure, for infrastructure and for demand side
management. Technology is a little different perspective, that is new and innovative
technology that a large group, the state, other agencies within the state can benefit
from, that's something which could be funded through the state because that's a
technology that could apply everywhere, where the local agencies are funding their
individual needs. Part of the reason why, I think, that innovation hasn't taken place
is: (a) there hasn't been a need, for the drought has drawn attention to that, and (b)
there hasn't been the funding. I think a first and very quick step that helps with
technology, for example, was that the Governor's office facilitated a technology
forum about three weeks ago, and it was very successful. They showcased a wide
range with private industry and developers, a wide range of technology including
advanced meter reading, AMI some people call it, but those things have been around
a long time. They continue to advance in step with technology that gets better as time
goes forward. I think that just having everybody get together is beneficial, and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
220

vendors love those opportunities and don't get enough of them. If those had to
become more routine like at least annually across the state, with a lot of push into
how we show advantages and show examples, case studies so that all water agencies
across the state can see that and get involved, I think that that helps.
 We have grant funding for innovative conservation measures that we just put in our
special tax in 2012 and that has been going pretty good, and we've got the projects
going but we haven't really realized the results yet. In Silicon Valley there's a lot of
talk about being innovative as the county has that reputation, but we want to tap into
that, which is good, but state funding would be helpful along those lines. The only
other measure is when you talk about large infrastructures that benefit multiple
parties: those are some things that could relieve the burden on the individual water
agencies so you are spreading the cost among them. Hopefully, that would be the
CVP, but those projects where you can distribute the large costs amongst the entire
state that would benefit the state. Those are also ones that should be statewide.
 People fundamentally ought to have to pay for the water that they use, or for the
infrastructure that's necessary to deliver the water. Even though I've been a big
proponent of bonds, general obligations bonds, and property tax, in the long run I
believe that users ought to pay. Primarily through rates. It can be things like standby
charges, which I included in rates. Could even be property tax, as long as it is
property tax, and people know about it, and are dedicated to it. Then, there could be
taxes. There could be taxes on water that would help fund the regulatory oversight,
and the public ... I think there's a public responsibility. I don't know what you would
call it. In power, they used to have a public goods charge. In water, I don't know that
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
221

it would be a water goods or a public goods charge, but it would be some way of
compensating. I think there needs to be some way of helping backstop, to make sure
that you can oversee and manage the water resources of the state in an appropriate
way. In particular, we tend to ignore ecosystems. I think that part of taking water
from the environment should be making sure that we fund oversight and restoration
or maintenance of the environment.
 I think they'll always be primarily funded by the water users. That's appropriate
because they're the beneficiaries of these efforts. I think the state and federal
government has a responsibility too, because clearly the entire state and in some cases
the entire nation benefits from more reliable water supply in California. This drought
and the impact, for example, on the Ag sector. Truly the impact is rippling throughout
the country.
 I am a big champion of local and regional funding and I'm just not a fan of the public
goods charge to be honest, at all, because: (1) I've never understood what the demand
is at the state level to do some of this work; and then, (2) why would entities collect a
bunch of money and then send it to the state for some purpose, when we are not clear
what it is. I'm a big believer in getting this 218 Process in a little bit better place, if we
can. I think that's where most agencies, if you looked across the water agency
spectrum across California, I bet you most water agencies have been very successful
in their Prop 218 Processes, percentage wise because they've been able to articulate
that benefit
 I think the water bonds have been good. We have supported water bonds in the past,
the general obligation bonds, but I think that over time local agencies through revenue
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
222

bonds and some of the creative financing that we see around local agencies, I think
that's the solution.
 Joint powers authorities, to me are a marvelous way to get water projects done and
really bring the best out of local agencies to be creative in that regard. I guess I'm
almost kind of advocating for a less centralized water system.
 I think that there is more room for user pays, then. That's already a principle of most
of what we do in our urban water systems, and even just to a large extent in
agricultural water and waste water infrastructure. We just have huge challenges in
funding some orphan areas that don't just easily get funded through water rates. We're
suggesting there's a need to blow that up a bit and really think about a range of
different potential sources to basically address orphans that are difficult to fund,
either because the legal constraints are too hard now to make it possible for
beneficiaries to actually pay for it (because you've got to get them to affirmatively
vote for that even if it is their legal responsibility to do it), and that is, clean up storm
water or something like that. That's not something where it makes sense to require a
vote. That's something that representative government should be able to deal with,
and that's related to constitutional constraints that we have at the moment. Then
you've got some orphans where the beneficiaries themselves, from an equity
perspective, can't afford it, so that's things like safe drinking water in rural
communities, and we've been basically relying on bonds for that. We think that it
makes sense to have another mechanism, and probably a small surcharge on urban
water rates, to basically create something like a state-wide lifeline. I would just refer
you to the policy brief that we have on this in California's Water that came out in
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
223

April. It's kind of a summary of findings in the paying for water study, but it also
takes into account what the bond makes available and highlights more succinctly the
fiscal orphan problem and the funding sources that would make sense.
 I do think right now the burden entirely for virtually all projects, is 100% on local
agencies, and I think that is not the most sustainable path for the future. Many of the
burdens on developing local projects are placed there by the state and local
governments, and they are done in this way for the public good, much more so than
just the local agency can cover. There should be some state and federal cost sharing
on those issues that is not occurring today and it is harming the development of
infrastructure. You have agencies like Metropolitan that can spread its cost pretty
widely and is willing to still build big projects but once you get outside of Southern
California, outside of Metropolitan, it gets harder and harder to find agencies willing
to step up and build expensive infrastructure that's needed as we go from 38 million
to projected 50 million in 30 years. Pooling and working together on a regional level
makes a lot of sense for large-scale infrastructure. We do it pretty readily in
transportation, but we haven't done it in water as well.
 I think bonds are really important for infrastructure. That's what bonds should be for,
is long-term infrastructure projects and paying overtime just the way you pay for a
house over time. It makes sense. It's durable. It's still there while you're paying it
back. I think that makes some sense. I do think there's probably room for public-
private partnerships.
 I think most of the efficiencies and demand management are actually best done on a
district and watershed basis, and that funding comes from the resources of those
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
224

existing local water entities. Water districts, irrigation districts. There are some joined
through an exercise of powers agreement, where they're working together, and those
are resources that ultimately come back to the water user, be they a resident or a
farmer or a business, and how they pay for their water. The water efficiencies need to
be a part of where they require an investment in best management practices. They
need to be a part of the water customer base that we paid for. That is the best way to
do it, the most efficient way. The one place where there is a need, I think, and a
really legitimate statewide interest, is to jump-start the water recycling water reuse as
I said, because you have to get to scale often beyond the boundaries of a given
district. Doing that kind of matching of water supply or adeptness in water recycling
from a bond, statewide general obligation bond measure is totally legit in my
perspective. This then, in terms of the large statewide facility storage and
conveyance, and combination of, if you will the state on behalf of the public. The
public interest are things like either general obligation or revenue bonds. I'm a fan of
revenue bonds, by the way, so you have also public financing, not just public funding
in the mix. Those are two different things. Then users pay or beneficiaries pay again
in the form of water agencies districts, irrigation districts, being the partners
financially. They're going to go back to their customers in some way, but that's how
you put this together.
 The federal government has to come to the table to be a party to it. They have been
missing in action for many decades.
 It depends on the size of the investment. I mean, if you’re talking about major
infrastructure that is intended to last 100 years, if not longer. The problem you have,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
225

and I’m sure you’re headed in the direction of private investors helping to pay for it,
the problem for the rate payer is they now are paying a profit and they’re paying for
taxable financing. The end user ends up paying more. I mean, I’ve struggled for a
long time about how you get the private sector into investing in the water
infrastructure space. Public bodies are extremely reluctant to raise rates. When those
rate increases come, if they are larger, then they would have to be because you have
to pay an investor for profit margin and you have to pay the investor. When he goes
to the market, has secure taxable financing, it starts falling apart. There’s almost a
20% differential varying cost.
 You can’t blame the investor community. It’s the nature of the beast. I’ve had so
many people come to me talking about pension trust that have all this long-term
capital that they want to invest and these other long-term investment vehicles. I think
about the water utility in Washington, D.C. They used century bonds to pay for the
redo of their waste water system. You’re paying for a 100-year plus capital project. I
mean, that system is being built to last 100 plus years. Why are we stuck on using 30-
year financing? Now, there are a lot of philosophical discussions around your
burdening future generations with debt, and all that’s well and good because we
inherited a bunch of debts from our parents, but at the end of the day, to make it
affordable, it’s about the mortgage payment. You don’t buy a house and look at what
you’ll pay 30 years when you pay off the mortgage, which is paid in total over 30
years to make your decision whether to buyout or not. You look at what’s my
mortgage payment and can I afford that mortgage payment. In that 100-year span, I’m
sure there will be any number of opportunities to buy down that debt, to refinance
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
226

some of that debt. You bought yourself a breather and you bought yourself a
pathway. I think it’s a vehicle that really needs to be looked at because it has all the
benefits, the tax exempt financing and it has a long-term payback. You’re going to be
paying mostly interest in those early years. At the end of the day, you get the
infrastructure you need. There is no difference there between that and a structured
bond sale or a structured investment when a private sector investment vehicle has you
paying more interest upfront. There’s no difference there.
 For the most part, it needs to be funded by the beneficiaries, I think. I've worked in 13
states, and California is the only state that is really kind of big on—it takes a water
bond to fund things. Other states don't do that. Other states that I've been in, if there's
a broader public sector benefit to a project, the state will pony up money to do that.
By and large, all of the bonds are locally held by the direct beneficiaries, and there's
not this general collecting of the money into a central place and then reallocating it
out, which is kind of what, happens a lot here. I think the state does need to make
some investments, and I think they need to be making investments into those things
that are truly a public benefit. The fish and wildlife, the flood management,
recreation, those kinds of things. Then the beneficiaries of water supplies, they pay
the cost of those. Kind of the more traditional way of doing things.
 I don't think the funding mechanisms are as broken as people think. The short answer
to your question is that they're going to be funded by water rate revenue, the same
way they have been in the past. The vast majority of infrastructure, of water
infrastructure in this state has been paid for by water rate payers. The subsidies from
the federal government and the subsidies from general obligation bonds are pretty
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
227

grossly overstated. They are a really tiny fraction of overall financing. In the future
as in the past, water is going to get paid for by the people who consume it. They're
going to go through their public agencies who will have to do Prop 218 and all that
stuff to raise the money that they need.
 I think we would be far ahead relative to water policy if people knew they could base
their decisions on what it's going to cost. What happens just in terms of ... let's take a
water quality regulation. When that regulation is done, it is probably at least 10 years
later when the infrastructure and things are built and the rates are increased. The
people have no idea that they are going to spend $250 million to get down from a
level that I think has absolutely no health impact. I think the rate payer needs to pay.
That can be done on a more regional basis because as you get into your rural areas,
these tiny little places, they just don't have the wherewithal, but you can spread that
rate base over more people. I think if they understand, “Okay, here are the choices we
have for water supply. We can do this, we can do this, we can do that, or we can do
the combination. In our best estimate, this is what these things are going to cost,” and
I think then, people could make more intelligent decisions.
 Somehow everyone in the state needs to contribute to the infrastructure and the
technology. I don’t think that the burden should be placed strictly on public water
agencies, and where mom-and-pop wells are excluded. Even though with SGMA,
there’s exclusion for those that pump less. There’s a very small number that precludes
those people from having to be involved. I just say anybody in the state that consumes
water needs to contribute to it, or produces water needs to contribute to this. I am not
sure yet what that avenue is going to be. A public goods charge? I’m not in favor of
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
228

that one. I guess my answer would be everybody should pay. How it’s going to be
funded, I don’t know,
 It’s all starting at the local level. I would rather see that there definitely has to be
oversight and accountability for those funds. Although local infrastructure
investments are not going to take care of things statewide, in the end, if it turns out to
be a statewide fee, then everybody has to contribute,. I know the recent bond issue is
someone addressing that. You’ve got a water commission now that’s going to
determine whether those projects are going to be placed. I think accountability, the
further out it goes, to your region, or to your state, the level of accountability
definitely has to increase. Again, it’s all coming out of the locals’ pocketbook.
 Public benefits should be funded by the public, and that includes ecosystem values,
wild and scenic rivers, recreation, things like that. Water use for commercial purposes
should be funded by water users. That's essentially the way Proposition 1 was divided
for the storage funding, and I haven't encountered anybody who disagrees with that.
To expect farmers and other water users, businesses and communities, to pay the
entire cost of a new storage facility would be too much, because there are
environmental benefits that we derive from stored water and being able to release it at
times of the year when it's needed. Those costs should be borne by the public. That's
the way Prop 1 is written and that was the way the whole CALFED and now Bay
Delta Conservation Plan is framed.
 It’s my bias, but I do think the general presumption of “beneficiary pays” makes the
most sense. I throw in that “polluters pay” as well, because if you do have people
making a mess that somebody else has got to pay to clean up, then they really should
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
229

have to pick that up. I know that when Met did some of the water transfers in the
early days, coming out of the southern San Joaquin Valley, water quality wasn't
written into the contract as carefully as it should have been. They got some pretty
crappy quality water coming out of the ground water there and the upshot was, "Too
bad, you didn't have that in the contract. You lose." You could change the contracts,
but ethically that's wrong. If people are polluting it and selling it, there's a problem.
So, I couple the two. Beneficiary pays, polluter pays. Making sure that the true cost
of the benefit is captured. Making sure beneficiaries pay the true cost, which would
include the environmental. Even though there are benefits to the public, there's also a
cost that comes from taking that water, so that cost should be paid and then it could
be mixed.
 I think this is a very interesting question. I say look at the parallels between the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean Water Act consists of all
federally funded programs. You need a new waste water treatment plant? Your waste
water treatment plant needs an upgrade? You don't do anything until federal funds are
available, and that's how they're funded. I think the federal government has to play a
role in some of these projects by providing low interest loans. Other parts of the
infrastructure are going to be “user pays,” but some of them ought to be similar to the
Clean Water Act! If you're going to impose a new requirement for waste water;
federal funds it. If you're going to impose a new drinking water regulation; federal
should fund that, too. I think there needs to be a change in that because the
regulations that are being developed are going to be very expensive.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
230

 I think it depends on the size of the project and its regional or statewide importance. I
think the larger projects, I mean all of them, are going to be funded by the public,
basically, but for much larger projects, I think it makes a lot of sense to do what we're
doing now. Having state bond funds either be seed money or pay for up to 50% of it,
makes a lot of sense. I love the Prop 84. The cost of converting to recycled water in
certain areas is very expensive, and having state incentives, I think, is very important
because that's where we should be heading, and that's the main reason why a lot of
people aren't. They were so used to paying so little for our water that the sticker shock
of going to where we need to go quickly makes it harder to move very quickly.
Clearly there's a benefit with the “beneficiary pays” concept, and I agree with that. I
think what this really means is for the rate payers of whatever agency is doing the
project, if it rises to a level that’s got enough significance, either regionally or
statewide, then I think the more the state can do to promote it. As long as whatever
the state's promoting is leading towards more efficient service and kind of some of
the statewide goals. Providing to people who otherwise aren't being provided to. I
think the way we have it now is set up pretty well, even though I'm not an expert at it.
I do know there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be innovated. We can see it in
L.A. I don't know what to do about that. That's not really the state's responsibility, to
come in and redo the pipes in L.A. Bottom line is, I think we're going to have to pay
more for our water. I do like the grants, especially pushing people towards new
technologies in new areas that we haven't been in the past.

9. What role does leadership play in addressing California’s water issues?
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
231

There was a unanimous agreement that leadership is critical. Almost every person has
noted the effectiveness and the strong leadership shown by the current Governor. This
was a bit surprising as the support came from every interest, every region and both
parties, something very uncommon in the politics of the day.
 I think it's extremely important. I think Governor Brown has done a really excellent
job. I'm not saying that every single thing he's done has been perfect, but he's
basically just laid out a plan. He's simplified the discussion and so look, we've got a
problem, we've got to fix it. I think he's done a good job of highlighting the problem,
keeping it on people's minds.
 Leadership plays an important role in California and the nation as a whole. You have
to have some leadership if you want to... First of all, you have to have the knowledge,
then you have to have the leadership and the presence to educate people into these
issues, and where do you want to go with them. In other words, getting the public
excited to vote for a bond measure, like the Bay-Delta. Leadership is tremendously
important. When I think of a good leader, I think Governor Brown, who wants to
leave a legacy, and he is the only leader we have in California right now. This is why
things are getting done right now, even the legislature realizes he's the only leader we
have that seems to be knowledgeable. You go back to his father, if it wasn't for his
father and his leadership, we wouldn't have the aqueduct. We would not have the
university system. His father was one of the greatest leaders California ever saw.
 I think it is an important role, and I think we have seen some of that, in particular
from the Governor, as related to this drought. I think that the Governor has been
successful and I think that the data from June water use has borne that out. Has been
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
232

successful, along with the media in front of people, I think a year ago a lot of people
did not even know that we were in a drought, as bad as it was even a year ago. So,
and I do think that with the Governor's executive order, he called out a lot of
important pieces, he called out that this was not just something that residents care
about, businesses need to care about this. This is not just urban, this is agriculture, I
think leadership can really be important in laying the baseline, and it does provide the
necessary cover for some of the state and even local agencies to do things that they
need to do. I heard a lot from local agencies, they want to put some restrictions in
place, but without some leadership, and some acknowledgement to do that, it makes it
very stressful. So, leadership is really essential.
 It really takes leadership, but also- it takes leadership at the local levels and then the
metropolitan areas, it's the big city mayors. It is a Garcetti, a Faulconer, and a Lee; it
is hard for the head of Metropolitan’s board to take a leadership role. Or a general
manager of a water agency. It's usually the elected officials for the largest
constituencies or jurisdictions. But we haven't seen that kind of leadership like from
big city mayors in a long time. Luckily, the Governor has, I think enough powers. He
can make things happen. It is really leaders in a lot of different levels. One is in terms
of our top elected officials. The governor, the senators. How do you make water a top
priority and educate them and make them champions for the state or for the region?
That's number one, but it's also developing the leadership at the local and regional
level. The water boards. How do you do that? You would hope that lengthy droughts
would energize people and encourage people to learn more about water and to
participate. But leadership, getting people to step to the plate, is harder and harder in
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
233

this society. A society of instant gratification, as the Pope pointed out recently with
climate change.
 It's very important at all levels, from state. You can see Dianne Feinstein has a big
bill out now. It's a big issue for her, the governor, and certainly local groups. Water is
a big issue for us.
 Leadership is everything. Understand it's funny, but you usually see the great
leadership when you've got to go to the public to raise money, i.e. general obligation
bonds, you see that at the state level, right? That's the way Jerry and previous
governors have been able to raise money. The leadership is that you've got to build
sufficient coalition to beneficiary. You got to put a lot of toys under the Christmas
tree to get that majority vote. It's also a wonderful time to educate the public.
Whenever you require a public vote on something, that's when leadership really needs
to step up. Recall MWD. Remember the vote on the Colorado River Aqueduct was
1931. Remember where the country was in '31? It's valuable to go back and look at
that campaign. It was an argument about jobs during what was becoming the
Depression. It was an argument about basically ensuring a future for your kids and
your grandkids. The kinds of arguments that were made about, "Look at your long-
term interest. You may have to pay now, but it will pay off many fold over the course
of your lifetime and your successors."
 Leadership is critical. That's where a governor is absolutely critical, because
understand this is well beyond the regional issue. This is a state and even a multi-state
issue. Clearly, governor is critical to what's happening, to what's going to happen
including the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
234

 It's critical. We have a situation now where the public trust of government leaders is
maybe at an all-time low for a variety of reasons. You can have great leadership, but
if the public is not aware of the kinds of activities and actions and decisions that are
being made that are beneficial, then there's nothing to change public opinion.
Ultimately you want the public to be supportive of water policy decisions: bond
measures, ballot initiatives, voting for local investments. I think what's lacking is
trust. Leaders, to be effective, are going to have to engage the public in a meaningful
way. It's not speeches to large crowds; it is working with smaller groups of people.
It's very hard. It's hard to do. Leadership is critical but leadership without trust is
ineffective.
 Well, it's not hard. In any given time there's going to be a crisis of the day and that's
what is going to capture people's attention. If you look at the Public Policy Institute of
California's public opinion surveys over the last ten years, probably the 20 different
issues are all listed on that but depending on the current conditions number six could
move to number one and number one could move to number ten. They shift. Where it
really becomes critical is when you're seeking funding at the state level, because what
did we just pass, a $115 billion budget, and I bet you there are another $50 billion of
requests that didn't make the cut. Everybody that was proposing those budget requests
firmly believed that this was the most important use of money and it should be
approved. People are going to make their own opinions based on the impact that it has
on their daily life. That's one issue.
 Seeking funding from the state legislature is a lot different. It requires leaders to
present a compelling case as to the opportunity cost of not making the particular
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
235

investment. You ask for $5 billion, you don't get it, and it results in a $10 billion loss
of some kind. Risk and reward. Leaders, particularly in water policy, need to get
better at presenting a compelling case. We've done a good job on water conservation;
you hear it everywhere you go. You can stand down on the street corner, and within
10 minutes somebody will be talking about something to do with water conservation.
The here and now are pretty easy to capture people's attention, but the longer term
things that require greater investments, that is hard to capture people's imagination,
about investments that they maybe are not going to realize any return on for a few
years.
 Of course think it's critical. I think Governor Brown has really demonstrated
leadership in addressing the problem and not shying away from it, which has really
helped to bring that awareness to it, to be able to get the conservation levels that
various water agencies are getting today. In terms of (from the Governor's office
again), driving the Delta Fix and the Eco Restore programs I think are critical, it
won't get done without that. At the local levels it really takes essentially the Board to
really stand up and start pushing some of the issues in terms of conservation, and our
Board has been very proactive in at least funding the programs necessary. We're
going to have a revamp of the water rights issues, and that's going to take a
substantial amount of leadership not only at the Governor's office, but from all the
various water agencies also helping to push that. They are the only two groups that
are going to know it. The elected officials aren't going to have time to understand it.
 It is all. It’s everything. Leadership plays. It makes everything happen. You can look
at the water leaders that have made things happen.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
236

 Obviously, leadership's really key, but I mean, I've seen very different leaders over
the years, effective in different ways. I think Governors set the tone and make key
decisions, often times. Beyond Governors, I think usually you need to have some
group of people. Maybe with 1 or 2 at the head, but you need to have some kind of
coherent, maybe not officially approved, leader. Let me think, I think I'll talk about
Lester. I've worked a lot with Lester, over the years. He was incredibly good at
sensing where people were at, and nudging them just one step further. Then, nudging
them one more step further.
 It's everything isn't it? It really is. I would go so far as to say let's look around the
state and the areas, in my view, that have reliable water supplies during these kinds of
challenging years have had strong leadership, and I think those that have zero or,
much less water supplies, I think along the way there's been a lack of leadership; it
may not be necessarily today but at least at different points along the way there just
wasn't leadership. I think it's almost that direct, isn't it?
 At the state level, I mean, obviously, that's a whole other discussion but I think, I'm
probably a big fan of Governor Brown because I think in the water world, at least my
experience has been, is that having moderate Democrats really is how stuff gets done,
because they can weed through the policy arena. I think that more liberal democrats
struggle with that and, quite honestly, Republicans and even some of the moderates
have struggled with it. I think in some ways, in California at least, having moderate
Democratic leadership is really our key to the future until the politics of the state
change.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
237

 Leadership is really important. If you look at when you can make big changes, crisis
often helps. If you look at, say this drought, and the enactment of the Sustainable
Ground Water Management Act, clearly the drought provided a window of
opportunity for getting the votes that were needed to make that happen, but if you
hadn't had some really hard work done and some folks sticking their necks out to
make that happen, it wouldn't have happened. By that I'm really referring to
leadership, both at the state level, with administration leaders, legislator leaders, but
then also folks in the stakeholder community that were willing to do that. In some
cases, people who put their jobs on the line in order to make that happen, so it's
important.
 Leadership is critical to getting anything done and as the world gets more and more
complex, and more crowded, complex, and difficult, the larger the role leadership
plays. I look at things we're doing today in water, and part of the reason we've been
able to get some things done recently is that we're not only in a crisis, but we also
have a governor that people go, "I can't understand this thing, but he seems to have a
good handle on it and I trust him, so I'm willing to go along with him." That wasn't
true a decade before. Getting good leadership that the people feel confident are
making the right decisions is critical, especially on something as potentially as
divisive as water.
 I think leaders need to articulate the issues boldly rather than in the talking points that
stakeholders prefer to hear. I don't mean to be cynical about it but, again, everybody
talks about this stuff in a different way almost like they're from a different universe.
You know I'm biased. I'm more of a social worker than anything else but folks aren't
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
238

talking the same language when they talk about these things a lot of the time. I think
leadership can call the questions and pose the questions in a way that tees them up for
public discourse and discussion.
 I'll give you an example of where I think the administration showed a lot of
leadership. That was in doing the water action plan, which just got all of the above
and put it all in a short document. It's appropriately written, though, but did we work
on it collaboratively with each other and give people a chance for input? Yes. Why,
has it been successful? And I say it's been wildly successful, because the Governor
insisted that the bond be based on the strategy rather than the usual grab bag where
people would set up a bond based on how they would get some votes to get it on the
ballot.
 I don't know if it makes a huge difference because they get lost in this area. The
general public, first of all, is not conducive to the political sound bite. You must be
able to explain to them what’s in it for them. Why is this important to them and in the
simplest of terms, what can these individuals do to be a part of a solution. In talking
to our “adversaries” or other stakeholders in the process, how do you transform this
into a sense of shared responsibility, and promote that it is in everyone’s best interest
to be proactive. That’s going to take some tough-skinned leadership. I mean, my
favorite post of the century was Governor Brown when he said, “I want to get shit
done.” That was the most honest statement ever. He reached a point in his career. We
didn’t need to pander to anybody anymore and he said, “I’m going to get shit done.”
 It's huge. I give the current Governor a lot of credit. He has stepped up, and basically
made it a top issue for him. This problem in California, and across the West, in my
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
239

experience, the single most important ingredient is leadership. Because you're not
going to get anywhere without it, because you always have, you get, these
longstanding divisions of interests and sectors and history and things that you've got
to have somebody that's willing to listen to all of that and then still make decisions.
That's what leadership is. It's looking at everything, listening to what people's
interests are, and then making a decision, and try to make it as fair as you can. It's
important.
 We need to give people training. A lot of it, I called it my exchange program. We
would loan people back and forth between agencies, just to get a better understanding
of what goes into the kind of decisions they are making over there. It's so easy to beat
them up and criticize whatever when things would happen. It is like, "Go over there
and spend three months. See how it is, they would come back and go, "Wow. It's a
whole lot more complicated than I thought." Or, "Yeah, they just make stupid
decisions." One way or another, you got a better understanding.
 I think it is challenging when there is not a reason for business leaders to engage in
something like that. It is just hard to keep it in front of them. I do think that there are
efforts underway to make sure that disadvantaged communities are constantly at the
table. Such as, in California's case, implementing the Sustainable Ground Water
Management Act. There are discussions going on about how we empower and engage
disadvantaged communities to stay part of that process. So, I think in those cases
there is an effort, and there can be progress made, on the underrepresented
communities. The other progress that can be made more broadly for the leaders is just
having organizations who are constantly working on water issues, to break down
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
240

these complex things into bite-size understandable pieces, so you can get it in front of
CEO's or mayors or whomever you are trying to keep engaged.
 I think it is the essential element. Certainly leadership in any public policy issue is
essential. I think leadership is critical in water because there's so many stakeholders
involved in water. You need a leader in bringing them all together to create and shape
the water policy or plans. I also think leadership has to come from all levels. It can't
just be commanded and controlled from the state. It can't be just a top-down
approach, but it's got to be partnering, and leadership through partnering takes on a
much different approach than leadership through command.
 First of all, our leaders need to be honest about California's water needs, and the
ability to meet those needs with our current system. We have to be honest about the
amount of water that's in the system, and who's using how much and where it's going
out, the whole agro-environment allocation perspective. Then we need to think about
the future more in terms of our ability to thrive as a state rather than the next election.
It doesn't seem like we have as many leaders today as we used to, that want to think
out a generation instead of think out an election cycle. If we're trying to plan for a
long-term future for California, we would be looking at more options than just
complying with the mantra that we can achieve what we need simply with
conservation and recycling, which are very important, and are funded under Prop 1,
and should be a critical part of our water future.

What can be done to prepare future leaders to engage in water policy?
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
241

The responses varied greatly. There are a number of innovative programs
including a citizen’s advisory panel in Santa Cruz, a citizen’s academy in San Diego, an
organization dedicated to educating Latino leaders on water issues, and more traditional
approaches to educating the future. It is clear that the future will be different from the
past and there needs to be a focus on educating constituents and future leaders.
 The folks that have risen to the leadership level, we are just talking about in the
elected arena; I think the commonality was that they were good listeners. They would
talk to people. They would engage with people from throughout the state. They spent
the time and would go around the state and do tours and sit in coffee shops and board
rooms. I just don't think there's any shortcut for that kind of stuff, and that has been
one of the down sides to term limits, that people just don't have that time to commit to
learning, and as soon as they do, they're going up the next rung.
 There is a lot, actually. I think it is getting people to realize, some of it is education,
and it is getting people to realize the users and uses there are of water, and how
essential it is for social economic and environmental well-being. So people need to
have a broad understanding about the role and importance of water, so that is
education. People need to have a better understanding of the issues and challenges
outside of their little box. It is easy and we saw a lot of this a year ago, or especially
probably six months ago, a sort of finger-pointing. They were not doing anything, sort
of saying, and I think it really pointed to a lack of understanding or awareness of how
difficult these things can be. How difficult it is for agriculture and of course you are
dealing not only with water issues but a host of other challenges, energy, etc. I think
there needs to be a broader understanding about the pressures and the challenges and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
242

then finally on solutions. I think that people like to be wedded to their sort of one
traditional approach and I think future leaders need to be a little more aware about the
range of solutions. Finally, I think there is a need to get outside of California.
Californians can think that this is sort of the center of the universe, and we talk about
the California drought. But especially at the Colorado River, where they have been in
the drought for sixteen years. There are a lot of really great innovative things that are
going on outside of California and we can learn from them. If you look at Australia as
an example, there is not everything that you can take from that, but there are pieces.
Like Singapore, some really great interesting things are going on. I think future
leaders need to be aware of the range of strategies that are being employed outside of
California, outside of the United States.
 The first thing that came to mind is an effort that is underway in LA. It is called
WELL, which stands for Water Education for Latino Leaders. It is recognition from a
handful of Latino people who have been engaged in water, where they have
recognized that in California; increasingly our political leaders are Latino. Typically
the paint was obviously too broad a brush, they don't necessarily come to the City
Council or Board of Supervisors or ultimately the Legislature with a lot of water
background, that is not a normal path. They have actually started an effort to have
seminars and engagements with a lot of these folks at that first level, like a small
town City Council, and provide insights into water policy and how important it is to
the economy and the state of California. I think those kinds of efforts are very
important. Then there are similar efforts, like with Associations of California Water
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
243

Agencies having two major conferences every year, and part of that is newly elected
board members to small water districts.
 It was really eye-opening for me personally to take the Metropolitan tour of the Delta.
I think when you're there first hand, and you see something as amazing as that tour,
you would be very frightened not to be paying attention to water issues. The problem
for most of us in the public is, I go to make a pot of coffee, and I turn my tap on, and
the water comes out. We don't thank God for that reliability. Thank God. The issue is,
if it's working, it's not broke, don't fix it. You talk to a man who I work with who
lived in Singapore for three years, and they couldn't flush, but once a day. They
didn't have running water all of the time. When you live in other countries and you
realize how precious the commodity is, and then just listening to his story, literally to
think about how they had to strategize in their family of four how and when to go to
the bathroom so they didn’t stink up the whole house, because they couldn't flush. It's
fascinating, some of the stories. We have no sense of that here, because as bad as it is,
it's not that bad.
 It is challenging and part of the difficulty has been that we've done a very good job of
managing water and so people who are looking to make their mark on leadership say,
"If I'm only going to be here 6 years." Now we've extended term limits, hopefully
that'll help, to 12 years. Even still, they're looking at most water projects that take 10,
15, 20 years to complete and if it's something that's working today, if it's not broken,
they figure, "Do I need to use my time to go fix it." That's been a challenge for us
because probably the easiest way to fix that would be to not do our jobs well, but
that's anathema to any good utility. It continues to be a challenge of education and
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
244

hopefully raising leaders that will understand that long-term infrastructure is essential
to the economy of the state and to people's well-being. We need to invest the time,
effort, energy, political will, and capital, even if it doesn't have a quick-fix payment
payoff.
 You know, that is such a critical question because it's really leaders in a lot of
different levels. One is in terms of our top elected officials. The governor, the
senators. How do you make water a top priority and educate them and make them
champions for the state or for the region? That's number one, but it's also developing
the leadership at the local and regional level. The water boards. How do you do that?
You would hope that linking the droughts would energize people and encourage
people to learn more about water and to participate. But leadership, getting people to
step to the plate, is harder and harder in this society. A society of instant gratification,
as the Pope pointed out with his climate change message.
 I think we need to encourage young minds to engage. I can think of the Executive
Fellows Program we've been a part of that's an example of a high level program at the
state level. When I was on the ACWA Board, we established a scholarship in memory
of Steve Hall to encourage kids to enroll in water policy and law. There are these
kinds of programs and incentives throughout the industry. I think one of the neat
things about water agencies is that they realize we need more civil engineers. It's hard
to say but, we will need more water law and policy experts. As is the case with any
industry, there is the need for succession planning and I can't think of anything more
critical than water supply and water quality. Places like UC Davis and the Watershed
Center, and Fresno State with their irrigation center, are doing amazing things. At Cal
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
245

Poly, the irrigation center there focuses on a lot of operational technology
improvements. There's a lot already in place.
 That's a million-dollar question because you're right. With turnover, and term limits,
you lose the knowledge and it takes a long time for people to understand the
complexity of the systems that have been developed. It almost has to be a partnership
between a local water agency, the elected officials at statewide and local levels, you
almost have to put them through a boot camp. I was just thinking of the Water
Education Foundation. It has these annual, more than annual, it sponsors employees
at a fairly young level to identify in the agency potential future leaders within that
agency to participate, almost like in traveling interns, not full time but pre-auditing
thought the year. They come back well-informed, they meet with political leaders. I
think more forums like that enlighten people up and down the ranks, including future
elected officials as to water issues and how they can be addressed.
 You have to think about who drives some of the elected officials. A lot of it is the
constituency, so there needs to be an effort that allows the state as a whole to really
understand the water picture and you can tie that in with the value of water. I think
that helps everybody at least to understand the condition. I think people are much
more aware, in fact we know they are.
 I think what you have to do is, bring in really good people. Then, try and give them
opportunities to be engaged.
 I think people need to try and learn the water system. It's complex but it's not
impossible to understand. Then try to come up with ways to make it better by helping
everybody get ahead versus just becoming an advocate for one point of view and,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
246

again, repeating themselves. I think it's a recipe for status quo, which is where we've
been for far too long.
 Learn to listen. Learn to be able to vocalize, understand and comprehend your
opponents or adversaries or opposing stakeholders, division as well as your own.
Own it. You won’t be able to get to a solution unless you can craft one that works for
them and works for you. Think of it as how does my opponent win? When he goes
home, how does he declare victory? What does he say he brought to the table? How
do we change our language? Having those interpersonal skills and having the ability
to listen, listen with the intent of okay, if I was in that person’s shoes, did I feel that
way? What is he seeing or she seeing that I’m not seeing? What is it about their
reality that has created this picture frame? If you just sit at a table and become a
robotic repeater of your problem than your position, you’re not going to get out of the
mud hole. Leaders need to think in a larger context. How do I make this work for
everyone involved? If there is pain to be had, spread the pain evenly. Then everyone
gets something, everyone gives something and they can all walk away going back
with something that they wanted and that will help a couple of things.
 The public needs to be part of that dialogue and that partnership in water policy. The
water authorities have spent an enormous amount of time and effort to educate what
we say is the next generation of community leaders about the importance of water
reliability. To educate them about California water and the challenges that we have in
the future. The reason I say the next generation of community leaders, is that we feel
we already have our community leaders engaged with us on a regular and consistent
basis. What we have done is establish what we call the Citizens Water Academy. I
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
247

think it is the essential element. It is a three-evening academy of three hours a night,
three weeks in a row where we educate them on California water, the history of San
Diego water, water planning, water operations, environmental considerations.
Ultimately on graduation day we have them tour our newly constructed San Vicente
Dam Raise and either our Twin Oaks hundred MPD membrane treatment plant or
ultimately they'll be able to view the desalination plant when it's completed. We do
about fifty to fifty-five students and they are, when I say students, they range of
people in their twenties to people in their sixties. They are community planning group
members, they come from agriculture, and some are council or elected official
representatives where they work the local office on a day-to-day basis. We have so
many different people and we very carefully select the group. You have to apply for
it, and still to this day we just finished our third series, we do three or four a year. We
still have waiting lists for that program. We have got a hundred thirty, hundred and
fifty people who truly not only know about water, but who are passionate about the
sustainability of water and understand what California's facing and what the water
authority is doing. I don't know of anyone else who is doing that extensive of a
program.
 Certainly leadership in any public policy issue is essential. I think leadership is
critical in water because there's so many stakeholders involved in water. You need a
leader in bringing them all together to create and shape the water policy or plans.
 I wish I had a zinger answer for you on that. I think it's getting even more difficult.
It's strange. Other than my mantra here is try to have a process to get honest
information, objective information, out on the table that everybody can basically
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
248

agree to .. That can be as simple as how much do we have and where is it and where's
it used and that sort of thing. You can still have disagreements, but at least getting
electives and key players in agreement and understanding the baseline information.
 I would say it plays a large role because you need to have the forward thinking.
Again, if you’re looking at all areas of the state, and going back to local leadership,
regional leadership, statewide leadership. They will set forth policy, but they
definitely need to engage at all levels. Locals need to be reaching out to the regions
and to the state, and I think it needs to be a two-way dialogue. The state needs to do
the same thing rather than just impose policy. They need to collaborate and work
together for the betterment of the entire state.
10. What role does the public play in water policy? How effective are current programs
in engaging the public? Should anything be done to encourage more public
involvement?
There was general agreement that the public plays a large role and that role will
grow in the future. The days of water managers just saying we have it covered
appear to be over, but it is very challenging because the public is pulled in so many
directions on different issues and water is such a complex issue.
 I think the public is hugely important in this because the public either makes it
possible for you to succeed, or they become the show stopper, and the biggest mistake
we have made is to instill fear. We need to talk about the reality of it without being
fearful. We need to talk about the reality of it in terms of what can we do differently
to avoid catastrophe. You need to appeal to their sense of logic, not their political
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
249

philosophy, and neither their religious philosophy, their pragmatic risk assessment,
nor their risk avoidance instincts.
 I think they played a pretty small role, well prior to the drought. I think there was a
sort of mentality of, “Well, I turn on the tap and water comes out, and it is cheap and
it is abundant and clean.” I think that has been the mentality, and I think that utilities
have not created a connection with their customers, so that there is not that level of
trust or understanding about what it takes to provide water. They have just been
completely disconnected about what it takes, what the impacts of our current use are,
and what the future challenges are, or the solutions. I think the habit played an
important role, but they need to be playing a role now because in effect they are going
to be the ones making a lot of the changes we are asking for. Whether they be
technological or behavioral, a lot of it has come down to people engaging and caring,
and I think too about the use of rates, in that undoubtedly water rates are going up and
need to go up. That obviously can create backlash because people do not understand
why that is occurring, that prices have been kept artificially low, and historically we
have not been interested in infrastructure, that we are paying for the environmental
impact of our use. So, in order for these things to really work, we need to be engaging
the public more. The good news, I think, is that the drought has focused attention on
that, and I also think that utilities are starting to recognize their customers differently,
and that their customers are different from one another. I am seeing a lot more
recognition that certain people respond to certain things, so rates may affect some but
not the wealthy and that is where is goes social. I am starting to see that utilities are
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
250

recognizing the diversity of the customers and there are new technologies that are
helping people connect. Through social media, some of those tools I think will help.
 Well, it's critical, but understand that the public only seems to be aroused when
there's a spike in their water bill or when nothing comes out of the tap.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the drought is a fabulous opportunity for public
education. We're starting to see it in terms of the change in the water narrative, in
the water ethic. Hopefully this will have a lasting effect, if and when this drought
ever ends. The more that the Governor, particularly because he's the key player at
this point, the more that the Governor can be the public face of that water
dialogue and that change in the ethic, it’s great to see. Most of the governors just
didn't want to step to the plate.
 It's funny. At the local level, the water district board meetings are some of the
lowest attended public meetings anywhere until there's an issue: a rate increase, a
water quality program or a water supply issue. Then everybody turns out because
that's an issue that hits them where they live. We take water for granted and when
you consider, historically, what we've paid for water compared to cable TV, or
things like that, it's no wonder that people aren't paying attention. It's a great value
when they turn the tap and the water comes out, most of the time. I think it's
inevitable in California the educated public is going to be a product of whatever
the current crisis is: drought response, flood response, water quality issues. I don't
see that changing unless the price of water goes up so high that everybody is
constantly focusing on it every month when they get their bill and then running to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
251

the local agency to sit in and listen to all the other things that are going on and
decisions that are being made.
 In terms of the public, I think they're doing what they can do right now. I don't
think there's much more of a role for them in any of this because the systems are
too complex. You're never going to get them to really understand, or the math as I
would say, sure you get individuals, to really understand systems. It's very
technical and it is legislative-driven. I think we have a duty to manage the water
resources for the public and meet their needs, or adjust their needs through
demand management or help them to adjust their needs. That's the only role that I
really see.
 Obviously it kind of manifests itself in a lot of ways from public hearings to
processes like CEQA and some of our other public processes. I don't know if I
have a real good answer for that. Obviously people elect people and that's
probably where their voice is best represented. Maybe I'm a little biased on this
one but this also where I see that it's the really crucial role of special districts
because water districts can specialize. Whereas we see some of the general
government, and I admire nobody more than somebody who runs for a Board of
Supervisors or for City Council but my God they have so many issues staring at
them there's no way they can become an expert on any of them. To me, I think the
special district fabric in California is really important. That's not just water
agencies, its fire agencies, sewer agencies. That's why we have them. I think,
again, the public has confidence in those agencies, and when they lose confidence
in them, we usually hear about it in the news.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
252

 It is like any major policy issue that the public needs to both get educated in and
engage in if they expect their leadership to act on it. Occasionally you get some
elected officials who just know what the right thing to do is and are willing to do
it regardless of their constituencies, but most are elected and are responsive to
their constituencies, so it’s hard to argue with this, If their constituency doesn't
care about water, then the elected official is going to have a hard time saying,
"They should care, so I'm going to spend my time and energy on it even if no one
notices it." That's a rare breed. The public needs to get educated about these
issues, and it's a challenge because it's very complex, it's very convoluted. As
issues break down, it's sort of like smoking. It doesn't kill you that day. It'll just
take 10 years off your life. It's not like you're going to run out of water tomorrow,
but you might 10 years from now. That's where people have to get engaged and
let their electeds know it's an important issue to them because they care about the
future of the state. I think the biggest point for individuals to do, is to get
educated and share their concerns. Obviously every individual has an important
role to play in water conservation and their own individual water ethic. Obviously
people can do great things on their own. We're watching people right now drop
about 25, 30% of their water demands just based on a call from the Governor to
“Let's do that!” so we know people can do it if challenged.
 I am hopeful and I think one of the good things about a crisis is the old saying,
"Never let a good crisis go to waste." One of the positives about this drought has
been the rising attention level that people are giving water. 90-something percent
of all Californians think water is a serious issue, which is an incredible number.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
253

Pre-1977 drought, it was pretty standard practice to just leave the water running
when you brushed your teeth. Everyone thought of water as just this continuous
loop. It was easy and it's cheap, it was virtually free, and that drought taught
Californians an ethic in water conservation. That was a real lesson from that
drought. In the 1990s we had drought and Metropolitan and other municipal
agencies took it upon themselves to realize we can't be bailed out by the state. Our
population demands are such we're going to have to build projects locally.
Metropolitan after the '90s drought built Diamond Valley Lake, Inland Feeder,
upgraded its storage everywhere to be able to withstand this drought. What's
going to be the takeaway lesson from this drought? Hopefully, we've worked hard
on changing out people's outdoor water usage with our conservation programs,
but I also hope a more sophisticated outlook; people realize we need recycled
water. We need reclaimed water. We need to do some ocean desalination, we
need to conserve more. It's part of everybody's problem.
 It depends on the decision you're talking about. I think we have a pretty robust
system for elevating ideas. Again, we do a lot of processes but the work meets in
public. Certainly, when we're doing some of these really difficult decisions that
are going to coming up in the next few years, whether it's the budget fix now, or
even our water quality plan, that's all done out in public in a very transparent way.
I think there are places for people to engage in it. There's a lot of information that
gets put out. I think if anything there's almost too much to handle. If you're trying
to read the 37,000 pages on the BDCP process, for example, the problem is not
that there's not enough information. The problem is there's too much of it for
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
254

anybody to digest. What do people do when that happens? They pick the part they
can understand or that they're worried about. They just talk about that.
 At the end of the day, everything we do is for the public.
 It is so hard in a state as big as this to have people kind of understand water, even
at a basic level. It's really hard. The polling that's been done over the years, that's
increased. I think about the drought and this recent requirement to urban folks to
reduce water use; I never thought water would show up as a top concern. Now it's
double the next thing down the line. It's on people's screens, but that just means
that they know about it.
 People are aware, but it's then getting folks to engage. It's interesting. When we
were having the public meetings, the state was having the public meetings on the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan stuff, and they would get 120 people there. You
think about that, and you go, "That's really pretty pathetic."
 Absent a crisis, be it flood or drought, very little. I think their biggest engagement
in water policy is on rate increases or quality concerns that come up. When there
isn't a drought, knowledge or interest in water policy just doesn't show up very
much. We did a poll recently and actually water polled at the top of the concern of
the public. I think it was 86% who thought the drought and water shortage was the
biggest concern facing California. That was strangely compared to, I think, 65%
for jobs in the economy.
 Yes and real public discussion takes place at the local level. Mostly through the
projects specific conversations, or a CEQA compliance process.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
255

 Rate increases are obviously water policy. Outside of rate increases, you won’t
really hear from the public because for the most part, every time they turn on that
tap, the water’s coming out. I think that the public, again, gets a knee-jerk
reaction. You raise the rate. They can’t pay it. You need to subsidize this. What
about those of us on fixed incomes? You hear it all at that point. Again, I cannot
expect them to even begin to understand the complexity of water.
 I don't think the public is as engaged in water policy as they could or should be,
but it's so convoluted. I've spent 16 years here and there are still new things here,
and I'll never know a fraction of it. The public I think needs to think as
individuals, "Where does my water come from?" They should know that. People
should know where their water comes from. People should know what goes into
the cost of their water. Why urban water is $1,200 an acre-foot and farm water is
$50 in certain examples. Because there is treatment. It means drinking water
quality standards. I can turn my faucet on in the middle of the night; it is there 24
hours a day. It's a high quality product. Where does my water come from? What
goes into the cost of my water? Why does it cost what it does? What is water
doing in other parts of the state that affect me? That brings the farming aspect
into it. Are people using water that have an indirect benefit and direct benefit to
me here in California? If people understood those three things I think there'd be a
better appreciation for how water is allocated and how it's used and why the
farmer in Bakersfield growing carrots is important when I want to make that
delicious 1950s carrot jello salad.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
256

 Santa Cruz is actually doing some pretty interesting work by having a citizen’s
advisory committee. I'm wondering if it isn't time, for particularly the retail
agencies, to have some citizens’ advisory committee or to have far greater an
outreach than they ever had before. The problem I have is that the water utilities
are very good at making things really complex. I think a much greater effort needs
to be at the grassroots levels in educating the public and having some water
advisory committee like the City of Santa Cruz does. They absolutely love it, I
think the rest of the community is very supportive, but they're putting a lot more
effort into public communication than other utility that I know. I can walk into
any bar downtown in Santa Cruz and pretty much ask someone what's going on
with the water and they actually know. They know what's going on here. It's just
very diverse and part of it is: whose job is it to communicate? Everyone wants a
different message. That's fine, but these agencies really need to engage the public
a lot more because I think they're getting fed up as the cost goes up. They're going
to want to take matters in their own hands and do things locally.
 I think the public is the driver of water policy, especially now. When you turn on
the tap and there's no water, the public has been a tremendous player and partner
with the water districts right now. People are making tremendous efforts in
southern California. The public want to be partners with the water boards; they
want to be partners with cities in saving water. They see the benefits.
11. California has enacted changes to water management in recent years. Will these
changes have a significant impact in the future? Are there other issues that are
currently being discussed, or should be addressed? How can benefits of policy
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
257

changes made during a crisis be assured to continue after the immediate crisis has
passed?
There was general agreement that the SGMA legislation will make a big
difference in the future and the way to continue policy changes past the immediate
crisis is to codify in law so that if changes are made it requires an action.
 It is a really great time, very interesting time to be in this issue, as a lot of new tools, and
a lot of new solutions, are emerging. California enacted changes in water management in
recent years, one of which that comes to mind is the ground water legislation. I think to a
degree, there are some challenges around the ground water policy and its implementation
but it is a new law, and whether or not it is fast enough, and whether or not it will actually
be implemented going forward, that remains to be seen. But at least if it is structural in
nature, things like the plumbing code, and ordinances, these are requirements that have
been put in place that are going to provide us long-term savings. I think you need to
ensure that in a crisis that you are doing some short-term temporary things that get you
through the crisis, but that you are doing it with an eye to addressing some of the long-
term challenges. I think that the landscape ordinance is an example of that, it is not going
to provide much savings this year, or next year, but it is sort of the long term and the
same with the standards and codes.
 Crisis is the great opportunity to institute for example, new management policies and
practices, but the thing is, if the implementation is so slow, so drawn out, the question is,
will there be much benefit to be recouped in the 10-20 years when things finally kick in?
My feeling is that the operative approach in a crisis is carpe diem. Seize the day. Do as
much as you can as quickly as you can.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
258

 Let's break them down to three. (1) Ground water legislation? Yes, it will be effective. It
will take some time to ramp up but, I think it was handled about as well as it could be and
it will make a difference. (2) Drought response is having an immediate impact. I question
whether it will have lasting value without government incentives to make investments
that would lead to more sustainable approaches to conservation. (3) The largest need that
is under development is infrastructure improvements. Conveyance and storage are the
two leading ones. We've got $2.7 billion now to contribute towards improving storage
capacity. That's a plus and that'll lead to some significant gains, I hope. Probably we'll
have more benefit on ground water management than anything else. Then conveyance:
with the new form of BDCP, it’s anybody's guess as to whether we are able to address the
conveyance issues in the Delta. But it's certainly a need.
 You've got to provide incentives because in most cases it requires a behavioral change.
People are less inclined to make behavioral changes without an incentive to do so. I
prefer incentives that are rewarding in nature as opposed to punitive and punishing in
nature. I would rather see companies, families, and businesses encouraged to make wise
investments as opposed to threatening them with a fine. I like the solar energy example.
We tried to get people to cut back on energy uses during the energy re-regulation when
we had a series of brownouts and as soon as the threat of brownouts was relaxed,
people’s energy uses popped right back up to where it was. But, then we incentivized
solar energy investment that reduced de facto the amount of dependence upon the
existing system by supplementing it with this new supply. And, it was done in a way that
people were jumping all over the incentives that were provided.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
259

 We're going to see a significant impact in the future. The groundwater legislation, that is
although the time frame is a little out there, is going to have a significant impact. I also
think that when you think about the policy changes that have been revised, at least at a
local level, we are talking about consistency; we have greater consistency between the
cities that will be around us for a while. That will continue. Even after the drought,
discussions that we are now having about new and re-development, about how can those
new and re-development efforts integrate more of a sustainable building kind of concept,
and that is really out getting some legs now. That's going to be a benefit. I see 10 years
out that this could come to pass with enough critical mass throughout many urban
centers, maybe even agricultural areas as well, another version of SGMA that comes out
and talks about basically a high level of efficiency of water usage.
 The only way you can get your policy changes is to get them codified some way and that
has to stand not only on current governing bodies but future governing bodies. Future
governing bodies at the local level will change and it only takes the electeds to bring the
issue up and have that discussion again.
 What you really need to have is a good foundation for that policy that shows it's not only
the current benefit, but also the future long-term benefit to the economy of the particular
region. They have to be able to see the ongoing benefits for continuing the policy, and
for those long-term policies that should be pretty well-articulated in the policy to date and
in the final resolution of the policy.
 A long time ago I grew up in South Africa and I know this is a political analogy but it
kind of applies to me here. What happened in transition to government change at South
Africa following Nelson Mandela is that the leaders of the government there started to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
260

see the writing on the wall way ahead of the general population, and it was surprising the
degree to which they embarked on a deliberate policy of engaging in the national
dialogue about the type of change that was imminent, and what would it look like, and
what would the transition, the bare minimum transition look like, and what people would
be involved in that transition. The dialogue was ugly, and yet it was productive and
brought the population along, both white and black, to the point that when Mandela
finally walked out of prison, it was a slam dunk in terms of where the country was going
and people were kind of, "Okay, that's where it's going." What you need to do is have a
couple of leaders that have some policies in mind along the way, but who then engage in
a dialogue that continues. Like right now you have the drought as the burning platform,
that's fine, but I think the prospect is out there that these will recur and climate change
may exacerbate them. With the sense that okay, we've got an immediate burning platform
but how do you take that into a sense of not a pressing emergency but an ongoing level of
high concern, get a dialogue going and make these changes occur simply by bringing
everyone who is a stakeholder, political interest groups, and the public into that
discussion and over time you get movement. You can sense a policy change is to occur,
but it can't happen without a substantial dialogue over multiple years.
 Some of the changes will have significant impact. I think the ground water legislation
will drive people to a paradigm of sustainability, which I think is really important. I think
the water community, in the long run, actually is a very law-abiding and risk-averse
community that will say "Okay, what are we going to do, to comply with the law?"
 We have a history of conserving water in droughts, and then use rebounding. I think that
will happen after this drought. It's happened in Australia. It hasn't rebounded anywhere
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
261

near to where it was before, but still it's rebounded. Here, I'm not sure how
institutionalized some of those changes are, so I expect there will be some rebound.
There are ways to minimize the rebound, such as the Governor's latest Executive Order
where the agency that sets standards for new homes, had to incorporate those standards
into their rules. They are now incorporated, and they're not going to change. That is going
to be the law, moving forward and all new development in California's going to meet
those standards.
 The groundwater is the one that jumps off the screen just because of the changes last
year. I think it's going to have a major impact. I'm of the school that the groundwater
legislation actually ended up in a pretty darn good place and I find it to be pretty
workable. Southern California, you guys have been doing it different for a lot of years so
it probably doesn't really affect you all. It definitely is going to affect rural areas and I
think we're in a pretty good place to implement it. I'm really encouraged. I guess where it
gets a little bit tricky is, and of course we're seeing this play out right now in the
legislature, those areas that aren't going to find their way to sustainability. Is the
adjudication model workable for some of these areas? That is where I think it's going to
get real tricky, and that really isn't in the Sacramento Valley; it's more in the San Joaquin
Valley and maybe some of the coastal areas. I think we're going to find out soon enough.
The good thing is I think we're going to find out those areas that are going to be able to
work towards that objective and those that can't. I think that'll help people then make the
next kind of policy judgment on what to do. I guess that's one I'm pretty optimistic about.
 You have to be ready when the window of opportunity comes, to make a big list from a
policy perspective, and I think that really has happened with groundwater, for example.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
262

There was about a decade of work that had gone on, at a much lower profile. It meant that
you had a lot of the places in question that were going to have to be regulated. The
groundwater people had already been doing some work and had some informal
groundwater management in place, and they had also been doing some investment in
modeling, and monitoring. It was starting from scratch for them, for a lot of them, and
then you have the crises that can help really push forward things. We like to talk about
crises as droughts and floods.
 There are two big things that came in last year as we ended our fourth year of drought.
Californians overwhelmingly passed a water bond, a significant amount of money and
looked at some issues that they hadn't looked at in recent years, such as water storage.
The other big issue that I think has more far reaching implications is the Groundwater
Management Act. I think it'll be sustainable once the crisis is past because everyone
knows it's needed. They just didn't do anything about it till the crisis, but I think the
realization that it needs to be done had already occurred. The political will to actually do
it had not, but I don't see a drive to reverse it. I think what's sustainable is that there just
comes a time when those policies are right, and the Groundwater Management Act
frankly was overdue. I don't see a reversing of it. Its time had come and even its
opponents, many of them, acknowledge that we had to do something. They don't
necessarily like exactly what we're doing here. I'm hopeful that will be the case in
whatever we do on the Delta. There are some people that are a pretty small minority that
are crying out, "Let's maintain the status quo." Even the people, who fervently hate the
governor's proposed project that we're working with him on, acknowledge that something
needs to be done. That's a change from where the situation was a decade ago.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
263

 I think the groundwater legislation is historic and earthshaking. I think this even though it
was done, and given the local time which in the drought seems like a long time. I actually
think it's very difficult to do and that the structure of how we did it which puts the
responsibility on the authority. It gave them more authority for the locals to actually do it.
It may end up being brilliant but it will end up being difficult. We'll be able to judge it
over time but it was an absolutely historic breakthrough. Even though you had the Valley
voting against it, all of the elected, we knew from working with people over this time that
there were a lot of people in agricultural who said, "You have to do this and you have to
make us do this. It's just too hard for us to do it ourselves. We know that we're going to
be potentially declaring the end of agriculture for our descendants if it doesn't happen but
it's just too hard for us to do ourselves. Even though the rhetoric was very harsh against
it in some cases, the support for it was far greater than the votes would entail. It was
revolutionary and radioactive for folks to say they were for it but in the same coffee
shops and bars, people were saying, "You've got to do this." I could have told you that I
think it's going to be incredibly historic and make all the difference in the world. It's just
going to be a rocky road to get there but anything big and important isn't going to be
easy. I think that's pretty huge. What else has happened recently is the safe drinking water
stuff like Human Right to Water, which is going to be incredibly significant as something
we're really proud of in the years ahead even though it's going to take a long time to get
there. I think we all support giving water to people who didn't have water in a more
expedited fashion than we ever did before. I think that's just going to accelerate. We're
going to have to figure out how to pay for it. It's going to be a real third-world challenge
but I that's really huge.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
264

 That is a hard question, actually, because it's going to vary with the issue. I think in each
case you have to think about it. We always have this dance of governments change and
priorities change. How do you guarantee there'll be a priority? I think part of it is if you
put it in the statute, then someone has to go through another process to undo the statute.
Otherwise, everything is always at risk of being undone if the politics change or the
leadership changes. I think if you're looking for durability in something you do, you also
have to try and embed it across as many different disciplines as you can and not just in
the hearts and minds of appointed officials.
 That is a really important question, and that's why the Delta Vision Task Force became
the Delta Vision Foundation. We became citizen watchdogs.
 You’re going to have to package them and it’s a two-part approach. You’re going to have
to identify those measures that you’re doing in the crisis mode because you lack the
arrows in your quiver, and what are the things you’re going to have to put into place
immediately. Then in the second chapter is how do we change our planning process and
our regulatory process so that we never go through this again, so that we don’t have only
a few arrows in our quiver the next time it hits, because it will hit again. You have to also
keep emotions out of the second chapter. Let all the emotions and all the reactionary
responses happen, and then stop to be absorbed in the first chapter of what’s our
immediate reaction.
 I think getting people more and more bought in to this Governor's California Water
Action Plan is becoming real. I think the business community, now that the drought's
here, I think more people are realizing, "Yeah, we do need this all of the above
investment strategy. We need to be serious about it. We need to get behind it. We can't
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
265

count on just the state and federal government doing things anymore. It's going to take
everybody to get into it." Then getting the draft out for the new Delta Fix that was big.
 In water, once it starts raining, all of a sudden, “Okay, we’re going back to our old ways.”
I guess two things. One is it is going to have to be written into either legislation or
regulation to hold. Then the other thing is, and I think this does work, because I’ve seen it
in Denver relative to using wastewater. You have to in effect have a culture change
amongst your users of the water. I saw it in Denver. We went through a big drought, and
they went through mandatory restrictions, and the water use after those were taken off
never went back up because people, they learned new behaviors in terms of, “I don’t need
to run a sprinkler seven days a week. I can do it two days a week and be okay or three
days a week.”
 I do think that the groundwater law is going to have a tremendous impact on water
management, even without the drought. What it sets in motion, is a reality that these
groundwater basins have to be brought into balance. They have never had to balance the
checkbook before. We are already starting to see, in a number of areas with critically
overdrafted groundwater basins, is a whole different reality setting in. Where they are
looking at, "Okay, can we recharge more flood water and can we make a little progress
with higher levels of efficiency." Then you actually see some areas talking about how
much land is going to have to come out of production to come into balance. So that also
will have a tendency to trigger more market action. If I know I am going to have 20%
less water as we bring the basin into balance, than I may be interested in buying out my
neighbor and consolidating his water on my land. I think that is going to drive a lot of
change. It clearly will drive conflict in some areas. I think that is a really important issue.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
266

The other one that I think is still necessary is a much better connection between land-use
planning and water use. So much land use planning and zoning takes place without any
consideration of water availability. I think that is an area that has been targeted by quite a
number of folks, that's something that has to change.
 Clearly the state has taken a more activist role in water management. As I said earlier,
that really hasn't changed. What I'm most concerned about is some of the strategies that
implement those changes do not fully take into account what's going on at the local or the
regional level. I think it's important, presuming we continue in this drought mode, I think
it is essential that the state partner with local and regional agencies to be successful in the
long term and to guard against any tendency of that “command and control” and that
“one size fits all.” I don't think that is the formula to success in the long run. It's good
when you have the crisis that has appeared and you've got to do something. I don't
believe that's sustainable as an approach to dealing with long-term issues.
 I think the potential for a dramatic change is very high if we don't fix our surface water
supply problem. I don't think the groundwater legislation was done just in a vacuum and
the support that it got from certain segments of society was any accident. I think it is part
of several stages to redirect water to environmental purposes. This sounds negative the
way I'm saying it, I don't mean it to be that way, but when we talk about groundwater
legislation, how that affects agriculture is, if you're farming in an unsustainable
groundwater region that is unsustainable because surface supplies have been cut over the
last 20 years, now your access to groundwater is limited, and that's going to dry up a lot
of farms. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 reallocated 800,000 to a
1,000,000 acre-feet or a little more, of water from agriculture to environmental purposes.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
267

The Endangered Species Act limits how much water we can move through the Delta to
farming and to urban uses as well, so that's taken water out of the supply side. It's reduced
the reliability. Farmers have responded in large part by increasing groundwater, pumping
over the years, much more so in the last four during the drought, and now we pile on top
of that a limit on access to groundwater by requiring groundwater basins to be
sustainable, when a decade or two ago we started a process to cut off surface supplies to
those areas. That's going to kill a lot of farmland. People should worry about that because
that's some of the most productive land in the state and its land that produces certain
crops during times of the year when they're not grown anywhere else. The west side I
think produces about 90% of the nation's lettuce during one or two months of the year.
 We have been advising a number of agencies for the last few years now. To the drought. I
said, "Look, you're doing the right things, but frame this whole thing in terms of good
water management, long-term sustainable water management, not just in terms of drought
response," because if you frame it in terms of drought response, drought gone, rationale
gone.
 The drivers are going to be cost and culture. If the cost remains low, and if the culture is
of reliance, then nobody is going to want to do it any other way. With regulations
regarding water reuse, and alternative supplies such as ocean desalination, and you've got
water rights issues with regards to groundwater and adjudicating basins, you need
barriers that exist for water transfers, and you have barriers for consolidation of agencies.
There are a number of barriers that are up there, but these are legislative fixes. Adopting
legislation that removes some of these barriers will need to happen.
 One way is to tie enforcement to eligibility for state grants.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
268

 The old axiom is never let a crisis go to waste, you have the attention now. Your question
is a conversation that is actually happening as we speak. If El Niño comes and
miraculously fills all the reservoirs, how do we keep some of these reforms moving
forward? We actually have engaged communication and campaign type people to try to
come up with the right kinds of strategies to keep stuff moving forward. It is a challenge.
The political half-life of a drought or a flood is 6 months. The reservoirs have filled or the
floods are gone, so people move on. So the challenge is to break the issue down to its
fundamental pieces and then turn it into, "Are we prepared for the next drought? Or do
we still have more work to do?" Land-use connections are one of those that I think can
have momentum to carry forward.
 We've always seen in our region a lot of behavioral changes regarding water use. That
occurred during a shortage, they tend to stick around. If the crisis isn't a day or a week or
a month, and because it's a longer term, usually you have behavioral changes that stick.
Certainly our numbers in our balance per person per day that shows that it sticks and that
we continue to drop. We've dropped over thirty percent since the first big drought in
ninety-one, that culminated in ninety-one. Then that cutback in 2009-11, we had another
big drop. Also, our polling and maybe this goes to the issue of that continual outreach
and engagement of your community, our polling shows that our community does know
that something needs to be done. That it'll cost them more on their water bill, and our
region has said they're willing to pay for more water reliability if it makes good business
sense.
 The challenge is if you come up with the right policies that reward good water
management and give communities the flexibility to do so, I think that incentive will help
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
269

regions and communities do more of it. That is critically important; you have to reward
good behavior. You have to incentivize smart water management. That will be the
challenge, I think the state has facing it currently.

12. Do you see barriers for adopting any major changes to California water? If so,
what are they? Do you see any ways to remove the barriers?
Water rights and governance came up again as a barrier to change. Money was
discussed as there is less state and federal money available to implement programs.
Climate change was discussed as an issue that will have to be addressed.

 I do see some barriers, and there is a lot depending on how broad you want to go. I do
think that our water rights system is still, challenging in the sheer number of water
rights that are out there. I think because of that, water rights, there is a mentality I
think of history and legacy, and rights, and entitlements. I think that is going to be
challenging going forward, because people are really wedded to these things that have
been in place for a century in some cases. I think that is a challenge moving forward,
I think that the scale of problem is going to be a challenge too, I am thinking
specifically about some of the groundwater overdraft in some areas. We are not
talking about a couple of percentage points of overdraft, it is a really big problem and
that is going take a great effort, it is almost overwhelming in that sense. I think that is
going to be challenging in some levels but it was the only way we were able to get
that policy passed. But it is also going to make actually taking action difficult; and I
think that is a challenge. I think that Proposition 218, obviously in the broader pricing
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
270

and financing issue is a challenge. We have a long way to go in getting people to
understand the cost of water and the issue, the essential issue, is there are so many
water systems. Unlike some of the investor-owned utilities there is no sort of similar
oversight regulation of public water systems with respect to some of these other
issues. I think that is a barrier. I do not obviously see that changing but I think you are
going to see leaders and laggers, and then everything in between, obviously.
 The politics of water is, "Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over." Water is
life. The other politics are the politics of growth control, which is the very first
meeting I ever attended as a baby. I was in the real estate development business, and
I attended a water conference on a whim. I sat in a room with, I think they were 100
people, and people were talking about water storage, a dam, and something.
Somebody stood up and said, "We can't do these water storage projects, because they
are growth inducing," and blah, blah, blah. They are growth inducing. I kept hearing
that over and over, and I finally raised my hand and I stood up and I said, "I'm very
confused. I have never heard of water storage as growth inducing. I always thought
sex was growth inducing." That became the byline for the next 30 years of her career,
that is, if you don't plan for growth, it's going to plan you. It isn't about growth
inducement. People are already here making babies. How disrespectful that we don't
allow them to have clean, safe, reliable water, because you think that it will attract
more people. They are here anyway, and they are having sex. Until you prohibit sex
in the State of California, we have a duty to provide for the next generation and the
generation after that. We have a duty. Shame on us for not meeting that duty.
Population control is a big thing, and it is talked about frankly underground. It's not
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
271

talked about in the public ground. So, one of those interesting issues, and it isn't as
you know quote unquote, undocumented or illegal immigration. It is our own people
having babies right here.
 Climate change is also a big issue. It seems that that's the focus 24/7 of our
administration right now. If climate change is connected to growth control, is
connected to reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, is connected to renewable
energy, but hydroelectric isn't allowed to be considered renewable, there is a mystical
mix of issues that are connected there with climate change that I'm not smart enough
to figure out yet, but I know it's a policy issue that will be of concern to water leaders.
 I started this conversation about the whole issue of water rights and allocations. To do
that in a way that's fair but also allocates water in terms of what I think the highest to
best use is in California.
 The legislature is a key ingredient, and they are less likely to be forward, long-range
investment-oriented and more likely to be crisis-respondent. Focused. Maybe some
kind of legislative summit sponsored by the Public Policy Institute of California that
would highlight the long-term threats to the California economy. Today’s legislators,
many of them don't have a great deal of statewide experience, and there's not a lasting
pool of institutional memory. Maybe something like that that would present
opportunities and challenges in a way that causes the legislature to begin to think
beyond immediate crisis and be more focused on longer-range kinds of investments
and ideas. Certainly that should be one of the outgrowths of this current drought, to
access what are we lacking? Why are we in the condition we're in and if we have
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
272

similar weather conditions ten years from now, what investments do we need to make
now to better meet those challenges? I guess I think the legislature is kind of key.
 The militaries learned a long time ago that the people on the front lines can inform
you about what's really happening and that leads to better decisions back at
command. We have almost 500 local water agencies in California. Those people have
their finger on the pulse. They know what will work and they can implement things
much cheaper than somebody at a government level further removed. I will always be
a big believer of, if we want to figure out the most effective way to deal with
something, talk to the people that are on the ground in that particular area. Now, they
may be self-serving and may not give you the best information, but if you ask the
right questions you can generally glean from that what will likely work and where the
money would be best invested.
 I think one of the biggest barriers is just political inertia. Water is complicated. The
water industry, by and large, doesn't like to change, so it is hard to create the
momentum to overcome the complexity and the history of not changing. Groundwater
is a good example. You can go back many decades and find reports about the bad
conditions of groundwater in California, and how things need to change. We pulled a
lot of work from a 1978 report the Governor had commissioned, and actually
ironically it was Governor Brown who had commissioned it, warning of the problems
if the state continued to let groundwater be mined without a state framework. It could
just never overcome that. The drought helped us to do that. We have a water rights
system that was basically founded in the gold rush days, where you would tack a
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
273

piece of paper up to a tree and claim your rights, and that is still the water rights
system that we have today.
 I think the biggest barrier to that is public acceptance, but even that's eroding. I'd say
the current barrier, which will be overcome; it's just the regulations that are going to
regulate direct potable reuse. I see investment, you know this is a long-range
investment and we're so habituated to short- term budgets. For elected officials it's a
difficult decision, so I think that you have to look at the long-range cost involved in
doing it and then overcome the fact that this is reasonable, only in a long-term
context. It doesn't make sense in the short term, it's too expensive, but in the long run
it really does.
 The water industry, in general, there is great exceptions to this, but in general is just
very resistant to change.
 People. It is human nature. We want to avoid doing difficult things. Change is always
hard.
 Entrenched political interest, elected leaders, want an easy way out, educating leaders
– focusing on longer term benefits and a time consuming process .
 I'll start with the Delta because obviously that's the most complicated one we have in
California. There are a lot of barriers in the Delta. To me, it's almost there; the
barriers are almost just a sheer function of magnitude. I'm not a big fan of CEQA, to
be honest because I don't think CEQA benefits the environment in most cases. I think
we've all seen NIMBY types using it and all that so I guess I would probably say I
think CEQA has probably outlived its usefulness. As soon as I say that I know that it
does me no good to say it because we're not going to change it. My view of CEQA
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
274

has always been a more of a process oriented section. It would be nice if we could get
more back to substantive objectives of what are we trying to do? I would really
figure out how to do a lot more creative groundwater management in the San Joaquin
valley. Obviously that's a localized dynamic, in large part. Helping provide any
surplus flows when you can with recharge to, quite honestly, limiting land uses where
you need to. I think that's one where we've oversubscribed the system and somebody
needs to be honest about that at some level.
 We have an extremely complex water system. I think that's the challenge. Can you
make that smoother? Possibly, but I think one of the major barriers is the multiple
state agencies of having jurisdiction over water. I think that is a huge barrier. I think
that for example, our recent project had four different agencies to go through, seven
or eight permits to accomplish.
 I think at this point one of the big challenges is that we're tripping over ourselves with
regulations. If you look at what's not working in California water, the thing being
worked on the most is the supply side, actually for people. Things are much trickier ...
really not working on it in terms of environmental management and then there's some
real challenges, work in progress, I would say in, terms of addressing needs for
disadvantaged communities, especially in rural areas, both water quality and now also
supply in some places. In order to do stuff that is beneficial, it's a nightmare. We have
a regulatory system with so many different overlays now. It was a system designed to
prevent us from doing bad things and it's now also preventing us from doing good
things. We talked about this a lot in the work we did on the Delta and managing
multiple stressors in the Delta. Take a look at the report called, "Stress Relief,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
275

Prescriptions for a Healthier Delta Ecosystem." There's a table and a discussion there
just about all the different permitting authorities needed to do something. If you go to
the detailed report, there's an institutional report that it references that was part of that
project. There's an entire page, just as an example, a really low lift project, like a light
lift project, something that everybody agrees on in the Delta, of all places, and that
already is in public hands in terms of land. It's a restoration project on an island in the
north Delta, and just the nightmare of number of permits and approvals and
authorities needed to make that happen, and that's an easy case. We just need to find
ways to streamline and make it easier to say yes. Right now the reaction of the built-
in way permitting happens is much more about saying no or all the hoops you have to
jump through. It's not coordinated among agencies nearly as much as it needs to be. I
just don't see how we're going to succeed in environmental management unless we
address that.
 I would amend the Endangered Species Act.
 We have developed a highly complex governance system that has so many checks
and balances contained within it that it became almost impossible to do anything,
good, bad, or indifferent, absent a crisis. That's not just water, but water being one of
the more fought-over issues is certainly right up there, but it's true of many facets of
what we do as a state and as a country.
 There are some conditions that you have to do like you really can't go to a very robust
market system until you have the data. There's that. Then you have to figure out how
to do a market system and whether that's what you really want because there are pros
and cons. I think a lot of people like the idea because it sounds good but it sounds
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
276

efficient. I don't actually have an opinion one way or the other. I think there's also a
conversation to be had about equity and community that they had resolved in terms of
making their system simpler to begin with but they have already moved to a system
of shared pain or shared, I don't know what the word would be. Then they decided to
add a market on top of it. If we trued up all our numbers, and frankly we'd have to
true up our water rights because they're not trued up, right now people aren't sure
what they are.
 It is that there's such, and especially now, during this extended period of low rainfall,
drought, that the short-term survival is paramount to any one stakeholder, and in
particular here, any one water industry, they are absolutely desperate for anything that
will provide relief, and they don't see the path forward of the solution I just laid out.
Why haven't they? Because there hasn't been a governor saying it. Now they all ended
up having to be forced to something besides just Bay Delta Conservation Plan alone,
and they still are looking for that leadership out of the administration to make it come
together quickly.
 The first thing that came to mind but you asked it is so why doesn't it happen? If
we've had these solutions, why hasn't it happened, and my answer back, and I just
want to underscore, is because there hasn't been sufficient leadership to keep
everybody at the table. The parties that could do it in the absence of a strong governor
on this have let too much time dissipate, haven't understood the power they do have
to come together, and then we get into a crisis and we need an immediate relief
solution, and then that only feeds into the growing conflict, or the underlying conflict.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
277

 There are major obstacles. If I go to one more panel discussion, if I go into one more
venue where the proponents of certain constituencies for stakeholders gives a same
speech over and over and over again you’re never going to get off the dime. People
are stuck in a rut. The “my way or the highway” mentality has absolutely absorbed
the state and it’s fear-driven, I mean, for the environmental interests in many
instances, and the environmental organizations aren’t the same across the spectrum.
You have those that you can work with, that get this, and you have those that are
whose funding model, and that is what it gets down to, once their funding models are
entrenched in the combativeness. This attitude in California, I mean, driving into the
Bay Delta and seeing signs to the stop the hypes. People having been told that it’s the
single scariest thing that’s ever happened to them? That was self-serving to those who
professed that.
 Sporadic leadership, short-term thinking in certain areas. I really look at Met, and I
haven't been at Met a long time. But I really admire the organization. I've looked at
what they've done over the years, and been speaking a lot about obviously the
drought. One of the kinds of recurring things that people ask is, "Well, tell us what's
different now than the drought in the '90s?" I really look at what Met did, and it's
what they did, planning and investment. First of all, planning. How are we going to
meet future needs and deal with situations like this? They changed to. I'm just going
to go to the Colorado and going to go to Northern California. We're just going to have
this whole portfolio approach. It's going to cost us more. We have this stewardship
fund idea, and we can't count on anybody else to solve our problems. We've got to
kind of collectively do it together. The Board stuck with it, and they hammered
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
278

through the plan, and then they executed. They started making the investments,
whether it was this Palo Verde Program, or Diamond Valley, or Inland Feeder, or the
ozone. There's been billions of dollars in investment, but it all was part of, where are
we going in the future? It's hard to do that at a broader level. You go to certain areas
to, and they kind of know maybe what they need to do, but maybe they don't have the
resources to do it. That's the other thing. That's where Metropolitan is fortunate.
We've been able to generate the resources to actually make things happen. It takes
those ingredients of planning and investment, and that takes the leadership to be able
to say that that's what we're going to do. Otherwise, the next time it comes around,
it’s, “What do we do?”
 It depends on the change you want to talk about. There are always barriers to
everything. The challenge is how to get around them. How do you identify and get
around them? It depends on what you're talking about. The barriers vary a lot. The
biggest barriers are probably the things that really need to happen on our big system.
If you look at things that were under the purview of local water managers, they have
largely been done. We are not done doing them, but if you look at the amount of
recycling, desalinating water, toilet conversions, and low head shower heads. The
long list of stuff that you guys have done down in southern California, largely
through incentive-based programs. One place where we need change today is not
only continuing the change in local resource management but we need the state and
federal government to step up. The Delta's a mess. It's got to be fixed. The state has to
provide the leadership to do that and Lord knows this governor's been trying but Lord
also knows that he's a long way from success.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
279

 Western water rights are huge, use it or lose it. You have case law probably all the
way to the Supreme Court, that has set the use of water in the west really from
Colorado West, and that’s a huge issue because it encourages water to be not used
very well. It’s like the Salton Sea where they just run a bunch of water out of the
Colorado because if we don’t do that, then we’re going to lose our ride. I think that’s
a huge issue because of the case law that’s been established, I think, difficult to
change.
 Another big barrier is special interest groups. They’ll look at the entire issue but look
only at their own mean. I think that’s damaging because it drives perception and
perception becomes reality. The politicians act on that.
 The unwillingness of all the different factions getting together and moving forward
and talking. The lack of communication, the lack of dialogue, the lack of
collaboration, I think those are the biggest barriers to this. Obviously, when we get
everybody in the courtroom, and you’ve got a judge in a black robe sitting there
pounding the gavel, and finally saying, “Okay, folks. This is the way it’s going to be,”
lo and behold, that’s the way it is.
 The need for policymakers to understand what our supply is, what our future needs
are going to be, and what our priorities are, and the public needs to be involved in
that. I think one of the barriers is a lack of public understanding of where the water's
going and how they're benefiting from it. I think if people knew that there would be
higher food costs and/or fewer choices in the market, they would absolutely vote for
water supplies to agriculture to be sustainable and protected, but I don't think people
understand that fully.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
280

 Regulations regarding water reuse and alternative supplies such as ocean desalination,
you've got water rights issues with regards to groundwater and adjudicating basins,
you need barriers that exist for water transfers, you have barriers for consolidation of
agencies. There are a number of barriers that are up there, but these are legislative
fixes. Adopting legislation that removes some of these barriers is what’s going to
need to happen.
 Money
 There are too many stakeholders and a fractured regulatory system. We are working
with environmental policies that are not comprehensive or consistent.
 There is too much noise, incorrect facts that muddy the waters and impact decision
makers.
 All of us. All of our personalities. I mean we have had water jobs for a long, long
time. Absent crisis, and it's been difficult to do anything. I would say pricing of water
and politics. We don't know how the public will react to things or not. You get a ton
done if people are willing to pay more for water. Every water agency has got to
decide whether they are going to invest, which makes it very difficult because there
are politics at play in each area.
 Restrictions, it is laws. The approval process. Some of this is good. It all has to be
transparent, and we need experts in each of these areas, but I think the business of
government has to be simplified, streamlined. I can tell you, and I've said this for
twenty years, but we have too many water boards. We should have just one major
water board for the watershed.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
281

13. If you were given the power and resources tomorrow that allowed you to do
ANYTHING to improve California’s water management for the future, what would
you do?
CEQA reform, governance and financing rose as top priorities.
 One would be aggressive "Show me the water" provision. So that if a new demand
was coming on, let's say a large planned unit development, they would have to show
where the water is coming from in order to be able to pull the permits. The other
though, is steps before that were, water really is not a required element of the general
plan and it is not a required element of the zoning that takes place as a result of
general plan. So, I think there actually needs to be a stronger legal requirement that
water requirements and impact on water resources are part of the general plan and the
zoning process. It really isn't now.
 Build more storage and improve the ability to move water around the state.
 I don't know how you would go about doing it and I’ve been obviously thinking about
this a lot without getting into the whole notion of who’s in charge rather than a
structural rethink, how do you get people to assume responsibility for the entirety of
the system no matter where they are in it and begin … if I could wave a magic wand
and make people’s perception change, it’s that just they recognize that they’re
citizens of a community. They’re citizens of a region. They’re citizens of a state.
They’re a citizen of a country. They are citizens of a shared water supply or shared
water system equally dependent on all parts. If you think about how we approached
protecting the state, protecting the country. If you can take those attitudes of joint
protection and apply them in a different context, people’s attitudes will change. Our
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
282

laws are no more than a reflection of attitudes that existed at times they were enacted.
It’s that shift in attitude and it has to come from the leadership. The public isn’t going
to get it right away. It’s got to be tough about time and time and time again. You
think about your joint survival and your joint sustainability in a different way.
 Number one would be, establishing clear, reasonable use standards. Number two
would probably be, restructuring governance. Number three is, establishing long-term
financing for water resource management, beyond just the day-to-day delivery of
water and treatment of waste water. That, it covers the entire picture of water resource
management.
 I would integrate the state and federal systems to benefit operations. I would allocate
water based on beneficial uses and provide funding for local resource development
 For me the top priority would be dealing with the information first so that it is not just
theoretical. I wouldn't want us to require and get far better data on where water is,
how much people are using and how much they're using. I would want to do this
metering and measuring thing that the Australians did. Right now it's a little loosey-
goosey in terms of what we're dealing with. If I could wave a magic wand, I would
actually want to true up our water rights system.
 I would proceed with a Delta fix immediately and I'd try to reform much of our
environmental regulation and our water rights system.
 I would probably start with trying to get the water rights system straightened out, so
that everybody knew what they had. Because that's, to me, it's pretty foundational to
lots of things. It's foundational to water transfers, investments. If you're going to
make major investments, don't you want to know kind of the basis? I look at the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
283

Colorado and Met. When people say, "We have this antiquated system." I go,
"Really? It's old, I get it. But what's the problem? Is it that it structurally can't work,
or that we're not making it work?"
 If I got to play king for the day, I would really like to redo much of our governance
system and either take a serious look at are there ways to get more like a
parliamentary system. Are there some serious streamlining approaches we can take
that say enough review and debate? There will be sufficient disclosure, review, and
debate but then at some point you get to make decisions and actually move forward.
I'd like to probably completely junk our initiative system which I don't think has
contributed much in value in quite a while.
 I think it would be around environmental flows because we talk about the drought as
impacts on agriculture and the cities and the mandatory restrictions. But the reality is
the ecosystems that are really suffering, they are. Under Shasta there was a ninety,
ninety-five percent mortality of some of the salmon beneath the dam last year. That is
just one life stage; I do think that there is a real risk of them going extinct, at least at
this part of their range. I think that ensuring adequate flows for the environment
would be my, the first thing I would do. I see in the urban areas there is a lot of
progress being made, and certainly not by everybody, but I am less worried about the
urban areas. I do think that the tools are there and there is an understanding of the
past. I do not see that for the environment right now.
 Oh my gosh. I don't know. I'm not smart enough to be the person on that. I would go
to Ron Gastelum and say, "Ron, what should we do?"
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
284

 I would allocate water based on need rather than water rights. That would be the
number one thing I would do.
 I'd buy a helicopter and give people rides so they could see everything. If it's
unlimited I think it's an amazing complex disconnected system and I'd love to
emphasize public education. If I had a helicopter and could give people rides and let
them see it from the air, all the better. There's probably ways to infuse high schools
and community colleges and universities with curriculum that helps. Even at the
fourth grade level when kids are learning about California history, integrate water
supply system into that. You can't start too early.
 A solid, well-defined Public Goods Charge that generated annually a pot of money to
do specific things, such as dealing with disadvantaged communities, and a very strong
water market. Obviously I have a little bit of faith that those two things will be
motivators to start moving the sector in the right direction. I mean, there are a lot of
specific things that need to happen, but I think if I could just make those two happen,
I think eventually they would provide the motivation necessary to keep on the reform
path.
 It would be providing, for tomorrow, incentives for the various regions and
communities to do better water management and investments.
 Clean up aquifers and capture rainwater.
 My power would be to have more efficient, more streamlined government to get
things done, and a visionary government, which means smaller government. I think
that's where our problem starts. When you start having all these levels of
management, it takes more money, you end up having more boards, and the public
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
285

has to foot the bill for it. If I had the power right now I think we have the system in
place, which is a very good system, it's that we have to manage it better by a
streamlined type of government that will make it easier to meet the needs of the
people. That's our major goal; provide quality and quantity of water.
14. What question should I have asked you that I didn’t?
 I do think one area is the issue of disadvantaged communities both within wealthy
urban areas, but then communities that are broadly disadvantaged. There is a lot more
focus on that and I think that is a good thing, the passage of the human rights water,
there was funding specifically dedicated to those systems. I feel like there is progress
being made there but I do think that is an important topic, this is obviously one of the
wealthiest states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world and the fact that we
have people who do not have clean, affordable water is really a travesty.
 I don't know if it's a question or a kind of a comment, you even eluded to this right off
the bat. I've never liked it when we are in these discussions and people come out and
say Australia did this and so if Australia did that then we ought to be doing that. I find
that kind of discourse is not particularly helpful because usually when people make
those comments, of course, they've got an agenda they're trying to advance. They've
only looked at part of the discussion. Hopefully we'll quit having those kinds of
abstract conversations. These abstract conversations drive me crazy on water.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
286

Lessons Learned for California
1. There is no one Australia or California. Each area is made of up diverse regions with
different needs, different hydrologic conditions, different sources and different cultures.
As Californians look to apply “lessons learned”, they need to be careful to analyze what
will work for their conditions. For example, San Diego and Perth have very similar
conditions, so San Diegans may look to lessons learned in Perth rather than another area
in Australia. Large cisterns that are very effective in some parts of Australia may not be
the highest priority solution in some parts of California.
2. Australia and California share similar pasts, current challenges and future risks. Rather
than sharing lessons learned during or after a crisis, there should be some consideration
of ongoing collaboration between the two regions.
3. The Governor may want to consider establishing a liaison or agency to coordinate with an
Australian official. Many organizations have sent delegations between the two regions.
It may be beneficial to have a coordinated effort so that delegations can stay informed on
emerging issues and groups coordinating the educational trips can build on the success of
each other.
4. Governance, especially changes in governance, is a subject that most don’t want to
address, but it will have to be considered. There needs to be a balance between local and
state management and there may be opportunities for new regional collaborations to form
and provide benefits. This will be one of the biggest challenges for California.
Australia’s political system, while quite different than California’s, has in the past
provided an opportunity to change governance. This will be much more difficult to
implement in California.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
287

5. California’s water rights system has to be considered. This will be ugly, hard and
challenging but options must be considered. Although there will likely be winners and
losers, we must find a way to mitigate the impacts and update California’s water rights
system.
6. Additional funding alternatives need to be developed. Australia has had the benefit of a
federal government with significant resources to invest in addressing water issues. The
possibility of the federal government in the United States investing billions of dollars in
California’s water systems appears to be unlikely at best. Local agencies will likely have
to continue to pay for most of improvements. Agencies in other areas are using century
bonds to pay for projects that will have extended life spans. Additional options need to
be developed to expand the tools available in the future.
7. As noted above, local agencies will likely have to pay for improvements and will have to
rely on support from their constituencies. The water industry used to be the “silent
industry”, but this is no longer the case. The public demands to be informed on issues
and water agencies will have to improve the way they inform and partner with their
customers. An example of this is in Santa Cruz, where a citizen commission has direct
impact on the decisions on the future of the city. Water agencies will need to educate and
engage their customers more to advance programs.
8. Australia built a water grid that allows them to move water between major cities, while
California has a network of aqueducts and canals. The last large investments in the state
system were over 50 years ago and California must fix the Bay-Delta to enable the
system to work. As noted in Chapter 3, close to half a million acre-feet of water flowed
to the ocean during the first two months of 2016, enough water for 3.6 million
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
288

Californians for one year. This water could have been captured and moved to storage for
dry years without impacting the environment. California cannot continue to miss these
opportunities to manage this vital resource.
9. Water transfers are important in both regions. California should continue to develop and
support water transfers in both dry and wet years.
10. Adaptive management will be important to both regions in the future. Much work is will
be needed to learning how to effectively use adaptive management to address issues and
serve as an effective tool for future water policies.
11. There is no silver bullet. Over the last 30 years, agencies in California have done an
effective job of investing in diverse water portfolios and making investments in programs
that are most cost-effective first. Both regions are and should continue to diversify their
water portfolios.
12. Leadership will continue to be critical in the future. It is important to engage leaders at
all levels early in their public service careers to ensure that they have an understanding of
their local, regional, and statewide water issues because water is such an important issue
to the state.
Author’s Lessons Learned
1. Public policy is not pretty. I remember an during interview with Sunne McPeak, we
discussed our early lives in agriculture and she said that developing policy is similar in
that you have to first deal with what you have to make something work and then either go
back and make it better later or learn from the experience and have a better approach the
next time. We agreed that all policy makers should spend some time on a farm having to
make do with what was there in the field when you have a problem.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
289

2. There needs to be a balance between securing policy during a crisis and establishing
policy or refining that is not able to adjust to changing needs. I think about an interview
where this analogy of ESA was made, it is like trying to use a 1965 Ford Mustang
owner’s manual to maintain a Prius. It just won’t work well. The same can be said of
policies. They need to be solid enough to withstand attempts to decrease effectiveness,
but flexible enough to adjust to changing environments.
3. Public policy is changing—and not just water. Constituents are more informed and will
continue to demand to be more engaged. There is a benefit to educating the masses and
everyone must get better at educating the public on the issues. The issues are complex
and challenging, but the facts must be provided in a way that the public can understand.
4. Leadership is critical at every level. This will become more challenging as the issues
become more complex and leaders are asked to address more diverse issues.
5. We have to find a way to get past conflict. We don’t have the luxury of fighting over
solutions for the next 50 years to solve problems. Stakeholders must find new ways to
work together and spend resources on developing water supplies instead of court fees.
6. Polices are influenced by personal values. Policy makers, water managers, businesses,
other stakeholders and constituents each hold different values for water. The time for
long battles over water has passed and stakeholders need to work collaboratively,
understanding the critical role of water in California and the impact of unreliable supplies
on the future of the state. Policies and programs will need to be integrated to ensure
supplies from diverse sources are developed in a sustainable manner to meet growing
demands and support the state’s economy. It is important to understand how different
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
290

stakeholders value water as difficult policy choices are negotiated, and as wicked water
problems of the future are addressed.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
291

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
1. What environmental
conditions, political,
institutional, economic,
leadership or other factors
facilitated Australia’s
National Water Initiative?
2. What was happening at that
moment that created a tipping
point providing an
opportunity for change?
Mix of the National Competition
Policy (NCP) including
establishing independent
regulation and corporatization or
privatization of public utility
and separation of policy
regulation and service delivery,
recognition that the environment
was degrading, and the state of
science.

Consensus that the reform was
not based on drought, but dated
back to the NCP, which focused
on major utilities in Australia,
including gas, electricity, ports,
rail, road, and water.
Mix of the National Competition
Policy, recognition that the
environment was degrading, and
the state of science.
3. What resulted from the
National Water Initiative’s
new institutions/institutional
redesign, policies, laws,
regulations, and programs?
There was some consensus
regarding the establishment of
independent regulation and
corporatization or privatization
of public utility and separation
of policy regulation and service
delivery.

There was consensus that the
establishment of the National
Water Commission was very
beneficial.
Mix of the National Water
Initiative and Murray-Darling
Basin Plan.
4. What do you think are the
most important changes
made?
A mix of the National Water
Initiative and entitlements.
A mix of making businesses
self-sustaining and independent,
addressing environmental issues
and the ability to respond at the
national level, and reporting
straight to the Prime Minister
with a triple-bottom line
approach (environment, societal
and economic impacts).
A mix of buying back water at a
market price from irrigation
enterprises, the Murray-Darling
Basin.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
292

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
5. What is the current status?
What is being done now?
Has progress continued,
stalled or reverted?
There was no consensus, but
two of the three responded that
the National Water Commission
was being closed and folded into
other government agencies.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 On the whole for the big
cities, water is secure, there is
a shift from a regime of
policy on the run to a range
of customer choice and
livable cities, the people that
understood the reforms have
largely washed out of the
system.

 There is a new generation of
people both at the policy
level and also at the political
level that don't understand
how these organizations have
been set up. As a result there
is a tendency for political
influence coming in and that
was one of the purposes of
the reform was to try to
break.

 There is a risk that the NWC
There was no consensus.
Responses included different
stages of the status of the
National Water Commission.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
293

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
will not have the same
driving force and monitoring
presence as it did when
initially established.
6. How did Australia address
the impacts of transitioning
to a new paradigm? Were
there individuals or groups
that “lost” something? How
were those losses addressed?
There was not consensus. It was
noted that impacts were felt
mostly in the rural areas and
under the Murray-Darling Basin
Plan, which addressed
sustainable water use.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Rural water users,
adjustments were made
where water shifted away
from certain communities,
but it never should have gone
there in the first place.
Irrigating areas where it was
just unsustainable to irrigate.

 The types of crops produced
shifted to “salad crops” from
citrus and grapes.

 The biggest losses were in
the trade-offs in the
environmental water and
agricultural. The successful
implementation of water
markets helped. Really good
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Overall, we've probably
achieved some level of
robustness in our water
management legislation
regulation policy.

 Water management is
delegated to the states, to the
state government. That is
where there has been
significant institutional
change that's not as obvious
to an international audience
because you tend to look at a
nation and look for the
national government and the
national policies.

 People talk about the towns
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
294

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
measuring systems were
critical to the success of the
water market. It's that old
paradigm you can't measure
it you can't manage it. People
knew where the water was
going and where it was
coming from so they could
manage Australia's water
accounts far better.

losing because there's less
irrigation industry in a rural
town. There are fewer jobs,
less people buying groceries,
less traffic, less industry, so
certainly arguments by some
towns that the water
reformers considerably
impacted on them. On the
other side of the ledger,
people are saying there's
more floods, there's more
long term sustainability,
tourism has picked up in
some places, there's better
fishing. Non-use people have
benefited by the reform.

7. Were there any
constituencies that did not
have a voice? If so, how
were their concerns
addressed?
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The approach to water
planning and the principles
associated with the National
Water Initiative are to engage
with all those stakeholders
and the National Water
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Initially the
aboriginal/indigenous people
and the environment did not
have a loud enough voice,
but that changed through
compromise.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 I don't know that any
constituents didn't have a
voice but many constituents
had less of a voice.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
295

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
Initiative specifically requires
that indigenous stakeholder’s
requirements around culture
be addressed in the water
planning.

 The environment leaders had
to do an awful lot of work
with their mass memberships
to persuade them that an
agreement was in
everybody's long term
interest.

 I don't know.

 Indigenous communities may
have benefited because those
areas that they used to live in
and hunt and gather were
being degraded significantly
in the past regime because
there wasn't the
environmental flows going
through. Now that we've
actually not only got the
environmental entitlements,
but we're also figuring out
how to use that
environmental water better.
They are probably seeing a
restoration of those areas that
they hadn't seen before.

 Urban water customers were
not given an adequate voice
during the drought.

 There were constituencies
that didn't have a stronger
voice as others. I suppose
that's always the case.
Indigenous communities,
that's a community that in
Australia nearly always has
the last voice to be listened
to. Indeed our indigenous
community's a bit like the
North American indigenous
people tend to be the ones
who tend to live in the rural
spaces where a lot of this
impacts the greatest.

 The environment groups had
a reasonable voice and the
irrigators had a very strong
voice. There were indigenous
groups that perhaps didn't
have as strong a voice. There
was a lot of grazing farmers
who depend on floods had a
voice but didn't necessarily
have the resources to be able
to lobby as well. I think one
of the issues is really about
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
296

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
the resources the irrigation
industry had to lobby for
what they wanted.

8. How were programs funded
under the National Water
Initiative?
There was consensus that
broader reform efforts were
funded by a combination of
Commonwealth and State
investments.
There was consensus that
programs funded under the
National Water Initiative were
funded somewhat as a carrot
approach from the federal
government, with the state
signing on that there were
monies available to implement
some of the programs.
There was some consensus that
programs were funded by the
government and they are still
paying the costs.
9. What role did leadership play
in the National Water
Initiative? At what levels
(national, territories, regions,
and cities)?
There was consensus that
leadership was critical at every
level.
There was consensus that
leadership was critical at every
level. It was noted that leaders
at the highest levels had been in
office for multiple terms and
that stability was important for
the reforms.

There was consensus that
leadership was critical at every
level.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
297

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment

10. What role did public interest
play? How did the public
engage in the water crisis?
There was no consensus, but it
was noted that the interest has
waned after the drought.
There was no consensus, but it
was noted that it was important
that cities established use targets
for their residents. Another
response emphasized the
importance of positive
messaging.

There was no consensus, but it
was noted that it was important
that cities established use targets
for their residents.
11. Have you observed any
changes since the immediate
crisis of the Millennium
drought ended? If so, would
you do anything differently
in the future to ensure that
the benefits realized during
the crisis continues once it is
over?
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Tension is starting to rise
again. In the period after the
drought, our strategy has
been to maintain the
momentum of these Murray-
Darling Basin reforms and
not let go, that's how we've
occupied the time and that
has been very demanding
work.
 Our fear is that if the drought
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 We are seeing backsliding
from some of the states
around cost reflective
pricing.

 We are continuing to educate
and communicate with
communities. It is easy for
people backslide.

There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The benefits are still
continuing. The changes
have not necessarily been a
result of the Millennium
drought breaking. It's more
around the politics of having
a conservative government
which has as one of its
partners, the National Party,
which has its electric mainly
in rural Australia. They have
been lobbied hard to change
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
298

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment
comes back next year, we
may not be able to finalize
implementation. It might just
get too hard because people
are suffering so much out
there, the government might
want to take their foot off the
pedal. Our view in the
relevant government agencies
is that it's very important to
maintain momentum on these
reforms or it's very hard to
get them back.

 Get additional support. Be
aware that drought will come
back and be ready for it.

 I think it's only now looking
back 10 years, it would have
been nice to actually have
spent a little more time
upfront thinking about our
reform agenda or utilities that
was more aspirational than
what it was at the time.

some of these policies.

 We swapped from water
being the issue of the day to
energy. Politicians might also
say they lurched from one
crisis to another.

 The benefits are still
continuing.

 The changes have not been a
result of the millennium
drought breaking. It is more
around the politics of having
a conservative government
which has as one of its
partners, the National Party,
which has its electric mainly
in rural Australia. They have
been lobbied hard to change
some of these policies.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
299

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment

12. In retrospect, what would you
have changed?
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Reform is a never-ending
journey, what was identified
in the National Water
Initiative is it wasn’t a lot of
a change in pipe to water
utility reform. That's because
from the reform agenda 10
years earlier, it was seen to
have addressed a lot of vision
in a way.
 Increase communication —
tell the story more often and
better.
There was some consensus that
they could have planned better.

There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 I don't think so. I think a few
of us that have been working
in this area for some time
were really ecstatic that the
federal government was
investing so much in the
environment and buying back
water.

 The next level of change is
going to have to occur in our
built environment. This goes
for water and energy. I refer
here to some also Australian
language and a different
language that's developing in
the US, but in Australian
language we're referring to it
as water sensitive cities.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Groups)
AUSTRALIA
300

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Urban/
Water Industry
Academic/Research/
Environment

13. What question should I have
asked you that I didn’t?
There was not consensus, but it
was noted that a question on
how Australia-centric the
reforms were or how applicable
the reform efforts would be in
California would be a good
addition.
There was consensus that there
are no additional questions.
There was consensus that there
are no additional questions.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
301

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
1. Do you think the current
conditions in California pose a
serious crisis to water
management? If so, what
factors contribute to the
seriousness of the current
condition? If not, why not?

There was consensus that the
drought was serious. There
was general consensus that the
drought exposed weaknesses in
California’s water management
systems, infrastructure and
water rights.
There was not consensus.
Some saw the current condition
as a crisis and others as a
challenge that Californian’s
were managing effectively.
There was general consensus
that California experienced a
crisis. Contributing factors
included the hydrologic
conditions, lack of sound water
rights, environmental
restrictions and population
growth.

Those who did not see the
drought as a crisis responded
that it was an opportunity and
that the drought was created by
a lack of leadership and
governance.
2. Are you familiar with
Australia’s Millennium Drought
and their National Water
Initiative?
There was consensus that there
was general awareness of the
Millennium Drought and
investments made in
desalination, with some
awareness of water markets and
reform efforts.
There was consensus that there
was general awareness of the
Millennium Drought, work in
the Murray-Darling Basin and
investments made in
desalination.
There was consensus that there
was general awareness of the
Millennium Drought and
investments made in
desalination, with some
awareness of water markets and
reform efforts.
3. If yes, do you think it was
effective? What aspects do you
think were most effective/least
effective?
There was consensus that they
did an excellent job of
monitoring water use and
public outreach.
There was general agreement
that agriculture interests in
Australia had concerns with
how water rights were
quantified.
There was general consensus
that California was better
prepared to manage drought
conditions. There are different
ways to incorporate
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
302

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
desalination into water
supplies.
4. If yes to number 2, how
applicable are the Australian
approaches to California?
a. What specifically do you think
could be applied in California
and why?
b. If not, why not? What barriers
exist in California that would
prevent adoption of policy
reforms adopted in Australia?

There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 We have a different water
rights system, so often when
you talk to people about,
even a more aggressive
market, were the way they
did things in Australia, you
sometimes get very negative
reaction from water rights
attorneys that are working
for clients that have senior
water rights.
 Australia went big into the
desalination approach in all
the major cities and much of
the California environmental
communities are quite
opposed to desalination.
 You really can't go to a very
robust market system until
you have the data. Then you
have to figure out how to do
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Governance. They have a
much more federalized
system.
 Funding. A commitment to
funding. The scale of the
money necessary to make a
difference is going to require
a really really compelling
argument. I'm not sure I see
that happening in the United
States.
 Equal balance to the triple
bottom line. They use a
certain amount of water for
environmental purposes, or
they're doing buybacks or
whatever their actions are.
Apparently there's not
sufficient confidence that
they're paying close enough
attention to the social and
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The approaches are really
good. It's, the specifics
would be different. They
reformed their water rights
system, a couple of times.
We need to reform our water
rights system. It would be
different. I'm convinced here
that you would leave the
fundamentals alone and
you'd use adjudications,
which we have the ability to
do, under our system. We
just haven't ever done it. It
would be essentially the
same thing, but it would be
done in a different way.
 Governance: Our federal
government couldn’t
exercise a heavy hand right
now on its best day. There
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
303

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
a market system and
whether that's what you
really want because there are
pros and cons.
economic aspects of
Australia than they are the
environmental aspects. I
think we're facing the same
thing today in California
with our regulatory
structure, where we're trying
to manage salmon through a
temperature control plan. In
doing that it severely
diminishes the amount of
water that's available for
farms, homes and
businesses. We see the
economic and the social
impacts from that are out of
balance with the
environmental goals.
are some inherent
differences there.
 Water rights: The ability to
change water rights.

5. If you could change
California’s water or related
environmental policies, which
policies would be your top
priorities?
There was some consensus that
water rights should be
addressed.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Smart infrastructure. People
want to make infrastructure
discussions an ideological
discussion. They want it to
be about growth or no
Responses were mixed and
included a wide variety of
policy issues. There was some
agreement that CEQA should
be revised and some approach
to look at water rights for fish
and wildlife should be
considered.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
304

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
growth and we don't have
the luxury of making those
kinds of choices. We have
to plan for the future so we
don't have that luxury.

 The water transfer process
works pretty well in dry
years, like the last two
years, because there's
motivation to get through
DWR's process and the
water board has been very
good in my view at
processing water transfer
permits the last several
years. My view, I think the
water transfer situation in
California works pretty
darn well from where we
sit. Can it be improved? Of
course.

 There needs to be
accountability for
environmental water
management, and there
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
305

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
really isn't any, other than
requirements under the
Endangered Species Act,
that we meet certain
objectives for. I'm trying to
think of an example here,
relative to salmon. We can't
do certain things. We can't
pump water during certain
times of the year in the
Delta because of salmon
and Delta smelts. They're
on the ESA threatened or
endangered list. When we
don't pump that water, it
stays in the Bay-Delta
Region, it flows out to the
ocean and the intention is
that it's to help fish, yet
there's no accountability
that we've count an extra
salmon or an extra ten Delta
smelt.

 Without a wholesale
overhaul of the regulatory
scheme I would like to
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
306

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
create a provision so that
some of the more
controversial pesky
environmental regulations
could be breached on an
experimental basis. This
would have to be done
under very tight controls.
Just because something is a
law doesn't mean that it is
absolutely the very best
approach to deal with
things. We need to have the
flexibility to test some of
the regulations that we have
to adhere to and experiment
with perhaps other
approaches that would yield
the same level of
protection, but provide
greater flexibility in the
system.

 Revise how water is
allocated, especially during
a drought.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
307

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
 Develop a process where
decisions are made based on
actual needs and solid, peer-
reviewed science.

6. It is likely that with any change
there could be winners and
losers. How would you address
those stakeholders that may lose
something for the greater good
of the state?
There was some consensus that
money helps.
Responses were mixed
although there was some
agreement that approaches
could and should be developed
that would result in benefits for
all stakeholders.

Responses were mixed
although there was some
agreement that compensation
could help mitigate losses and
that change is inevitable.
7. Do all constituencies in
California have a voice in water
policy? If not, how can those
who currently do not have a
voice be given one?
Responses were mixed. Some
stated that everyone who was
interested had a voice and
others stated that disadvantaged
communities do not have a
voice. Although one responded
that disadvantaged
communities have a stronger
voice in this administration.

There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 In the past, disadvantaged
communities were not well
represented, but now they
have a pretty strong and an
important voice, in my view,
and one we need to take
seriously. If we don't address
drinking water needs for
people, why are we doing
what we're doing?
 I don't think the agricultural
Responses were mixed
although many respondents
stated that all constituencies
have an opportunity to be
engaged on policies issues.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
308

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
representation in water is as
strong or effective as it once
was or probably needs to be,
in some ways.
 Yes. You've been to our
meetings.

8. How should water projects
(infrastructure, demand-side
management, technology) be
funded in the future?
Responses were mixed
including general bonds, public
use fees, beneficiary pays, and
water rates.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The very best way is to
provide incentives.
 Local and regional funding
and I'm just not a fan of the
public goods charge to be
honest because: one I've
never understood what the
demand is at the state level
to do some of this work, and
then, two why would entities
like ours collect a bunch of
money and then send it to
the state for some purpose
we're not clear what it is.
 Public benefit funding is
okay, but the benefits need
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 User pays. People must
understand what they are
getting. It is very, very, very
important, you cannot talk
about funding new projects
without inexplicably linking
to reforms, because your
public won't go there. They
already see waste, and they
don't understand why the
water is flowing down Santa
Ana River in the L.A. River
into the ocean, and yet we
are in a drought.
 Local agencies should fund
local programs. The state
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
309

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
to be clear and the
distribution of funds must be
transparent.

should fund programs, such
as technology that benefit
multiple agencies/regions.
 Many of the burdens on
developing local projects are
placed there by the state and
local governments and they
are done so for the public
good, much more so than
just the local agency can
cover. There should be some
state and federal cost share
on those issues that is not
occurring today and it is
harming the development of
infrastructure.
 Revenue bonds or pay-go
that is related to water
charges. I think we need to
rely more on rates and
Public Goods Charge, and
those types of funding
sources. The other issue that
is a little more complicated,
to try to bring in private
sector investment, which
had better water market,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
310

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
might be effective in doing.

9. What role does leadership play
in addressing California’s water
issues? What can be done to
prepare future leaders to engage
in water policy?
There was consensus that
leadership is critical. There
was a general agreement that
Governor Brown has been a
strong leader.

There was general consensus
that leadership is critical.
There was general consensus
that leadership is critical at
every level.
10. What role does the public play
in water policy? How effective
are current programs in
engaging the public? Should
anything be done to encourage
more public involvement?
There was no consensus.
Responses included the public
is more engaged when rates or
money are involved or there is
a crisis/drought.

There was no consensus. There
was general agreement that it
depends on the policy/issue.
There was no consensus. There
was general agreement that the
public needs to be educated on
water issues.
11. California has enacted changes
to water management in recent
years. Will these changes have
a significant impact in the
future? Are there other issues
that are currently being
discussed, or should be
addressed? How can benefits
of policy changes made during
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Yes. The groundwater
legislation was historic.
Safe drinking water, like
Human Right to Water, is
going to be incredibly
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 My frustration with the way
we do water in California,
shifting away from the
legislature and going to the
regulatory process. State
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 You have to identify those
measures that you’re doing
in the crisis mode because
you lack the arrows in your
quiver, what are the things
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
311

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
a crisis be assured to continue
after the immediate crisis has
passed?

significant as something
we're really proud of in the
years ahead even though it's
going to take a long time to
get there.

 A Delta plan that's going to
have to involve conveyance
in the Delta.

 The other one that I think is
still necessary is a much
better connection between
land use planning and water
use. So much land use
planning and zoning takes
place without any
consideration of water
availability. I think that is an
area that has been targeted
by quite a number of folks,
that's something that has to
change.

Water Board. The State
Water Board sets all kinds of
policies. It adopts water
quality control plans. It
adopts all kinds of plans and
policies and in our view
there's just very little follow
through.

 Drought response is having
an immediate impact. I
question whether it will have
lasting value without
government incentives to
make investments that
would lead to more
sustainable approaches to
conservation.

 The largest need that is
under development is
infrastructure improvements.
Conveyance and storage are
the two leading ones.
 The Endangered Species Act
limits how much water we
can move through the Delta
you’re going to have to put
into place immediately.
Then in the second chapter
and in the one that has the
same power is how we
change our planning process
and are regulatory process to
where we never go through
this again, to where we don’t
have a few arrows in our
quiver the next time it hits
because it will hit again.
You have to also keep
emotions out of the second
chapter. Let all the emotions
and the reactions stop to be
absorbed in the first chapter
of what’s our immediate
reaction.

 The Governor's California
Water Action Plan. More
people are realizing, we do
need this all of the above
investment strategy. We
need to be serious about it.
We can't count on just the
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
312

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
to farming and to urban uses
as well, so that's taken water
out of the supply side. It's
reduced the reliability.
Farmers have responded in
large part by increasing
groundwater, pumping over
the years, much more so in
the last four during the
drought, and now we pile on
top of that a limit on access
to groundwater by requiring
groundwater basins to be
sustainable, when a decade
or two ago we started a
process to cut off surface
supplies to those areas.
That's going to kill a lot of
farmland. People should
worry about that because
that's some of the most
productive land in the state
and its land that produces
certain crops during times of
the year when they're not
grown anywhere else. The
west side I think produces
state and federal government
doing things anymore. It's
going to take everybody to
get into it.

 Headwaters. That’s starting
to get more attention back in
DC. I think more attention
needs to be placed there, but
then you get down to the
dollars and all the excuses
why the forests can’t be
thinned.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
313

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
about 90% of the nation's
lettuce during one or two
months of the year.

12. Do you see barriers for
adopting any major changes to
California water? If so, what
are they? Do you see any ways
to remove the barriers?
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Pricing of water
 Entrenched political
interests and elected leaders
want an easy way out
 We have to true up our
water rights because they are
not trued up now. People
aren't sure what they are.
 One would be aggressive
"Show me the water"
provision. So that if a new
demand was coming on, let's
say a large planned unit
development, they would
have to show where the
water is coming from in
order to be able to pull the
permits. The other though, is
steps before that were, water
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The legislature is a key
ingredient and they are less
likely to be forward in long
range investment oriented
and more likely to be crisis
respondent.
 The Delta, because
obviously that's the most
complicated issue we have
in California.
 California it's just the sheer
magnitude of the politics
which, again, suggests to me
why I think some of these
regional solutions are just so
important because I think
you can get it on a scale
people can understand and
get together and work.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 The politics of water is,
"Whisky is for drinking,
water is for fighting over."
 Public acceptance, but even
that's eroding.
 Long range investments and
we're so habituated to short
term budgets. For elected
officials it is a difficult
decision, so I think that you
have to look at the long
range cost involved in doing
it and then overcome the fact
that this is reasonable, only
in a long term context. It
doesn't make sense in the
short term, it's too
expensive, but in the long
run it really does.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
314

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
really is not a required
element of the general plan
and it is not a required
element of the zoning that
takes place as a result of
general plan. So, I think
there actually needs to be a
stronger legal requirement
that water requirements and
impact on water resources
are part of the general plan
and the zoning process. It
really isn't now.

 The Endangered Species Act
has been a little bit of a
barrier. It seems to be, far
and away, the most rigid of
the kind of statutory overlay
that we all function in and so
I do think at some level if
we could create a little more
flexibility in the ESA I feel
like it would be a much
better statute. I think it
would be much better for the
species themselves. I think
sometimes the species
actually suffer from the
rigidity as much as other
people do.

 Change the governance
system. It has become
almost impossible to do
anything, good, bad, or
indifferent, absent a crisis.
That's not just water, but
water being one of the more
fought-over issues is
certainly right up there, but
it's true of many facets of
what we do as a state and as
a country.

13. If you were given the power
and resources tomorrow that
allowed you to do ANYTHING
to improve California’s water
management for the future,
what would you do?
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 Set up a water recycling
system. It would be super
cool. I love the concept of
sustainability and self-
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 I'd buy a helicopter and give
people rides so they could
see everything.
 Build more storage.
There was no consensus.
Responses varied, examples
include:

 A more efficient, more
streamlined government to
get things done, and a
visionary government,
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
Summary of Interview Responses (By Stakeholder Group)
CALIFORNIA
315

Interview Question
Government/
Regulatory Agency
Agriculture Urban
sufficiency.
 A solid well defined Public
Goods Charge that generated
annually a pot of money to
do specific things, such as
dealing with disadvantaged
communities.
 A very strong water market.

 Improve the infrastructure to
improve California’s ability
to move water around the
state.

which means smaller
government.
 Provide incentives for the
various regions and
communities to do better
water management and
investments.
 Develop more recycled
water projects.

14. What question should I have
asked you that I didn’t?
There was consensus that there
are no additional questions.
There was consensus that there
are no additional questions.
There was consensus that there
are no additional questions.

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
316

Appendix
Biographies of Those Interviewed

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
317

Australians

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
318

Shaun Cox

Former Managing Director
Melbourne Water
Shaun Cox was appointed Managing Director of Melbourne Water in March 2011 and is
currently a Board Member (and former Chair) of both the Smart Water Fund and the Water
Services Association of Australia.
Mr Cox has a strong background in large-scale water and sewage services, as well as a
passion for innovation and sustainability. He holds a degree in Civil Engineering and a
Masters of Engineering and Technology Management. Mr Cox is also an Adjunct Professor
at the University of Queensland.
Prior to joining Melbourne Water Mr Cox has held the position of Managing Director of
South East Water and Chief Executive Officer of Gold Coast Water.

http://watersensitivecities.org.au/about-the-crc/governance/crc-board/mr-shaun-cox/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
319

Dr. Jane Doolan
Commissioner
National Water Commission
Jane Doolan is currently a Professorial Fellow in Natural Resource Governance at the University
of Canberra and has extensive experience in sustainable water resource management, having
provided policy advice at senior levels on issues such as urban and rural water supply and
security, national water reform and water sector governance. She has driven important initiatives
in river health, environmental water allocation and catchment management at state and national
levels.
Professor Doolan’s career encompasses intergovernmental policy development and negotiations,
particularly in relation to the management of the Murray–Darling Basin, and the oversight of
major water projects and programs. She holds a BSc (Hons) and PhD in Zoology from the
University of Melbourne, and is currently a Director of Western Water Authority and eWater
Ltd.

http://www.nwc.gov.au/our-commissioners/biographies

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
320

Alex Gardner

Professor
Law School, The University of Western Australia
Alex was born and raised on a farm in Western Australia, attending high school in Perth. After
undergraduate studies at the Australian National University in Canberra (1977-1983) he worked
as a solicitor in Melbourne before undertaking a Master of Laws specialising in Natural
Resources and Environmental Law at the University of British Columbia(1986-87). Since 1988,
Alex has been based at the University of Western Australia Faculty of Law teaching
undergraduate and postgraduate students in Public Law and Natural Resources and
Environmental Law. He was appointed Professor of Law in July 2015.
http://uwa.edu.au/person/alex.gardner

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
321

Richard Kingsford

Professor
University of New South Wales
Fields of research: Freshwater Ecology, Environmental Management, Zoology, Conservation
Campus: Kensington
Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science
ACADEMIC CAREER
1980 BSc University of Sydney
1980 Dip. Ed. University of Sydney
1986 Ph.D. University of Sydney
1986-2004 Principal Research Scientist with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
Service and Department of Environment and Conservation
2005-present Professor of Environmental Science, School of Biological, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia
2010-present Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science

https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/professor-richard-kingsford

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
322

Adam Lovell

Executive Director
Water Services Association of Australia
Adam is the Executive Director of WSAA, a position he commenced in 2011. Adam joined
WSAA in 2008, initially as the Manager, Science and Sustainability and Manager, Policy and
Strategy. Adam was previously at Sydney Water for 11 years in the Science and Technology
group. Adam holds a BSc (Hons) in Chemistry and a Masters of Environmental Engineering
Science from the University of Sydney. Adam is currently a Board member for the National
Centre of Excellence for Desalination, the Global Water Research Coalition and the WateReuse
Research Foundation. Adam is also a member of the National Health and Medical Research
Council Water Quality Advisory Committee.
https://www.wsaa.asn.au/AboutUs/Pages/WSAA-Board.aspx

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
323

Mark Pascoe

CEO
International Water Centre
Mark Pascoe has worked for his more than 40-year career in the water industry – predominately
in Brisbane, Australia. He spent many years with Brisbane City Council where his most recent
position was as the Manager, Water and Sewerage. He was for a brief period the Queensland
Operations Manager of Woodward-Clyde Pty Ltd, an environmental engineering consultancy.
He left the BCC role to take up the position of Deputy Director, International Water Association
in London, which he held for three years before returning to Brisbane.
Mark has held positions of President, Australian Water Association; Board Member, Water
Services Association of Australia; Board Member, Co-operative Research Centre, Water Quality
and Treatment; Board Member, Global Water Research Coalition. More recently he served as a
Board Member of the Western Corridor Water Recycled Water Company and the Australian
Water Recycling Centre of Excellence. Mark currently chairs the Queensland Government’s
Water Expert Panel.

Mark is the CEO of the International WaterCentre where his role is to lead the development of
the joint venture in providing capacity building services to water managers and their
organisations and particularly to help develop our future water leaders.

http://www.watercentre.org/about/staff/staff-bios/mark-pascoe

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
324

John Ringham

CEO
South Australia Water
John has forty years' experience in the water industry. He held a number of senior management positions
with North West Water, a company in the United Kingdom.
John is experienced in:
 water resourcing
 water supply and distribution
 capital planning
 change management
 international bidding.
John joined SA Water as Head of Operations, before taking the role of Chief Operating Officer. In that role
he carried over-all responsibility for water supply and wastewater service delivery.
He was appointed to the role of Chief Executive of SA Water in 2010. He is also a Director and Deputy
Chair of WaterAid Australia.

https://www.sawater.com.au/about-us/about-us/the-board

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
325

California
Joe Byrne

Chair
California Water Commission
Joseph Byrne, Chair, of Los Angeles, is an of counsel attorney in the law office of Best, Best &
Krieger, LLP and is a member of the firm's Environmental & Natural Resources Law, Special
Districts, Municipal, and Business Services practice groups. Previously, he was a partner in a
leading public law firm.

He also worked in the California State Assembly from 1998-2002, where he served as counsel
and chief water and public safety policy consultant to the Speaker of the Assembly. He
also serves on the Board of Directors of the Tierra del Sol Foundation.

https://cwc.ca.gov/Pages/Members.aspx

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
326

Californians

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
327

John Chandler

Owner
Chandler Farms
John Chandler, a fourth-generation farmer, is no stranger to agriculture. He grew up on his
family’s farm. It’s where he spent his youth and summers and developed his love for agriculture.
His family has been farming the same land, located between Fowler and Selma, for more than
120 years. “There is a great respect for each generation,” said Chandler of his family’s farm.
“There is more of a legacy, or duty, to maintain and continue this great gift.”
John farms with his parents, Bill and Carol. His brother, Tom, plans to return to the family farm
soon. The family grows raisin and wine grapes, almonds, peaches, plums and nectarines.
Upon graduating from high school, Chandler attended California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo. After receiving his degree in fruit science, his intent was to go straight in to
production agriculture. However, at the time, farming didn’t seem like the best avenue to pursue.
He ended up taking a job in his second passion, politics and policy, where he worked for
Congressman Doug Ose in Washington D.C.

Chandler spent two years in Sacramento with the Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) as a field representative. In this position, he traveled the state and worked with both
rural and urban water agencies talking with leaders about what was happening at the state level
in regards to water.

He worked as the committee’s consultant for eight years. His role was to be a nonpartisan voice
senators could inquire to. He objectively analyzed and reported on bills that came before the
committee. This job also gave him the opportunity to interact with lots of agricultural groups.

Being a member of the Fresno County Farm Bureau Board of Directors is “a great opportunity to
advocate and educate on behalf of agriculture,” said Chandler. “Farm Bureau helps create an
agricultural community.”

http://www.fcfb.org/About-Us/BoardMembers/Chandler.php

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
328

Heather Cooley

Water Program Director
Pacific Institute
Heather Cooley joined the Pacific Institute in 2004 and directs the Water Program. Heather
conducts and oversees research on an array of water issues, such as sustainable water use and
management, the connections between water and energy, and the impacts of climate change on
water resources. Prior to joining the Pacific Institute, she worked at Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory studying climate and land use change and carbon cycling.
She received a B.S. in Molecular Environmental Biology and a Master’s degree in Energy and
Resources from the University of California, Berkeley. Ms. Cooley has served on the
California Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Task Force and currently serves on the
California Urban Stakeholder Committee and the California Urban Water Conservation
Council’s Board of Directors.

http://pacinst.org/about-us/staff-and-board/heather-cooley/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
329

Lucy Dunn

President /CEO and Chair
Orange County Business Council; R.E.A.L. Coalition
Lucy Dunn is President and CEO of Orange County Business Council, where she leads a
dynamic organization of business members, working with academia and government, to ensure
the county’s economic prosperity and high quality of life. Before joining the Council, Lucy was
appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 to serve as Director of the California
Department of Housing and Community Development. In June 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger
appointed her to the California Transportation Commission and in March 2012, Governor Jerry
Brown appointed her to serve a second term. In 2012, she was appointed by the Ontario City
Council to the board of the newly created Ontario International Airport Authority.
Lucy received the California State Legislature “Woman of the Year” in 1997 and in 2009 for her
civic involvement, influence and participation in public policy task forces. In 2001, she served as
the first woman president in the 80-year history of the Building Industry Association of Southern
California.
She is the recipient of numerous honors and awards. Orange County Business Journal honored
her with its 2006 “Women in Business” award, and in 2007, she received the prestigious “Vision
and Visionaries” Award from Cal-State University, Fullerton. She has been twice named as one
of OC Metro’s “20 Women to Watch” and was featured in its July 2011 edition. In 2011, she
received Mobility 21’s “Private Sector Leader of the Year” award. In 2012, she received the
Southern California Association of Governments’ prestigious “Private Sector Partner of the
Year” award and the California Transportation Foundation’s “Person of the Year” award. In
2014, Orange Catholic Foundation honored her with its “Business and Ethics Award.”
Lucy is an attorney admitted to practice before the California State Bar, the federal bar and the
U.S. Supreme Court. She is a director of a number of nonprofit organizations including Pacific
Symphony, the Lennar Charitable Housing Foundation, and a founder of the Bolsa Chica
Conservancy; she was a participant in the creation of the Orange County 10 Year Plan to End
Homelessness.
She is the mother of two adult sons, one of whom is a deputy sheriff, the other specializes in
communications and media.
The REAL Coalition is comprised of 21 of the most influential business association in the state,
stretching from Sacramento to San Diego. These participants represent over 10,000 employers in
California and nearly 3,000,000 of the state's jobs.

http://www.ocbc.org/about-orange-county-business-council/ocbc-staff/lucy-dunn/
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
330

Steven P. Erie

Professor
University of California at San Diego
Erie's research interests include urban politics, public policy, ethnic/racial politics, and American
political development. He is the author of four books: Rainbow's End: Irish-Americans and the
Dilemmas of Urban Machine Politics, 1840-1985; Globalizing L.A.: Trade, Infrastructure, and
Regional Development; Beyond 'Chinatown': The Metropolitan Water District, Growth, and the
Environment in Southern California; and Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance
Failures in San Diego. Rainbow's End won best urban book awards from the American Political
Science Association and the American Sociological Association. Globalizing L.A. won book
awards from Lambda Alpha International Land Economics Society and the Historical Society of
Southern California. And, most recently, Paradise Plundered won the best urban book award
from the American Political Science Association.

He also has written numerous journal articles and book chapters. His current book project
is Mulholland's Gift: The Politics and Policymaking of L.A.'s Department of Water and Power.
Professor Erie is actively involved in public policy debates on issues of infrastructure, economic
development, governance, and public finance. He helped write San Diego's new "strong mayor"
form of government; served on the governor's infrastructure commission; and advises public
officials, business and community leaders in Southern California on the policy challenges facing
the region.
https://polisci.ucsd.edu/about-our-people/faculty/faculty-directory/erie-profile.html

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
331

Dr. Anthony R. Fellow

Board Member
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD
Dr. Fellow has served on the Board of Directors since 1991 and has served as the Upper District’s
representative on the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Dr. Fellow is past Chair of the Department of Communications at California State University,
Fullerton. It is one of the nation’s largest departments and includes concentrations in journalism,
advertising, public relations, photo-communications and entertainment studies.

In addition, he has been an Adjunct Professor of Journalism in the Annenberg School for
Communication at the University of Southern California. Dr. Fellow teaches courses in History and
Philosophy of American Mass Communications, Communications Law, and graduate courses in
International Communications, American Media History, Media and Politics, and Communications
and Governance.

He has written three books: American Media History, The Copy Editors’ Handbook for Newspapers,
and News Writing in a Multimedia World and numerous journal articles on health communications.
He has presented his health research at international conferences. He is currently working on a book
regarding the history of the motion picture industry.

Before entering university teaching, he was a reporter, political columnist, and city editor for 10
years with the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. He continues to write newspaper columns on politics and
water issues.
Dr. Fellow received his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the Annenberg School for Communication,
University of Southern California, where he was a Walter H. Annenberg Fellow. He holds an M.A.
in Communications from California State University, Fullerton and a B.A. in Journalism and History
from California State University, Los Angeles.

Dr. Fellow’s distinguished career includes being named a 2007 Fulbright Scholar by the U. S.
Presidential Commission in Washington, D.C. Dr. Fellow received Italy’s highest Fulbright honor,
the Vercelli Chair of Twentieth Century Music History, at the University of Piemonte. He also
teaches in Florence, Italy each summer.

He is married to Clara Potes-Fellow, a former award-winning journalist who served as Bill Clinton’s
press secretary for Hispanic media in California during his first run for the White House. She is
currently Chancellor Charles Reed’s Press Secretary and Director of Media for the California State
University System
https://valleyconnect.com/board-member/anthony-fellow/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
332

Randy Fiorini

Owner and Chair
Fiorini Ranch; Delta Stewardship Council
Chair of the Delta Stewardship Council. Randy Fiorini was born in Turlock, CA, where he was
raised on his family’s tree fruit and wine grape farm. After graduation from Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo in 1975, Mr. Fiorini returned to Turlock and assumed managing partner responsibilities
for Fiorini Ranch.

Interested in agricultural industry affairs, Mr. Fiorini was elected to serve as the Chairman of the
California Canners and Growers, Chairman of the California Cling Peach Advisory Board, and
was appointed by two Presidents to serve on the US Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee
for Fruits and Vegetables.

In addition to farming, Mr. Fiorini has found time to serve as director on many local boards,
including Faith Home Teen Ranch, Hope Unlimited International, and is the past president of
Emmanuel Medical Center, Rotary Club of Livingston, and the Merced County Farm Bureau.
Recognized for his agricultural leadership and on-farm achievements, Mr. Fiorini was selected
by the United States Jaycees in 1987 as the Outstanding Young Farmer in the United States.
Mr. Fiorini’s public involvement with water issues began in 1992 when he was elected director
of the Turlock Irrigation District. He served in that capacity for 16 years. During that time he
also served as president of the San Joaquin River Group Authority, president of the California
Farm Water Coalition, and as president of the Association of California Water Agencies.
In March 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Mr. Fiorini to serve on the Delta
Stewardship Council, and was initially elected to a four year as Vice-Chair of the Council by his
colleagues at the Council's inception in 2010. At the conclusion of this term as Vice-Chair in
2014, he was elected Chair.

http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-council-members

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
333

Beau Goldie

General Manager
Santa Clara Valley Water District

Beau Goldie is CEO of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, a countywide public agency
providing a reliable, high-quality water supply, flood protection and environmental stewardship
for the 1,300 square miles of Santa Clara County, California, including 15 cities, nearly 1.8
million residents, and more than 200,000 commuters to Silicon Valley.

Mr. Goldie leads an organization of 731 employees with a $472 million FY13 operating and
capital budget. The budget reflects significant investment in the county’s comprehensive water
resources management system including rehabilitating the county’s aging infrastructure to
deliver clean, reliable water, maintain flood protection channels and provide stream stewardship.
The organization’s five-year Capital Improvement Program includes 63 projects totaling $1.1
billion over the next five years. This includes $682 million in planned construction work,
sustaining or creating between 6,800 and 13,500 private sector jobs during the five-year
timeframe. Since beginning his career at the water district in 1984, Mr. Goldie has led projects in
all areas of the organization: water supply, flood protection and environmental stewardship. In
the groundwater protection division he helped oversee toxic cleanups. As a manager, he helped
reduce mercury pollution into the San Francisco Bay, while overseeing major construction
projects and expanding public trails along waterways. Prior to Beau’s appointment to the CEO
position, he was chief operating officer (COO) for capital services. As COO, he oversaw the
Capital Improvement Program, which made him responsible for the construction of 106 projects
and with an estimated total cost of $1.95 billion.

Mr. Goldie serves on numerous regional and statewide water committees, including the
California Urban Water Agencies, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
management team and State and Federal Contractors Water Agency.
He also serves on the boards of a number of local and regional organizations with missions
aligned with the priorities of the water district, including the Santa Clara County City Managers
Association, Destination Home, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Bay
Area Council.

He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Resources Engineering, a Master’s
Degree in Civil Engineering and is a licensed professional civil engineer. He is a member of
American Leadership Forum XXV. A dedicated husband and father, Beau has been married to
Susie for 28 years and has two sons and a daughter in college.
http://www.valleywater.org/About/Management.aspx

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
334

Victor Griego

Board Member
Latinos for Water
Victor Griego, Jr.is the CEO of Diverse Strategies for Organizing (DSO), a Los Angeles based
public affairs firm specializing in community and government relations. Mr. Griego founded the
company in 1991 based on principles that active public engagement is essential to sustainable public
policy. Mr. Griego steadfastly adheres to these principles, successfully meeting the objectives of his
clients while balancing the needs of the community.
Mr. Griego is well-recognized within the private and public sectors as a community leader and
political strategist who draws upon his years of experience and knowledge of local and state politics,
the inner workings of how government agencies function and the subtleties of community
engagement to help clients effectively represent their needs and interests to achieve positive
outcomes.
Mr. Griego’s breadth and depth of experience in the policy-making arena provides tremendous
advantages for private and public sector clients, and government agencies that seek to better
understand and access diverse communities. Private sector clients who must navigate the sometimes
complex and tedious governmental process also find Mr. Griego to be a valuable and effective asset
in their efforts.
Mr. Griego’s background includes leadership positions with major Southern California labor unions
and as a community organizer for the Industrial Areas Foundation, the Quality Education Project,
and the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project. He served as executive director of the
Center for Participation in Democracy which encouraged traditionally underrepresented voters to
more fully participate in electoral politics. Mr. Griego also served as chief of staff for the California
State Legislature.
Mr. Griego is currently in production on LA Alliance, a television program that provides a more
accurate representation of the relationship between Latinos and African Americans in Southern
California through positive and constructive dialogue on common issues and concerns.
Mr. Griego is an Adjunct Professor at Occidental College; a visiting lecturer at California State
University, Los Angeles (CSULA) and Los Angeles Trade Tech College (LATTC); and a faculty
advisor for Southwest Voter Registration Academy. He is a member of the Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, and Latin Business Association among others. He is a
founding member of the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation and sits on many boards including the
Coalition for Clean Air and Queens Care. He is member of the South Coast Air Quality
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
335

Management District (AQMD) Air Quality Institute.
Mr. Griego grew up in the East Los Angeles community of Boyle Heights and currently is a resident
of South Pasadena. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Whittier College
and a Masters in Political Science from Claremont Graduate University.
http://latinosforwater.org/board-members/

Joe Grindstaff

General Manager (Past ED of Delta Stewardship Council)
Inland Empire Utilities Agency

At the Board Meeting of the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) on Wednesday, April 17,
2013, the Board of Directors unanimously appointed Mr. Joe Grindstaff as its General
Manager. Mr. Grindstaff has thirty years of experience in management and planning in the
field of water, wastewater and resource management.
Mr. Grindstaff has served as Interim General Manager of IEUA since January 2013. Prior to
that, he served as the Executive Officer for the Delta Stewardship Council from 2010 to 2012,
where he organized the Delta Stewardship Council and helped establish the Delta
Conservancy. From 2005 to 2010, Mr. Grindstaff served as Director of the California Bay-
Delta Authority and also served as Deputy Secretary for Water Policy for the Natural
Resources Agency from 2006 to 2010. As Deputy Secretary for Water Policy, Mr. Grindstaff
took part in the historic 2009 legislative reform package, coordinated water policy, supported
Delta Vision, helped CALFED transition to the new paradigm of co-equal goals and oversaw
many resource management activities for the State.

Mr. Grindstaff has served in various management positions including General Manager for the
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, General Manager of Monte Vista Water District,
Assistant Operations Branch Manager for Eastern Municipal Water District, Wastewater
Systems Manager for the City of Riverside and Wastewater Plant Operations Manager for Salt
Lake City.

http://www.ieua.org/joseph-grindstaff-appointed-ieua-general-manager/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
336

David Guy

President
Northern California Water Association
David has devoted the past several decades to advancing economic interests that promote the
conservation of California’s special places and their precious water and land resources. He blogs at:
Water Food and The Environment. David was named the President of the Northern California Water
Association (NCWA) in June 2010. He previously served as NCWA’s Executive Director from 1999
to 2007. In this position, he helps bring diverse interests together–with support from an inter-
disciplinary team of experts–to foster regional sustainability for farms, cities, wildlife refuges, fish
and recreation in the Sacramento Valley. David works closely with Congress, the state legislature and
state and federal agencies, and water suppliers throughout the state to showcase the special attributes
of the Sacramento Valley and to further NCWA’s.

From 2007 to 2010, David and his family were in Yosemite National Park, where David was the
Chief Executive Officer for the nonprofit Yosemite Association, which forges connections between
people and Yosemite National Park. He led the merger of the Association with the Yosemite Fund,
which has come together as the Yosemite Conservancy. David has also performed pro-bono work for
the non-profit Redwood Park Associations.

David has served Of Counsel to Somach, Simmons and Dunn, where he represented public, private
and nonprofit clients on all aspect of natural resources law and policy, including water, land use, and
real property. He has also served as water counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation.

David is an adjunct professor at San Joaquin College of Law and he is a frequent lecturer on natural
resources issues in California and the western United States at Universities, conferences and
seminars. He has published more than two dozen articles and chapters on natural resources
management and law in professional journals and law reviews, as well as articles on backpacking,
libraries and the history of Sacramento.
He currently serves on the Water Education Foundation Board of Directors; the California State
University Water Resources and Policy Initiatives Advisory Committee; and he previously served on
the University of California Advisory Committee for the Water Resources Center in Berkeley.
David has advised California Governors over the past several decades on natural resources law and
policy and he has been appointed by Governors Schwarzenegger, Davis and Wilson to serve on
various boards and councils that advise federal and state officials on long-term solutions to
California’s Bay-Delta ecosystem.
http://www.norcalwater.org/about/staff/david-j-guy-president/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
337

Ellen Hanak

Center Director and Senior Fellow
Public Policy Institute of California Water Policy
Center
Ellen Hanak is director of the PPIC Water Policy Center and a senior fellow at the Public Policy
Institute of California. Under her leadership, the center has become a critical source of
information and guidance for natural resource management in California. She has authored
dozens of reports, articles, and books on water policy, including Managing California’s Water.
Her research is frequently profiled in the national media, and she participates in briefings,
conferences, and interviews throughout the nation and around the world. Her other areas of
expertise include climate change and infrastructure finance. Previously, she served as research
director at PPIC. Before joining PPIC, she held positions with the French agricultural research
system, the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and the World Bank. She holds a PhD in
economics from the University of Maryland.
http://www.ppic.org/main/bio.asp?i=72

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
338

Jeff Kightlinger

General Manager
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Jeffrey Kightlinger is general manager and chief executive officer for The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California. The Metropolitan Water District is the largest municipal water
provider in the nation delivering an average of over 2 billion gallons of water a day to 19 million
customers across Southern California. Metropolitan serves one out of every two Californians in
the six counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura.

Kightlinger was appointed general manager in February 2006. As general manager, he manages
the District’s $1.8 billion annual budget and 1,800 employees to ensure the safe and reliable
delivery of high quality water every day throughout Southern California. He reports to a board
of 38 members representing 26 member agencies.

Kightlinger has an undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a law
degree from Santa Clara University. He serves on a number of boards including the Coro
Foundation, the USC Price School of Public Policy, the UCLA Sustainability Advisory Board,
the Climate Action Reserve, the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy,
the Los Angeles Economic Development Council and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce, among others.
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Management/Executive-Staff

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
339

Andy Lipkis

Founder and President
Tree People

Andy Lipkis began planting trees to rehabilitate smog and fire-damaged areas when he was 15
years old. He founded TreePeople and has served as its President since 1973.
TreePeople has been an international guiding light for the citizen forestry movement. Andy’s
innovations include inspiring the planting of one million trees in Los Angeles before the 1984
Summer Olympics, volunteer-based disaster relief efforts during flood and fire, and trainings that
increase citizen leadership in urban tree planting and care. For the past 20 years, Andy has
spearheaded an approach to using integrated watershed management to apply a forest’s natural
infrastructure services to cities. The result: a sustainable water supply, as well as flood and
pollution prevention. Andy’s advocacy has resulted in numerous demonstrations and progress in
the adoption of this new paradigm, including the long-term retrofit of L.A.’s Sun Valley area
(pop. 80,000). Andy is a social entrepreneur and visionary who develops, implements and
communicates solutions to pressing public health, economic and environmental issues by forging
partnerships between diverse and sometimes conflicting parties. For over 40 years, Andy’s
leadership has helped make Los Angeles a model for community-based efforts that have gone to
scale in the region and around the world including:

Andy coined the term Citizen Forestry to refer to the thousands of residents TreePeople has
trained and supported to organize their neighborhoods to plant and maintain trees in urban
landscapes. This term has been adopted throughout the United States.

A convener of multiple partners to solve urban problems, Andy founded and co-founded
numerous initiatives in Los Angeles including the Los Angeles Conservation Corps and Green
LA, a collaboration of 60 mainstream and environmental justice groups. In 2008, TreePeople
cut the ribbon on one of the nation’s most sustainable buildings—the LEED Platinum-Certified
Center for Community Forestry’s Conference Center. This facility includes a 216,000-gallon
cistern to capture, clean and re-use rainwater. It is part of a state-of-the-art campus designed to
nurture and accelerate local, state and national leadership in sustainability.
In 2014, Andy was named to the EPA’s Green Infrastructure Collaborative, where he is
representing L.A.’s Multi-Agency Collaborative, a group of three of the region’s largest water
agencies working together on innovative solutions to the historic drought. Andy led a delegation
of some of the top water policy leaders in California to Australia to learn lessons from how this
country survived a 12-year drought.
https://www.treepeople.org/andy
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
340

Debra Man

Assistant General Manager/Chief Operating Officer
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Debra C. Man is the assistant general manager and chief operating officer for Metropolitan. She
is responsible for managing the operational business functions of the district, which include
system operations, engineering, planning and resources management. In this position, one of her
primary duties is to implement the Chief Executive Officer's Business Plan and initiatives, as
well as, to oversee the application and operational practice of the Board's policies and directives.

She brings to her position 20 years of experience at Metropolitan in various aspects of business
and water management. During this tenure, she was responsible for securing water supplies
through agreements and partnerships with other water and agricultural interests in San Joaquin
Valley and Southern California and demonstrated Metropolitan's water supply reliability in
compliance with current laws. She was also responsible for major initiatives adopted by
Metropolitan's board, such as the Integrated Resources Plan, new rate structure, and facility plans
and environmental review for the district's major expansion of its distribution system and water
filtration plants.

Man began her career at Metropolitan in 1986 as an engineer in the district's resources division,
developing groundwater storage programs. She advanced to become a principal engineer in the
planning division in January 1990 with the responsibility of overseeing facility plans for the
district's capital improvement program. She progressed to assistant director of planning in
September of 1990, director of planning in November 1992, and chief of planning and resources
in July 1994. She became Vice President for Water Transfers and Exchanges in July 1999. She
was named the Chief Operating Officer in December 2003.

A native of Honolulu, Man earned a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of
Hawaii and a master's degree in civil/environmental engineering from Stanford University.

Prior to joining Metropolitan, she was a project engineer for a private engineering firm in
Southern California for four years, planning and designing water and wastewater treatment and
distribution facilities.

A registered professional civil engineer in California and Hawaii, Man is a member of the
American Water Works Association and the Association of California Water Agencies.
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Management/Executive-Staff

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
341

Felicia Marcus
Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
Felicia Marcus was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the State Water Resources Control
Board (Board) for the State of California in 2012, and designated by the Governor as Chair in
April of 2013. The Board implements both federal and state laws regarding drinking water and
water quality, and it implements the state’s water rights laws. The Board sets statewide water
quality, drinking water, and water rights policy, hears appeals of local regional board water
quality decisions, decides water rights disputes, and provides financial assistance to communities
to upgrade water infrastructure.

Before her appointment to the Water Board, Marcus served in positions in government, the non-
profit world, and the private sector. In government, Felicia served as the Regional Administrator
of the U.S EPA Region IX in the Clinton Administration where she was known for her work in
bringing unlikely allies together for environmental progress and for making the agency more
responsive to the communities it serves, particularly Indian Tribes, communities of color, local
government, and agricultural and business interests. While at U.S. EPA, Felicia worked
extensively on the range of environmental issues under EPA’s jurisdiction, most heavily in air
quality, Bay-Delta water, tribal, and US-Mexico border issues.
Prior to that, Felicia headed the Los Angeles’ Department of Public Works at a time when the
City went from garnering lawsuits to garnering national awards for environmental excellence.
Felicia came to Public Works after extensive experience as a public interest lawyer and
community organizer in Los Angeles, including being a co-founder and general counsel for Heal
the Bay. In the non-profit world, she was the Western Director for the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental leader in bringing science, law, and policy
expertise to solving our world’s pressing environmental and conservation challenges. Prior to
joining NRDC, Felicia was the Executive VP/COO of the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a
national non-profit devoted to conserving land for people. She also was a private and non-profit
sector attorney in Los Angeles.

She currently serves or has served in the past on many non-profit boards and Advisory Councils
including the Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Leadership Council, Sustainable
Conservation, USC-Kesten Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, and the Center
for Diversity and the Environment. She is also currently an Obama Administration appointee to
the Commission on Environmental Cooperation-Joint Public Advisory Council (US, Mexico,
Canada) and was a Schwarzenegger Administration appointee to the Delta Stewardship Council
prior to being appointed to the Water Board.
Felicia Marcus was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the State Water Resources Control
Board (Board) for the State of California in 2012
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/about_us/board_members/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
342

Sunne McPeak

President and CEO
Delta Vision Foundation and California Emerging Technology Fund
Sunne Wright McPeak is the President and CEO of the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF),
a statewide non-profit organization whose mission is to close the Digital Divide by accelerating the
deployment and adoption of broadband. She assumed the position as the CETF first chief executive in
December 2006 after serving for three years as Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency. With McPeak's vision and drive, CETF has positioned California as a national leader
in closing the Digital Divide, initiating groundbreaking applications such as the California Telehealth
Network, Digital Literacy, Smart Housing Policy, School2Home (to improve education), and Get
Connected! (to drive adoption).

As Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, McPeak oversaw the
largest state Agency, including the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Department of Motor
Vehicles, California Highway Patrol, Office of Traffic Safety, Department of Housing and Community
Development, California Housing Finance Agency, Department of Real Estate, Office of Real Estate
Appraisers, Department of Financial Institutions, Department of Corporations, Department of Alcohol
and Beverage Control, Department of Managed Health Care, Office of Patient Advocate, Infrastructure
and Economic Development Bank, California Travel and Tourism Commission, California Film
Commission, Small Business Guarantee Program, Office of Military and Aerospace Support,
International Trade Promotion Program, and New Motor Vehicle Board. She was responsible for more
than 42,000 employees and a budget in excess of $11 billion. Under McPeak's leadership, performance
and productivity in all departments of the Agency improved significantly-cutting average wait times at
the DMV from over an hour to 21 minutes, reducing by two-thirds the time to issue real estate licenses,
and generating more than $180 million in savings. She also provided key policy leadership in support of
the Governor to develop and implement major investments in infrastructure and to foster groundbreaking
regional "smart growth" planning.

Before being recruited to the Governor's Cabinet, McPeak served for seven years as President and CEO
of the Bay Area Council, a major employer-led policy organization addressing regional economic
prosperity issues. For three years prior, she served as the President and CEO of the Bay Area Economic
Forum, a public-private partnership between the Bay Area Council and the Association of Bay Area
Governments. In that position she pioneered the development and deployment of regional economic
performance metrics to drive public policy. Sunne McPeak served for more than fifteen years as a
member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, having been first elected at age 30.

She earned a B.A. in an Individual Major (International Medicine) from the University of California,
Santa Barbara, and a MPH in Health Education and Medical Care Administration from the University of
California, Berkeley. She has been awarded two honorary doctorates from California State University
East Bay and John F. Kennedy University.
http://www.cetfund.org/aboutus/board/McPeak-Sunne
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
343

Wendy Mitchell

Commissioner
The Coastal Commission
Wendy Mitchell has always made public service a part of her life and the environment is one of
her passions. She is on the board of directors of the California League of Conservation Voters,
Pacoima Beautiful, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project-LA and Los Angeles Business
Council.

Prior to opening her own firm WM Consulting in 2006, Ms. Mitchell had a long and
distinguished career in the California State Capitol. She served in various roles from Chief of
Staff to Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny; Senior Budget Consultant in the California State
Assembly; liaison to the Latino Legislative Caucus; Legislative Consultant to the Senate
Majority Caucus and the California Senate Majority Leader.

Upon her move to the private sector in Los Angeles, Ms. Mitchell began to use her talents as the
Vice President of Public Affairs for both Cadiz and Woodside Natural Gas.
Wendy Mitchell has a Masters Degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern
California and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Government and Journalism from California State
University Sacramento.

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/bios.html

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
344

Patricia Mulroy

General Manager (Retired)
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Patricia Mulroy is a nonresident senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program. In addition,
she serves as the senior fellow for climate adaptation and environmental policy at UNLV’s
Brookings Mountain West. Mulroy has accumulated decades of experience in water resource
management. She previously served as the general manager for the Southern Nevada Water
Authority.
Mulroy also serves as the program lead for water resources and technology at the Desert
Research Institute. She is a founding chair of the Western Urban Water Coalition, and she was a
founding member of the Water Utility Climate Alliance. She served on the Board of Directors
for the National Water Resources Association and with the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies first as Treasurer (2009-2011) and then as President (2011-2013).
At Brookings, Mulroy collaborates with Brookings scholars in Washington DC and the overseas
centers in Doha, New Delhi and Beijing to improve water policy. In Doha, she is working to
provide policy analysis to help improve Middle East water management. Through these efforts,
she is working to deliver a global impact by modernizing water policy where it is most critically
needed.

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/mulroyp?view=bio

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
345

Roger Patterson

Assistant General Manager, Strategic Water Initiatives
(Past experience with United States Bureau of
Reclamation)
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Roger K. Patterson is assistant general manager for Metropolitan overseeing Metropolitan's
strategic water initiatives for the Colorado River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta.

Patterson was the director of the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources from 1999 – 2005.
He was responsible for water administration, water planning, flood-plain delineation, dam safety
and the state databank. He represented Nebraska on interstate compacts, decrees and basin
associations and led the state team in the settlement of U.S. Supreme Court cases on the North
Platte and Republican rivers.

Prior to his work in Nebraska, Patterson served 25 years with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
During his Reclamation tenure, he served as regional director in both the mid-Pacific region
based in Sacramento and the Great Plains region headquartered in Billings, Mont.

A registered professional engineer in Nebraska and Colorado, Patterson earned bachelors and
master's degrees in engineering from the University of Nebraska.
http://www.mwdh2o.com/WhoWeAre/Management/Executive

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
346

Tim Quinn

Executive Director
Association of California Water Agencies
As executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), Timothy Quinn
leads the largest water organization of its kind in the nation. With offices in Sacramento and
Washington, D.C., ACWA is a statewide association whose 430 local public water agency
members are responsible for about 90% of the water delivered in California.
Quinn, who became ACWA executive director in July 2007, has more than 25 years of
experience in California water issues. He has worked on several key policy initiatives, including
the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan now under development to protect species and provide
regulatory assurance to water users. He also participated in negotiation of the 2002 Sacramento
Valley Water Management Agreement, the 2000 CALFED Record of Decision, the 1995
Monterey Agreement, the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord, and a number of water transfer agreements.
Prior to joining ACWA, Quinn served as deputy general manager of the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and represented the district on numerous statewide issues since
1994. He joined MWD in 1985 as principal economist, and became deputy general manager in
1994.

Before coming to MWD, Quinn was a project manager at the RAND Corporation, specializing in
research on natural resources and environmental policy issues.
He earned his bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Colorado in 1974 and his
master’s and doctorate degrees in economics from the University of California, Los Angeles in
1976 and 1983.

http://www.acwa.com/content/tim-quinn-executive-director

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
347

Lester Snow (Retired)

Executive Director, Water Foundation
Director, Department of Water Resources
(Retired)
Lester Snow directs the California Water Foundation program and leads integrated resource
management projects. His most recent past experience was as California Secretary for Natural
Resources. In that capacity, Lester oversaw 25 departments, commissions, boards, and
conservancies, and served as chief advisor to the governor on issues related to the state’s natural,
historic, and cultural resources.

Lester also served as chairman of the Ocean Protection Council and on the Delta Conservancy,
the Delta Protection Commission, and the Strategic Growth Council. Other past positions include
director of the California Department of Water Resources, executive director of CALFED,
regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, and general manager of the San Diego County
Water Authority. Lester spent six years with the Arizona Department of Water Resources—four
as Tucson area director. He holds an MS in water resources administration from the University
of Arizona and a BS in Earth sciences from Pennsylvania State University.

http://www.resourceslegacyfund.org/our-staff/lester-snow/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
348

Maureen A. Stapleton

General Manager
San Diego County Water Authority
Maureen A. Stapleton is the General Manager of the San Diego County Water Authority, the
regional water agency that provides up to 90 percent of all the water used in San Diego County
supporting a $218 billion economy and the quality of life for over 3.2 million residents.
Stapleton assumed her duties in January 1996. As General Manager, Stapleton oversees a
dynamic agency that is aggressively pursuing a comprehensive array of water supply and
infrastructure programs designed to diversify and improve the reliability of San Diego County's
water supply. She successfully negotiated the landmark 2003 Colorado River Quantification
Settlement Agreement which included the Imperial Irrigation District Water Transfer and the
lining of the All American and Coachella canals that together will provide up to 21.4 million
acre-feet of water to San Diego County over 110 years. She is also responsible for the
implementation of a $3.1 billion Capital Improvement Program, including the Emergency
Storage Project, a system of new and expanded reservoirs, interconnected pipelines and pumping
stations designed to make water available to the San Diego region during an emergency. In
addition, the Water Authority is aggressively implementing the addition of desalinated seawater
to the region’s water supply, strongly promoting water conservation through incentives,
assistance programs and outreach, and supporting recycling and reuse projects by its member
agencies to further diversify the region’s water supply sources.
http://www.sdcwa.org/leadership-executive-team

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
349

Kathleen J. Tiegs

President and Board Member
Association of California Water Agencies
Cucamonga Valley MWD
Kathleen J. Tiegs was elected vice president of the Association of California Water Agencies on
December 4, 2013. She was elected to the Cucamonga Valley Water District Board of Directors
in November 2005 and is the immediate past President. She currently serves on the Human
Resources & Risk Management and Legislative & Public Affairs Committees, and is a Director
of the Fontana Union Water Company.

Director Tiegs has been on the ACWA Region 9 Board of Directors since 2008 and on the Board
of Directors for the ACWA/Joint Powers Insurance Authority. She has served as the Vice-Chair
of the ACWA Federal Affairs Committee and served on the ACWA Groundwater Committee
and Local Government Committee.

Director Tiegs is also actively involved in special district advocacy and serves in a leadership
role for the California Special District Association as well as the Association of San Bernardino
County Special Districts.

Director Tiegs retired from a distinguished career in water resource management, working for a
wholesale water agency for over 30 years. During that time, Director Tiegs was instrumental in
establishing the Water Education Water Awareness Committee (WEWAC), a consortium of
water agencies promoting the efficient use of water, increasing public awareness, and expanding
partnerships with educators to incorporate the conservation message into school curriculum.
Director Tiegs has been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga for over 50 years. She attended San
Diego State University.

http://www.acwa.com/content/kathleen-j-tiegs

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
350

Gary Toebben

President/CEO
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Gary L. Toebben is President & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the
largest business association in Los Angeles County. The Chamber of Commerce represents
more than 1,600 member companies and serving the interests of more than 235,000 businesses
across the Los Angeles region.

Since taking the helm of the L.A. Area Chamber in July 2006, Toebben has served on the
Mayor’s L.A. Economy & Jobs Committee, the L.A. County Health Care Options Task Force
and the City Council’s Business Retention & Attraction Task Force. He has championed local
and state ballot initiatives on transportation and economic development and represented the
Chamber as a co-sponsor of Proposition 11 (November 2008) to create a citizens commission to
redistrict California after each census and Proposition 28 (June 2012) to create a 12-year term
limit for all new members of the California Senate and Assembly. He is highly involved in
statewide business groups including the CalChamber and a coalition of regional economic
development associations spanning the entire state. Each year, Toebben co-leads the region’s
largest consensus advocacy trip to Washington, D.C.

Toebben has served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the American Chamber of
Commerce Executives (ACCE) and is past chairman of Mobility 21, a seven county regional
transportation advocacy group. He is a graduate of the Center for Creative Leadership in
Greensboro, North Carolina; Institute for Organization Management at the University of
Colorado and the Academy for Organization management at Notre Dame University. Toebben is
a past Chairman of the Board of Regents for the University of Colorado Institute for
Organization Management, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce Executives, the Nebraska
Chamber of Commerce Executives, the Kansas Industrial Developers Assn, the Western
Nebraska United Chambers of Commerce and the Nebraska State Tourism Advisory Board.

Toebben holds a B.S. in mathematics from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. He and his wife
Janice, who is a senior vice president with US Bank, have four children ages 34-39 and seven
grandchildren.

http://www.la2015.org/leadership/gary-toebben/

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
351

Robert C. Wilkinson

Professor
University of California at Santa Barbara
Dr. Robert Wilkinson advises government agencies, businesses, non-governmental
organizations, and foundations on water policy and environmental issues. He currently serves on
the public advisory committee for California's State Water Plan, and he has represented the
University of California on the Governor's Task Force on Desalination. He has advised the
California Energy Commission and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on climate
research, and has served as coordinator for the climate impacts assessment of the California
Region for the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy.
Research:
Robert Wilkinson’s research and teaching is focused on water and energy policy, climate change,
and issues of environmental policy.

http://www.es.ucsb.edu/people/robert-c-wilkinson

A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
352

Works Cited
Association of California Water Agencies. (2014). Proposition 1: Water Bond Fact Sheet.
Sacramento: Association of California Water Agencies.
Association of California Water Agencies. (n.d.). 2016 Drought Gallergy. Retrieved February
28, 2016, from Association of California Water Agencies:
http://droughtresponse.acwa.com/agencies?title=M
Austin, C. (2015, July 5). California's Water Systems. Retrieved Feburary 13, 2016, from
Maven's Notebook: http://mavensnotebook.com/the-notebook-file-cabinet/californias-
water-systems/
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2014, from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?opend
ocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012, May 24). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from Yearbook
of Statistics 2012:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%2
0Features~Geographic%20distribution%20of%20the%20population~49
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013, November 13). Water Account, Australia, 2011–12 .
Retrieved May 1, 2014, from Australian Bureau of Statistics:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4610.0Main+Features202011-12
Australian Government Department of the Environment. (n.d.). National Water Initiative.
Retrieved February 29, 2016, from Australian Government Department of the
Environment: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/australian-government-water-
leadership/nwi
Australian Government National Water Commission. (2014). Fourth Assessment of the 2004
National Water Initiative. Canberra: Australian Government National Water
Commission.
Australian Government National Water Commission. (2015). Australia’s water blueprint:
national reform assessment 2014. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from Australian
Government National Water Commission:
http://www.nwc.gov.au/publications/topic/assessments/australias-water-blueprint-
national-reform-assessment-2014
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
353

Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2014). Australia in Brief.
Barton: Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Australian Water Association. (2014, December). Wrap-up: Australian water delegation to
California - December 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from Australian Water
Association:
http://www.awa.asn.au/AWA_MBRR/Business_Support/International/California.aspx
Axelrod, J. (2011). Water Crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin: Australia Attempts to Balance
Agricultural Need with Environmental Reality. Sustainability Development Law and
Policy, 12(1), 51-53.
Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Kordus, D., & Lopes, L. (2015). Californians and Their
Government. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of Califonria.
Banks, G., Philip, W., & Fitzgerald, R. (2005). Productivity Commission 2005, Reviw of
National Competition Policy Reforms. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity
Commission.
Banks, H. (1989). Water Resource Institutions and Policies in Arid Regions. Deslination, 72, pp.
217-224.
Barty, G. (2010). Australia's Situation and Practical Responses to Water Challenges.
Presentation to Metropolitan Water District Blue Ribbon Committee. Los Angeles,
California.
Bates as cited in Musgrave, W. (2008). Historical Develop;metn of Water Resources in
Australia. In L. Crase, Water Policy in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty
(pp. 28-43). Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Belmecheri, S., Babar, F., Wahl, E., Stahle, D., & Trouet, V. (2016, January). Multi-century
evaluation of Sierra Nevada snowpack. Nature Climate Change, 6(2-3), 1-2.
Bennett, J., & Morris, J. (2015). Doing Better with Less: Lessons for California from Australia's
Water Reforms. Los Angeles: The Reason Foundation.
Boulicault, M., & Schempp, A. (2014). Five Things to Consider when Developing and Adapting
Water Policies and Programs in the West. Washington D.C.: Environmental Law
Institute.
Bureau of Meteorology . (2005). Indicator: A-02 Rainfall trends - annual mean rainfall.
Retrieved from Australian Goverment Department of the Environment:
http://www.environment.gov.au/node/22392
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
354

Burns, J. F. (2003). Taming the Elephant: An Introduction to California's Statehood and
Constitutional Era. California History, 81, 1-26.
California Delegation Concludes Australia Study Trip. (2015). Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
Senate President Pro Tempore: http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/news/2015-11-02-california-
delegation-concludes-australia-study-trip
California Department of Finance . (2015, June 10). California Department of Finance.
Retrieved January 18, 2016, from Financial and Economic Data Research Unit Gross
Domestic Product:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm
California Department of Finance. (2014, December). Retrieved January 2015, from Projections
of Population and Births:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/
California Department of Finance. (2014, December). California Dpartment of Finance.
Retrieved November 14, 2015, from Population Projections:
www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/view.php
California Department of Finance. (2015, May 1). California Department of Finance. Retrieved
November 14, 2015, from Demographic Research:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php
California Department of Water Resources. (2009). 2009 Comprehensive Water Package Special
Session Policy Bills and Bond Summary. Sacramento: California Department of Water
Resources.
California Department of Water Resources. (2014). California Water Action Plan Update 2013.
Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources.
California Department of Water Resources. (2015). Managing California Water through
Federal, State, and Local Cooperation: Working together to shape California’s future.
Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources.
California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2016). 2016
Drought Contingency Plan. Sacramento: California Department of Water Resources and
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
California Drought. (2014). California Drought. Retrieved 2 20, 2016, from State of California:
http://ca.gov/drought/
California Groundwater. (2016, February 2). Legislation. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from
California Groundwater: http://groundwater.ca.gov/legislation.cfm
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
355

California Natural Resources Agency. (2013). Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/PublicReview/PublicReviewDraftBDCP.asp: State
of California.
California Secretary of State. (2014). California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information
Guide. Sacramento: Califoria Secretary of State.
Christian-Smith, J., Gleick, P., & Cooley, H. (2011). The World's Water: The Biennial Report on
Freshwater Resources. (P. Gleick, Ed.) Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Christian-Smith, J., Gleick, P., Cooley, H., Allen, L., Vanderwarker, & Berry, K. A. (2012). A
Twenty-First Centry U.S. Water Policy. New York: Oxford Press.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). Major Areas of Reforms. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from
National Competition Policy: http://ncp.ncc.gov.au/pages/reform
Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). National Water Commission: The National Water Planning
Report Card 2013. Canberra: National Water Commission.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Agriculture Competitiveness White Paper. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the
Australian Capital Territory. (2004, June). IIntergovernmental Agreement on a National
Water Initiative. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from
http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/24749/Intergovernmental-
Agreement-on-a-national-water-initiative.pdf
Cooley, H., Ajami, N., Ha, M.-L., Srinivason, V., Morrison, J., Donnelly, K., et al. (2014). The
World's Water Volume 8 (Vol. VIII). (P. Gleick, Ed.) Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Council of Australian Governments. (2015). Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved
August 15, 2015, from Members: https://www.coag.gov.au/
Crase, L. (2008). Issues in Water Resource Policy. In L. Crase, Water Policy in Australia: The
impact of Change and Uncertainty. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
Crase, L. (2008). Lessons from Australian Water Reform. In L. Crase, & L. Crase (Ed.), Water
Policy in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty (pp. 248-260). Washington ,
D.C., United States: Issues in Water Resource Policy.
Crase, L. (2008). Water Policy in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty. (L. Crase,
Ed.) Washington, D.C., United States: Resources for the Future.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
356

Crase, L., & Dollery, B. (2008). The Institutional Setting. In L. Crase, & L. Crase (Ed.), Water
Policy in Australia (pp. 74-89). Washington, D.C.: Issues in Water Resource Policy.
Crase, L., & Gandhi, V. P. (2009). Reforming Institutions in Water Resource Management.
London, England: Earthscan.
Crase, L., & O'Keefe , S. (2008). Ackowledgining Scarcity and Achieving Reform. In L. Crase
(Ed.), Water Policy in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty (pp. 166-183).
Washington, D.C., United States: Issues in Water Resource Policy.
Crase, L., & O'Keefe, S. (2011). Govermental Discrimination between Sectors: The Case of
Australian Water Policy. In S. Man, & S. Man (Ed.), Sectors Matter! Exploring
Mesoeconomics (pp. 239-249). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Crase, L., & O'Keefe, S. (2011). Governmental Discrimination between Sectors: The Case of
Australian Water Policy. . Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 2011.
Creswell, J. P. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantiative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, United States: Sage Publications
Inc.
Culp, P. W., Glennon, R. J., & Libecap, G. (2014). Shopping for Water: How the Market Can
Mitigate Water Shortages in the American West. Island Press.
Currie, M. (1985). A Distinct Policy Which Forms a Market within the California State Water
Project. (A. Montanari, Ed.) Water Resources Research, 21, 1717-1720.
Davis, S. (2001). The Politics of Water Scarcity in the Western States. The Social Science
Journal, 38, 527-542.
Delta Stewardship Council. (2013). Delta Stewardship Council. Sacramento: Delta Stewarship
Council.
Department of Water Resources. (2016, March 3). How Much Water Could Have Been Stored?
Retrieved March 10, 2016, from California Water Fix:
https://www.californiawaterfix.com/
Dodd. (2016, February 2). California Legislature Information. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
AB 1755 (Dodd):
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1755
Donnellan, A. (2007, February 8). Is the National Water Commission and appropriate instutional
and goverannce structure to address the fundamental requirements of the water and
irrigation industry in Australia? Environmentalist, 27, 13-23.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
357

Doolan, J. (2014, January 12). Lessons from Australia’s Millennium Drought. Sacramento,
California, United States.
Doolan, J. (2015). Lessons from Australia's Millenium Drought. Public Policy Institute of
California: Managing Drought Event. Sacramento, California: Public Policy Institute of
California.
Erie, S. P., & Mac Kenzie, S. A. (2010). L.A.'s Crown Jewles: Historical Governance and
Finance Lessons. Public Works Management & Policy, 14(3), 205-245.
Fenimore, C. (2015, November 17). U.S. Drought Monitor. Retrieved November 17, 2015, from
The National Drought Mitigation Center :
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/MapsAndData/DataTables.aspx?state,CA
Ferguson, J. (2014, October 18). Billions in Desalination Costs for Not a Drop of Water. The
Australian.
Galloway, G. E. (2011). A Plea for a Coordinated National Water Policy. The Bridge, National
Academy of Engineering, 37-46.
Garosi, J., & Sisney, J. (2014, December 4). California Is the World's Eighth Largest Economy.
Sacramento, California, United Sates. Retrieved April 18, 2015, from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/1
Garosi, J., & Sisney, J. (2014, December 4). California Legislative Analyst Office. Retrieved 11
14, 2015, from The California Legislative Analyst's Office:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/1
Gleick, P. (2000, March). Teh Changing Water Paradigm: A Look at Twenty-First Centrury
Water Resource Development. Water International, 25(1), 127-138.
Governor Brown. (2015, January 17). Office of the Governor. Retrieved November 14, 2015,
from Newsroom: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18368
Governor Brown. (2015, April 1). Office of the Governor. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
Newsroom: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18913
Governor Brown. (2015, November 13). Water Conservation Portal - Emergency Conservation
Regulation. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from State Water Resources Control Board:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/11.13.15_EO_B-36-15.pdf
Governor Brown, State of California. (2014). California Water Action Plan. Sacramento: State
of California.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
358

Governor Edmund G. Brown. (2015, April 1). Archives for April 2015. Retrieved February 21,
2016, from Office of the Governor Edmund G. Brown:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf
Graham, W. (2014, 06 04). Water Management Lessons from Australia. NextUp Business
Forum: Clean Water for Life and Business. Burbank, California, USA: BizFed.
Grantham, T., & Viers, J. (2014). 100 Years of California’s Water Rights System: Patterns,
Trends and Uncertainty IOP Science. Envrionmental Research Letters.
Guido, Z. (n.d.). University of Arizona Southwest Climate Change Center. Retrieved February 2,
2016, from Streamflow: Natural Variability and Human-Caused Changes:
http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/water/streamflow
Hanak. (2015, April). Briefing on Possible Future Options to Manage Drought Conditions. Delta
Stewardship Council Meeting. Sacramento, California, USA.
Hanak, E., & Stryjewski, E. (2012). California’s Water Market, By the Numbers: Update 2012.
San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Chappelle, C., Lund, J., & Misczynski, D. (2015). Paying for Water. 2015: Public
Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Gray, B., Lund, J., Mitchell, D., Chappelle, C., Fahlund, A., et al. (2014). Paying for
Water in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., et al. (2009). California Water
Myths. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., et al. (2011). Floods, Droughts,
and Lawsuits: A Brief History of California Water Policy. In E. Hanak, J. Lund, A.
Dinar, B. Gray, R. Howitt, J. Mount, et al., Managing California's Water: From Conflict
to Reconciliation (pp. 19-70). San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., et al. (2011). Managing
California's Water: From Conflict to Reconcilliation. San Francisco, California, United
States: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howlett, R., Mount, J., et al. (2011). Managing
California's Water from Conflict to Reconcilliation. Public Policy Institute of California.
Hanak, E., Mount, J., Chappelle, C., Lund, J., Mdelle0Azurara, J., Moyle, P., et al. (2015). What
if California's Drought Continues? San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
359

Hanak, E., Mount, J., Chappelle, C., Lund, J., Medellin-Azuara, J., Moyle, P., et al. (2015). What
if Califonria's Drought Continues? San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Hannam, P. (2014, November 26). Abbott government plans to scrap the National Water
Commission as drought looms. The Sydney Morning Herald.
Heberger. (2012). Australia's Millenial Drought: Impacts and Responses. In P. Gleick, & P.
Gleick (Ed.), The World's Water Volume 7: THe Biennial Report of Freshwater
Resources (Vol. 7, pp. 97-126). Washington, D.C.: Pacific Institute for Studies in
Development, Environment and Security.
Heberger, M. (2011). Australia's Millennium Drought:Impacts and Responses. In P. Gleick, & P.
Gleick (Ed.), The World's Water (Vol. VII, pp. 97-125). Washington, D.C., United States:
Island Press.
Heberger, M. (2012). Australia's Millenium Drought: Impacts and Responses. In P. Gleick, L.
Allen, M. J. Cohen, H. Cooley, J. Christian-Smith, M. Heberger, et al., The World's
Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater Resources (Vol. 7, pp. 97-125). Washington
D.C.: Island Press.
Hillman, T. (2008). Water in Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty. Melbourne:
Oxford Press.
Howard, P. M. (2007). A National Plan for Water Security.
Howitt, Howitt, R., Medellin-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., Lund, R., & Sumner,, D. (2014).
Economic Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture. Davis: Center for
Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis.
Howitt, R., MacEwan, D., Medellin-Azuara, J., Lund, J. R., & Sumner, D. A. (2015). Economic
Analysis of the 2015 Drought for Califonria Agriculture. Davis: Center for Watershed
Sciences, University of Califonria Davis.
Howitt, R., Medellin-Azuara, J., MacEwan, D., Lund, J., & Sumner, D. (2014, July 23).
Economic Analysis of the 2014 Drought for California Agriculture. University of
California, Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences. Davis: Center for Watershed Sciences,
University of California, Davis.
Iseman, T., Brown, C., Willamson, T., & Bracken, N. (2012). Water Transfers in the West:
Projects, Trends and Leading Practices in Voluntary Water Trading. The Western
Governors' Association and Western States Water Council.
Jarvis, B. (2015, May 27). Moby on California Drought: 'The Way We're Living Is Stupid'.
Rollin Stone.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
360

Jones, J. (2015). California's Most Significant Droughts: Comparing Historical and Recent
Conditions. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Water Resources.
Kain, J., Kuruppu, I., & Billing, R. (2003, June 3). Australia's National Competition Policy.
Retrieved August 15, 2015, from Parliament of Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Li
brary/Publications_Archive/archive/ncpebrief
Keppen, Sawyers, Raeder, & McFarland. (2008). Western Water Policy: The Challenges and
Opportunities of Our Times. Family Farm Alliance.
Kershner, F. D. (1953). George Chaffey and the Irrigation Frontier. Agriculutral History, 27(4),
115-122.
Langford, J., Man, D., & Hirsch, S. (2015, August). Adapting to Drought in Australia and
California: Creative Water Transfers in a Water-Scarce World. (P. D. Reiter, Ed.)
Journal_American Water Works Association, 107(8), 20-24.
Levine. (2016, February 18). California Legislative Information. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
AB 2304 Levine:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2304
Liberal Party of Australia. (2015). Our Team. Retrieved September 20, 2015, from Liberal Party
of Australia: https://www.liberal.org.au/member/tony-abbott
Lienhard, J. H. (1988). Engines of Intenuity: No. 594: The Chaffey Brothers. Houston, Texas.
Lukasiewicz, A., Syme, G., Bowmer, K., & Davidson, P. (2013). Is the Enviroinment Getting Its
Fair Share? An Analysis of the Australian Water Reform Process Using a Social Justice
Framework. Springer Science+Business Media.
Marsh, C., & Prows, P. (2010). California's New Water Legislation: A Bucket of Reform or But
a Drop? Natural Resources and the Environment, 25(2), 37-43.
McKay, J. (2008). The Legal Frameworks of Australian Water. In L. Crase, Water Policy in
Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty (pp. 44-61). Washington D.C.:
Resources for the Future.
Metropolitan Water District. (2016, January 16). Colorado River Basin Map. Los Angeles, CA,
USA.
Mount, J., Hanak, E., Chappelle, C., Gray, B., Lnd, P., Moyle, P., et al. (2015). Policy Priorities
for Managing Drought. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
361

Mulligan and Pigram through Musgrave, W. (2008). Historical Development of Water Resources
in Australia: Irrigation Policy in the Murray-Darling Basin. In L. Crase, Water Policy in
Australia: The Impact of Change and Uncertainty (pp. 28-43). Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future.
Murray Darling Basin Authority. (n.d.). Maps and Spatial Data. Retrieved February 2, 2016,
from Murray Darling Basin Authority:
http://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/cartographicmapping/8_Murray-
Darling_Basin_Boundary.pdf
Musgrave, W. (2008). Historical Development of Water Resources in Australia: Irrigation Policy
in the Murray-Darling Basin. In L. Crase, & L. Crase (Ed.), Water Policy in Australia
(pp. 28-43). Washington, D.C., United States: Resources for the Future.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association National Climatic Data Center. (February,
2015). Retrieved January 14, 2016, from Climate at a Glance:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. (2014, November). National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/climatological-
rankings/index.php?periods%5B%5D=12¶meter=tavg&state=4&div=0&month=12
&year=2014
National Water Commission. (2005). Annual Report: 2004-05. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia.
National Water Commission. (2014). Closure. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from National
Water Commission: http://www.nwc.gov.au/organisation/closure-in-2014
National Water Commission. (2014). Closure in 2014. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from
Australian Government National Water Commission:
http://www.nwc.gov.au/organisation/closure-in-2014
National Water Commission. (2014). National Water Performance Report 2012-13. Canberra:
Australian Government National Water Commission, the Water Services Association of
Australia and the National Water Initiative parties.
National Water Commission. (2015). Early Functions. Retrieved August 15, 2015, from National
Water Commission: http://www.nwc.gov.au/organisation/early-functions
National Water Commission. (n.d.). Early Functions. Retrieved February 29, 2015, from
National Water Commission: http://www.nwc.gov.au/organisation/early-functions
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
362

National Water Commission. (n.d.). Roles and Functions. Retrieved February 29, 2016, from
National Water Commission: http://www.nwc.gov.au/organisation/role
Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown. (2014, January 17). Press Releases. Retrieved February
28, 2016, from Office of the Governor: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18368
Patrick, R. (2015, March). When the Well Runs Dry: The Slow Train Wreck of Global Water
Scarcity". American Water Works Journal, 107(3), 65-76.
Peel, J., & Choy, J. (2014). Water Governance and Climate Change: Drought in California as a
Lens to Our Climate Future. Stanford: Water in the West: Stanford Woods Institute for
the Environment.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2012). California’s Future: Education. Public Policy
Institute of California.
Public Policy Institute of California: Water Policy Center. (2015). Califonria's Water. San
Francisco: Public Policy Instutute of California.
Reiter, P. D., Langford, J., Man, D. C., & Hirsch, S. (2015). Adapting to Drought in Australia
and California: Creative Water Transfers in a Water-Scarce World. Journal: American
Water Works Association, 20-24.
Rocha, V. (2014, November 19). Drought-Stricken California Town Gets Portable Showers. Los
Angeles Times.
Rogers, P. (2014, May 29). Nation's Largest Ocean Desalination Plant Goes Up Near San Diego:
Future of the California Coast. San Jose Mercury News.
Rolfe, J. (2008). Water Trading and Market Design. In L. Crase, & L. Crase (Ed.), Water Policy
in Australia (pp. 202-215). Washington, D.C., United States: Issues in Water Resource
Policy.
Smith, D. I. (1998). Water in Australia: Resources and Management. Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
Southwest Climate Change Group. (2013). IInstrumental Record of Naturalized Colorado River
Flow at Lees Ferry Near Page, Arizona. Tucson, Arizona, United States.
State Water Resources Control Board. (2016, February 25). Press Releases/Media Archive.
Retrieved March 1, 2016, from California State Water Resources Control Board:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2016.shtml
Svendensen, M. (2012). Australia’s Water Management Transformation.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
363

Theobald, W. V. (2016, March 9). El Nino not sole answer for California Water woes. The
Desert Sun.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to Do Your Case Study: A Guide for Students and Researchers.
London: Sage.
Tisdell as cited in Musgrave, W. (2008). Historical Development of Water Resources in
Australia: Irrigation Policy in the Murray_Darling Basin. (L. Crase, Ed.) Washington
D.C.: Resources for the Future.
TreePeople. (2016, February). Transferring Lessons from Australia’s Millennium Drought to
California. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from TreePeople:
https://blog.treepeople.org/policy/2016/03/new-research-australia-create-water-secure-la
Turner, A., White, S., Chong, J., Dickinson, M., Cooley, H., & Donnelly, K. (2016). Managing
Drought: Learning fron Australia. Broadway: Alliance for Water Efficiency, the Institute
for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney and the Pacific Institute.
United States Census Bureau. (2010). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from Geography:
https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/thematic.html
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015). California Agriculture Statistics 2013 Crop
Year. Sacramento: United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural
Statistics Service.
United States Drought Monitor California Map 2/2/16. (n.d.). Retrieved February 4, 2016, from
National Drought Mitigation Center:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
Water Education Foundation. (2013). Delta Planning Relationships. Sacramento: Water
Education Foundation.
Water Education Foundation and The Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs.
(1992). Acuieving Consensus on Water Policy in California. Los Angeles: Edmund G.
"Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs.
Western Governors' Association. (2015). Special Report: Western Governors' Drought Forum.
Denver: Western Governors' Associaiton.
White, J. B. (2014, November 4). California water bond wins passage. Sacramento Bee.
Wilson, V. (2012, May 20). Research Methods: Interviews. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 7, pp. 96-98.
A Time of Crisis: The Australian Experience
and What can California Learn?
364

World Bank. (2015, September 18). World Development Indicators database. Retrieved
September 20, 2015, from World Bank:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Abstract California and Australia face similar challenges and share comparable histories and climatic conditions. California is doing everything Australia has done to address its water issues to varying degrees, but not with the urgency, or commitment of financial resources and use of governmental powers to achieve rapid and systemic change in how water is allocated and paid for by users in the urban, agricultural, and environmental sectors. California has not responded to its current drought crisis nearly to the extent that occurred in Australia. This is largely explained by the vision and determination of Australia’s political leaders at the federal level to effect major changes in Australia's economic competitiveness and their commitment to the funding required to overcome obstacles and put in place the new policies and Australia’s extended drought. ❧ Australia’s policy reform process was initiated prior to the drought and positioned the country to respond to the Millennium drought and prepare for future that is certain to be different due to increasingly variable climatic conditions. Both California and Australia have and can continue to learn from each other, while making public policy and resource allocation decisions as necessary and feasible in the different and always changing political and economic circumstances each faces. ❧ —Thanks to Ron Gastelum, member of my dissertation committee for his thoughtful and insightful assessment of the dissertation upon which the above summary is based.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Water security, national security and MCIWest: a grounded theory for operationalizing risk management

PDF

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department Climate Action Plan: repositioning to a sustainable parks & open space system

PDF

A research on water conservation and governance networks in Southern California

PDF

The crisis of potable water in Mexico City: institutional factors and water property rights as conditions for creating adequate metropolitan water governance

PDF

Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change

PDF

The use of mobile technology and mobile applications as the next paradigm in development: can it be a game-changer in development for women in rural Afghanistan?

PDF

Household carbon footprints: how to encourage adoption of emissions‐reducing behaviors and technologies

PDF

Resilient and equitable urbanism by design: insights from the collaborative process to reimagine the SF Bay Area

PDF

The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states

PDF

Evergreen economies: institutions, industries and issues in the green economy

PDF

A public sector organizational change model: prioritizing a community-focused, inclusive, and collaborative approach to strategic planning

PDF

Embedding sustainability: a change management guide for ports

PDF

Workplace conflict and employment retaliation in law enforcement; an examination of the causes, effects and viable solutions

PDF

Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing

PDF

Using innovative field model and competency-based student learning outcomes to level the playing field in social work distance learning education

PDF

Nonprofit organizations and the environmental policy outcomes: a systematic inquiry into the role of different types of nonprofits to influence the processes and outcomes of the environmental policy

PDF

Processes, effects, and the implementation of market-based environmental policy: southern California's experiences with emissions trading

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Essays on the economics of cities

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

Asset Metadata

Creator Wheeler, Marguerite Julia Rose (author)

Core Title A time of crisis: the Australian experience and what can California learn?

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 07/29/2016

Defense Date 06/07/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Australia water policy,California water policy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Water

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mazmanian, Daniel (committee chair), Blanco, Hilda (committee member), Gastelum, Ronald R. (committee member)

Creator Email mjwheele@usc.edu,wheelermargie@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-285656

Unique identifier UC11281153

Identifier etd-WheelerMar-4668.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-285656 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WheelerMar-4668.pdf

Dmrecord 285656

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Wheeler, Marguerite Julia Rose

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA