Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

A surprising byproduct of wildfires: Contaminated drinking water

News Feed
Monday, July 29, 2024

Over the weekend, the Park Fire grew to more than 360,000 acres, prompting evacuation orders and warnings around Chico, California in Butte, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama counties. In the days ahead, Cal Fire will seek to contain the blaze to reduce harm to people, structures and the environment. However, months from now when the rains come and the fires are extinguished, a hidden threat could put communities at risk once again.When the mayor of Las Vegas, N.M., issued a warning in 2022 to its 13,000 residents, it wasn’t over a fire — they had recently lived through the state’s largest wildfire in its history: Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak. The dire warning was that the city had 30 days of clean water left. The 2022 monsoon rains covered the Gallinas watershed, where cleared trees from the Santa Fe National Forest and ash-covered grounds made for flash-flood conditions. The storms introduced massive amounts of carbon from burned trees and plant life into the streams and reservoirs. Water treatment couldn’t keep up, making their stores undrinkable.Many drinking water sources at risk from wildfiresAround 60 to 65 percent of the United States’ drinking water comes from forested areas. As fires burn in these areas, they increase the risk of cancer-causing and toxic substances entering water supplies. An estimated 53.3 million U.S. residents who live in areas with significant wildfire risk may face damaged drinking water infrastructure from those flames.Map of at-risk watersheds in the US Western StatesThe new megafire eraRandy Dahlgren, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Davis whose research focused on wildfires and watersheds in California, says that fires’ impact on clean water boils down to the size, intensity and severity of the fire.The 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak wildfire is among the largest in recorded history in the United States. The fire perimeter stretched across 340,000 acres, with high burn severity in most areas. Thousands were forced to evacuate during the course of the months-long blaze. These megafires — fires greater than 100,000 acres — of the 21st century are increasingly common due in large part to the persistently drier and hotter conditions of forested areas in a warming climate.“I would project that both the size and the severity of wildfires are going to increase,” says Dahlgren. Post-megafire fallout — because of their scale and intensity — is linked to poorer water quality during the following rainy seasons, Dahlgren adds.Megafires burn land at higher temperatures across wider areas than standard wildfires, putting watersheds across the United States at greater risk. Sheila Murphy, a research hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey working on the effects of wildfires on water quality, says burned areas fundamentally alter a watershed’s hydrology. As wildfires burn hotter and consume more trees and structures, water quality will continue to worsen, research suggests.When watersheds burn, the threat starts in the forests, continues to water treatment plants, and can expand to communities and households. To meet these risks, it will take a coalition of informed community members, scientists and city officials to work toward solutions to protect clean water supplies.See how fires alter these systems and introduce contaminants.A table of contents for the next section of the story showing that the piece will cover how the fires impact healthy forests, communities and households.Diagram of a hillside with healthy vegitation and a normal water table level.Diagram of rain filtering through leaves, grass and dirt into the ground.Diagram of an intense wildfire on the previously green hillside.A normal watershed includes land with healthy vegetation and ground cover that help control and protect the water table and groundwater. Typical in the West, legacy mines were revegetated to keep harmful tailings from going downstream.When it rains, a ground cover of leaves, grass and dirt filters a large portion of the water before it soaks into the ground.In the wake of a wildfire, ash from burned vegetation replaces the ground cover.As a hydrophobic material, the ash inhibits the ground from absorbing rain water and replenishing the groundwater. Unable to soak into the ground, the water accumulates, increasing the likelihood of landslides and flash flooding.Legacy mining waste, previously covered and sealed by revegetation, can be exposed. It can flow with runoff into waterways, elevating levels of harmful chemicals and metals such as arsenic and lead.Valley communities near reservoirs, such as the town of Ledoux, N.M., are at risk of flooding after wildfires.After a heavy rainfall, the excessive runoff, combined with ash, debris and sediment, can cause a reservoir to overflow — flooding areas below it.Even if the reservoir doesn’t overflow, the buildup of dissolved organic matter (DOM) lowers the reservoir’s storage capacity and can lead to poorer water quality.Nutrients from DOM increase the likelihood of toxic algae blooms that remove oxygen from the water, triggering organism die-offs.Once oxygen is gone, it can cause heavy metals, like mercury from old mines, to convert to methylmercury. This compound is toxic to wildlife and may cause developmental problems in fetuses and children.Treatment of this water involves chlorination or expensive coagulants. Chlorination has a hard ceiling on removing DOM from water, as disinfectant byproducts like chloroform damage human chromosomes and living cells and increase the risk of cancer and birth defects.When fires burn too closely to communities, entire water systems, including their piping, can be compromised.This happens when high ambient heat unfurls plastic polymers in PVC water lines. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the damaged pipes mix with the water inside.As homes burn, firefighters tap into the water supply to put out flames. The draw on the system can create a vacuum which can pull VOCs into the city’s water mains, shared with other homes.After the fires are out and homes are rebuilt, it can be hard to locate the damaged pipe releasing VOCs into the system. If the contamination is between the city water main and the homes, there’s no way to know without testing every household.Scientists are only beginning to study the effects megafires pose on local ecology.Newsha Ajami, the chief strategic development officer for research in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, studies the multifaceted ways fires impact forest management, water utilities and communities. Ajami says on the state of the science, “We’re destabilizing [water] systems and we don’t even know in what way and how.”A first set of guidelinesIn 2019, a team of enterprising hydrologist-planners realized that there needs to be a handbook for this new reality of wildfire impacts on communities. That fall, volunteers from more than a dozen municipalities wrote the Post-Fire Recovery Playbook, a first-of-its-kind 12-page concise document for water municipalities, land and forest management, and governments to rebuild within 30 days of a fire.Ecologists and researchers working with post-fire effects on water juggle hyperlocal environmental needs with the needs of neighboring communities and the resources of their governments. The authors of the recovery playbook found that measures need to be in place for communities of any size to handle the aftermath of nearby fires. The guide highlights the “gap in guidance in terms of navigating the complexities surrounding post-fire rehabilitation.”Insuring right and rebuilding smarterAjami sees a critical role for insurance companies implementing smart, resilient practices for communities left to cinders. Similar to how health insurance is trying to focus on preventive care to reduce the cost of treating disease, Ajami hopes “at some point we will have a preventive insurance model that would invest in actions people can take from being impacted.”“That’s something we’re starting to touch on now in terms of research,” says Andrew Whelton, a professor at Purdue University working in civil, environmental and ecological engineering. Whelton says that “the insurance industry needs to understand water contamination, water safety, what the alternatives are and how much they cost.” The demands are in understanding costs so they can effectively get ahead of these disasters. “Simply put, insurance companies haven’t anticipated these costs and they haven’t anticipated the cost at the scale they are being hit at.”When the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire climbed the side of a mountain into a housing development in Boulder Creek, Calif., toxic contamination didn’t spread from the homes back into the water system. That was because the San Lorenzo Valley district utility made sure the valves in that network prevented backflow. Preventive steps like that, Whelton says, go a long way in improving fire resiliency and keeping community drinking water safe. He would know, too: Whelton has become the go-to expert flying out to nearly every megafire that’s burned down towns since 2017, working with communities and municipalities on testing water.Another prevention area is setting up proper lines of communication. Three days after the Maui fires and evacuations began in 2023, the Maui County Department of Water Supply issued an “Unsafe Water Advisory.” All Maui households surveyed in a recent study by Whelton and several other researchers “expressed concerns or confusion about drinking water safety” two weeks after the fire.Communication challenges, like rapidly getting information to water customers after a fire, are what led Whelton and his colleagues to co-author the Wildfire Response Guide for Environmental Public Health Professionals for the National Environmental Health Association. Guides that reduce friction between local and state governments and health professionals assist in risk-monitoring communities post-fire. For protecting water, the guide explicitly highlights where water can be compromised, offering damage-assessment guidance, community messaging on safety risks, and what kinds of testing to prioritize.Further downstream, researchers contend with how to build homes in fire-prone areas to make them more resilient and leach less hazardous waste in the event of a disaster.Erica Fischer, a civil engineer at Oregon State University who spent her PhD studying fire impacts on buildings, saw firsthand the devastation wrought by wildfires in communities like Paradise, Calif., and Louisville, Colo. She’s witnessed conversations move away from just forest management to home-hardening and resiliency-building. Legislation like Oregon’s Senate Bill 762 — which put $220 million into wildfire preparedness of buildings, landscapes and emergency response — Fischer notes, not only puts resources into mapping wildfire risk after the 2020 Oregon fires, but also provides financial assistance for the socially vulnerable in the rural communities at risk.Other legislation is also being advanced. The EMBER act, a bipartisan bill introduced in June by Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), aims to modernize national wildfire policies, including by updating recovery guidance on drinking water toxicity resulting from wildfires.With practices like this in place across wildfire risk areas, the likelihood of a watershed weathering subsequent high rains improves. Dahlgren hits on the adage: “Dilution is the solution to pollution.” If there are backups in place, diluting at least the DOM water can provide safe drinking water downstream.Planning for a future with wildfiresMeanwhile in Boulder, Colo., they are divining the future of fires. Kate Dunlap, a Post-Fire Recovery Playbook co-author and manager of Boulder’s Drinking Water Quality program, applies machine-learning algorithms to identify where to place resources for disaster preparedness. One model simulated 10,000 burns in the watershed according to local topography, vegetation and geology. The results allow Dunlap’s team to understand how much risk there is, where disasters can come from and how much it’ll cost to prevent or treat them.These forecasts help cities predict how much sediment could enter reservoirs. Knowing where hazardous debris might come from allows the government to prioritize stabilizing at-risk forested areas while keeping costs low.The science is trying to keep pace with an ever longer and more frequent fire season. Researchers consulted for this story are studying fires from 2021 and 2022, as well as conditions generated by these newer, larger fires that burn in regions geographically, vegetation-wise and community-wise different from where previous fires burned. Additional research is critical to understand how this global risk impacts communities at a local level.Dunlap sees a lot more urgency here in her field. In eight years on the job, it’s only since 2020 that she’s witnessed increased funding sources at the state and federal level for forest health projects. The general awareness shift she’s seen is that “wildfires are real and we’re not really experiencing these sort of natural fires anymore. They’re very severe.”The community of Las Vegas, N.M., is preparing for the next big fire by strengthening their water supplies along the Gallinas River, both upstream by the wildfire-prone regions and downstream at the household level. Johanna Blake, a U.S. Geological Survey researcher at the New Mexico Water Science Center, sent The Washington Post photos of the rocky barriers — gabions — that now stretch along the river bed. After the rainy season in 2022, she could smell the collected ash that got stopped before entering the river there.About the storyThe wildfire risk to watersheds were calculated from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest to Faucet data. A watershed was categorized as “Great risk” if 70% or more of its total acres had a “high or very high wildfire hazard potential.”The number of surface drinking water consumers for each watershed is based on late 2018/early 2019 population estimates.Only watersheds that were entirely contained within state boundaries were included in the calculation of residents at risk of wildfire water contamination in Washington and California. Watersheds that intersected with state lines were not included in the calculation to avoid double counting.Janice Kai Chen contributed to this report.

While a wildfire might directly impact a few hundred residents, its secondary impacts to the clean water supply could affect thousands.

Over the weekend, the Park Fire grew to more than 360,000 acres, prompting evacuation orders and warnings around Chico, California in Butte, Plumas, Shasta and Tehama counties. In the days ahead, Cal Fire will seek to contain the blaze to reduce harm to people, structures and the environment. However, months from now when the rains come and the fires are extinguished, a hidden threat could put communities at risk once again.

When the mayor of Las Vegas, N.M., issued a warning in 2022 to its 13,000 residents, it wasn’t over a fire — they had recently lived through the state’s largest wildfire in its history: Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak. The dire warning was that the city had 30 days of clean water left. The 2022 monsoon rains covered the Gallinas watershed, where cleared trees from the Santa Fe National Forest and ash-covered grounds made for flash-flood conditions. The storms introduced massive amounts of carbon from burned trees and plant life into the streams and reservoirs. Water treatment couldn’t keep up, making their stores undrinkable.

Many drinking water sources at risk from wildfires

Around 60 to 65 percent of the United States’ drinking water comes from forested areas. As fires burn in these areas, they increase the risk of cancer-causing and toxic substances entering water supplies. An estimated 53.3 million U.S. residents who live in areas with significant wildfire risk may face damaged drinking water infrastructure from those flames.

Map of at-risk watersheds in the US Western States

The new megafire era

Randy Dahlgren, a professor emeritus at the University of California at Davis whose research focused on wildfires and watersheds in California, says that fires’ impact on clean water boils down to the size, intensity and severity of the fire.

The 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak wildfire is among the largest in recorded history in the United States. The fire perimeter stretched across 340,000 acres, with high burn severity in most areas. Thousands were forced to evacuate during the course of the months-long blaze. These megafires — fires greater than 100,000 acres — of the 21st century are increasingly common due in large part to the persistently drier and hotter conditions of forested areas in a warming climate.

“I would project that both the size and the severity of wildfires are going to increase,” says Dahlgren. Post-megafire fallout — because of their scale and intensity — is linked to poorer water quality during the following rainy seasons, Dahlgren adds.

Megafires burn land at higher temperatures across wider areas than standard wildfires, putting watersheds across the United States at greater risk. Sheila Murphy, a research hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey working on the effects of wildfires on water quality, says burned areas fundamentally alter a watershed’s hydrology. As wildfires burn hotter and consume more trees and structures, water quality will continue to worsen, research suggests.

When watersheds burn, the threat starts in the forests, continues to water treatment plants, and can expand to communities and households. To meet these risks, it will take a coalition of informed community members, scientists and city officials to work toward solutions to protect clean water supplies.

See how fires alter these systems and introduce contaminants.

A table of contents for the next section of the story showing that the piece will cover how the fires impact healthy forests, communities and households.

Diagram of a hillside with healthy vegitation and a normal water table level.

Diagram of rain filtering through leaves, grass and dirt into the ground.

Diagram of an intense wildfire on the previously green hillside.

A normal watershed includes land with healthy vegetation and ground cover that help control and protect the water table and groundwater. Typical in the West, legacy mines were revegetated to keep harmful tailings from going downstream.

When it rains, a ground cover of leaves, grass and dirt filters a large portion of the water before it soaks into the ground.

In the wake of a wildfire, ash from burned vegetation replaces the ground cover.

As a hydrophobic material, the ash inhibits the ground from absorbing rain water and replenishing the groundwater. Unable to soak into the ground, the water accumulates, increasing the likelihood of landslides and flash flooding.

Legacy mining waste, previously covered and sealed by revegetation, can be exposed. It can flow with runoff into waterways, elevating levels of harmful chemicals and metals such as arsenic and lead.

Valley communities near reservoirs, such as the town of Ledoux, N.M., are at risk of flooding after wildfires.

After a heavy rainfall, the excessive runoff, combined with ash, debris and sediment, can cause a reservoir to overflow — flooding areas below it.

Even if the reservoir doesn’t overflow, the buildup of dissolved organic matter (DOM) lowers the reservoir’s storage capacity and can lead to poorer water quality.

Nutrients from DOM increase the likelihood of toxic algae blooms that remove oxygen from the water, triggering organism die-offs.

Once oxygen is gone, it can cause heavy metals, like mercury from old mines, to convert to methylmercury. This compound is toxic to wildlife and may cause developmental problems in fetuses and children.

Treatment of this water involves chlorination or expensive coagulants. Chlorination has a hard ceiling on removing DOM from water, as disinfectant byproducts like chloroform damage human chromosomes and living cells and increase the risk of cancer and birth defects.

When fires burn too closely to communities, entire water systems, including their piping, can be compromised.

This happens when high ambient heat unfurls plastic polymers in PVC water lines. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the damaged pipes mix with the water inside.

As homes burn, firefighters tap into the water supply to put out flames. The draw on the system can create a vacuum which can pull VOCs into the city’s water mains, shared with other homes.

After the fires are out and homes are rebuilt, it can be hard to locate the damaged pipe releasing VOCs into the system. If the contamination is between the city water main and the homes, there’s no way to know without testing every household.

Scientists are only beginning to study the effects megafires pose on local ecology.

Newsha Ajami, the chief strategic development officer for research in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, studies the multifaceted ways fires impact forest management, water utilities and communities. Ajami says on the state of the science, “We’re destabilizing [water] systems and we don’t even know in what way and how.”

A first set of guidelines

In 2019, a team of enterprising hydrologist-planners realized that there needs to be a handbook for this new reality of wildfire impacts on communities. That fall, volunteers from more than a dozen municipalities wrote the Post-Fire Recovery Playbook, a first-of-its-kind 12-page concise document for water municipalities, land and forest management, and governments to rebuild within 30 days of a fire.

Ecologists and researchers working with post-fire effects on water juggle hyperlocal environmental needs with the needs of neighboring communities and the resources of their governments. The authors of the recovery playbook found that measures need to be in place for communities of any size to handle the aftermath of nearby fires. The guide highlights the “gap in guidance in terms of navigating the complexities surrounding post-fire rehabilitation.”

Insuring right and rebuilding smarter

Ajami sees a critical role for insurance companies implementing smart, resilient practices for communities left to cinders. Similar to how health insurance is trying to focus on preventive care to reduce the cost of treating disease, Ajami hopes “at some point we will have a preventive insurance model that would invest in actions people can take from being impacted.”

“That’s something we’re starting to touch on now in terms of research,” says Andrew Whelton, a professor at Purdue University working in civil, environmental and ecological engineering. Whelton says that “the insurance industry needs to understand water contamination, water safety, what the alternatives are and how much they cost.” The demands are in understanding costs so they can effectively get ahead of these disasters. “Simply put, insurance companies haven’t anticipated these costs and they haven’t anticipated the cost at the scale they are being hit at.”

When the 2020 CZU Lightning Complex fire climbed the side of a mountain into a housing development in Boulder Creek, Calif., toxic contamination didn’t spread from the homes back into the water system. That was because the San Lorenzo Valley district utility made sure the valves in that network prevented backflow. Preventive steps like that, Whelton says, go a long way in improving fire resiliency and keeping community drinking water safe. He would know, too: Whelton has become the go-to expert flying out to nearly every megafire that’s burned down towns since 2017, working with communities and municipalities on testing water.

Another prevention area is setting up proper lines of communication. Three days after the Maui fires and evacuations began in 2023, the Maui County Department of Water Supply issued an “Unsafe Water Advisory.” All Maui households surveyed in a recent study by Whelton and several other researchers “expressed concerns or confusion about drinking water safety” two weeks after the fire.

Communication challenges, like rapidly getting information to water customers after a fire, are what led Whelton and his colleagues to co-author the Wildfire Response Guide for Environmental Public Health Professionals for the National Environmental Health Association. Guides that reduce friction between local and state governments and health professionals assist in risk-monitoring communities post-fire. For protecting water, the guide explicitly highlights where water can be compromised, offering damage-assessment guidance, community messaging on safety risks, and what kinds of testing to prioritize.

Further downstream, researchers contend with how to build homes in fire-prone areas to make them more resilient and leach less hazardous waste in the event of a disaster.

Erica Fischer, a civil engineer at Oregon State University who spent her PhD studying fire impacts on buildings, saw firsthand the devastation wrought by wildfires in communities like Paradise, Calif., and Louisville, Colo. She’s witnessed conversations move away from just forest management to home-hardening and resiliency-building. Legislation like Oregon’s Senate Bill 762 — which put $220 million into wildfire preparedness of buildings, landscapes and emergency response Fischer notes, not only puts resources into mapping wildfire risk after the 2020 Oregon fires, but also provides financial assistance for the socially vulnerable in the rural communities at risk.

Other legislation is also being advanced. The EMBER act, a bipartisan bill introduced in June by Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), aims to modernize national wildfire policies, including by updating recovery guidance on drinking water toxicity resulting from wildfires.

With practices like this in place across wildfire risk areas, the likelihood of a watershed weathering subsequent high rains improves. Dahlgren hits on the adage: “Dilution is the solution to pollution.” If there are backups in place, diluting at least the DOM water can provide safe drinking water downstream.

Planning for a future with wildfires

Meanwhile in Boulder, Colo., they are divining the future of fires. Kate Dunlap, a Post-Fire Recovery Playbook co-author and manager of Boulder’s Drinking Water Quality program, applies machine-learning algorithms to identify where to place resources for disaster preparedness. One model simulated 10,000 burns in the watershed according to local topography, vegetation and geology. The results allow Dunlap’s team to understand how much risk there is, where disasters can come from and how much it’ll cost to prevent or treat them.

These forecasts help cities predict how much sediment could enter reservoirs. Knowing where hazardous debris might come from allows the government to prioritize stabilizing at-risk forested areas while keeping costs low.

The science is trying to keep pace with an ever longer and more frequent fire season. Researchers consulted for this story are studying fires from 2021 and 2022, as well as conditions generated by these newer, larger fires that burn in regions geographically, vegetation-wise and community-wise different from where previous fires burned. Additional research is critical to understand how this global risk impacts communities at a local level.

Dunlap sees a lot more urgency here in her field. In eight years on the job, it’s only since 2020 that she’s witnessed increased funding sources at the state and federal level for forest health projects. The general awareness shift she’s seen is that “wildfires are real and we’re not really experiencing these sort of natural fires anymore. They’re very severe.”

The community of Las Vegas, N.M., is preparing for the next big fire by strengthening their water supplies along the Gallinas River, both upstream by the wildfire-prone regions and downstream at the household level. Johanna Blake, a U.S. Geological Survey researcher at the New Mexico Water Science Center, sent The Washington Post photos of the rocky barriers — gabions — that now stretch along the river bed. After the rainy season in 2022, she could smell the collected ash that got stopped before entering the river there.

About the story

The wildfire risk to watersheds were calculated from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest to Faucet data. A watershed was categorized as “Great risk” if 70% or more of its total acres had a “high or very high wildfire hazard potential.”

The number of surface drinking water consumers for each watershed is based on late 2018/early 2019 population estimates.

Only watersheds that were entirely contained within state boundaries were included in the calculation of residents at risk of wildfire water contamination in Washington and California. Watersheds that intersected with state lines were not included in the calculation to avoid double counting.

Janice Kai Chen contributed to this report.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Some big water agencies in farming areas get water for free. Critics say that needs to end

The federal government is providing water to some large agricultural districts for free. In a new study, researchers urge the Trump administration to start charging more for water.

The water that flows down irrigation canals to some of the West’s biggest expanses of farmland comes courtesy of the federal government for a very low price — even, in some cases, for free.In a new study, researchers analyzed wholesale prices charged by the federal government in California, Arizona and Nevada, and found that large agricultural water agencies pay only a fraction of what cities pay, if anything at all. They said these “dirt-cheap” prices cost taxpayers, add to the strains on scarce water, and discourage conservation — even as the Colorado River’s depleted reservoirs continue to decline.“Federal taxpayers have been subsidizing effectively free water for a very, very long time,” said Noah Garrison, a researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. “We can’t address the growing water scarcity in the West while we continue to give that water away for free or close to it.”The report, released this week by UCLA and the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, examines water that local agencies get from the Colorado River as well as rivers in California’s Central Valley, and concludes that the federal government delivers them water at much lower prices than state water systems or other suppliers.The researchers recommend the Trump administration start charging a “water reliability and security surcharge” on all Colorado River water as well as water from the canals of the Central Valley Project in California. That would encourage agencies and growers to conserve, they said, while generating hundreds of millions of dollars to repair aging and damaged canals and pay for projects such as new water recycling plants.“The need for the price of water to reflect its scarcity is urgent in light of the growing Colorado River Basin crisis,” the researchers wrote. The study analyzed only wholesale prices paid by water agencies, not the prices paid by individual farmers or city residents. It found that agencies serving farming areas pay about $30 per acre-foot of water on average, whereas city water utilities pay $512 per acre-foot. In California, Arizona and Nevada, the federal government supplies more than 7 million acre-feet of water, about 14 times the total water usage of Los Angeles, for less than $1 per acre-foot. And more than half of that — nearly one-fourth of all the water the researchers analyzed — is delivered for free by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to five water agencies in farming areas: the Imperial Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District, as well as the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada and the Unit B Irrigation and Drainage District in Arizona. Along the Colorado River, about three-fourths of the water is used for agriculture.Farmers in California’s Imperial Valley receive the largest share of Colorado River water, growing hay for cattle, lettuce, spinach, broccoli and other crops on more than 450,000 acres of irrigated lands. The Imperial Irrigation District charges farmers the same rate for water that it has for years: $20 per acre-foot. Tina Shields, IID’s water department manager, said the district opposes any surcharge on water. Comparing agricultural and urban water costs, as the researchers did, she said, “is like comparing a grape to a watermelon,” given major differences in how water is distributed and treated.Shields pointed out that IID and local farmers are already conserving, and this year the savings will equal about 23% of the district’s total water allotment. “Imperial Valley growers provide the nation with a safe, reliable food supply on the thinnest of margins for many growers,” she said in an email.She acknowledged IID does not pay any fee to the government for water, but said it does pay for operating, maintaining and repairing both federal water infrastructure and the district’s own system. “I see no correlation between the cost of Colorado River water and shortages, and disagree with these inflammatory statements,” Shields said, adding that there “seems to be an intent to drive a wedge between agricultural and urban water users at a time when collaborative partnerships are more critical than ever.”The Colorado River provides water for seven states, 30 Native tribes and northern Mexico, but it’s in decline. Its reservoirs have fallen during a quarter-century of severe drought intensified by climate change. Its two largest reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are now less than one-third full.Negotiations among the seven states on how to deal with shortages have deadlocked.Mark Gold, a co-author, said the government’s current water prices are so low that they don’t cover the costs of operating, maintaining and repairing aging aqueducts and other infrastructure. Even an increase to $50 per acre-foot of water, he said, would help modernize water systems and incentivize conservation. A spokesperson for the U.S. Interior Department, which oversees the Bureau of Reclamation, declined to comment on the proposal.The Colorado River was originally divided among the states under a 1922 agreement that overpromised what the river could provide. That century-old pact and the ingrained system of water rights, combined with water that costs next to nothing, Gold said, lead to “this slow-motion train wreck that is the Colorado right now.” Research has shown that the last 25 years were likely the driest quarter-century in the American West in at least 1,200 years, and that global warming is contributing to this megadrought.The Colorado River’s flow has decreased about 20% so far this century, and scientists have found that roughly half the decline is due to rising temperatures, driven largely by fossil fuels.In a separate report this month, scientists Jonathan Overpeck and Brad Udall said the latest science suggests that climate change will probably “exert a stronger influence, and this will mean a higher likelihood of continued lower precipitation in the headwaters of the Colorado River into the future.” Experts have urged the Trump administration to impose substantial water cuts throughout the Colorado River Basin, saying permanent reductions are necessary. Kathryn Sorensen and Sarah Porter, researchers at Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy, have suggested the federal government set up a voluntary program to buy and retire water-intensive farmlands, or to pay landowners who “agree to permanent restrictions on water use.”Over the last few years, California and other states have negotiated short-term deals and as part of that, some farmers in California and Arizona are temporarily leaving hay fields parched and fallow in exchange for federal payments.The UCLA researchers criticized these deals, saying water agencies “obtain water from the federal government at low or no cost, and the government then buys that water back from the districts at enormous cost to taxpayers.”Isabel Friedman, a coauthor and NRDC researcher, said adopting a surcharge would be a powerful conservation tool. “We need a long-term strategy that recognizes water as a limited resource and prices it as such,” she wrote in an article about the proposal.

California cities pay a lot for water; some agricultural districts get it for free

Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.

In summary Even among experts the cost of water supplies is hard to pin down. A new study reveals huge differences in what water suppliers for cities and farms pay for water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada. California cities pay far more for water on average than districts that supply farms — with some urban water agencies shelling out more than $2,500 per acre-foot of surface water, and some irrigation districts paying nothing, according to new research.  A report published today by researchers with the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and advocates with the Natural Resources Defense Council shines a light on vast disparities in the price of water across California, Arizona and Nevada.  The true price of water is often hidden from consumers. A household bill may reflect suppliers’ costs to build conduits and pump water from reservoirs and rivers to farms and cities. A local district may obtain water from multiple sources at different costs. Even experts have trouble deciphering how much water suppliers pay for the water itself. The research team spent a year scouring state and federal contracts, financial reports and agency records to assemble a dataset of water purchases, transfers and contracts to acquire water from rivers and reservoirs. They compared vastly different water suppliers with different needs and geographies, purchasing water from delivery systems built at different times and paid for under different contracts. Their overarching conclusion: One of the West’s most valuable resources has no consistent valuation – and sometimes costs nothing at all.  Cities pay the highest prices for water. Look up what cities or irrigation districts in California, Nevada and Arizona pay for surface water in our interactive database at calmatters.org “It costs money to move water around,” the report says, “but there is no cost, and no price signal, for the actual water.” That’s a problem, the authors argue, as California and six other states in the Colorado River basin hash out how to distribute the river’s dwindling flows — pressed by federal ultimatums, and dire conditions in the river’s two major reservoirs. The study sounds the alarm that the price of water doesn’t reflect its growing scarcity and disincentivizes conservation. “We’re dealing with a river system and water supply source that is in absolute crisis and is facing massive shortfalls … and yet we’re still treating this as if it’s an abundant, limitless resource that should be free,” said Noah Garrison, environmental science practicum director at UCLA and lead author on the study.  Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, applauded the research effort. Though he had not yet reviewed the report, he said complications abound, built into California’s water infrastructure itself and amplified by climate change. Moving, storing and treating water can drive up costs, and are only sometimes captured in the price.  “We’ve got to be careful about pointing our fingers and saying farmers are getting a free ride,” Mount said. Still, he agreed that water is undervalued: “We do not pay the full costs of water — the full social, full economic and the full environmental costs of water.”  Coastal cities pay the most The research team investigated how much suppliers above a certain purchase threshold spend on water from rivers and reservoirs in California, Arizona and Nevada.  They found that California water suppliers pay more than double on average than what Nevada districts pay for water, and seven times more than suppliers in Arizona.  The highest costs span the coast between San Francisco and San Diego, which the researchers attributed to the cost of delivery to these regions and water transfers that drive up the price every time water changes hands.  “In some of those cases it’s almost a geographic penalty for California, that there are larger conveyance or transport and infrastructure needs, depending on where the districts are located,” Garrison said.  Agricultural water districts pay the least In California, according to the authors, cities pay on average 20 times more than water suppliers for farms — about $722 per acre foot, compared to $36.  One acre foot can supply roughly 11 Californians for a year, according to the state’s Department of Water Resources.  Five major agricultural suppliers paid nothing to the federal government for nearly 4 million acre-feet of water, including three in California that receive Colorado River water: the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the Palo Verde Irrigation District.  Tina Anderholt Shields, water manager for the Imperial Irrigation District, which receives the single largest share of Colorado River water, said the district’s contract with the U.S. government does not require any payment for the water.  Cities, by contrast, received less than 40,000 acre-feet of water for $0. The report notes, however, that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a major urban water importer, spends only 25 cents an acre-foot for around 850,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River.  Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources at Metropolitan, said that the true cost of this water isn’t reflected in the 25-cent fee, because the expense comes from moving it. By the time the Colorado River water gets to the district, he said it costs several hundred dollars. Plus, he added, the district pays for hydropower, which helps cover the costs of the dams storing the water supply. “That enables us to only pay 25 cents an acre foot to the feds on the water side, because we’re paying Hoover Dam costs on the power side.” Federal supplies are the cheapest; transfers drive up costs Much of the difference among water prices across three states comes down to source: those whose supplies come from federally managed rivers, reservoirs, aqueducts and pumps pay far less on average than those receiving water from state managed distribution systems or via water transfers.  Garrison and his team proposed adding a $50 surcharge per acre-foot of cheap federal supplies to help shore up the infrastructure against leaks and losses or pay for large-scale conservation efforts without tapping into taxpayer dollars.  But growers say that would devastate farming in California.  “It’s important to note that the ‘value’ of water is priceless,” said Allison Febbo, General Manager of Westlands Water District, which supplies San Joaquin Valley farms. The report calculates that the district pays less than $40 per acre foot for water from the federal Central Valley Project, though the Westlands rate structure notes another $14 fee to a restoration fund. “The consequences of unaffordable water can be seen throughout our District: fallowed fields, unemployment, decline in food production…” The Imperial Irrigation District’s Shields said that a surcharge would be inconsistent with their contract, difficult to implement, and unworkable for growers.  “It’s not like farmers can just pass it on to their buyers and then have that roll down to the consumer level where it might be ‘manageable,’” Shields said. The most expensive water in California is more than $2,800 an acre-foot The most expensive water in California, Arizona or Nevada flows from the rivers of Northern California, down California’s state-managed system of aqueducts and pumps, to the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency in Riverside County. Total cost, according to the report: $2,870.21 per acre foot.  Lance Eckhart, the agency’s general manager, said he hadn’t spoken to the study’s authors but that the number sounded plausible. The price tag would make sense, he said, if it included contributing to the costs for building and maintaining the 705-mile long water delivery system, as well as for the electricity needed to pump water over mountains.  Eckhart compared the water conveyance to a railroad, and his water agency to a distant, distant stop. “We’re at the end, so we have the most railroad track to pay for, and also the most energy costs to get it down here,” he said.  Because it took decades for construction of the water delivery system to reach San Gorgonio Pass, the water agency built some of those costs into local property taxes before the water even arrived, rather than into the water bills for the cities and towns they supply. As a result, its mostly municipal customers pay only $399 per acre foot, Eckhart said.  “You can’t build it into rates if you’re not going to see your first gallon for 40 years,” Ekhart said.  The study didn’t interrogate how the wholesale price of imported water translates to residential bills. Water managers point out that cheap supplies like groundwater can help dilute the costs of pricey imported water.  The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, for instance, purchases water imported from the Colorado River and Northern California to fill gaps left by local groundwater stores, supplies from the Owens Valley, and other locally managed sources, said Marty Adams, the utility’s former general manager. (The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was unable to provide an interview.) Because the amount of water needed can vary from year to year, it’s added as an additional charge on top of the base rate, Adams said. “If you have to pay for purchased water somewhere, when you add all the numbers up, it comes out in that total,” he said.  “The purchased water becomes the wildcard all the time.”

Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water

Parkinson’s disease has environmental toxic factors, not just genetic.

Skip to main contentScientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the WaterNew ideas about chronic illness could revolutionize treatment, if we take the research seriously.Photograph: Rachel JessenThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers.Start your free trial to access The Big Story and all premium newsletters.—cancel anytime.START FREE TRIALAlready a subscriber? Sign InThe Big Story is exclusive to subscribers. START FREE TRIALword word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word word wordmmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1mmMwWLliI0fiflO&1

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas probably increases risk of infant mortality, study finds

Study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire shows residents’ reproductive outcomes near contaminated sitesDrinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%. Continue reading...

Drinking water contaminated with Pfas chemicals probably increases the risk of infant mortality and other harm to newborns, a new peer-reviewed study of 11,000 births in New Hampshire finds.The first-of-its-kind University of Arizona research found drinking well water down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%, pre-term birth of 20%, and low-weight birth of 43%.It was also tied to an increase in extremely premature birth and extremely low-weight birth by 168% and 180%, respectively.The findings caught authors by surprise, said Derek Lemoine, a study co-author and economics professor at the University of Arizona who focuses on environmental policymaking and pricing climate risks.“I don’t know if we expected to find effects this big and this detectable, especially given that there isn’t that much infant mortality, and there aren’t that many extremely low weight or pre-term births,” Lemoine said. “But it was there in the data.”The study also weighed the cost of societal harms in drinking contaminated water against up-front cleanup costs, and found it to be much cheaper to address Pfas water pollution.Extrapolating the findings to the entire US population, the authors estimate a nearly $8bn negative annual economic impact just in increased healthcare costs and lost productivity. The cost of complying with current regulations for removing Pfas in drinking water is estimated at about $3.8bn.“We are trying to put numbers on this and that’s important because when you want to clean up and regulate Pfas, there’s a real cost to it,” Lemoine said.Pfas are a class of at least 16,000 compounds often used to help products resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate in the environment, and they are linked to serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders and birth defects.Pfas are widely used across the economy, and industrial sites that utilize them in high volume often pollute groundwater. Military bases and airports are among major sources of Pfas pollution because the chemicals are used in firefighting foam. The federal government estimated that about 95 million people across the country drink contaminated water from public or private wells.Previous research has raised concern about the impact of Pfas exposure on fetuses and newborns.Among those are toxicological studies in which researchers examine the chemicals’ impact on lab animals, but that leaves some question about whether humans experience the same harms, Lemoine said.Other studies are correlative and look at the levels of Pfas in umbilical cord blood or in newborns in relation to levels of disease. Lemoine said those findings are not always conclusive, in part because many variables can contribute to reproductive harm.The new natural study is unique because it gets close to “isolating the effect of the Pfas itself, and not anything around it”, Lemoine said.Researchers achieved this by identifying 41 New Hampshire sites contaminated with Pfoa and Pfos, two common Pfas compounds, then using topography data to determine groundwater flow direction. The authors then examined reproductive outcomes among residents down gradient from the sites.Researchers chose New Hampshire because it is the only state where Pfas and reproductive data is available, Lemoine said. Well locations are confidential, so mothers were unaware of whether their water source was down gradient from a Pfas-contaminated site. That created a randomization that allows for causal inference, the authors noted.The study’s methodology is rigorous and unique, and underscores “that Pfas is no joke, and is toxic at very low concentrations”, said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst with the Environmental Working Group non-profit. The group studies Pfas exposures and advocates for tighter regulations.The study is in part effective because mothers did not know whether they were exposed, which created the randomization, Evans said, but she noted that the state has the information. The findings raise questions about whether the state should be doing a similar analysis and alerting mothers who are at risk, Evans said.Lemoine said the study had some limitations, including that authors don’t know the mothers’ exact exposure levels to Pfas, nor does the research account for other contaminants that may be in the water. But he added that the findings still give a strong picture of the chemicals’ effects.Granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis systems can be used by water treatment plants and consumers at home to remove many kinds of Pfas, and those systems also remove other contaminants.The Biden administration last year put in place limits in drinking water for six types of Pfas, and gave water utilities several years to install systems.The Trump administration is moving to undo the limits for some compounds. That would probably cost the public more in the long run. Utility customers pay the cost of removing Pfas, but the public “also pays the cost of drinking contaminated water, which is bigger”, Lemoine said.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.