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

A rare glimpse inside the mountain tunnel that carries water to Southern California

In the 1930s, workers bored a 13-mile tunnel beneath Mt. San Jacinto. Here's a look inside the engineering feat that carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Thousands of feet below the snowy summit of Mt. San Jacinto, a formidable feat of engineering and grit makes life as we know it in Southern California possible. The 13-mile-long San Jacinto Tunnel was bored through the mountain in the 1930s by a crew of about 1,200 men who worked day and night for six years, blasting rock and digging with machinery. Completed in 1939, the tunnel was a cornerstone in the construction of the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct. It enabled the delivery of as much as 1 billion gallons of water per day.The tunnel is usually off-limits when it is filled and coursing with a massive stream of Colorado River water. But recently, while it was shut down for annual maintenance, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California opened the west end of the passage to give The Times and others a rare look inside. “It’s an engineering marvel,” said John Bednarski, an assistant general manager of MWD. “It’s pretty awe-inspiring.” The 16-foot-diameter San Jacinto Tunnel runs 13 miles through the mountain. While shut down for maintenance, the tunnel has a constant stream of water entering from the mountain. A group visits the west end of the San Jacinto Tunnel, where the mouth of the water tunnel enters a chamber. He wore a hard hat as he led a group to the gaping, horseshoe-shaped mouth of the tunnel. The passage’s concrete arch faded in the distance to pitch black.The tunnel wasn’t entirely empty. The sound of rushing water echoed from the walls as an ankle-deep stream flowed from the portal and cascaded into a churning pool beneath metal gates. Many in the tour group wore rubber boots as they stood on moist concrete in a chamber faintly lit by filtered sunlight, peering into the dark tunnel. This constant flow comes as groundwater seeps and gushes from springs that run through the heart of the mountain. In places deep in the tunnel, water shoots so forcefully from the floor or the wall that workers have affectionately named these soaking obstacles “the fire hose” and “the car wash.”Standing by the flowing stream, Bednarski called it “leakage water from the mountain itself.”Mt. San Jacinto rises 10,834 feet above sea level, making it the second-highest peak in Southern California after 11,503-foot Mt. San Gorgonio.As the tunnel passes beneath San Jacinto’s flank, as much as 2,500 feet of solid rock lies overhead, pierced only by two vertical ventilation shafts. Snow covers Mt. San Jacinto, as seen from Whitewater, in March. At the base of the mountain, the 13-mile San Jacinto Tunnel starts its journey. The tunnel transports Colorado River water to Southern California’s cities. During maintenance, workers roll through on a tractor equipped with a frame bearing metal bristles that scrape the tunnel walls, cleaning off algae and any growth of invasive mussels. Workers also inspect the tunnel by passing through on an open trailer, scanning for any cracks that require repairs.“It’s like a Disneyland ride,” said Bryan Raymond, an MWD conveyance team manager. “You’re sitting on this trailer, and there’s a bunch of other people on it too, and you’re just cruising through looking at the walls.” Aside from the spraying and trickling water, employee Michael Volpone said he has also heard faint creaking.“If you sit still and listen, you can kind of hear the earth move,” he said. “It’s a little eerie.”Standing at the mouth of the tunnel, the constant babble of cascading water dominates the senses. The air is moist but not musty. Put a hand to the clear flowing water, and it feels warm enough for a swim. On the concrete walls are stained lines that extend into the darkness, marking where the water often reaches when the aqueduct is running full. Many who have worked on the aqueduct say they are impressed by the system’s design and how engineers and workers built such a monumental system with the basic tools and technology available during the Great Depression.Pipelines and tunnelsThe search for a route to bring Colorado River water across the desert to Los Angeles began with the signing of a 1922 agreement that divided water among seven states. After the passage of a $2-million bond measure by Los Angeles voters in 1925, hundreds of surveyors fanned out across the largely roadless Mojave and Sonoran deserts to take measurements and study potential routes.The surveyors traveled mostly on horseback and on foot as they mapped the rugged terrain, enduring grueling days in desert camps where the heat sometimes topped 120 degrees.Planners studied and debated more than 100 potential paths before settling on one in 1931. The route began near Parker, Ariz., and took a curving path through desert valleys, around obstacles and, where there was no better option, through mountains.In one official report, a manager wrote that “to bore straight through the mountains is very expensive and to pump over them is likewise costly.” He said the planners carefully weighed these factors as they decided on a solution that would deliver water at the lowest cost. VIDEO | 02:45 A visit to the giant tunnel that brings Colorado River water to Southern California Share via Those in charge of the Metropolitan Water District, which had been created in 1928 to lead the effort, were focused on delivering water to 13 participating cities, including Los Angeles, Burbank and Anaheim. William Mulholland, Los Angeles’ chief water engineer, had led an early scouting party to map possible routes from the Colorado River to Southern California’s cities in 1923, a decade after he celebrated the completion of the 233-mile aqueduct from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles with the triumphant words, “There it is. Take it.”The aqueduct’s design matched the audaciousness of the giant dams the federal government was starting to build along the Colorado — Hoover Dam (originally called Boulder Dam) and Parker Dam, which formed the reservoir where the aqueduct would begin its journey.Five pumping plants would be built to lift water more than 1,600 feet along the route across the desert. Between those points, water would run by gravity through open canals, buried pipelines and 29 separate tunnels stretching 92 miles — the longest of which was a series of nine tunnels running 33.7 miles through hills bordering the Coachella Valley.To make it possible, voters in the district’s 13 cities overwhelmingly approved a $220-million bond in 1931, the equivalent of a $4.5-billion investment today, which enabled the hiring of 35,000 workers. Crews set up camps, excavated canals and began to blast open shafts through the desert’s rocky spines to make way for water.In 1933, workers started tearing into the San Jacinto Mountains at several locations, from the east and the west, as well as excavating shafts from above. Black-and-white photographs and films showed miners in hard hats and soiled uniforms as they stood smoking cigarettes, climbing into open rail cars and running machinery that scooped and loaded piles of rocks.Crews on another hulking piece of equipment, called a jumbo, used compressed-air drills to bore dozens of holes, which were packed with blasting power and detonated to pierce the rock. (Courtesy of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) The work progressed slowly, growing complicated when the miners struck underground streams, which sent water gushing in.According to a 1991 history of the MWD titled “A Water Odyssey,” one flood in 1934 disabled two of three pumps that had been brought in to clear the tunnel. In another sudden flood, an engineer recalled that “the water came in with a big, mad rush and filled the shaft to the top. Miners scrambled up the 800-foot ladder to the surface, and the last man out made it with water swirling around his waist.”Death and delaysAccording to the MWD’s records, 13 workers died during the tunnel’s construction, including men who were struck by falling rocks, run over by equipment or electrocuted with a wire on one of the mining trolleys that rolled on railroad tracks. The Metropolitan Water District had originally hired Wenzel & Henoch Construction Co. to build the tunnel. But after less than two years, only about two miles of the tunnel had been excavated, and the contractor was fired by MWD general manager Frank Elwin “F.E.” Weymouth, who assigned the district’s engineers and workers to complete the project.Construction was delayed again in 1937 when workers went on strike for six weeks. But in 1939, the last wall of rock tumbled down, uniting the east and west tunnels, and the tunnel was finished. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, stands in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water. The total cost was $23.5 million. But there also were other costs. As the construction work drained water, many nearby springs used by the Native Soboba people stopped flowing. The drying of springs and creeks left the tribe’s members without water and starved their farms, which led to decades of litigation by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and eventually a legal settlement in 2008 that resolved the tribe’s water rights claims.The ‘magic touch’ of waterBy the time the tunnel was completed, the Metropolitan Water District had released a 20-minute film that was shown in movie theaters and schools celebrating its conquest of the Colorado River and the desert. It called Mt. San Jacinto the “tallest and most forbidding barrier.”In a rich baritone, the narrator declared Southern California “a new empire made possible by the magic touch of water.” “Water required to support this growth and wealth could not be obtained from the local rainfall in this land of sunshine,” the narrator said as the camera showed newly built homes and streets filled with cars and buses. “The people therefore realized that a new and dependable water supply must be provided, and this new water supply has been found on the lofty western slopes of the Rocky Mountains, a wonderland of beauty, clad by nature in a white mantle of snow.”Water began to flow through the aqueduct in 1939 as the pumping plants were tested. At the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant, near the aqueduct’s halfway point, water was lifted 441 feet, surging through three pipelines up a desert mountain. March 2012 image of the 10-foot-diameter delivery lines carrying water 441 feet uphill from the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant. (Los Angeles Times) From there, the water flowed by gravity, moving at 3-6 mph as it traveled through pipelines, siphons and tunnels. It entered the San Jacinto Tunnel in Cabazon, passed under the mountain and emerged near the city of San Jacinto, then continued in pipelines to Lake Mathews reservoir in Riverside County. In 1941, Colorado River water started flowing to Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Compton and other cities. Within six years, another pipeline was built to transport water from the aqueduct south to San Diego.The influx of water fueled Southern California’s rapid growth during and after World War II.Over decades, the dams and increased diversions also took an environmental toll, drying up much of the once-vast wetlands in Mexico’s Colorado River Delta. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, walks in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel. An impressive designToday, 19 million people depend on water delivered by the MWD, which also imports supplies from Northern California through the aqueducts and pipelines of the State Water Project.In recent decades, the agency has continued boring tunnels where needed to move water. A $1.2-billion, 44-mile-long conveyance system called the Inland Feeder, completed in 2009, involved boring eight miles of tunnels through the San Bernardino Mountains and another 7.9-mile tunnel under the Badlands in Riverside County.The system enabled the district to increase its capacity and store more water during wet years in Diamond Valley Lake, Southern California’s largest reservoir, which can hold about 260 billion gallons of water. “Sometimes tunneling is actually the most effective way to get from point A to point B,” said Deven Upadhyay, the MWD’s general manager.Speaking hypothetically, Upadhyay said, if engineers had another shot at designing and building the aqueduct now using modern technology, it’s hard to say if they would end up choosing the same route through Mt. San Jacinto or a different route around it. But the focus on minimizing cost might yield a similar route, he said.“Even to this day, it’s a pretty impressive design,” Upadhyay said.When people drive past on the I-10 in Cabazon, few realize that a key piece of infrastructure lies hidden where the desert meets the base of the mountain. At the tunnel’s exit point near San Jacinto, the only visible signs of the infrastructure are several concrete structures resembling bunkers. When the aqueduct is running, those who enter the facility will hear the rumble of rushing water. The tunnel’s west end was opened to a group of visitors in March, when the district’s managers held an event to name the tunnel in honor of Randy Record, who served on the MWD board for two decades and was chair from 2014 to 2018. Speaking to an audience, Upadhyay reflected on the struggles the region now faces as the Colorado River is sapped by drought and global warming, and he drew a parallel to the challenges the tunnel’s builders overcame in the 1930s. “They found a path,” Upadhyay said. “This incredible engineering feat. And it required strength, courage and really an innovative spirit.” “When we now think about the challenges that we face today, dealing with wild swings in climate and the potential reductions that we might face, sharing dwindling supplies on our river systems with the growing Southwest, it’s going to require the same thing — strength, courage and a spirit of innovation,” he said. A steep steel staircase gives access to a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Officials to Test Water From Ohio Village Near Cold War-Era Weapons Plant After Newspaper Probe

Authorities in Ohio plan to test the water supply across a small village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites

LUCKEY, Ohio (AP) — Authorities in Ohio plan to test the groundwater supply across a village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites.However, The Blade in Toledo said its tests showed radioactivity levels 10 times higher than normal in water from a drinking fountain at Eastwood Middle School, 45 times higher than normal at the Luckey Library and 1,731 times higher than normal at a water pump near athletic fields.“We’ve got to get to the bottom of this,” said Lt. Col. Robert Burnham, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Buffalo District, which oversees the cleanup.Nineteen of the 39 samples collected by the newspaper from well water across Luckey — at homes, businesses, and public places — showed radioactivity at least 10 times greater than what the federal government calls normal for the area, the newspaper said. The Blade hired an accredited private lab to conduct the testing.The radioactivity detected was primarily bismuth-214, which decays from the radioactive gas radon-222. Experts agree that high levels of bismuth-214 suggest high levels of radon are also present.Radon exposure is the leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.The testing also found low levels of radioactive cobalt-60, a man-made isotope, in two wells. Experts called that finding extremely rare.Taehyun Roh, a Texas A&M University scientist who specializes in environmental exposures, said regulators should also conduct air and soil testing to assess the extent of the contamination and identify the source."Since this area likely has high radon levels, testing for radon in both air and water is advisable,” he wrote in an email. “A safe drinking water advisory should be issued, recommending the use of bottled water until further assessments and mitigation measures are in place.”The Corps of Engineers has long maintained that residential drinking water was not being contaminated by the removal work. Burnham and others said they still believe that to be true, citing thousands of their own soil samples.The state Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health will lead the testing. In an email, Ohio EPA spokesperson Katie Boyer told the newspaper the contaminant levels in the public drinking water are still “within acceptable drinking water standards.” She said any concerns raised by the state testing would be addressed.The 44-acre industrial site — 22 miles (35 kilometers) south of Toledo — was long crucial to America’s nuclear weapons program. In the 1940s, farmland was replaced by a sprawling defense plant that produced magnesium metal for the Manhattan Project. In the 1950s, the plant became the government’s sole source of beryllium metal for nuclear bombs, Cold War missiles and Space Race products, including a heat shield for Project Mercury.“Things that happened generations ago are still affecting us,” said Karina Hahn-Claydon, a 50-year-old teacher whose family lives less than a mile from the site. “And that’s because the government didn’t take care of it.”Private drinking wells, unlike municipal systems, are not regulated, and responsibility for testing is left to owners. The Blade’s testing took place from April 2024 through January.Radioactivity has been linked to an increased risk of various cancers, including blood and thyroid cancers.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

UK spending watchdog censures water firms and regulators over sewage failings

NAO finds regulatory gaps have enabled overspending on infrastructure building while not improving sewage worksWater companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries. Continue reading...

Water companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries.Bills in England and Wales are rising by £123 on average this year, and will go up further over the next five years, so that companies can fix ageing sewage infrastructure and stop spills of human waste from contaminating rivers and seas. Several water firms have complained to the Competition and Markets Authority because they want the regulator to allow them to increase bills even further.Only 1% of water companies’ actions to improve environmental performance, such as improving sewer overflows, have been inspected by the Environment Agency, the authors of the NAO report said. They also found there was no regulator responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater assets to prevent further environmental harm.The report, which audited the three water regulators, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, also found the regulators did not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets such as leaking sewers and ageing sewage treatment facilities as they do not have a set of metrics to assess their condition.Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Given the unprecedented situation facing the sector, Defra and the regulators need to act urgently to address industry performance and resilience to ensure the sector can meet government targets and achieve value for money over the long term for bill payers.”Despite the huge costs of infrastructure, the water companies have moved slowly meaning that at the current rate, it would take 700 years to replace the entire existing water network, the report found. Regulatory gaps and a lack of urgency about replacing old and malfunctioning infrastructure has caused a “rising tide of risk” in the sector, which is contributing to increasing bills for customers, the report warned.It also criticised the lack of a national plan for water supply and recommended that Defra must understand the costs and deliverability of its plans, alongside the impact they would have on customers’ bills.Several of the issues raised by the NAO, including concerns about weak infrastructure, have come to the fore in the debate over the future of Thames Water, the country’s largest water company with 16 million customers. Thames, which is under significant financial pressure with almost £20bn in debt, needs to secure fresh investment within months. Questions over the state of Thames’s infrastructure and regulatory punishment it could face for its failures have dogged the process of winning fresh funds. Meanwhile, Ofwat has also rejected its requests to raise bills by as much as 59%, instead allowing a 35% increase over the next five years.The government set up the independent water commission (IWC) last year to investigate how the water industry operated and whether regulation was fit for purpose.Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Tory chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said: “Today’s NAO report lays bare the scale of the challenges facing the water sector – not least the real prospect of water shortfall without urgent action.“The consequences of government’s failure to regulate this sector properly are now landing squarely on bill payers who are being left to pick up the tab. After years of under-investment, pollution incidents and water supply issues, it is no surprise that consumer trust is at an all-time low. Having not built any reservoirs in the last 30 years, we now need 10.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Consumers rightly expect a water sector that is robust, resilient and fit for the future. Defra and the regulators must focus on rebuilding public confidence and ensure the sector can attract the long-term investment it desperately needs.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”An Ofwat spokesperson added: “We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight. We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act.”Water UK, which represents the water companies, has been contacted for comment.

Water firms admit sewage monitoring damaging public trust

The industry says powers to self-monitor water quality should be handed back to the regulator.

Water companies should no longer be allowed to monitor their own levels of sewage pollution, the industry body has told the BBC exclusively.Instead they are proposing a new, third-party monitoring system to build consumer trust.The recommendation is part of a submission made to the UK government's independent review into the water sector.Campaigners have long complained the companies' self-reporting has prevented the true scale of pollution in UK water being revealed.A third-party system could add more pressure to the regulators, which have also been criticised for not holding the companies to account. A report from the National Audit Office is expected to say on Friday that the Environment Agency does not currently have enough capacity to take on any new monitoring.David Henderson, CEO of industry body Water UK, told the BBC: "We absolutely accept that self-monitoring is not helping to instil trust and so we would like to see an end to it, and in place of it a more robust, third-party system." As part of their permitting arrangements water companies are expected to regularly sample water quality to identify potential pollution, and submit this data to the Environment Agency in an arrangement known as "operator self monitoring". But there have been incidents of misreporting by water companies in England and Wales uncovered by the regulators, who said some cases had been deliberate.Southern Water was previously issued fines totalling £213m by the industry regulator (Ofwat) and the environmental regulator (the Environment Agency) for manipulating sewage data.In that case, there was unreported pollution into numerous conservation sites which caused "major environmental harm" to wildlife.The company later admitted its actions "fell short".Henderson added that the industry never asked to self-monitor, but that it was introduced in 2009 by the then Labour government to "reduce the administrative burden" on the Environment Agency (EA). In 2023, the BBC reported that EA staff were concerned that, due to funding cuts, the Agency was increasingly relying on water companies to self-report rather than carrying out its own checks on pollution from sewage. The current environment minister, Steve Reed, has promised to review the system, calling it the equivalent of companies "mark[ing] their own homework".But the National Audit Office (NAO), which reviews government spending, questioned the ability of the EA to take on any new monitoring. "Regulators need to address the fact that they currently have limited oversight over whether water companies are carrying out their work as expected. It is hard to see how they will achieve this without increased overall capacity," said Anita Shah, NAO Director of Regulation.It is expected to publish a full review of the regulation of the water sector on Friday. A Defra spokesperson told the BBC: "We are committed to taking decisive action to fix the water industry. The Water Commission's recommendations will mark the next major step [to] restore public trust in the sector."The government launched an independent water commission in October to review the sector and the way it is regulated. The public consultation closed on Wednesday with the findings expected in July. Water UK submitted a 200-page document of recommendations, including this call to end self-monitoring.The industry body also requested that water meters be universal across England and Wales to make bills fairer. At present about 60% of the population have a meter."The meter is just to ensure that people are paying for what they use as opposed to a flat rate of system where you can use virtually no water and pay the same as someone filling up a pool three times in a summer," said Henderson."This doesn't properly reflect the value of water and encourage people to conserve it in the way that we need," he added.

Cambodia Canal's Impact on Mekong Questioned After China Signs Deal

By Francesco Guarascio(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water...

(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water from the rice-growing floodplains of Vietnam's Mekong Delta, said the body overseeing the transnational river.After months of uncertainty, Phnom Penh last week signed a deal with China to develop the Funan Techo Canal when President Xi Jinping visited Cambodia as part of a tour of Southeast Asia.It was Beijing's first explicit public commitment to the project, giving state-controlled construction giant China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) a 49% stake through a subsidiary, but also linking Chinese support to the "sustainability" of the project.The Secretariat of the intergovernmental Mekong River Commission (MRC) that coordinates the sustainable development of Southeast Asia's longest river said it had so far received from Cambodia only "basic information" on the project."We hope that further details, including the feasibility study report and other relevant reports, will be provided," the Commission said in a statement to Reuters this week.That would be needed "to ensure that any potential implications for the broader Mekong Basin are fully considered," it added.The canal has already created concern among environmentalists who say it could further harm the delicate ecology of the Mekong Delta, which is Vietnam's major rice growing region and is already facing problems of drought and salination as result of infrastructure projects upstream. Vietnam is also a leading exporter of rice.On Friday, the Cambodian government said the canal would have minimal environmental impact and "aligns with the 1995 Mekong Agreement" which governs cooperation among riverine countries in Southeast Asia.The Mekong River, fed by a series of tributaries, flows some 4,900 kilometres (3,045 miles) from its source in the Tibetan plateau through China, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to the sea."Whether the Funan Techo Canal violates the 1995 Mekong Agreement depends on several factors, including its connection to the Mekong mainstream," the Commission said, offering additional guidance to Phnom Penh and other member states "to ensure compliance".Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam are members of the MRC while China and Myanmar are dialogue partners.The Cambodian government did not respond to questions about whether it intended to share the requested documents.Vietnam's foreign ministry did not reply to a request for comment after the deal with China was signed, but the country has repeatedly asked Cambodia to share more information about the canal to assess its impact.Xi made no reference to the canal in his public statements in Phnom Penh but a joint communique issued at the end of his visit said China supported Cambodia in building the canal "in accordance with the principles of feasibility and sustainability".The deal signed by CCCC on Friday was for a 151.6 km (94.2 miles) canal costing $1.16 billion.However, the Cambodian government says on the canal's official website that the waterway would stretch 180 km and cost $1.7 billion at completion in 2028.The higher cost reflects a short section to be built by Cambodian firms as well as bridges and water conservation resources, the government told Reuters without clarifying who would pay for the bridges and water conservation.Cambodia's deputy prime minister said in May 2024 that China would cover the entire cost of the project, which was put at $1.7 billion.The canal is designed to link the Mekong Basin to the Gulf of Thailand in Cambodia's southern Kep province. Much of the Mekong's nutrient-rich sediment no longer reaches rice farms in the Delta because of multiple hydroelectric dams built by China upriver, a Reuters analysis showed in 2022.The project agreed with China is also different from the original plan as it is focusing on boosting irrigation rather than solely pursuing navigation purposes, said Brian Eyler, an expert on the Mekong region at U.S.-based think tank Stimson Center.The water diverted from the Mekong Delta "will be much more than previously described," said Eyler.(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio; additional reporting by Khanh Vu in Hanoi; Editing by Kate Mayberry)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

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.