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.

Even in wet years, wells are still dry. Why replenishing California’s groundwater is painfully slow

News Feed
Tuesday, February 25, 2025

In summary The governor vowed to clear the way for more groundwater recharge. Has it worked? “We’re still tinkering around with small numbers,” one expert says. After abundant rain and moderate snowfall this year in the northern half of the state, California’s largest reservoirs are holding more than 120% of their historical average. But underground, the state’s supply of water for drinking and irrigating crops remains depleted.  Even after multiple wet winters, and despite a state law that’s supposed to protect and restore the state’s precious groundwater, thousands of wells — mostly in rural, low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley — have gone dry because of over-pumping by growers.  So why hasn’t the recent bounty of rain and snow replenished the state’s underground supplies?  The Newsom administration has been pushing for more groundwater storage and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in solutions, but most stormwater flows into the ocean. Some of this is intentional — the water has to be routed quickly away from communities to prevent flooding, while some supports aquatic ecosystems, including endangered salmon. But millions of acre feet escape every year because there is no statewide system of pumps, pipelines and ponds to capture it and let it sink into the ground. Replenishing aquifers isn’t easy. It can require building new canals or pipelines to divert flood waters into permeable basins that are miles from major rivers. In some cases, growers would have to build berms to contain water as it soaks into the Earth.   All these features cost money and take time to build so progress has been slow. Recharge itself can be a painfully slow process  — often just inches per day. As a result, even exceptionally wet years like 2017 and 2023 only briefly paused depletion of drinking water wells.  “Long-term groundwater storage remains in a deficit from years of pumping more than what has been replenished,” according to the state’s 2024 semi-annual update on groundwater conditions.  Gov. Gavin Newsom has long vowed to enhance groundwater replenishment. In his 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio, the governor said he would “explore ways to further streamline groundwater recharge.” Then, in his 2022 Water Supply Strategy, he promised to increase average recharge by half a million acre-feet a year. (An acre-foot of water is enough to submerge one acre of land a foot deep.) The effort has had some success. In 2023, San Joaquin Valley farmers sank 7.6 million acre-feet of water into the ground, compared to 6.5 million in 2017, another wet year, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.  However, “it’s safe to say that very little, if any, recharge happened in 2020 to 2022 as these were some of the driest years on record in many parts of the state,” said Caitlin Peterson, a research fellow at the institute.  The Los Angeles region’s water table is dropping, with only sluggish recovery after 2023’s heavy rains, according to a Stanford University study published early this month. “Only about 25% of the groundwater lost since 2006 was restored,” the study says. “Wet winters do not compensate for the substantial depletion during dry years.” Even the extraordinary wet year of 2023 had missed opportunities. That year, the state issued permits to landowners allowing more than 600,000 acre-feet of water to be diverted from the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins for recharging groundwater during floods. But because some landowners received their permits too late in the rainy season and they  were required to install costly fish screens to protect salmon, the program only resulted in about 20,000 acre-feet of recharge, according to the Department of Water Resources.  “We haven’t reached our full potential in California for groundwater recharge,” said Helen Dahlke, a UC Davis professor of integrated hydrologic sciences. “We’re still tinkering around with small numbers.” Farmers taking action to capture groundwater Since he began farming more than 40 years ago, Don Cameron has watched the groundwater beneath his ranch near Fresno drop a half-foot to a foot every year. In total, the water table has dropped at least 30 feet. So he decided to take action to replenish his aquifer. He has been flooding his fields and orchards since 2011 to let that water trickle underground. Cameron has installed several miles of canals, along with headgates and pump systems, to bring more water to his Terranova Ranch from the Kings River during floods. He used earth excavated from the canals to enclose several active farmfields, forming 350 acres of recharge basins. Though he was assisted with a $5 million state grant, he spent about $13 million total, he said. He finished in 2020, in the midst of the last drought.  “Then we waited for a flood,” he said.  It came in 2023, and that wet winter his recharge system helped draw the water table up 15 feet. Canals and other systems at Terranova Ranch near Fresno collect water during floods to recharge the aquifer. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local He would like to see managed recharge projects like his own replicated statewide.  “We know that groundwater recharge works and increases aquifer resilience,” he said. “If we had better infrastructure to do it, we could really put a lot more water underground.” But not all landowners will invest in these projects. That’s because the water that sinks below one person’s farm becomes available for others to pump. Without a detailed accounting and crediting system, farmers don’t necessarily get back what they invest.  “When someone recharges, they’re mainly benefitting their neighbors,” said Graham Fogg, a UC Davis professor emeritus of hydrogeology. “The recharge is local, but the benefits are regional.” Cameron, for all his investments, knows this.  “The water I put in the ground does not have my name on it,” he said.  “We know that groundwater recharge works and increases aquifer resilience. If we had better infrastructure to do it, we could really put a lot more water underground.”Don Cameron, San Joaquin Valley grower To address this problem, some irrigation agencies have developed accounting systems that credit farmers who help sink water into a region’s basin. On the Central Coast, for example, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency uses “recharge net metering” that provides rebates to landowners based on how much water passes through their metered percolation system. In the Tulare Irrigation District, groundwater managers similarly credit farmers who use their land for recharge, so that they are entitled to most of that water later.     California invests millions in replenishing groundwater  As a pattern of wetter wet periods and drier droughts develops in the West, California water managers, anticipating a 10% decline in water supply by the 2040s, are increasingly concerned with capturing water when it’s available.  The governor waived environmental restrictions in 2023 with a series of executive orders aimed at facilitating groundwater recharge. Early that summer, the governor and Legislature codified some of these regulatory easements into a new law.  Since 2018, the Department of Water Resources has directed more than $121 million to at least 69 recharge projects. First: An aerial view of Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, on May 9, 2024, when its storage was 96% of capacity. Photo by Sara Nevis, state Department of Water Resources. Last: Low water levels at Shasta Lake on April 25, 2022, during a drought year. Photo by Miguel Gutierrez Jr., CalMatters Paul Gosselin, the department’s director of sustainable water management, said the efforts are working. Newsom’s 2023 orders allowed farmers to divert more than 400,000 acre-feet of water for recharge that otherwise would have flowed directly to the ocean, he said.  Between 2023 and 2024, Westlands Water District recharged almost 400,000 acre-feet. The Tulare Irrigation District recharged about 200,000 acre-feet — “a record-breaking year for us,” said General Manager Aaron Fukuda.  Sarah Woolf, a San Joaquin Valley farmer and president of the agricultural consulting firm Water Wise, said the governor’s order in 2023 to capture more water underground was a sign that “we’ve done nothing to support recharge” since the state’s groundwater law passed in 2014. Woolf said there has been “still no real resolution from the state board on this recharge issue.”     A more recent order issued by Newsom in January directed state officials to remove or minimize barriers “that would hinder efforts to maximize diversions to storage of excess flows.”  While Newsom’s executive orders appeased farmers, they reduced Delta river flows, potentially harming endangered salmon, sturgeon and smelt.  “This outflow of freshwater might seem like excess water to some but it’s not excess to the environment, and it’s absolutely critical to this ecosystem that is on the brink of collapse,” said Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor with Defenders of Wildlife. Thousands of dried-up wells Recent groundwater gains have not undone the decades of unregulated groundwater pumping, especially in disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. So much groundwater there has been pumped to irrigate orchards that the Earth has collapsed, subsiding almost 30 feet near Mendota last century, for example, as the water table has dropped. In the past two decades, subsidence has accelerated, with much of the valley floor plunging at a geologic freefall pace of a foot per year.  Even in 2023, groundwater managers in the San Joaquin Valley reported drawing 5.4 million acre-feet from the ground, mostly offsetting the total amount that was recharged.  Consequently, thousands of residents reliant on groundwater have reported drinking water wells drying out, especially in 2014-2015 and 2021-2022, all years of extreme drought.  State officials received about 700 reports of dry wells over the past two years, and a state database shows that more than 200 wells — many in the San Joaquin Valley — stand at all-time low levels. Eight dry household wells were reported in the San Joaquin Valley in the last 30 days alone.   During wetter periods, the number of dry wells reported tends to slow down. However, activists in the region say there has been little to no recovery of dewatered wells, forcing communities to find solutions.  “A lot of people have been relying on bottled and hauled water, and they’ve also committed a lot of money to digging deeper wells,” said Tien Tran, policy manager with the Community Water Center, an advocacy group that works in the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast, another region with depleted groundwater. In downtown San Jose, groundwater overdraft has led to 13 feet of permanent subsidence, according to Cindy Kao, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s imported water manager. o“Our county’s demands began outstripping our local groundwater supplies more than 100 years ago,” Kao said at a state water board hearing on Feb. 18.  Like other water supply advocates who spoke that day, Kao supported Newsom’s proposed $20 billion Delta tunnel as a means for boosting deliveries of Delta water that is deposited into the local aquifer.  Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said water from the tunnel would “recharge groundwater basins in the Central Valley, which is critically important for water supply and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.” “Our county’s demands began outstripping our local groundwater supplies more than 100 years ago.”Cindy Kao, Santa Clara Valley Water District In the Sonoma Valley, a region heavily pumped by wells to irrigate vineyards, groundwater supplies have trended downward.  Marcus Trotta, principal hydrologist with the Sonoma County Water Agency, said ample rainfall in the last two years muted this effect. “But there’s still been a long-term decline, mostly in the deeper aquifer system,” he said. The valley’s deeper aquifers are separated from the surface by mostly impermeable clay deposits, Trotta said. This can make recharge of depleted basins almost hopelessly slow.     Room to recharge As for space to store more water, there is plenty. An estimated 140 million acre-feet of groundwater storage space lies vacant beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys — three times the volume of all the state’s surface reservoirs combined.  Fogg, who helped produce that figure, said it was calculated by subtracting the current groundwater in storage from the estimated volume before California’s modern development.  One of the biggest bottlenecks to making use of this space is the capacity of conveyance systems.  “We have plenty of farmland for recharge, but the infrastructure to get the water to these places is still evolving,” Fogg said. Agricultural production in California has steadily grown for many decades, now routinely exceeding $50 billion in gross annual sales. Thirsty nut crops have been so widely planted that prices have crashed from oversupply, and the Central Valley is carpeted with irrigated farms.  Ultimately, ensuring there is adequate groundwater for farms and communities means growers will have to permanently fallow large areas of cropland. Otherwise, Gosselin said groundwater recharge will never keep pace with agricultural demand. “Farmers are not going to be able to recharge their way out of groundwater depletion,” he said.

The governor vowed to clear the way for more groundwater recharge. Has it worked? “We’re still tinkering around with small numbers,” one expert says.

A person wearing a plaid shirt and an arm brace stands on the edge of a levee near a canal, facing the camera with the sunshine hitting his back. The canal stretches through the photo's background, and a row of bushes line up along the canal's edge.

In summary

The governor vowed to clear the way for more groundwater recharge. Has it worked? “We’re still tinkering around with small numbers,” one expert says.

After abundant rain and moderate snowfall this year in the northern half of the state, California’s largest reservoirs are holding more than 120% of their historical average. But underground, the state’s supply of water for drinking and irrigating crops remains depleted. 

Even after multiple wet winters, and despite a state law that’s supposed to protect and restore the state’s precious groundwater, thousands of wells — mostly in rural, low-income communities in the San Joaquin Valley — have gone dry because of over-pumping by growers

So why hasn’t the recent bounty of rain and snow replenished the state’s underground supplies

The Newsom administration has been pushing for more groundwater storage and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in solutions, but most stormwater flows into the ocean. Some of this is intentional — the water has to be routed quickly away from communities to prevent flooding, while some supports aquatic ecosystems, including endangered salmon.

But millions of acre feet escape every year because there is no statewide system of pumps, pipelines and ponds to capture it and let it sink into the ground.

Replenishing aquifers isn’t easy. It can require building new canals or pipelines to divert flood waters into permeable basins that are miles from major rivers. In some cases, growers would have to build berms to contain water as it soaks into the Earth.  

All these features cost money and take time to build so progress has been slow. Recharge itself can be a painfully slow process  — often just inches per day. As a result, even exceptionally wet years like 2017 and 2023 only briefly paused depletion of drinking water wells. 

“Long-term groundwater storage remains in a deficit from years of pumping more than what has been replenished,” according to the state’s 2024 semi-annual update on groundwater conditions. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom has long vowed to enhance groundwater replenishment. In his 2020 Water Resilience Portfolio, the governor said he would “explore ways to further streamline groundwater recharge.” Then, in his 2022 Water Supply Strategy, he promised to increase average recharge by half a million acre-feet a year. (An acre-foot of water is enough to submerge one acre of land a foot deep.)

The effort has had some success. In 2023, San Joaquin Valley farmers sank 7.6 million acre-feet of water into the ground, compared to 6.5 million in 2017, another wet year, according to the Public Policy Institute of California

However, “it’s safe to say that very little, if any, recharge happened in 2020 to 2022 as these were some of the driest years on record in many parts of the state,” said Caitlin Peterson, a research fellow at the institute. 

The Los Angeles region’s water table is dropping, with only sluggish recovery after 2023’s heavy rains, according to a Stanford University study published early this month. “Only about 25% of the groundwater lost since 2006 was restored,” the study says. “Wet winters do not compensate for the substantial depletion during dry years.”

Even the extraordinary wet year of 2023 had missed opportunities.

That year, the state issued permits to landowners allowing more than 600,000 acre-feet of water to be diverted from the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins for recharging groundwater during floods. But because some landowners received their permits too late in the rainy season and they  were required to install costly fish screens to protect salmon, the program only resulted in about 20,000 acre-feet of recharge, according to the Department of Water Resources. 

“We haven’t reached our full potential in California for groundwater recharge,” said Helen Dahlke, a UC Davis professor of integrated hydrologic sciences. “We’re still tinkering around with small numbers.”

Farmers taking action to capture groundwater

Since he began farming more than 40 years ago, Don Cameron has watched the groundwater beneath his ranch near Fresno drop a half-foot to a foot every year. In total, the water table has dropped at least 30 feet.

So he decided to take action to replenish his aquifer. He has been flooding his fields and orchards since 2011 to let that water trickle underground.

Cameron has installed several miles of canals, along with headgates and pump systems, to bring more water to his Terranova Ranch from the Kings River during floods. He used earth excavated from the canals to enclose several active farmfields, forming 350 acres of recharge basins.

Though he was assisted with a $5 million state grant, he spent about $13 million total, he said. He finished in 2020, in the midst of the last drought. 

“Then we waited for a flood,” he said. 

It came in 2023, and that wet winter his recharge system helped draw the water table up 15 feet.

A view of a canal inside with very little water inside as it stretches into the photo's horizon. Along the canal's edge are bushes and power lines that run with the canal as it disappears into the background. A mountain range can be faintly seen in the distance.
Canals and other systems at Terranova Ranch near Fresno collect water during floods to recharge the aquifer. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

He would like to see managed recharge projects like his own replicated statewide. 

“We know that groundwater recharge works and increases aquifer resilience,” he said. “If we had better infrastructure to do it, we could really put a lot more water underground.”

But not all landowners will invest in these projects. That’s because the water that sinks below one person’s farm becomes available for others to pump. Without a detailed accounting and crediting system, farmers don’t necessarily get back what they invest. 

“When someone recharges, they’re mainly benefitting their neighbors,” said Graham Fogg, a UC Davis professor emeritus of hydrogeology. “The recharge is local, but the benefits are regional.”

Cameron, for all his investments, knows this. 

“The water I put in the ground does not have my name on it,” he said. 

“We know that groundwater recharge works and increases aquifer resilience. If we had better infrastructure to do it, we could really put a lot more water underground.”

Don Cameron, San Joaquin Valley grower

To address this problem, some irrigation agencies have developed accounting systems that credit farmers who help sink water into a region’s basin.

On the Central Coast, for example, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency uses “recharge net metering” that provides rebates to landowners based on how much water passes through their metered percolation system.

In the Tulare Irrigation District, groundwater managers similarly credit farmers who use their land for recharge, so that they are entitled to most of that water later.    

California invests millions in replenishing groundwater 

As a pattern of wetter wet periods and drier droughts develops in the West, California water managers, anticipating a 10% decline in water supply by the 2040s, are increasingly concerned with capturing water when it’s available. 

The governor waived environmental restrictions in 2023 with a series of executive orders aimed at facilitating groundwater recharge. Early that summer, the governor and Legislature codified some of these regulatory easements into a new law

Since 2018, the Department of Water Resources has directed more than $121 million to at least 69 recharge projects.

Paul Gosselin, the department’s director of sustainable water management, said the efforts are working. Newsom’s 2023 orders allowed farmers to divert more than 400,000 acre-feet of water for recharge that otherwise would have flowed directly to the ocean, he said. 

Between 2023 and 2024, Westlands Water District recharged almost 400,000 acre-feet. The Tulare Irrigation District recharged about 200,000 acre-feet — “a record-breaking year for us,” said General Manager Aaron Fukuda. 

Sarah Woolf, a San Joaquin Valley farmer and president of the agricultural consulting firm Water Wise, said the governor’s order in 2023 to capture more water underground was a sign that “we’ve done nothing to support recharge” since the state’s groundwater law passed in 2014. Woolf said there has been “still no real resolution from the state board on this recharge issue.”    

A more recent order issued by Newsom in January directed state officials to remove or minimize barriers “that would hinder efforts to maximize diversions to storage of excess flows.” 

While Newsom’s executive orders appeased farmers, they reduced Delta river flows, potentially harming endangered salmon, sturgeon and smelt. 

“This outflow of freshwater might seem like excess water to some but it’s not excess to the environment, and it’s absolutely critical to this ecosystem that is on the brink of collapse,” said Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor with Defenders of Wildlife.

Thousands of dried-up wells

Recent groundwater gains have not undone the decades of unregulated groundwater pumping, especially in disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley.

So much groundwater there has been pumped to irrigate orchards that the Earth has collapsed, subsiding almost 30 feet near Mendota last century, for example, as the water table has dropped. In the past two decades, subsidence has accelerated, with much of the valley floor plunging at a geologic freefall pace of a foot per year

Even in 2023, groundwater managers in the San Joaquin Valley reported drawing 5.4 million acre-feet from the ground, mostly offsetting the total amount that was recharged. 

Consequently, thousands of residents reliant on groundwater have reported drinking water wells drying out, especially in 2014-2015 and 2021-2022, all years of extreme drought. 

State officials received about 700 reports of dry wells over the past two years, and a state database shows that more than 200 wells — many in the San Joaquin Valley — stand at all-time low levels. Eight dry household wells were reported in the San Joaquin Valley in the last 30 days alone.  

During wetter periods, the number of dry wells reported tends to slow down. However, activists in the region say there has been little to no recovery of dewatered wells, forcing communities to find solutions. 

“A lot of people have been relying on bottled and hauled water, and they’ve also committed a lot of money to digging deeper wells,” said Tien Tran, policy manager with the Community Water Center, an advocacy group that works in the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast, another region with depleted groundwater.

In downtown San Jose, groundwater overdraft has led to 13 feet of permanent subsidence, according to Cindy Kao, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s imported water manager.

o“Our county’s demands began outstripping our local groundwater supplies more than 100 years ago,” Kao said at a state water board hearing on Feb. 18. 

Like other water supply advocates who spoke that day, Kao supported Newsom’s proposed $20 billion Delta tunnel as a means for boosting deliveries of Delta water that is deposited into the local aquifer. 

Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said water from the tunnel would “recharge groundwater basins in the Central Valley, which is critically important for water supply and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.”

“Our county’s demands began outstripping our local groundwater supplies more than 100 years ago.”

Cindy Kao, Santa Clara Valley Water District

In the Sonoma Valley, a region heavily pumped by wells to irrigate vineyards, groundwater supplies have trended downward. 

Marcus Trotta, principal hydrologist with the Sonoma County Water Agency, said ample rainfall in the last two years muted this effect. “But there’s still been a long-term decline, mostly in the deeper aquifer system,” he said.

The valley’s deeper aquifers are separated from the surface by mostly impermeable clay deposits, Trotta said. This can make recharge of depleted basins almost hopelessly slow.    

Room to recharge

As for space to store more water, there is plenty. An estimated 140 million acre-feet of groundwater storage space lies vacant beneath the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys — three times the volume of all the state’s surface reservoirs combined. 

Fogg, who helped produce that figure, said it was calculated by subtracting the current groundwater in storage from the estimated volume before California’s modern development. 

One of the biggest bottlenecks to making use of this space is the capacity of conveyance systems. 

“We have plenty of farmland for recharge, but the infrastructure to get the water to these places is still evolving,” Fogg said.

Agricultural production in California has steadily grown for many decades, now routinely exceeding $50 billion in gross annual sales. Thirsty nut crops have been so widely planted that prices have crashed from oversupply, and the Central Valley is carpeted with irrigated farms. 

Ultimately, ensuring there is adequate groundwater for farms and communities means growers will have to permanently fallow large areas of cropland. Otherwise, Gosselin said groundwater recharge will never keep pace with agricultural demand.

“Farmers are not going to be able to recharge their way out of groundwater depletion,” he said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Exclusive-In Australia, a Data Centre Boom Is Built on Vague Water Plans

By Byron KayeSYDNEY (Reuters) -Authorities in Sydney approved construction of data centres without requiring measurable plans to cut water use,...

SYDNEY (Reuters) -Authorities in Sydney approved construction of data centres without requiring measurable plans to cut water use, raising concerns the sector's rapid growth will leave residents competing for the resource.The New South Wales state government, which presides over Australia's biggest city, green-lit all 10 data centre applications it has ruled on since expanding its planning powers in 2021, from owners like Microsoft, Amazon and Blackstone's AirTrunk, documents reviewed by Reuters show.The centres would bring in a total A$6.6 billion ($4.35 billion) of construction spending, but would ultimately use up to 9.6 gigalitres a year of clean water, or nearly 2% of Sydney's maximum supply, the documents show.Fewer than half the approved applications gave projections of how much water they would save using alternative sources. State planning law says data centre developers must "demonstrate how the development minimises ... consumption of energy, water ... and material resources" but does not require projections on water usage or savings. Developers need to disclose what alternative water supplies they will use but not how much.The findings show authorities are approving projects with major expected impact on public water demand based on developers' general and non-measurable assurances as they seek a slice of the $200 billion global data centre boom.The state planning department confirmed the 10 approved data centres collectively projected annual water consumption of 9.6 gigalitres but noted five of those outlined how they expect to cut demand over time. The department did not identify the projects or comment on whether their water reduction plans were measurable."In all cases, Sydney Water provided advice to the Department that it was capable of supplying the data centre with the required water," a department spokesperson told Reuters in an email.Data centres could account for up to a quarter of Sydney's available water by 2035, or 135 gigalitres, according to Sydney Water projections shared with Reuters. Those projections assume centres achieve goals of using less water to cool the servers, but did not specify what those targets were.Sydney's drinking water is limited to one dam and a desalination plant, making supply increasingly tight as the population and temperatures rise. In 2019, its 5.3 million residents were banned from watering gardens or washing cars with a hose as drought and bushfires ravaged the country."There is already a shortfall between supply and demand," said Ian Wright, a former scientist for Sydney Water who is now an associate professor of environmental science at Western Sydney University.    As more data centres are built, "their growing thirst in drought times will be very problematic," he added.The number of data centres, which store computing infrastructure, is growing exponentially as the world increasingly uses AI and cloud computing. But their vast water needs for cooling have prompted the U.S., Europe and others to introduce new rules on water usage.New South Wales enforces no water usage rules for data centres other than the government being "satisfied that the development contains measures designed to minimise the consumption of potable water," according to the documents.Just three of the 10 approved data centre applications gave a projection of how much the developer hoped to cut reliance on public water using alternative sources like rainwater. The biggest centre cleared for construction, a 320-megawatt AirTrunk facility, was approved after saying it would harvest enough rainwater to cut its potable water consumption by 0.4%, the documents show.An AirTrunk spokesperson said early planning documents referred to peak demand but "subsequent modelling recently tabled to Sydney Water has determined actual usage will be significantly lower".The company was "working with Sydney Water to transition the site to be nearly entirely serviced by recycled water", the spokesperson added.The most ambitious commitment to cut reliance on town water was 15%, for one of two data centres approved on land held by Amazon, planning documents show.The two centres would collectively need 195.2 megawatts of electricity and take up to 92 megalitres a year of Sydney's drinking water before rainwater harvesting, say the documents, which give a projected reduction in water use for one project but not the other.Amazon declined to comment on individual properties but said its Australian data centres avoid using water for cooling for 95.5% of the year because their temperature controls rely more on fans than evaporative cooling.Microsoft gave a 12% projected water use reduction for one of the two Sydney data centres it has had approved. Microsoft declined to comment.Sydney's suburban councils, meanwhile, want to slow what they see as competition for limited water supply, especially when the state wants 377,000 new homes by 2029 to ease a housing shortage.    "A lot of them have been built without much discussion," said Damien Atkins, a member of Blacktown council where state-approved centres owned by AirTrunk, Amazon and Microsoft are being built.    "There should be more pushback and I'm just starting to ask those questions now."    In the city's north, Lane Cove council asked the state to return approval powers to local government, citing water usage and other concerns.    Neighbouring Ryde council has five centres and another six in various stages of planning. It said those 11 would take nearly 3% of its water supply and has called for a moratorium on approvals.    On a small vegetable farm near where Amazon, Microsoft, AirTrunk and others are building centres, Meg Sun said her family's business had to turn off the sprinklers in the 2019 drought but still bought enough water from Sydney Water to drip-feed the crops.She worries what might happen if water demand is worsened by data centres' needs in the next drought."We can't even run the business then, because we do rely on water," she said.($1 = 1.5161 Australian dollars)(Reporting by Byron Kaye, with additional reporting by Stella Qiu; Editing by Sam Holmes)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Toxic Pfas above proposed safety limits in almost all English waters tested

Exclusive: 110 of 117 bodies of water tested by Environment Agency would fail standards, with levels in fish 322 times the planned limitNearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust. Continue reading...

Nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust.They also found levels of Pfos – a banned carcinogenic Pfas – in fish were on average 322 times higher than planned limits for wildlife. If just one portion of such freshwater fish was eaten each month this would exceed the safe threshold of Pfos for people to consume over a year, according to the NGOs.Pfas, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in industrial processes and products such as non-stick pans, clothing and firefighting foams. They do not break down in the environment and some are linked to diseases, including cancers and hormone disruption.Pfas pollution is widespread, prompting the EU to propose a new water quality standard that limits the combined toxicity of 24 Pfas to 4.4 nanograms per litre of water, calculated as PFOA-equivalents – a method that weights each substance according to its toxicity relative to PFOA, a particularly hazardous and well-studied carcinogen that is now banned.The EU is also planning to regulate about 10,000 Pfas as one class as there are too many to assess on a case-by-case basis and because none break down in the environment, but the UK has no plans to follow suit.Last week, environment groups, led by the Marine Conservation Society, wrote to ministers, urging a ban on all Pfas in consumer products and a timeline for phasing them out in all other uses. Now, public health and nature groups have joined forces to propose urgent measures to rein in pollution.“Scientists continue to identify Pfas as one of the biggest threats of our time, yet the UK is falling behind other countries in restricting them,” said Hannah Evans of the environmental charity Fidra. “Every day of inaction locks in decades of pollution and environmental harm … we’re asking the UK government to turn off the tap of these persistent forever chemicals.”They say the UK should align with the EU’s group-based Pfas restrictions and ban the substances in food packaging, clothing, cosmetics, toys and firefighting foams, following examples from Denmark, France and the EU. They want better monitoring, tougher water and soil standards and to make polluters cover the cost of Pfas clean-up.Emma Adler, the director of impact at Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Pfas are linked to an explosion of impacts for wildlife and public health, from cancers to immune issues. These new figures underline just how widespread Pfas pollution is and that Pfas regulation must be a much clearer priority in government missions to clean up UK rivers and improve the nation’s health.”Thalie Martini, the chief executive officer at Breast Cancer UK, said: “Evidence points to the potential for some Pfas to be related to health issues, including increasing breast cancer risk … millions of families affected by this disease will want the government to do everything they can to deliver tougher Pfas rules to protect our health.”Last year, 59 Pfas experts urged the government to follow the science and regulate all Pfas as a single class, warning their extreme persistence – regardless of toxicity – posed a serious environmental threat.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy 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“Countries like France and Denmark, the EU as a whole and many US states have taken strong action against Pfas pollution,” said Dr Francesca Ginley from the Marine Conservation Society. “The time is now for the UK to take a stand and show the leadership we need on Pfas pollution from source to sea.”Dr Shubhi Sharma of the charity Chem Trust said: “Too often with hazardous chemicals the world has ignored early warnings of harm and learned lessons far too late. Costs to tackle Pfas in the environment and address health impacts have a multi-billion pound economic price tag … the government must not delay.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said the science on Pfas was moving quickly and that it was running a multi-year programme to improve understanding of Pfas pollution sources in England. They added: “We are screening sites to identify potential sources of Pfas pollution and prioritise further investigations, whilst assessing how additional control measures could reduce the risks of Pfas in the environment.”A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by Pfas. That’s why we are working at pace together with regulators to assess levels of Pfas in the environment, their sources and potential risks to inform our approach to policy and regulation.”

Breaking Down the Force of Water in the Texas Floods

Flash floods last week in Texas caused the Guadalupe River to rise dramatically, reaching three stories high in just two hours

Over just two hours, the Guadalupe River at Comfort, Texas, rose from hip-height to three stories tall, sending water weighing as much as the Empire State building downstream roughly every minute it remained at its crest.Comfort offers a good lens to consider the terrible force of a flash flood’s wall of water because it’s downstream of where the river’s rain-engorged branches met. The crest was among the highest ever recorded at the spot — flash flooding that appears so fast it can “warp our brains,” said James Doss-Gollin, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.The Texas flood smashed through buildings, carried away cars and ripped sturdy trees out by the roots, dropping the debris in twisted piles when the water finally ebbed. It killed more than 100 people, prompted scores of rescues and left dozens of others missing. The deaths were concentrated upriver in Kerr County, an area that includes Camp Mystic, the devastated girls' camp, where the water hit early and with little notice.Water is capable of such destruction because it is heavy and can move fast. Just one cubic foot of water — imagine a box a bit larger than the size of a basketball — weighs about 62 pounds (28 kilograms). When the river rose to its peak at Comfort, 177,000 cubic feet — or 11 million pounds (5 million kilograms) of water — flowed by every second.“When you have that little lead time ... that means you can’t wait until the water level starts to rise,” Doss-Gollin said. “You need to take proactive measures to get people to safety.” Water as heavy as a jumbo jet A small amount of water — less than many might think — can sweep away people, cars and homes. Six inches (15.2 centimeters) is enough to knock people off their feet. A couple of feet of fast-moving water can take away an SUV or truck, and even less can move cars.“Suppose you are in a normal car, a normal sedan, and a semitrailer comes and pushes you at the back of the car. That’s the kind of force you’re talking about,” said Venkataraman Lakshmi, a University of Virginia professor and president of the hydrology section of the American Geophysical Union.And at Comfort, it took just over 15 minutes for so much water to arrive that not only could it float away a large pickup truck, but structures were in danger — water as heavy as a jumbo jet moved by every second.At that point, “We are past vehicles, homes and things can start being affected,” said Daniel Henz, flood warning program manager at the flood control district of Maricopa County, Arizona, an area that gets dangerous scary flash floods.The water not only pushes objects but floats them, and that can actually be scarier. The feeling of being pushed is felt immediately, letting a person know they are in danger. Upward force may not be felt until it is overwhelming, according to Upmanu Lall, a water expert at Arizona State University and Columbia University.“The buoyancy happens — it’s like a yes, no situation. If the water reaches a certain depth and it has some velocity, you’re going to get knocked off (your feet) and floating simultaneously,” he said. The mechanics of a flash flood The landscape created the conditions for what some witnesses described as a fast-moving wall of water. Lots of limestone covered by a thin layer of soil in hilly country meant that when rain fell, it ran quickly downhill with little of it absorbed by the ground, according to S. Jeffress Williams, senior scientist emeritus with the U.S. Geological Survey.A flash flood generally starts with an initial lead wave and then builds as rain rushes over the landscape and into the river basin. It may rise quickly, but the water still takes some time to converge. The water crumpled cars into piles, twisted steel and knocked trees down as if they were strands of grass. Images captured the chaos and randomness of the water’s violence.And then, not as fast as it rose, but still quickly, the river receded.Five hours after its crest at Comfort, it had already dropped 10 feet (3 meters), revealing its damage in retreat. A couple of days after it started to rise, a person could stand with their head above the river again.“Everything just can happen, very, very quickly,” Henz said.Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - June 2025

South West Water allowed to invest £24m rather than pay £19m fine

Campaigners say Ofwat ‘subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit’ after illegal sewage dischargesSouth West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being penalised for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions. Continue reading...

South West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being sanctioned for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions.But there was anger over revelations on Thursday that the regulator had not imposed a direct fine on the company.South West Water put forward the suggestion that it would invest £20m to reduce sewage discharges at key storm overflows, spend £2m to tackle sewer misuse and misconnections, and another £2m to support local environment groups. This was accepted by Ofwat rather than imposing a fine of £19m.But Rob Abrams, the campaigns manager at Surfers Against Sewage, said allowing water companies to choose their own penalty was farcical.He said the situation “illustrates a water industry model that’s broken beyond repair, with government and regulators subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit, at any cost”.Ofwat said it had chosen this route rather than imposing a fine because it was satisfied that the company would carry out the work required to bring its infrastructure back into legal operation.“We have … concluded that it would be appropriate to accept the undertakings in lieu of the financial penalty we would otherwise impose in this case (£19m, 6.5% of its relevant turnover),” Ofwat said.The regulator carried out a two-year investigation into the company that found it had failed to upgrade its treatment works to prevent sewage discharges into the environment, failed to properly deal with the content of its sewers and failed to put in the resources to monitor its treatment works properly.The penalty is the latest in an ongoing investigation by Ofwat into several water companies into widespread illegal sewage dumping across the network from thousands of treatment plants.Penalties totalling more than £160m have already been imposed against Yorkshire Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water for widespread illegal sewage dumping from their treatment works.Lynn Parker, the senior director for enforcement at Ofwat, said the regulator had secured the £24m package and a commitment to put things right from the company.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 promotionBut Abrams said it amounted to a cynical PR exercise and an abdication of responsibility by Ofwat.“There is no transparency about how the money will be spent or whether it’s even enough,” he said.“Of the £4m pledged for environmental initiatives and local groups, we’ve been given no clarity on who will benefit or why.”The public and other stakeholders can make representations about the size of the penalty before it is finalised.

Oregon groundwater protection bill passes despite criticism that it’s too weak

Gov. Tina Kotek backed the bill to modernize Oregon’s failed groundwater pollution laws.

Legislators have just passed a groundwater protection bill that many nonprofit groups working on groundwater contamination said was too watered down to make a real difference. Gov. Tina Kotek backed the bill to modernize Oregon’s failed groundwater pollution laws. Kotek has been active in trying to speed up response to the three-decades-old groundwater contamination crisis in the Lower Umatilla Basin, where many residents with nitrate-contaminated domestic wells must rely on bottled drinking water. Until 2022, many people in the region had no idea they had been drinking contaminated water for years. Some still don’t know it because the state has yet to test all the affected wells. A state analysis also has shown that nitrate pollution in the area has worsened significantly over the past decade. Though the state has been testing wells and conducting public awareness campaigns, critics have accused the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Department of not doing enough to crack down on the pollution sources. Much of the nitrate contamination comes from fertilizer used by large farms, animal manure from local industrial dairies and feedlots and wastewater from food processing plants that are constantly applied to farm fields. Early versions of the bill laid out specific actions that state agencies would have to take once groundwater pollution had reached the level of a serious public health threat. But many of those actions were stripped out of the bill, leading environmental and social justice nonprofits to pull their support because they deemed the bill too weak to make a difference. Oregon Rural Action, the eastern Oregon nonprofit that has been instrumental in testing domestic wells and pushing the state to do more testing and to limit nitrate pollution, said industry groups representing polluters put pressure on the governor’s office, leading to major changes in the bill’s language. “The version passed on Friday no longer includes the tools, resources, and Legislative directives needed for agencies to exercise their authority to protect Oregon’s groundwater and enforce the law,”the group’s executive director, Kristin Anderson Ostrom, said in a statement. The governor’s office declined to comment.Kotek in January issued an emergency order allowing the Port of Morrow to again violate its water pollution permit and over-apply nitrogen contaminated water onto farmland. The port, which handles billions of gallons of nitrogen-rich water every year, said that it would have to pause operations and lay off workers if not for the emergency permit. In addition to the Lower Umatilla Basin, Oregon has designated two other areas – in northern Malheur County and the southern Willamette Valley – where elevated nitrate concentrations in groundwater pose a human health risk. Each one has an action plan to reduce nitrate concentrations in groundwater. Research has linked high nitrate consumption over long periods to stomach, bladder and intestinal cancers, miscarriages and thyroid issues. It is especially dangerous to infants who can quickly develop “blue baby syndrome,” a fatal illness.— Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.

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.