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
Thursday, February 27, 2025

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. 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.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. 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.” “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.“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.”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. 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.This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Despite a state law that’s supposed to protect and restore California's precious groundwater, thousands of wells have gone dry because of over-pumping by growers

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.

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.

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.

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.”

“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.

“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.”

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.

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.

This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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