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.

How to best filter your L.A. tap water based on your ZIP Code

News Feed
Monday, July 22, 2024

Nearly a year ago, I scribbled “Replace Brita filter” on my to-do list. But the errand perpetually fell by the wayside. There were so many more pressing tasks to complete. “Oh, it’s fine,” I thought. “How bad can it be?” Let’s just say that a day into reporting this story, I ran out to the market and bought a three-pack.We reach for our water taps more than almost any other object in our homes — to brush our teeth, wash our faces, make coffee or tea in the morning. To cook meals, rinse dishes and wipe countertops. To water the plants, do laundry and fill our pets’ bowls. To shower and shave. And most often for a drink. In L.A., water rules everything around us. Drink up, cool off and dive into our stories about hydrating and recreating in the city. But how much do you really know about what’s in your tap water? And if you filter it, are you using the right technology? Many of us may not be fully aware of where our water even comes from. That’s because the water that flows into our homes in the L.A. area can be surprisingly different, ZIP Code to ZIP Code. The level of arsenic found in Compton’s tap water may differ wildly from that found in Glendale. Malibu’s tap water may have more hexavalent chromium while Pasadena’s doesn’t have any. One tap does not fit all. “Where you are, the location, it really makes a difference in your water quality,” said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group focusing on environmental health. We went to the source, so to speak — experts in the realms of science, academia and water filtration — to help you navigate the often complicated, ever-fluid world of residential tap water, so that you can make smarter and more informed choices about how to purify your H20. L.A.’s water sources | Federal and state protections | Determining your water quality | How to test | How to filter | The bare minimumL.A.’s water sources Like most major cities, the Greater Los Angeles area is served by a dizzying number of community water systems. In California, there are 2,913 of them to serve about 39.025 million people — and those are just the larger ones that operate year-round, according to the EWG’s Tap Water Database. Each utility company treats the water in its assigned municipality differently before it flows through consumers’ faucets. That’s because each draws from different water sources. One area’s tap may be coming from rivers and lakes (otherwise categorized as “surface water”) while another’s could be pumped from wells from beneath layers of rock and sediment (categorized as “groundwater”). Depending on where the water travels, it may pick up different undesirable contaminants. Surface water, for example, could have runoff that includes nitrate used to fertilize land in agricultural areas. Groundwater could have naturally occurring chemical elements, such as arsenic, that come from bedrock. More often than not, L.A. area tap water comes from a mix of these sources. Our utility companies draw from different aqueducts, those large, often concrete ditches or canals that extend from the source to the water treatment plant. From there it flows through pipes, underground, to your home.In 2023, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — which serves about 4 million people throughout the city of Los Angeles — sourced its tap water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the California Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as from local groundwater, according to its most recent drinking water quality report.The specific geographic location of a water source also determines what ends up in your tap water. A lake near a highly industrial area risks containing more pollutants than water coming from a lake in the High Sierras.Another reason the water might be different between ZIP Codes: Utility companies have different resources at their disposal.“The size of the drinking water system can be an indicator of the drinking water quality,” Stoiber said. “It’s based on economy of scale. The larger ones have more resources for treatment. Smaller systems can be at a bit more of an economic disadvantage.”Federal and state water protections There are federal regulations that require utility companies to stay below maximum contaminant levels for more than 90 pollutants in drinking water. They’re also required to publish an annual consumer confidence report with information about contaminant levels and water sources. “But many of our drinking water regulations were set in the ’70s and ’80 and are not as protective as they should be,” Stoiber said. “There are contaminants in your drinking water that don’t have regulations around them.” How harmful these contaminants are, and how much you’d have to ingest over time to affect your health, is contested. But in general, however many pollutants you might find in L.A.’s tap water, there are not enough to make you seriously ill in one gulp. Some good news: In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized new regulations around a family of about 15,000 chemicals known as PFAS. They’re often referred to as the “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment. California also voted in April to finalize a limit for hexavalent chromium, or “Chrome 6,” which many people know as the carcinogenic chemical that the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. contaminated residents’ groundwater with, from 1952 to 1966, in Hinkley, Calif. — the legal upshot of which was depicted in the film “Erin Brockovich.” But those changes won’t be immediate. “Upgrading water treatment plants is expensive and takes years,” said USC’s Daniel McCurry, who researches water supply and treatment. “Most smaller utilities, especially, just won’t have the money to make the upgrades in the initial time frame.” 2027, McCurry notes, is the deadline for utilities to complete their “initial monitoring” before the new regulations for PFAS go into effect in 2029. (Henry Hargreaves / For The Times) How to determine your water quality So where to start? It’s easier than it might seem. First, search for your consumer confidence report on your utility company’s website. You can then cross-reference that information with EWG’s free Tap Water Database, which allows you to type in your ZIP Code (look for the prompt “Is your water safe?”). It then will populate your water utility company and the number of people it serves. From there, you can click on “View Utility” to produce an easy-to-decipher report listing the source of your water and contaminants detected in it. When I typed my own Silver Lake ZIP Code in for a water quality analysis, the results did not put me at ease. It listed nine contaminants detected in my water, among them bromate and uranium. Some of these were found at levels that far exceeded the standards of the EWG but were still below the legal limit. I called the LADWP to make sense of what I’ve found. “There’s no health concern,” LADWP’s director of water quality, Jonathan Leung, said of my findings, stressing that the contaminants were far below the federally mandated legal limit. “That’s where, collectively, all the toxicologists and water quality specialists and scientists have worked together to set national standards. As a water quality utility, that’s what we set our sights on. The public should take confidence that the legal limits are protective of public health — and we strive to do better than that.” McCurry added that the EWG and EPA have different standards for the amount of contaminants found in water. “When the EPA sets a water contaminant limit, it’s a balance between protecting public health while staying realistic about the treatment technology we have and how much it costs,” McCurry said. “Everyone’s perception or tolerance of risk is different, but for me, personally, I drink water straight from the tap and don’t worry about it. It’s very unlikely you’ll get sick from tap water, assuming the tap water meets federal regulations.” How to test your water at home Whatever your personal tolerance level, you can improve both the quality and taste of your tap water by choosing the right filter, experts say. But, given the array of filtration products and techniques on the market, that’s easier said than done. Choosing from options like “ion-exchange demineralization,” “ultraviolet sterilization” and “chemical feed pumps” can be intimidating.Take a breath. Then step back. Filtering should be a tailored approach, said Brian Campbell, founder of Water Filter Guru, which lab-tests and reports on residential water treatment methods and products. “There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all water treatment solution,” Campbell said.He added that even after reading utility consumer reports and nonprofit chemical analyses, you still may need to know more.“[Those reports] will give you a general sense but not the whole picture, Campbell said. “Because water can be recontaminated after it leaves the treatment plant — like if your home has old plumbing with lead piping. But it’s a start.”You can test your home’s water quality yourself using fairly affordable water test strips, available for about $15 in stores such as Home Depot. These, Campbell said, will “give you an indication of a handful of the most common 12 to 15 contaminants like lead, arsenic, chromium, nitrate possibly.” However it will only give you a range of those aforementioned contaminants, not the exact concentration in your water. If you want specific information about the chemical levels, you can run a more in-depth test. The best way to do that, Campbell said, is through a certified lab, where the cost ranges from roughly $100 to more than $1,000 depending on how comprehensive you want to get. How to choose a filter Once you know what’s in your water, you’ll be able to choose the right filter technology to treat it, Campbell said. Here’s what he suggests using for some of the most common issues.PFAS. This is the family of about 15,000 chemicals used for their water repellent and oil repellent properties, such as in nonstick pans or fast food packaging. “The most studied filtration method for this is activated carbon adsorption,” Campbell said. “It’s the most common technology used in pitcher filtration. Even the most simple water pitcher filters should theoretically reduce PFAS.” Reverse osmosis filtration systems also will address PFAS — it’s one of the most thorough techniques and includes activated carbon as one of its stages. Historically, these pricy systems were installed directly into sink pipes, but countertop versions now are available for renters. Microplastics. “They get into the environment and break down into smaller and smaller pieces — so small you’d need a microscope to see them,” Campbell said. The best technique to address those — because they are suspended particles, floating in the water and not dissolved — is mechanical filtration, he said. The technology removes suspended particles, like pipe rust or sand and grit coming from a hot water heater. Reverse osmosis also would work. Distillation would be effective as well and is, per Campbell, one of the best to get rid of nearly all common contaminants. But, Campbell warned, “It requires a massive amount of energy and time to treat and distill a relatively small volume of water — so not the most practical.” Disinfection byproducts. This is a group of chemicals created when common water disinfectants — typically chlorine — interact with organic matter (such as dirt or rust) that’s already present in the pipes that run from the distribution plant to your home or office, Campbell said. “Activated carbon adsorption is the best way to deal with this. Reverse osmosis will also deal with them because a component of that [technique] is activated carbon.”Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. “This is more of an issue in agricultural areas,” Campbell said. Typically, he added, they can be treated using activated carbon and reverse osmosis.Fluoride. Tap water is fluoridated in many areas because of its dental health benefits. But recent research suggests that prenatal exposure to fluoride may be linked to increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in children at age 3. “Reverse osmosis would be the best treatment for this, but there are a few adsorption media that can reduce fluoride, like a filter using bone char carbon (activated carbon that comes from animal bones) or a filter using activated alumina media, another adsorption media,” said Campbell.Heavy metals. Lead is obviously the most infamous heavy metal water contaminant, but consumers also should watch out for arsenic (primarily from groundwater) and chromium 6 (which comes from industrial manufacturing). “Typically, for metals, reverse osmosis is the best option,” said Campbell. “Activated carbon works for chromium 6 but not for arsenic. Distillation, again, gets rid of everything but it’s not practical.”Hard water. Hard water is caused by mineral buildup, which isn’t bad for your health but can create limescale on appliances like your water heater. It also can affect your beauty routine. “Soap doesn’t lather as well with hard water,” said Campbell. “Your hair might feel brittle and it can irritate skin issues like eczema.” He recommends treating the issue at the water point of entry to the home with cation exchange resin, a type of ion exchange. The best way to know if a product is actually capable of doing what it claims to do, Campbell said, is to look up its performance certifications. “You can do that in databases through the Water Quality Assn., the National Sanitation Foundation and the International Assn. of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.”The bare minimum If nothing else, Stoiber urged consumers to peruse the EWG’s guide to countertop filters — and to purchase one. Though McCurry is content drinking from the tap, he agreed it couldn’t hurt. “If you have reason to believe there are, say, PFAS above the future regulation target, then yeah, get a Brita filter,” he said.Needless to say, that task is no longer on my to-do list.

We spoke to experts in the realms of science, academia and water filtration to help you navigate the often complicated, ever-fluid world of residential tap water, so that you can make smarter and more informed choices about how to purify your drinking water.

Nearly a year ago, I scribbled “Replace Brita filter” on my to-do list. But the errand perpetually fell by the wayside. There were so many more pressing tasks to complete.

“Oh, it’s fine,” I thought. “How bad can it be?”

Let’s just say that a day into reporting this story, I ran out to the market and bought a three-pack.

We reach for our water taps more than almost any other object in our homes — to brush our teeth, wash our faces, make coffee or tea in the morning. To cook meals, rinse dishes and wipe countertops. To water the plants, do laundry and fill our pets’ bowls. To shower and shave. And most often for a drink.

In L.A., water rules everything around us. Drink up, cool off and dive into our stories about hydrating and recreating in the city.

But how much do you really know about what’s in your tap water? And if you filter it, are you using the right technology? Many of us may not be fully aware of where our water even comes from.

That’s because the water that flows into our homes in the L.A. area can be surprisingly different, ZIP Code to ZIP Code. The level of arsenic found in Compton’s tap water may differ wildly from that found in Glendale. Malibu’s tap water may have more hexavalent chromium while Pasadena’s doesn’t have any. One tap does not fit all.

“Where you are, the location, it really makes a difference in your water quality,” said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group focusing on environmental health.

We went to the source, so to speak — experts in the realms of science, academia and water filtration — to help you navigate the often complicated, ever-fluid world of residential tap water, so that you can make smarter and more informed choices about how to purify your H20.

L.A.’s water sources | Federal and state protections | Determining your water quality | How to test | How to filter | The bare minimum

L.A.’s water sources

Like most major cities, the Greater Los Angeles area is served by a dizzying number of community water systems. In California, there are 2,913 of them to serve about 39.025 million people — and those are just the larger ones that operate year-round, according to the EWG’s Tap Water Database.

Each utility company treats the water in its assigned municipality differently before it flows through consumers’ faucets. That’s because each draws from different water sources. One area’s tap may be coming from rivers and lakes (otherwise categorized as “surface water”) while another’s could be pumped from wells from beneath layers of rock and sediment (categorized as “groundwater”).

Depending on where the water travels, it may pick up different undesirable contaminants. Surface water, for example, could have runoff that includes nitrate used to fertilize land in agricultural areas. Groundwater could have naturally occurring chemical elements, such as arsenic, that come from bedrock.

More often than not, L.A. area tap water comes from a mix of these sources. Our utility companies draw from different aqueducts, those large, often concrete ditches or canals that extend from the source to the water treatment plant. From there it flows through pipes, underground, to your home.

In 2023, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — which serves about 4 million people throughout the city of Los Angeles — sourced its tap water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct, the California Aqueduct and the Colorado River Aqueduct as well as from local groundwater, according to its most recent drinking water quality report.

The specific geographic location of a water source also determines what ends up in your tap water. A lake near a highly industrial area risks containing more pollutants than water coming from a lake in the High Sierras.

Another reason the water might be different between ZIP Codes: Utility companies have different resources at their disposal.

“The size of the drinking water system can be an indicator of the drinking water quality,” Stoiber said. “It’s based on economy of scale. The larger ones have more resources for treatment. Smaller systems can be at a bit more of an economic disadvantage.”

Federal and state water protections

There are federal regulations that require utility companies to stay below maximum contaminant levels for more than 90 pollutants in drinking water. They’re also required to publish an annual consumer confidence report with information about contaminant levels and water sources.

“But many of our drinking water regulations were set in the ’70s and ’80 and are not as protective as they should be,” Stoiber said. “There are contaminants in your drinking water that don’t have regulations around them.”

How harmful these contaminants are, and how much you’d have to ingest over time to affect your health, is contested. But in general, however many pollutants you might find in L.A.’s tap water, there are not enough to make you seriously ill in one gulp.

Some good news: In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized new regulations around a family of about 15,000 chemicals known as PFAS. They’re often referred to as the “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment. California also voted in April to finalize a limit for hexavalent chromium, or “Chrome 6,” which many people know as the carcinogenic chemical that the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. contaminated residents’ groundwater with, from 1952 to 1966, in Hinkley, Calif. — the legal upshot of which was depicted in the film “Erin Brockovich.” But those changes won’t be immediate.

“Upgrading water treatment plants is expensive and takes years,” said USC’s Daniel McCurry, who researches water supply and treatment. “Most smaller utilities, especially, just won’t have the money to make the upgrades in the initial time frame.”

2027, McCurry notes, is the deadline for utilities to complete their “initial monitoring” before the new regulations for PFAS go into effect in 2029.

Photo illustration of a hose faucet on a blue background pouring water on the right, with dirt, grass and rocks on the left.

(Henry Hargreaves / For The Times)

How to determine your water quality

So where to start? It’s easier than it might seem. First, search for your consumer confidence report on your utility company’s website. You can then cross-reference that information with EWG’s free Tap Water Database, which allows you to type in your ZIP Code (look for the prompt “Is your water safe?”). It then will populate your water utility company and the number of people it serves. From there, you can click on “View Utility” to produce an easy-to-decipher report listing the source of your water and contaminants detected in it.

When I typed my own Silver Lake ZIP Code in for a water quality analysis, the results did not put me at ease. It listed nine contaminants detected in my water, among them bromate and uranium. Some of these were found at levels that far exceeded the standards of the EWG but were still below the legal limit.

I called the LADWP to make sense of what I’ve found.

“There’s no health concern,” LADWP’s director of water quality, Jonathan Leung, said of my findings, stressing that the contaminants were far below the federally mandated legal limit. “That’s where, collectively, all the toxicologists and water quality specialists and scientists have worked together to set national standards. As a water quality utility, that’s what we set our sights on. The public should take confidence that the legal limits are protective of public health — and we strive to do better than that.”

McCurry added that the EWG and EPA have different standards for the amount of contaminants found in water.

“When the EPA sets a water contaminant limit, it’s a balance between protecting public health while staying realistic about the treatment technology we have and how much it costs,” McCurry said. “Everyone’s perception or tolerance of risk is different, but for me, personally, I drink water straight from the tap and don’t worry about it. It’s very unlikely you’ll get sick from tap water, assuming the tap water meets federal regulations.”

How to test your water at home

Whatever your personal tolerance level, you can improve both the quality and taste of your tap water by choosing the right filter, experts say.

But, given the array of filtration products and techniques on the market, that’s easier said than done. Choosing from options like “ion-exchange demineralization,” “ultraviolet sterilization” and “chemical feed pumps” can be intimidating.

Take a breath. Then step back. Filtering should be a tailored approach, said Brian Campbell, founder of Water Filter Guru, which lab-tests and reports on residential water treatment methods and products.

“There’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all water treatment solution,” Campbell said.

He added that even after reading utility consumer reports and nonprofit chemical analyses, you still may need to know more.

“[Those reports] will give you a general sense but not the whole picture, Campbell said. “Because water can be recontaminated after it leaves the treatment plant — like if your home has old plumbing with lead piping. But it’s a start.”

You can test your home’s water quality yourself using fairly affordable water test strips, available for about $15 in stores such as Home Depot. These, Campbell said, will “give you an indication of a handful of the most common 12 to 15 contaminants like lead, arsenic, chromium, nitrate possibly.” However it will only give you a range of those aforementioned contaminants, not the exact concentration in your water.

If you want specific information about the chemical levels, you can run a more in-depth test. The best way to do that, Campbell said, is through a certified lab, where the cost ranges from roughly $100 to more than $1,000 depending on how comprehensive you want to get.

How to choose a filter

Once you know what’s in your water, you’ll be able to choose the right filter technology to treat it, Campbell said. Here’s what he suggests using for some of the most common issues.

PFAS. This is the family of about 15,000 chemicals used for their water repellent and oil repellent properties, such as in nonstick pans or fast food packaging. “The most studied filtration method for this is activated carbon adsorption,” Campbell said. “It’s the most common technology used in pitcher filtration. Even the most simple water pitcher filters should theoretically reduce PFAS.” Reverse osmosis filtration systems also will address PFAS — it’s one of the most thorough techniques and includes activated carbon as one of its stages. Historically, these pricy systems were installed directly into sink pipes, but countertop versions now are available for renters.

Microplastics. “They get into the environment and break down into smaller and smaller pieces — so small you’d need a microscope to see them,” Campbell said. The best technique to address those — because they are suspended particles, floating in the water and not dissolved — is mechanical filtration, he said. The technology removes suspended particles, like pipe rust or sand and grit coming from a hot water heater. Reverse osmosis also would work. Distillation would be effective as well and is, per Campbell, one of the best to get rid of nearly all common contaminants. But, Campbell warned, “It requires a massive amount of energy and time to treat and distill a relatively small volume of water — so not the most practical.”

Disinfection byproducts. This is a group of chemicals created when common water disinfectants — typically chlorine — interact with organic matter (such as dirt or rust) that’s already present in the pipes that run from the distribution plant to your home or office, Campbell said. “Activated carbon adsorption is the best way to deal with this. Reverse osmosis will also deal with them because a component of that [technique] is activated carbon.”

Pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. “This is more of an issue in agricultural areas,” Campbell said. Typically, he added, they can be treated using activated carbon and reverse osmosis.

Fluoride. Tap water is fluoridated in many areas because of its dental health benefits. But recent research suggests that prenatal exposure to fluoride may be linked to increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in children at age 3. “Reverse osmosis would be the best treatment for this, but there are a few adsorption media that can reduce fluoride, like a filter using bone char carbon (activated carbon that comes from animal bones) or a filter using activated alumina media, another adsorption media,” said Campbell.

Heavy metals. Lead is obviously the most infamous heavy metal water contaminant, but consumers also should watch out for arsenic (primarily from groundwater) and chromium 6 (which comes from industrial manufacturing). “Typically, for metals, reverse osmosis is the best option,” said Campbell. “Activated carbon works for chromium 6 but not for arsenic. Distillation, again, gets rid of everything but it’s not practical.”

Hard water. Hard water is caused by mineral buildup, which isn’t bad for your health but can create limescale on appliances like your water heater. It also can affect your beauty routine. “Soap doesn’t lather as well with hard water,” said Campbell. “Your hair might feel brittle and it can irritate skin issues like eczema.” He recommends treating the issue at the water point of entry to the home with cation exchange resin, a type of ion exchange.

The best way to know if a product is actually capable of doing what it claims to do, Campbell said, is to look up its performance certifications. “You can do that in databases through the Water Quality Assn., the National Sanitation Foundation and the International Assn. of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.”

The bare minimum

If nothing else, Stoiber urged consumers to peruse the EWG’s guide to countertop filters — and to purchase one.

Though McCurry is content drinking from the tap, he agreed it couldn’t hurt. “If you have reason to believe there are, say, PFAS above the future regulation target, then yeah, get a Brita filter,” he said.

Needless to say, that task is no longer on my to-do list.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK spending watchdog censures water firms and regulators over sewage failings

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

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

Water firms admit sewage monitoring damaging public trust

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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