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.

‘I won’t let them drink the water’: The California towns where clean drinking water is out of reach

News Feed
Tuesday, September 10, 2024

In summary Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years. In a major milestone, state regulators announced in July that nearly a million more Californians now have safe drinking water than five years ago.  But across the state, the problem remains severe: More than 735,000 people are still served by the nearly 400 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Latino farm communities struggling with poverty and pollution are especially hard-hit.  About three-quarters of the failing systems in California have violated state or federal standards for contaminants that are linked to serious health problems, such as cancer and effects on developing babies, according to a CalMatters analysis of state data. Among the most pervasive contaminants are arsenic, nitrate and a chemical called 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or 1,2,3-TCP. Combined, elevated levels of these chemicals contaminate more than 220 failing systems serving nearly half a million people. Unsafe drinking water is a chronic, insidious and sometimes hidden problem in a state where attention more often focuses on shortages than the quality of the water. The failing systems are clustered in rural farm areas that have experienced decades of groundwater contamination. Many residents are afraid to drink tap water, or even bathe their children in it, relying on bottled water instead.   “It is morally outrageous that we can’t provide the level of basic human rights that people need, and that it’s primarily low income communities of color who are facing these disparate impacts,” said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director with the Community Water Center, a nonprofit group. “While the state’s made a lot of good progress … more needs to be done.”  Twelve years ago, California became the first state to recognize clean, safe, affordable and accessible drinking water as a human right. In 2019, Legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a law that gave rise to the state’s Safe and Affordable Funding program. Today, about 98% of Californians are served by water systems that meet state standards, and over $1 billion in state grants have helped disadvantaged communities tackle drinking water problems. But despite all the systems that have been removed from the state’s failing list, about 600 others serving 1.6 million people are at risk of failure and more than 400 others serving another 1.6 million are deemed “potentially at risk.”  “We have continuing degradation of groundwater from all our human activities — farming, industry, drought itself with our climate change,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board and head of its Division of Drinking Water. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.”   “It is morally outrageous that we can't provide the level of basic human rights that people need."Kyle Jones, Community Water Center Ensuring safe and reliable drinking water for all Californians will cost about $16 billion, according to a recent state analysis. But the state water board projects that it has only $2 billion available for grants in communities and $1.5 billion for loans. Suppliers that violate drinking water standards are required to notify residents and reduce their exposure, often by treating or blending water supplies. State regulators are pushing for long-term fixes, like consolidating some smaller suppliers with bigger systems nearby. The state auditor lambasted California water officials two years ago for "a lack of urgency," pointing to lengthy funding timelines and other problems. But infrastructure takes time and advanced planning, which is a struggle for smaller water systems, state officials say. Violations “can be resolved in a matter of days, or it can take years,” according to a 2023 water board report. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” Darrin Polhemus, state water resources control board Some water providers, such as in the town of Lamont in Kern County, are poised to fix their water problems with millions of dollars in state funding. Other, smaller communities, like Allensworth in Tulare County and San Lucas on the Central Coast, have been waiting for clean water for years. Meanwhile, rural residents are left to weigh the risks flowing through their taps for themselves.  “You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette,” said Tequita Jefferson, a longtime resident of Pixley, where the water system has elevated levels of the chemical 1,2,3-TCP, which has been linked to cancer.  “It scares me. All of it scares me,” said Jefferson. “And then no one thinks about it. Here, we’re in a rural community, and people have a tendency to overlook us.”  In this small town, pesticide residue is the culprit In the San Joaquin Valley community of Pixley, home to about 3,800 people, the jobs are rooted in agriculture — and so are the water problems.  Widespread use of soil fumigants starting in the 1950s contaminated Central Valley groundwater with 1,2,3-TCP, which is an impurity in those fumigants and also is used as an industrial solvent. Though the fumigants were pulled from the market or reformulated in California by the 1990s, elevated levels continue to taint the water in wells throughout the San Joaquin Valley. In the absence of federal standards, state regulators set the most stringent drinking water limits for the chemical in the country in 2017.  The chemical has been linked to cancers in animal studies. People can be exposed to 1,2,3-TCP by drinking it, cooking with it and breathing in vapor from household water use.  “You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette...It scares me. All of it scares me."Tequita Jefferson, Pixley resident Christina Velazquez, who has lived in Pixley for 44 years and had her own brush with cancer, estimates that she spends at least $30 per month to buy filters and water bottles, on top of her water and sewer bill.  “That’s what I make my grandkids drink — I won’t let them drink the water from the faucet,” Velasquez said. “We shouldn’t have to buy water when we’re already paying for it.”  First: Christina Velazquez uses filters to clean the water in her kitchen. Last: Velazquez runs the water at the highest pressure in her Pixley home on Sept. 4, 2024. Velazquez doesn’t let her family drink the water because of contamination of local wells. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Pixley received $11.5 million from pesticide manufacturers in 2021 to settle a lawsuit about the contamination, according to attorney Chad Lew, counsel for the Pixley Public Utility District. But David Terrel, a teacher and vice president of the district’s board, said there still isn't enough funding to fix the contamination problem. “If we could handle it on our own, we would be doing that,” he said.  Pixley is holding out hope for a construction grant from the state. The district has received about $750,000 for planning and technical assistance, as well as for installing filtered-water vending machines, according to a state database.  Other water systems also have won large payouts from pesticide manufacturers. Fresno, for instance, received $230 million in a recent case. But Polhemus, with the state’s Division of Drinking Water, said these settlements are rarely enough.  “We're still pretty broken when it comes to corporate responsibility for wide-scale pollution,” Polhemus said. The money will “last for a decade or two, but what about the third and fourth and fifth decade, when they're still dealing with that contaminant?”   In Lamont, about an hour south of Pixley near Bakersfield, the failure of one well forced more than 18,200 people to rely more heavily on a well contaminated with elevated levels of 1,2,3-TCP.   “Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue... We don’t have $30 million laying around.”Scott Taylor, Lamont Public Utility District Lamont Public Utility District General Manager Scott Taylor said a fix is already in the works, thanks to a new well built with state funds. Another $25.4 million grant from the water board will help Lamont install three new wells to provide water to Lamont and a smaller arsenic-plagued system nearby.  “Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue. And I'm glad I don’t have to find out,” Taylor said. “We don’t have $30 million laying around.” In Allensworth, arsenic is a decades-long problem Just 20 minutes away from Pixley, in Allensworth, Sherry Hunter keeps catching herself running the tap to brush her teeth.  The tiny Tulare County community of about 530 people, 93% of them Latino, has struggled with arsenic leaching into its wells for decades, one of which still regularly exceeds state health limits. And the crisis keeps worsening. Hunter waters her plants in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Drinking arsenic-contaminated water over a long period of time can cause cancers and has been linked with fetal deaths and malformations in test animals as well as harm to the developing brains of babies and young children.  Arsenic is found naturally in rocks and soils throughout California, though it is worsened by groundwater over-pumping to irrigate farm fields in the San Joaquin Valley. The Allensworth Community Services District, where Hunter serves as president, has tried to reduce the contamination by blending in water from a less tainted well.  But in July, both wells failed because of suspected electrical issues, according to the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises. Though the more contaminated well was brought back online, it, too, began sputtering out in August —  leaving residents with either arsenic-contaminated water or no water at all. Farmworkers living in Allensworth found themselves unable to shower after long days in the heat, Hunter said. “It’s a horrible feeling … We don’t have rich people that live in Allensworth.” Communities of color like Allensworth are more likely to be served by water systems that violate state and federal limits for the contaminant, according to UC Berkeley researchers.  Hunter stores bottled water in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local The town has been working for years to install a new well. But efforts have lagged for over a decade — delayed by logistics including land purchases tied up in probate and lengthy environmental permitting, including for impacts on endangered and other protected species.  In the meantime, Allensworth has been piloting alternative water sources as a test site for hydropanels designed to extract freshwater from the atmosphere and for lower cost treatment technology out of UC Berkeley. By the end of August, Allensworth had qualified for emergency state water board funding through Self-Help Enterprises to repair the wells and investigate the source of the electrical issues. Hunter said she’s excited to know that help is on the way, but she’s frustrated with how long it’s taking to bring reliably clean water to her community.  “It wouldn't have happened in none of the other little cities around here,” Hunter said. “People of color are always put on the back burner. Latinos, and Blacks, we’re always sitting on the back of the bus.”  Nitrate spikes in a Monterey County town's wells Two hours toward the coast, in the agricultural Monterey County community of San Lucas, Virginia Sandoval mixes formula with bottled water for her 2-month-old twin granddaughters. She’s afraid to even bathe the babies, born prematurely, in the tap water.  For over a decade, the largely Latino town of about 300 residents has struggled with nitrate contamination in its well, which is located on nearby farmland. The contaminant leaches into water supplies from crop fertilizer.  When consumed in high enough quantities, nitrate has been linked to cancers and pregnancy complications and can reduce the capacity of a baby’s blood to carry oxygen, leading to a sometimes deadly condition known as “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrate is not absorbed through the skin, and the California Department of Public Health says babies can be bathed in nitrate-contaminated water.  San Lucas' water system is designated as failing because of nitrate levels that wax and wane, according to Andrew Altevogt, an assistant deputy director of the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water. Though the levels have averaged well below the federal health standard for the past decade, they have occasionally spiked to double the state’s limit, according to a recent engineering report.  “Nitrate’s an acute contaminant, so if it does happen, it’s an immediate concern,” Altevogt said. The water system has also been plagued with other contaminants that affect taste, odor and color. For years, residents have relied on bottled water mandated by regional regulators and provided by the farmer where the well is located.  The supplies often don’t last the week for Sandoval. She regularly drives the 20-mile round trip to King City to purchase more bottles — a cost of more than $20 per week, she estimates, on top of her monthly water bill.  “It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.” Nitrate is a pervasive problem in the Central Coast,  where 90% of drinking water is pumped from the ground and farms discharge nitrogen waste at a rate “approximately an order of magnitude greater” than what scientists consider “protective of water quality,” according to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.  “It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’... I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”Virginia Sandoval, SAN LUCAS resident Three years ago, regional water regulators issued an order setting limits on the amount of fertilizer applied to crops. But two years later, state officials overturned them, saying that an expert panel needed to evaluate whether there was enough data to support the restrictions, according to a statement from the state water board. “You really can’t grow a lot of these crops without fertilizer,” said Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. “We can’t artificially reduce that overnight and continue to produce the food items that are important to our nation’s dinner tables.”  Community and conservation organizations sued both the state and regional regulators. Another coalition, including San Lucas community members, filed a racial discrimination complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The groups say the state board’s rollback of the fertilizer limits “disproportionately harmed Latinx communities and other communities of color,” which are 4.4 times more likely to have groundwater contamination above the state limits.  Meanwhile, residents are still waiting for reliably clean water. A decade-old plan to connect San Lucas with King City’s water supply via an 8-mile pipeline stalled after state regulators said the long pipeline would be too expensive and urged the county to find a new groundwater source instead, according to correspondence posted by Monterey County.  Now, eight years and a state-funded study later, state, county, regional and water district officials are once again weighing their options.  “We sit here today counting years. It’s mind-blowing,” said Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez. “I feel like we’ve failed (residents) as a society so much, without being able to give them the clean drinking water that they deserve.”  Data journalist Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett contributed to this report.

Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years.

A woman standing in front of a faucet in a bathroom pours herself a cup of water of water from a container to brush her teeth without using contaminated water

In summary

Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years.

In a major milestone, state regulators announced in July that nearly a million more Californians now have safe drinking water than five years ago. 

But across the state, the problem remains severe: More than 735,000 people are still served by the nearly 400 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Latino farm communities struggling with poverty and pollution are especially hard-hit

About three-quarters of the failing systems in California have violated state or federal standards for contaminants that are linked to serious health problems, such as cancer and effects on developing babies, according to a CalMatters analysis of state data.

Among the most pervasive contaminants are arsenic, nitrate and a chemical called 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or 1,2,3-TCP. Combined, elevated levels of these chemicals contaminate more than 220 failing systems serving nearly half a million people.

Unsafe drinking water is a chronic, insidious and sometimes hidden problem in a state where attention more often focuses on shortages than the quality of the water. The failing systems are clustered in rural farm areas that have experienced decades of groundwater contamination. Many residents are afraid to drink tap water, or even bathe their children in it, relying on bottled water instead. 

 “It is morally outrageous that we can’t provide the level of basic human rights that people need, and that it’s primarily low income communities of color who are facing these disparate impacts,” said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director with the Community Water Center, a nonprofit group. “While the state’s made a lot of good progress … more needs to be done.” 

Twelve years ago, California became the first state to recognize clean, safe, affordable and accessible drinking water as a human right. In 2019, Legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a law that gave rise to the state’s Safe and Affordable Funding program.

Today, about 98% of Californians are served by water systems that meet state standards, and over $1 billion in state grants have helped disadvantaged communities tackle drinking water problems.

But despite all the systems that have been removed from the state’s failing list, about 600 others serving 1.6 million people are at risk of failure and more than 400 others serving another 1.6 million are deemed “potentially at risk.” 

“We have continuing degradation of groundwater from all our human activities — farming, industry, drought itself with our climate change,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board and head of its Division of Drinking Water. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” 

 “It is morally outrageous that we can't provide the level of basic human rights that people need."

Kyle Jones, Community Water Center

Ensuring safe and reliable drinking water for all Californians will cost about $16 billion, according to a recent state analysis. But the state water board projects that it has only $2 billion available for grants in communities and $1.5 billion for loans.

Suppliers that violate drinking water standards are required to notify residents and reduce their exposure, often by treating or blending water supplies. State regulators are pushing for long-term fixes, like consolidating some smaller suppliers with bigger systems nearby.

The state auditor lambasted California water officials two years ago for "a lack of urgency," pointing to lengthy funding timelines and other problems. But infrastructure takes time and advanced planning, which is a struggle for smaller water systems, state officials say.

Violations “can be resolved in a matter of days, or it can take years,” according to a 2023 water board report.

“We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” 

Darrin Polhemus, state water resources control board

Some water providers, such as in the town of Lamont in Kern County, are poised to fix their water problems with millions of dollars in state funding. Other, smaller communities, like Allensworth in Tulare County and San Lucas on the Central Coast, have been waiting for clean water for years.

Meanwhile, rural residents are left to weigh the risks flowing through their taps for themselves. 

“You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette,” said Tequita Jefferson, a longtime resident of Pixley, where the water system has elevated levels of the chemical 1,2,3-TCP, which has been linked to cancer

“It scares me. All of it scares me,” said Jefferson. “And then no one thinks about it. Here, we’re in a rural community, and people have a tendency to overlook us.” 

In this small town, pesticide residue is the culprit

In the San Joaquin Valley community of Pixley, home to about 3,800 people, the jobs are rooted in agriculture — and so are the water problems. 

Widespread use of soil fumigants starting in the 1950s contaminated Central Valley groundwater with 1,2,3-TCP, which is an impurity in those fumigants and also is used as an industrial solvent. Though the fumigants were pulled from the market or reformulated in California by the 1990s, elevated levels continue to taint the water in wells throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

In the absence of federal standards, state regulators set the most stringent drinking water limits for the chemical in the country in 2017. 

The chemical has been linked to cancers in animal studies. People can be exposed to 1,2,3-TCP by drinking it, cooking with it and breathing in vapor from household water use. 

“You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette...It scares me. All of it scares me."

Tequita Jefferson, Pixley resident

Christina Velazquez, who has lived in Pixley for 44 years and had her own brush with cancer, estimates that she spends at least $30 per month to buy filters and water bottles, on top of her water and sewer bill. 

“That’s what I make my grandkids drink — I won’t let them drink the water from the faucet,” Velasquez said. “We shouldn’t have to buy water when we’re already paying for it.” 

Pixley received $11.5 million from pesticide manufacturers in 2021 to settle a lawsuit about the contamination, according to attorney Chad Lew, counsel for the Pixley Public Utility District.

But David Terrel, a teacher and vice president of the district’s board, said there still isn't enough funding to fix the contamination problem. “If we could handle it on our own, we would be doing that,” he said. 

Pixley is holding out hope for a construction grant from the state. The district has received about $750,000 for planning and technical assistance, as well as for installing filtered-water vending machines, according to a state database. 

Other water systems also have won large payouts from pesticide manufacturers. Fresno, for instance, received $230 million in a recent case. But Polhemus, with the state’s Division of Drinking Water, said these settlements are rarely enough. 

“We're still pretty broken when it comes to corporate responsibility for wide-scale pollution,” Polhemus said. The money will “last for a decade or two, but what about the third and fourth and fifth decade, when they're still dealing with that contaminant?”  

In Lamont, about an hour south of Pixley near Bakersfield, the failure of one well forced more than 18,200 people to rely more heavily on a well contaminated with elevated levels of 1,2,3-TCP.  

“Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue... We don’t have $30 million laying around.”

Scott Taylor, Lamont Public Utility District

Lamont Public Utility District General Manager Scott Taylor said a fix is already in the works, thanks to a new well built with state funds. Another $25.4 million grant from the water board will help Lamont install three new wells to provide water to Lamont and a smaller arsenic-plagued system nearby. 

“Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue. And I'm glad I don’t have to find out,” Taylor said. “We don’t have $30 million laying around.”

In Allensworth, arsenic is a decades-long problem

Just 20 minutes away from Pixley, in Allensworth, Sherry Hunter keeps catching herself running the tap to brush her teeth. 

The tiny Tulare County community of about 530 people, 93% of them Latino, has struggled with arsenic leaching into its wells for decades, one of which still regularly exceeds state health limits. And the crisis keeps worsening.

A woman is shown watering a dying plant in her living room next to a window.
Hunter waters her plants in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Drinking arsenic-contaminated water over a long period of time can cause cancers and has been linked with fetal deaths and malformations in test animals as well as harm to the developing brains of babies and young children

Arsenic is found naturally in rocks and soils throughout California, though it is worsened by groundwater over-pumping to irrigate farm fields in the San Joaquin Valley.

The Allensworth Community Services District, where Hunter serves as president, has tried to reduce the contamination by blending in water from a less tainted well. 

But in July, both wells failed because of suspected electrical issues, according to the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises. Though the more contaminated well was brought back online, it, too, began sputtering out in August —  leaving residents with either arsenic-contaminated water or no water at all.

Farmworkers living in Allensworth found themselves unable to shower after long days in the heat, Hunter said. “It’s a horrible feeling … We don’t have rich people that live in Allensworth.”

Communities of color like Allensworth are more likely to be served by water systems that violate state and federal limits for the contaminant, according to UC Berkeley researchers. 

A stack of water bottles wrapped up in plastic and stored in the corner of a room for saving.
Hunter stores bottled water in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The town has been working for years to install a new well. But efforts have lagged for over a decade — delayed by logistics including land purchases tied up in probate and lengthy environmental permitting, including for impacts on endangered and other protected species

In the meantime, Allensworth has been piloting alternative water sources as a test site for hydropanels designed to extract freshwater from the atmosphere and for lower cost treatment technology out of UC Berkeley.

By the end of August, Allensworth had qualified for emergency state water board funding through Self-Help Enterprises to repair the wells and investigate the source of the electrical issues.

Hunter said she’s excited to know that help is on the way, but she’s frustrated with how long it’s taking to bring reliably clean water to her community. 

“It wouldn't have happened in none of the other little cities around here,” Hunter said. “People of color are always put on the back burner. Latinos, and Blacks, we’re always sitting on the back of the bus.” 

Nitrate spikes in a Monterey County town's wells

Two hours toward the coast, in the agricultural Monterey County community of San Lucas, Virginia Sandoval mixes formula with bottled water for her 2-month-old twin granddaughters. She’s afraid to even bathe the babies, born prematurely, in the tap water. 

For over a decade, the largely Latino town of about 300 residents has struggled with nitrate contamination in its well, which is located on nearby farmland. The contaminant leaches into water supplies from crop fertilizer

When consumed in high enough quantities, nitrate has been linked to cancers and pregnancy complications and can reduce the capacity of a baby’s blood to carry oxygen, leading to a sometimes deadly condition known as “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrate is not absorbed through the skin, and the California Department of Public Health says babies can be bathed in nitrate-contaminated water. 

San Lucas' water system is designated as failing because of nitrate levels that wax and wane, according to Andrew Altevogt, an assistant deputy director of the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water.

Though the levels have averaged well below the federal health standard for the past decade, they have occasionally spiked to double the state’s limit, according to a recent engineering report

“Nitrate’s an acute contaminant, so if it does happen, it’s an immediate concern,” Altevogt said.

The water system has also been plagued with other contaminants that affect taste, odor and color.

For years, residents have relied on bottled water mandated by regional regulators and provided by the farmer where the well is located. 

The supplies often don’t last the week for Sandoval. She regularly drives the 20-mile round trip to King City to purchase more bottles — a cost of more than $20 per week, she estimates, on top of her monthly water bill. 

“It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”

Nitrate is a pervasive problem in the Central Coast,  where 90% of drinking water is pumped from the ground and farms discharge nitrogen waste at a rate “approximately an order of magnitude greater” than what scientists consider “protective of water quality,” according to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

“It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’... I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”

Virginia Sandoval, SAN LUCAS resident

Three years ago, regional water regulators issued an order setting limits on the amount of fertilizer applied to crops. But two years later, state officials overturned them, saying that an expert panel needed to evaluate whether there was enough data to support the restrictions, according to a statement from the state water board.

“You really can’t grow a lot of these crops without fertilizer,” said Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. “We can’t artificially reduce that overnight and continue to produce the food items that are important to our nation’s dinner tables.” 

Community and conservation organizations sued both the state and regional regulators. Another coalition, including San Lucas community members, filed a racial discrimination complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The groups say the state board’s rollback of the fertilizer limits “disproportionately harmed Latinx communities and other communities of color,” which are 4.4 times more likely to have groundwater contamination above the state limits. 

Meanwhile, residents are still waiting for reliably clean water. A decade-old plan to connect San Lucas with King City’s water supply via an 8-mile pipeline stalled after state regulators said the long pipeline would be too expensive and urged the county to find a new groundwater source instead, according to correspondence posted by Monterey County. 

Now, eight years and a state-funded study later, state, county, regional and water district officials are once again weighing their options

“We sit here today counting years. It’s mind-blowing,” said Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez. “I feel like we’ve failed (residents) as a society so much, without being able to give them the clean drinking water that they deserve.” 

Data journalist Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett contributed to this report.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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.

Meet the weird, wonderful creatures that live in Australia’s desert water holes. They might not be there much longer

From water fleas to seed shrimp, Australia’s desert rock holes shelter unique animals found nowhere else. But as the climate warms, their homes are at risk.

The Conversation , CC BY-NDYou might think of Australia’s arid centre as a dry desert landscape devoid of aquatic life. But it’s actually dotted with thousands of rock holes – natural rainwater reservoirs that act as little oases for tiny freshwater animals and plants when they hold water. They aren’t teeming with fish, but are home to all sorts of weird and wonderful invertebrates, important to both First Nations peoples and desert animals. Predatory damselflies patrol the water in search of prey, while alien-like water fleas and seed shrimp float about feeding on algae. Often overlooked in favour of more photogenic creatures, invertebrates make up more than 97% of all animal species, and are immensely important to the environment. Our new research reveals 60 unique species live in Australia’s arid rock holes. We will need more knowledge to protect them in a warming climate. Arid land rock holes play host to a surprisingly diverse range of invertebrates. Author provided, CC BY-ND Overlooked, but extraordinary Invertebrates are animals without backbones. They include many different and beautiful organisms, such as butterflies, beetles, worms and spiders (though perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder!). These creatures provide many benefits to Australian ecosystems (and people): pollinating plants, recycling nutrients in the soil, and acting as a food source for other animals. Yet despite their significance, invertebrates are usually forgotten in public discussions about climate change. Freshwater invertebrates in arid Australia are rarely the focus of research, let alone media coverage. This is due to a combination of taxonomic bias, where better-known “charismatic” species are over-represented in scientific studies, and the commonly held misconception that dry deserts are less affected by climate change. Invertebrates in desert oases include insects and crustaceans, often smaller than 5 cm in length. Invertebrates in this picture include three seed shrimp, one pea shrimp, a water flea, a water boatman and a non-biting midge larvae. Author provided, CC BY-ND Oases of life Arid rock-holes are small depressions that have been eroded into rock over time. They completely dry out during certain times of year, making them difficult environments to live in. But when rain fills them up, many animals rely on them for water. When it is hot, water presence is brief, sometimes for only a few days. But during cooler months, they can remain wet for a few months. Eggs that have been lying dormant in the sediments hatch. Other invertebrates (particularly those with wings) seek them out, sometimes across very long distances. In the past, this variability has made ecological research extremely difficult. Our new research explored the biodiversity in seven freshwater rock holes in South Australia’s Gawler Ranges. For the first time, we used environmental DNA techniques on water samples from these pools. Similar to forensic DNA, environmental DNA refers to the traces of DNA left behind by animals in the environment. By sweeping an area for eDNA, we minimise disturbance to species, avoid having to collect the animals themselves, and get a clear snapshot of what is – or was – in an ecosystem. We assume that the capture window for eDNA goes back roughly two weeks. These samples showed that not only were these isolated rock holes full of invertebrate life, but each individual rock hole had a unique combination of animals in it. These include tiny animals such as seed shrimp, water fleas, water boatman and midge larvae. Due to how dry the surrounding landscape is, these oases are often the only habitats where creatures like these can be seen. Culturally significant These arid rock holes are of great cultural significance to several Australian First Nations groups, including the Barngarla, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples. These are the three people and language groups in the Gawler Ranges Aboriginal Corporation, who hold native title in the region and actively manage the rock holes using traditional practices. As reliable sources of freshwater in otherwise very dry landscapes, these locations provided valuable drinking water and resting places to many cultural groups. Some of the managed rock holes hold up to 500 litres of water, but elsewhere they are even deeper. Diverse practices were traditionally developed to actively manage rock holes and reliably locate them. Some of these practices — such as regular cleaning and limiting access by animals — are still maintained today. Freshwater granite rock-holes are still managed using traditional practices in the Gawler Ranges region. Author provided, CC BY-ND Threatened by climate change Last year, Earth reached 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Australia has seen the dramatic consequences of global climate change firsthand: increasingly deadly, costly and devastating bushfires, heatwaves, droughts and floods. Climate change means less frequent and more unpredictable rainfall for Australia. There has been considerable discussion of what this means for Australia’s rivers, lakes and people. But smaller water sources, including rock holes in Australia’s deserts, don’t get much attention. Australia is already seeing a shift: winter rainfall is becoming less reliable, and summer storms are more unpredictable. Water dries out quickly in the summer heat, so wildlife adapted to using rock holes will increasingly have to go without. Storm clouds roll in over the South Australian desert. Author provided, CC BY-ND Drying out? Climate change threatens the precious diversity supported by rock holes. Less rainfall and higher temperatures in southern and central Australia mean we expect they will fill less, dry more quickly, and might be empty during months when they were historically full. This compounds the ongoing environmental change throughout arid Australia. Compared with iconic invasive species such as feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park, invasive species in arid Australia are overlooked. These include feral goats, camels and agricultural animal species that affect water quality. Foreign plants can invade freshwater systems. Deeper understanding Many gaps in our knowledge remain, despite the clear need to protect these unique invertebrates as their homes get drier. Without a deeper understanding of rock-hole biodiversity, governments and land managers are left without the right information to prevent further species loss. Studies like this one are an important first step because they establish a baseline on freshwater biodiversity in desert rock holes. With a greater understanding of the unique animals that live in these remote habitats, we will be better equipped to conserve them. The freshwater damselfly visit granite rock-holes after rain and lay their eggs directly into the water. Author provided, CC BY-ND Brock A. Hedges received funding from Nature Foundation, The Ecological Society of Australia and the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment. Brock A. Hedges currently receives funding from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.James B. Dorey receives funding from the University of Wollongong. Perry G. Beasley-Hall receives funding from the Australian Biological Resources Study.

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.