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.

Store, Harvest, Fix: How Texas Can Save Its Water Supply

News Feed
Monday, March 31, 2025

Bad news: Texas is running out of water.Good news: There are several solutions local and state leaders can take to make sure we don’t.The state’s water supply is threatened by a changing climate, rapid population growth, and outdated infrastructure, which loses billions of gallons of water each year. Texas’ water demand is growing. By 2070, the state is projected to need an additional 7.7 millionacre-feet of water per year to meet the needs of residents, farmers, and industries if strategies are not implemented.The answers to our water crisis range from the traditional (think reservoirs) to the innovative (think desalination).The Texas Water Development Board has recommended more than 2,400 water management strategy projects to increase water supply. The cost to implement those strategies is estimated to be $80 billion (in 2018 dollars) by 2070, not including inflation. No single solution can meet all of Texas’ water needs. And it will not be cheap. Water experts say policymakers must invest wisely, ensuring the most cost-effective and sustainable solutions are prioritized.Here’s a look at some of the solutions and their pitfalls.Many water experts say that conservation is the first line of defense. Cyrus Reed, a longtime environmental lobbyist at the Texas Capitol and conservation director for the state’s Sierra Club, called conservation “the most conservative and lowest cost approach” to meet our water needs.Conservation means using less water and using it more efficiently. That could look like reducing household and business water consumption through incentives, leak detection, and water-efficient appliances, improving irrigation techniques to minimize water loss, or encouraging industries to recycle water and reduce overall use.One example is in El Paso. Since the 1990s, the city has had a toilet rebate program that has helped residents conserve water and save money on monthly water bills. The program offers a $50 rebate for customers who purchase water-efficient toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush, as opposed to older toilets that use as much as six gallons per flush.So far, they’ve given 54,000 rebates to their 220,000 customers, which includes homes, businesses and government agencies.“Conservation is often underutilized due to the need for behavior change and the lack of regulatory enforcement,” said Temple McKinnon, a director of water supply planning at the water board. Fixing old infrastructure One of the obvious solutions — at least to water experts — is to fix the state’s aging water infrastructure. Leaking pipes and deteriorating treatment plants have led to billions of water being lost. In 2023 alone, 88 billion gallons of water were lost in Texas’ most populous cities, according to self-reported water loss audits submitted to the Texas Water Development Board.“The most efficient water source that we have is the water that we already have,” said John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board.Jennifer Walker, director for the Texas Coast and Water program with the National Wildlife Federation, said that fixing the infrastructure creates new water supplies because it’s water that wouldn’t be delivered to Texans otherwise.“Anything that we can do to reduce waste is new water,” Walker said.The Texas section of the American Society of Civil Engineers released their infrastructure report card last month. Texas received a D+ for drinking water, with the report emphasizing the role of aging infrastructure and the need for funding for infrastructure operation and maintenance.One reason why the state’s water systems have fallen behind is costs. Most water systems are run by cities or local agencies, which have tried to keep water rates and other local taxes low. This is particularly true in rural Texas communities that have smaller populations and tax bases. Texas 2036 has estimated the state’s water agencies need nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure.State Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, has proposed a bill that could dedicate millions for new water projects. His emphasis is on what water experts call “new water supplies.” One example is removing salt from seawater or brackish groundwater through a process called desalination, which makes water drinkable.Most communities need to increase their water supply, especially as existing supply may be dwindling or face uncertainty, said Shane Walker, a professor at Texas Tech University who serves as the director of the Water and the Environment Research Center.Desalination is one of the most promising solutions, Walker said. Texas is rich in both seawater along the Gulf Coast, and brackish groundwater, with underground reserves of salty water.He said cities and towns shouldn’t wait to tap into desalination until there are no options. “Start now before you’re in a jam,” Walker said.Coastal cities like Corpus Christi are turning to seawater desalination as a drought-proof water source. While desalination plants are expensive to build and operate, the gulf region provides a large supply of water. By 2030, Texas is recommended to produce 179,000 acre-feet of desalinated seawater annually, increasing to 192,000 acre-feet by 2070, according to the latest state water plan. That’s enough water to support about 1.1 million Texans for one year.Texas also has vast reserves of brackish water underground, and cities like El Paso have already pioneered its use. The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant is the largest inland desalination plant in the world. At max capacity, it can produce 27.5 million gallons of drinking water daily from brackish groundwater in the Hueco Bolson Aquifer. It also produces 3 million gallons of concentrate, which is the leftover water containing all the salt and impurities that was filtered out. A pipeline sends the concentrate more than 20 miles from the plant where it is injected underground.However, desalination comes with challenges: First, the process requires large amounts of energy to push water through membranes that separate salt and impurities, which is expensive. Then there’s the disposal of concentrated brine, a highly salty liquid that’s a byproduct of desalination. It must be carefully managed to avoid harming marine ecosystems or the environment.“It’ll always come back to the concentrate disposal,” said Art Ruiz, chief plant manager for El Paso Water and the former manager of the city’s desalination plant. “No matter how small or how big (the plant), you’re going to create a byproduct.Recycling every drop of water is another solution. Water reuse allows treated wastewater to be reclaimed for various purposes, from irrigation to industrial cooling.One way of reusing water is direct potable reuse, which involves treating wastewater to drinking-water standards and either reintroducing it directly into the water supply or blending it with other sources before further treatment. Indirect potable reuse follows a similar process, but first releases treated water into a natural reservoir or aquifer before being re-extracted for use.Lubbock has recently started this practice with Leprino Foods, the world’s largest mozzarella cheese producer. The company opened an 850,000-square-foot facility in January and will produce 1.5 million pounds of cheese a day. In return for the water the company uses, Leprino will return around 2 million gallons of clean water to Lubbock every day. This accounts for about 6.25% of Lubbock’s daily water use.Leprino said they installed substantial capacity for water storage so the company could recover and store more water from the manufacturing process before it is cleaned.“In Lubbock, we’ve designed and constructed the facility with water stewardship in mind from day one,” Leprino said in a statement.El Paso is leading the way with its Pure Water Center Facility, which recently started construction. It will purify already treated wastewater for people to drink and deliver 10 million gallons daily. When it’s operating in 2028, it will be the first direct-to-distribution reuse facility in the country. While the concept, “toilet-to-tap” might seem unappealing at first, water utility experts say the advanced treatment process ensures the water is clean and safe.San Antonio has embraced reuse for non-drinking water, sending treated wastewater from the city’s Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center back into the city and its rivers. Purple-marked pipes carry recycled water to irrigate golf courses, cool industrial towers, and sustain the downtown River Walk. Some is diverted to an energy plant, while the rest flows to the gulf. In dry times, this steady outflow keeps the San Antonio River running. Aquifer storage and recovery Aquifer storage and recovery is exactly what it sounds like. A water utility can store excess water underground during wet periods, allowing it to be withdrawn during droughts.El Paso has a program that injects treated water into the Hueco Bolson aquifer for future use. San Antonio stores excess Edwards Aquifer water in a certain site within the Carrizo Aquifer during wet periods, then recovers it during droughts. This method reduces evaporation losses compared to above-ground reservoirs and provides a reliable emergency water supply.However, this process requires specific geological conditions to be effective, and not all areas of Texas have suitable aquifers for storage. In some cases, it can also take a long time to move water through all the levels underground to reach the aquifer.One method being explored is creating and using playa lakes to recharge aquifers. Playas are shallow lakes that form in arid, flat regions and catch rainwater runoff. They are dry more often than wet, which is how they function — the water seeps through cracks in the dry soil of the playa’s basin.“Every time a playa dries out and we get a rain event, that’s when recharge happens,” said Heather Johnson with Texas Parks and Wildlife in Lubbock. “You’ll get about three inches of rainwater infiltration into the playa basin annually.”Johnson said for every four acres of playa basin, approximately one acre-foot of water is recharged — about 326,000 gallons of water. That’s enough water to cover a football field with nine inches of water.Ducks Unlimited, a nonprofit national organization that manages wetlands and habitat conservations, is working with Texas Parks and Wildlife in the High Plains to recharge the Ogallala Aquifer. Tavin Dotson, the first regional biologist in the region for Ducks Unlimited, said playa lakes store a seed bank and when playas fill, plants begin to grow. This creates a grassy buffer around the playa — which acts as a natural filter to wash out contaminants before water reaches the playa basin and aquifers.Most of the Ducks Unlimited work in Texas is in the coastal areas. However, Dotson said there is a push to get the practice going even more in the High Plains, where the Ogallala Aquifer is facing declining levels.One of the practices involves filling pits and ditches that disrupt how playas function. Filling the pits allows playas to properly retain and filter water. Johnson said the High Plains contains more than 23,000 playa basins.Rain harvesting — capturing and storing rainwater for later use — is another way of conserving. This technique provides a decentralized water source for irrigation and livestock. While rainwater harvesting is an effective conservation tool, it is limited by Texas’ variable rainfall patterns. It rains more in East Texas as opposed to the West. Still, some Texas groundwater districts actively promote rainwater harvesting to reduce reliance on municipal supplies.High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock — the first groundwater district created in Texas — monitors water use and levels in the Ogallala, Edwards-Trinity and Dockum/Santa Rosa Aquifers. The organization also encourages ways to conserve water, including rainwater harvesting. In recent years, the water district has helped raise awareness of the practice in the region. The district gave away ten rain barrels and 12 rain chains in 2023.“They are constructed in the landscape to help mitigate some of the runoff that was occurring at the arboretum,” Coleman said. “They’re nicely constructed. There’s cobblestones and other nice features to make it a nice looking part of the landscape.”Historically, Texas has relied on reservoirs to store and manage water — a solution that boomed after a devastating drought that lasted seven years in the 1950s.There are more than 180 across the state. However, building new reservoirs has become increasingly difficult due to land constraints, environmental concerns, and the high costs of construction.Despite these challenges, regional water planning groups proposed 23 new major reservoirs in the 2022 state water plan. However, new laws now require realistic development timelines and feasibility studies, meaning that reservoirs may not be seen as the go-to solution they once were.Matt Phillips, the deputy general manager for the Brazos River Authority, told lawmakers during a House committee meeting that the population for the basin will double by 2080. The river authority serves Waco, Georgetown, Round Rock, College Station and other cities. Phillips said they would need an additional 500,000 acre-feet of water to meet those demands.“All the cheap water is gone,” Phillips said. “Every drop of water we develop from here on is going to be exponentially more expensive than anything we’ve seen in the past, so we’re going to need help to get there.”State Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, filed legislation that would promote reservoir projects. Perry’s Senate bill mirrors the proposal for reservoirs. In both, the water development board would be able to use money from the Texas Water Fund to encourage regional and interregional project developments. This includes the construction of reservoirs and stormwater retention basins for water supply, flood protection and groundwater recharge.This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Texas lawmakers are poised to devote billions to save the state’s water supply, but there's debate over which strategies to invest in

Bad news: Texas is running out of water.

Good news: There are several solutions local and state leaders can take to make sure we don’t.

The state’s water supply is threatened by a changing climate, rapid population growth, and outdated infrastructure, which loses billions of gallons of water each year. Texas’ water demand is growing. By 2070, the state is projected to need an additional 7.7 millionacre-feet of water per year to meet the needs of residents, farmers, and industries if strategies are not implemented.

The answers to our water crisis range from the traditional (think reservoirs) to the innovative (think desalination).

The Texas Water Development Board has recommended more than 2,400 water management strategy projects to increase water supply. The cost to implement those strategies is estimated to be $80 billion (in 2018 dollars) by 2070, not including inflation. No single solution can meet all of Texas’ water needs. And it will not be cheap. Water experts say policymakers must invest wisely, ensuring the most cost-effective and sustainable solutions are prioritized.

Here’s a look at some of the solutions and their pitfalls.

Many water experts say that conservation is the first line of defense. Cyrus Reed, a longtime environmental lobbyist at the Texas Capitol and conservation director for the state’s Sierra Club, called conservation “the most conservative and lowest cost approach” to meet our water needs.

Conservation means using less water and using it more efficiently. That could look like reducing household and business water consumption through incentives, leak detection, and water-efficient appliances, improving irrigation techniques to minimize water loss, or encouraging industries to recycle water and reduce overall use.

One example is in El Paso. Since the 1990s, the city has had a toilet rebate program that has helped residents conserve water and save money on monthly water bills. The program offers a $50 rebate for customers who purchase water-efficient toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush, as opposed to older toilets that use as much as six gallons per flush.

So far, they’ve given 54,000 rebates to their 220,000 customers, which includes homes, businesses and government agencies.

“Conservation is often underutilized due to the need for behavior change and the lack of regulatory enforcement,” said Temple McKinnon, a director of water supply planning at the water board.

Fixing old infrastructure

One of the obvious solutions — at least to water experts — is to fix the state’s aging water infrastructure. Leaking pipes and deteriorating treatment plants have led to billions of water being lost. In 2023 alone, 88 billion gallons of water were lost in Texas’ most populous cities, according to self-reported water loss audits submitted to the Texas Water Development Board.

“The most efficient water source that we have is the water that we already have,” said John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board.

Jennifer Walker, director for the Texas Coast and Water program with the National Wildlife Federation, said that fixing the infrastructure creates new water supplies because it’s water that wouldn’t be delivered to Texans otherwise.

“Anything that we can do to reduce waste is new water,” Walker said.

The Texas section of the American Society of Civil Engineers released their infrastructure report card last month. Texas received a D+ for drinking water, with the report emphasizing the role of aging infrastructure and the need for funding for infrastructure operation and maintenance.

One reason why the state’s water systems have fallen behind is costs. Most water systems are run by cities or local agencies, which have tried to keep water rates and other local taxes low. This is particularly true in rural Texas communities that have smaller populations and tax bases. Texas 2036 has estimated the state’s water agencies need nearly $154 billion by 2050 for water infrastructure.

State Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, has proposed a bill that could dedicate millions for new water projects. His emphasis is on what water experts call “new water supplies.” One example is removing salt from seawater or brackish groundwater through a process called desalination, which makes water drinkable.

Most communities need to increase their water supply, especially as existing supply may be dwindling or face uncertainty, said Shane Walker, a professor at Texas Tech University who serves as the director of the Water and the Environment Research Center.

Desalination is one of the most promising solutions, Walker said. Texas is rich in both seawater along the Gulf Coast, and brackish groundwater, with underground reserves of salty water.

He said cities and towns shouldn’t wait to tap into desalination until there are no options. “Start now before you’re in a jam,” Walker said.

Coastal cities like Corpus Christi are turning to seawater desalination as a drought-proof water source. While desalination plants are expensive to build and operate, the gulf region provides a large supply of water. By 2030, Texas is recommended to produce 179,000 acre-feet of desalinated seawater annually, increasing to 192,000 acre-feet by 2070, according to the latest state water plan. That’s enough water to support about 1.1 million Texans for one year.

Texas also has vast reserves of brackish water underground, and cities like El Paso have already pioneered its use. The Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant is the largest inland desalination plant in the world. At max capacity, it can produce 27.5 million gallons of drinking water daily from brackish groundwater in the Hueco Bolson Aquifer. It also produces 3 million gallons of concentrate, which is the leftover water containing all the salt and impurities that was filtered out. A pipeline sends the concentrate more than 20 miles from the plant where it is injected underground.

However, desalination comes with challenges: First, the process requires large amounts of energy to push water through membranes that separate salt and impurities, which is expensive. Then there’s the disposal of concentrated brine, a highly salty liquid that’s a byproduct of desalination. It must be carefully managed to avoid harming marine ecosystems or the environment.

“It’ll always come back to the concentrate disposal,” said Art Ruiz, chief plant manager for El Paso Water and the former manager of the city’s desalination plant. “No matter how small or how big (the plant), you’re going to create a byproduct.

Recycling every drop of water is another solution. Water reuse allows treated wastewater to be reclaimed for various purposes, from irrigation to industrial cooling.

One way of reusing water is direct potable reuse, which involves treating wastewater to drinking-water standards and either reintroducing it directly into the water supply or blending it with other sources before further treatment. Indirect potable reuse follows a similar process, but first releases treated water into a natural reservoir or aquifer before being re-extracted for use.

Lubbock has recently started this practice with Leprino Foods, the world’s largest mozzarella cheese producer. The company opened an 850,000-square-foot facility in January and will produce 1.5 million pounds of cheese a day. In return for the water the company uses, Leprino will return around 2 million gallons of clean water to Lubbock every day. This accounts for about 6.25% of Lubbock’s daily water use.

Leprino said they installed substantial capacity for water storage so the company could recover and store more water from the manufacturing process before it is cleaned.

“In Lubbock, we’ve designed and constructed the facility with water stewardship in mind from day one,” Leprino said in a statement.

El Paso is leading the way with its Pure Water Center Facility, which recently started construction. It will purify already treated wastewater for people to drink and deliver 10 million gallons daily. When it’s operating in 2028, it will be the first direct-to-distribution reuse facility in the country. While the concept, “toilet-to-tap” might seem unappealing at first, water utility experts say the advanced treatment process ensures the water is clean and safe.

San Antonio has embraced reuse for non-drinking water, sending treated wastewater from the city’s Steven M. Clouse Water Recycling Center back into the city and its rivers. Purple-marked pipes carry recycled water to irrigate golf courses, cool industrial towers, and sustain the downtown River Walk. Some is diverted to an energy plant, while the rest flows to the gulf. In dry times, this steady outflow keeps the San Antonio River running.

Aquifer storage and recovery

Aquifer storage and recovery is exactly what it sounds like. A water utility can store excess water underground during wet periods, allowing it to be withdrawn during droughts.

El Paso has a program that injects treated water into the Hueco Bolson aquifer for future use. San Antonio stores excess Edwards Aquifer water in a certain site within the Carrizo Aquifer during wet periods, then recovers it during droughts. This method reduces evaporation losses compared to above-ground reservoirs and provides a reliable emergency water supply.

However, this process requires specific geological conditions to be effective, and not all areas of Texas have suitable aquifers for storage. In some cases, it can also take a long time to move water through all the levels underground to reach the aquifer.

One method being explored is creating and using playa lakes to recharge aquifers. Playas are shallow lakes that form in arid, flat regions and catch rainwater runoff. They are dry more often than wet, which is how they function — the water seeps through cracks in the dry soil of the playa’s basin.

“Every time a playa dries out and we get a rain event, that’s when recharge happens,” said Heather Johnson with Texas Parks and Wildlife in Lubbock. “You’ll get about three inches of rainwater infiltration into the playa basin annually.”

Johnson said for every four acres of playa basin, approximately one acre-foot of water is recharged — about 326,000 gallons of water. That’s enough water to cover a football field with nine inches of water.

Ducks Unlimited, a nonprofit national organization that manages wetlands and habitat conservations, is working with Texas Parks and Wildlife in the High Plains to recharge the Ogallala Aquifer. Tavin Dotson, the first regional biologist in the region for Ducks Unlimited, said playa lakes store a seed bank and when playas fill, plants begin to grow. This creates a grassy buffer around the playa — which acts as a natural filter to wash out contaminants before water reaches the playa basin and aquifers.

Most of the Ducks Unlimited work in Texas is in the coastal areas. However, Dotson said there is a push to get the practice going even more in the High Plains, where the Ogallala Aquifer is facing declining levels.

One of the practices involves filling pits and ditches that disrupt how playas function. Filling the pits allows playas to properly retain and filter water. Johnson said the High Plains contains more than 23,000 playa basins.

Rain harvesting — capturing and storing rainwater for later use — is another way of conserving. This technique provides a decentralized water source for irrigation and livestock. While rainwater harvesting is an effective conservation tool, it is limited by Texas’ variable rainfall patterns. It rains more in East Texas as opposed to the West. Still, some Texas groundwater districts actively promote rainwater harvesting to reduce reliance on municipal supplies.

High Plains Underground Water Conservation District in Lubbock — the first groundwater district created in Texas — monitors water use and levels in the Ogallala, Edwards-Trinity and Dockum/Santa Rosa Aquifers. The organization also encourages ways to conserve water, including rainwater harvesting. In recent years, the water district has helped raise awareness of the practice in the region. The district gave away ten rain barrels and 12 rain chains in 2023.

“They are constructed in the landscape to help mitigate some of the runoff that was occurring at the arboretum,” Coleman said. “They’re nicely constructed. There’s cobblestones and other nice features to make it a nice looking part of the landscape.”

Historically, Texas has relied on reservoirs to store and manage water — a solution that boomed after a devastating drought that lasted seven years in the 1950s.

There are more than 180 across the state. However, building new reservoirs has become increasingly difficult due to land constraints, environmental concerns, and the high costs of construction.

Despite these challenges, regional water planning groups proposed 23 new major reservoirs in the 2022 state water plan. However, new laws now require realistic development timelines and feasibility studies, meaning that reservoirs may not be seen as the go-to solution they once were.

Matt Phillips, the deputy general manager for the Brazos River Authority, told lawmakers during a House committee meeting that the population for the basin will double by 2080. The river authority serves Waco, Georgetown, Round Rock, College Station and other cities. Phillips said they would need an additional 500,000 acre-feet of water to meet those demands.

“All the cheap water is gone,” Phillips said. “Every drop of water we develop from here on is going to be exponentially more expensive than anything we’ve seen in the past, so we’re going to need help to get there.”

State Rep. Cody Harris, R-Palestine, filed legislation that would promote reservoir projects. Perry’s Senate bill mirrors the proposal for reservoirs. In both, the water development board would be able to use money from the Texas Water Fund to encourage regional and interregional project developments. This includes the construction of reservoirs and stormwater retention basins for water supply, flood protection and groundwater recharge.

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

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

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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