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.

Texas is running out of water. Here’s why and what state leaders plan to do about it.

News Feed
Thursday, March 13, 2025

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here. Texas officials fear the state is gravely close to running out of water. Towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030, data compiled in the state's 2022 water plan by the Texas Water Development Board indicates. This would happen if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies. At risk is the water Texans use every day for cooking, cleaning — and drinking. State lawmakers are debating several solutions, including finding ways to bring new water supply to Texas, and dedicating more money to fix dilapidated infrastructure. For most other Texans, however, the extent of their knowledge of where water comes from is the kitchen faucet and backyard hose. But behind every drop is a complicated system of sources, laws and management challenges. So, where does Texas get its water? Who owns it? And why are we running out? Let’s break it down. Where does Texas get its water? Texas’ water supply comes from two main sources: Groundwater makes up 54%. It is water that is stored underground in aquifers. Surface water makes up 43%. It is water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs. Texas has nine major aquifers and 22 minor ones. They are large formations underground made of sand, gravel, limestone and other porous rocks. The formations act as giant tubs that hold and filter the water. The largest is the Ogallala Aquifer underneath the Panhandle and West Texas. It is also the biggest aquifer in the U.S., and Texas shares it with seven other states. It’s a lifeline for farms and ranches in the Texas High Plains. However, overuse is rapidly depleting it. Another major source is the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to San Antonio and the surrounding Hill Country. The state also gets water from 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins, lakes, and more than 180 reservoirs. Reservoirs are man-made lakes created by damming rivers to store water for drinking, agriculture and industry. Like aquifers, they are not endless supplies — water levels can depend on rainfall. And climate change, which alters precipitation patterns, leads to more droughts and fluctuating water levels. Major surface water sources include the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and reservoirs like Lake Travis in Austin and Toledo Bend in East Texas. Does water supply vary region by region? Yes, and where you get your water from depends on where you live. Groundwater is not equally available across the state. As water expert Carlos Rubinstein puts it: "People don’t all live next to rivers, and the aquifer isn’t a bathtub with the same amount of water everywhere. Rocks and sand get in the way." For example, people living in Lubbock get their water from several sources — two water well fields, Lake Meredith and Lake Alan Henry. Texans living in Fort Worth get their water from mostly surface water sources — lakes, reservoirs and the Trinity River. Is my city going to run out of water? How can I check? Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future. The tool also explains how you can get more involved in water planning. This can be by attending meetings with regional groups who plan for water needs and use, providing public comments to the water development board as they draft new water plans, or by reaching out to lawmakers. Who owns Texas’ water — and who governs it? Water in Texas is a legally complex, highly managed resource. If you own land above an aquifer in Texas, you own the groundwater beneath it — just like owning oil or gas. You don’t have to pump it to claim it; it’s yours by default. However, that doesn’t mean you should use as much as you want. There are consequences. “Groundwater is your long-term bank account,” says John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. “The more you withdraw, the faster it declines because it doesn’t replenish quickly.” To manage this, some areas have groundwater conservation districts that regulate how much water can be pumped. Since groundwater is owned by the landowner, general managers at the districts say they constantly have to strike a balance between protecting water supplies and respecting private property rights. “We have to let landowners use their water,” says Ty Edwards, general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. “But we also have to protect everyone else’s wells. It’s a juggling act.” Unlike groundwater, surface water belongs to the state. To use it — whether it’s for cities, farms, or businesses — you need a permit from the state’s environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Texas follows a “first in time, first in right” system, meaning older water rights take priority. In a drought, those with senior rights get water first, and newer users might be cut off entirely. “Think of it like a sold-out concert,” said Rubinstein, a former chair of the Texas Water Development Board. “There are no more tickets. The only way to get more water is to build new storage, but that’s easier said than done.” Texas’ two separate legal systems for water — one for groundwater and one for surface water — makes management tricky. Dupnik, the water board administrator, said Texas is unique in having the system divided this way. Just nine states, including Texas, have this two-tiered system. “Most states are usually one or the other,” Dupnik said. The two water resources are also deeply connected. About 30% of the water in Texas rivers comes from groundwater, according to a water board study. When wells pump too much, rivers and springs can dry up. Sharlene Leurig, a managing member with environmental consulting firm Fluid Advisors, said it’s important for people to understand the relationship between the two. “Depletions of one drives depletions of the other,” Leurig said. Why are people concerned about water now? Texas is growing, and its water supply isn’t keeping up. With droughts, overuse and changing rainfall patterns, water is becoming a scarce resource. The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million people by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, water supply is projected to decrease approximately 18%. The biggest reduction is in groundwater, which is projected to decline 32% by 2070. This shortfall will be felt most in two major aquifers: The Ogallala Aquifer, as a result of its managed depletion over time, and the Gulf Coast Aquifer, which faces mandatory pumping reductions to prevent land sinking from over-extraction. Texas is not only losing water to overuse. The state’s aging water pipes are deteriorating, contributing to massive losses from leaks and breaks. A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined. These old pipes also raise concerns about water quality and supply. Breaks trigger boil-water notices, while repairs and replacements strain budgets. This issue is amplified by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth. Who’s using the most water and how is that changing? Irrigation holds the top spot for water use in Texas, according to the water board. In fact, agriculture has been the dominant water consumer for decades. In 2020, over a third of irrigation and livestock water in Texas came from the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. At the same time, more than one-fifth of non-agricultural water came from the Trinity River Basin. But the way water is used is shifting. By 2060, municipal water demand is projected to overtake irrigation as the biggest user, according to the water board. Agriculture producers will struggle to meet water prices, said Alan Day, general manager of the Brazos Groundwater Conservation District. As climate change intensifies, he said, water supply may decrease in certain parts of the state and compound challenges for farmers and ranchers. “With water getting more expensive, we’re seeing a shift from agricultural use to municipal demand,” he said. Day added that water use isn’t just about who’s taking the most — it’s about where it’s coming from, who’s willing to pay for it, and how we decide to share it in the future. “What do we want our shared water resources to look like 50 years from now?” Day said. “That’s a moving target. And it’s a political hot potato.” The state’s water plan says Texas does not have enough water supply to meet the growing need of 6.9 million acre-feet of additional water supplies by 2070 — enough to support 41.4 million Texans for one year. If water strategies are not implemented, the plan says approximately 25% of Texas’ population in 2070 would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a significant drought. “There's going to be a fight over at what level does harm occur to any of these particular aquifers,” Day said. How are we planning for water shortages? The water board is responsible for planning for water shortages. The agency uses the 1950s drought or “drought of record” as a benchmark for statewide water planning. Temple McKinnon, the director of water supply planning at the state agency, said using the “worst-case scenario” allows water planners to come up with strategies for how to meet future water needs. That planning has manifested in state legislation and infrastructure investment. In 2023, voters approved a one-time use of $1 billion to fund infrastructure projects. This year, two Republican lawmakers, state Sen. Charles Perry from Lubbock and state Rep. Cody Harris of Palestine, filed constitutional amendments to dedicate $1 billion annually for up to 10 years for water projects. Harris also filed House Bill 16 — a sweeping priority bill that touches on water funds, flood plans, and the development of infrastructure to transport water into a water supply system. Senate Bill 7, which Perry is expected to author, was named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and would increase investments in water supply efforts. Texas budget writers have already signaled a willingness to invest at least $2.5 billion in water plans. Perry previously told the Tribune he wants as much as $5 billion. A key part of this effort is the creation of a statewide water grid — a network of pipelines and supply connections to better distribute water across Texas. Currently, water systems across the state operate independently. A new water grid would allow Texas to shift water from wetter regions to drier ones when supply shortages hit. However, a framework is still being developed to determine who will oversee and manage this interconnected system. Lawmakers, including Perry, are also eyeing new water resources to meet future water supply needs. Some Texas cities, like Corpus Christi along the coast, are turning to desalination to treat seawater and make it drinkable. El Paso has been a leader in this effort, but focusing on cleaning brackish groundwater — slightly salty water found deep underground — enough to drink. Experts say that the state has untapped water resources — potentially enough to meet the state’s long-term needs. Disclosure: Texas Living Waters Project has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more. Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

The state’s water supply faces numerous threats. And by one estimate, the state’s municipal supply will not meet demand by 2030 if there’s a severe drought and no water solutions are implemented.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.


This article is part of Running Out, an occasional series about Texas’ water crisis. Read more stories about the threats facing Texas’ water supply here.

Texas officials fear the state is gravely close to running out of water.

Towns and cities could be on a path toward a severe shortage of water by 2030, data compiled in the state's 2022 water plan by the Texas Water Development Board indicates. This would happen if there is recurring, record-breaking drought conditions across the state, and if water entities and state leaders fail to put in place key strategies to secure water supplies.

At risk is the water Texans use every day for cooking, cleaning — and drinking.

State lawmakers are debating several solutions, including finding ways to bring new water supply to Texas, and dedicating more money to fix dilapidated infrastructure.

For most other Texans, however, the extent of their knowledge of where water comes from is the kitchen faucet and backyard hose. But behind every drop is a complicated system of sources, laws and management challenges.

So, where does Texas get its water? Who owns it? And why are we running out? Let’s break it down.

Where does Texas get its water?

Texas’ water supply comes from two main sources:

  • Groundwater makes up 54%. It is water that is stored underground in aquifers.
  • Surface water makes up 43%. It is water from lakes, rivers and reservoirs.

Texas has nine major aquifers and 22 minor ones. They are large formations underground made of sand, gravel, limestone and other porous rocks. The formations act as giant tubs that hold and filter the water.

The largest is the Ogallala Aquifer underneath the Panhandle and West Texas. It is also the biggest aquifer in the U.S., and Texas shares it with seven other states. It’s a lifeline for farms and ranches in the Texas High Plains. However, overuse is rapidly depleting it.

Another major source is the Edwards Aquifer, which provides drinking water to San Antonio and the surrounding Hill Country.

The state also gets water from 15 major river basins and eight coastal basins, lakes, and more than 180 reservoirs. Reservoirs are man-made lakes created by damming rivers to store water for drinking, agriculture and industry. Like aquifers, they are not endless supplies — water levels can depend on rainfall. And climate change, which alters precipitation patterns, leads to more droughts and fluctuating water levels. Major surface water sources include the Rio Grande, Colorado River, and reservoirs like Lake Travis in Austin and Toledo Bend in East Texas.

Does water supply vary region by region?

Yes, and where you get your water from depends on where you live. Groundwater is not equally available across the state. As water expert Carlos Rubinstein puts it: "People don’t all live next to rivers, and the aquifer isn’t a bathtub with the same amount of water everywhere. Rocks and sand get in the way."

For example, people living in Lubbock get their water from several sources — two water well fields, Lake Meredith and Lake Alan Henry. Texans living in Fort Worth get their water from mostly surface water sources — lakes, reservoirs and the Trinity River.

Is my city going to run out of water? How can I check?

Since water supply varies by region, the Texas Tribune created an address-search tool. This tool shows where your local water supply comes from and what supply and demand projections look like for the future.

The tool also explains how you can get more involved in water planning. This can be by attending meetings with regional groups who plan for water needs and use, providing public comments to the water development board as they draft new water plans, or by reaching out to lawmakers.

Who owns Texas’ water — and who governs it?

Water in Texas is a legally complex, highly managed resource. If you own land above an aquifer in Texas, you own the groundwater beneath it — just like owning oil or gas. You don’t have to pump it to claim it; it’s yours by default. However, that doesn’t mean you should use as much as you want. There are consequences.

“Groundwater is your long-term bank account,” says John Dupnik, a deputy executive administrator at the Texas Water Development Board. “The more you withdraw, the faster it declines because it doesn’t replenish quickly.”

To manage this, some areas have groundwater conservation districts that regulate how much water can be pumped. Since groundwater is owned by the landowner, general managers at the districts say they constantly have to strike a balance between protecting water supplies and respecting private property rights.

“We have to let landowners use their water,” says Ty Edwards, general manager of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District. “But we also have to protect everyone else’s wells. It’s a juggling act.”

Unlike groundwater, surface water belongs to the state. To use it — whether it’s for cities, farms, or businesses — you need a permit from the state’s environmental agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Texas follows a “first in time, first in right” system, meaning older water rights take priority. In a drought, those with senior rights get water first, and newer users might be cut off entirely.

“Think of it like a sold-out concert,” said Rubinstein, a former chair of the Texas Water Development Board. “There are no more tickets. The only way to get more water is to build new storage, but that’s easier said than done.”

Texas’ two separate legal systems for water — one for groundwater and one for surface water — makes management tricky. Dupnik, the water board administrator, said Texas is unique in having the system divided this way. Just nine states, including Texas, have this two-tiered system.

“Most states are usually one or the other,” Dupnik said.

The two water resources are also deeply connected. About 30% of the water in Texas rivers comes from groundwater, according to a water board study. When wells pump too much, rivers and springs can dry up. Sharlene Leurig, a managing member with environmental consulting firm Fluid Advisors, said it’s important for people to understand the relationship between the two.

“Depletions of one drives depletions of the other,” Leurig said.

Why are people concerned about water now?

Texas is growing, and its water supply isn’t keeping up. With droughts, overuse and changing rainfall patterns, water is becoming a scarce resource.

The 2022 Texas Water Plan estimates the state’s population will increase to 51.5 million people by 2070 — an increase of 73%. At the same time, water supply is projected to decrease approximately 18%. The biggest reduction is in groundwater, which is projected to decline 32% by 2070.

This shortfall will be felt most in two major aquifers: The Ogallala Aquifer, as a result of its managed depletion over time, and the Gulf Coast Aquifer, which faces mandatory pumping reductions to prevent land sinking from over-extraction.

Texas is not only losing water to overuse. The state’s aging water pipes are deteriorating, contributing to massive losses from leaks and breaks.

A 2022 report by Texas Living Waters Project, a coalition of environmental groups, estimated that Texas water systems lose at least 572,000 acre-feet per year — about 51 gallons of water per home or business connection every day — enough water to meet the total annual municipal needs of Austin, El Paso, Fort Worth, Laredo and Lubbock combined.

These old pipes also raise concerns about water quality and supply. Breaks trigger boil-water notices, while repairs and replacements strain budgets. This issue is amplified by the lack of funding for maintenance in some areas and the increasing demand for water due to population growth.

Who’s using the most water and how is that changing?

Irrigation holds the top spot for water use in Texas, according to the water board. In fact, agriculture has been the dominant water consumer for decades.

In 2020, over a third of irrigation and livestock water in Texas came from the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. At the same time, more than one-fifth of non-agricultural water came from the Trinity River Basin.

But the way water is used is shifting. By 2060, municipal water demand is projected to overtake irrigation as the biggest user, according to the water board.

Agriculture producers will struggle to meet water prices, said Alan Day, general manager of the Brazos Groundwater Conservation District. As climate change intensifies, he said, water supply may decrease in certain parts of the state and compound challenges for farmers and ranchers.

“With water getting more expensive, we’re seeing a shift from agricultural use to municipal demand,” he said.

Day added that water use isn’t just about who’s taking the most — it’s about where it’s coming from, who’s willing to pay for it, and how we decide to share it in the future.

“What do we want our shared water resources to look like 50 years from now?” Day said. “That’s a moving target. And it’s a political hot potato.”

The state’s water plan says Texas does not have enough water supply to meet the growing need of 6.9 million acre-feet of additional water supplies by 2070 — enough to support 41.4 million Texans for one year. If water strategies are not implemented, the plan says approximately 25% of Texas’ population in 2070 would have less than half the municipal water supplies they will require during a significant drought.

“There's going to be a fight over at what level does harm occur to any of these particular aquifers,” Day said.

How are we planning for water shortages?

The water board is responsible for planning for water shortages. The agency uses the 1950s drought or “drought of record” as a benchmark for statewide water planning.

Temple McKinnon, the director of water supply planning at the state agency, said using the “worst-case scenario” allows water planners to come up with strategies for how to meet future water needs.

That planning has manifested in state legislation and infrastructure investment. In 2023, voters approved a one-time use of $1 billion to fund infrastructure projects. This year, two Republican lawmakers, state Sen. Charles Perry from Lubbock and state Rep. Cody Harris of Palestine, filed constitutional amendments to dedicate $1 billion annually for up to 10 years for water projects. Harris also filed House Bill 16 — a sweeping priority bill that touches on water funds, flood plans, and the development of infrastructure to transport water into a water supply system.

Senate Bill 7, which Perry is expected to author, was named a priority by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and would increase investments in water supply efforts. Texas budget writers have already signaled a willingness to invest at least $2.5 billion in water plans. Perry previously told the Tribune he wants as much as $5 billion.

A key part of this effort is the creation of a statewide water grid — a network of pipelines and supply connections to better distribute water across Texas.

Currently, water systems across the state operate independently. A new water grid would allow Texas to shift water from wetter regions to drier ones when supply shortages hit. However, a framework is still being developed to determine who will oversee and manage this interconnected system.

Lawmakers, including Perry, are also eyeing new water resources to meet future water supply needs.

Some Texas cities, like Corpus Christi along the coast, are turning to desalination to treat seawater and make it drinkable. El Paso has been a leader in this effort, but focusing on cleaning brackish groundwater — slightly salty water found deep underground — enough to drink.

Experts say that the state has untapped water resources — potentially enough to meet the state’s long-term needs.

Disclosure: Texas Living Waters Project has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.

Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

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.