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.

Thames Water supply ‘on knife-edge’ with £23bn repairs needed

News Feed
Sunday, November 17, 2024

Thames Water has £23bn of assets that are in urgent need of repair and the supply of water to its 16 million customers is “on a knife-edge”, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Britain’s biggest water company has failed to tackle adequately serious safety concerns, has not upgraded essential IT systems and has tolerated a culture of intimidation among staff, according to insiders and an analysis of documents.The investigation suggests that the company is in a worse financial state than previously admitted, and neither its managers or regulators appear to have grasped the perilous state of some of its reservoirs and pipes.The Guardian has also discovered that key data is still managed on obsolete software that dates to 1989. Sources claim that the company has been subject to cyber-attacks from groups affiliated with hostile states, including Russia.A spokesperson for Thames Water said: “The wellbeing and safety of our colleagues and customers is our highest priority.” Regarding cyber-attacks, Thames declined to comment on the record, but a source at the company said it had “not experienced any cyber-attacks, full stop”.The Guardian has spent several months investigating the finances and culture of Thames Water.Sources described how concerns about the company’s governance and operations had been raised at the highest levels of management. Yet they claimed that the problems had not been tackled, suggesting that the scale of the turnaround required at Thames may have been underestimated.“Operations have been hollowed out and cut to the bone,” a senior source at Thames said. “We’re putting the public at risk by failing to invest in the most basic needs.”They added that, in their view, management had not moved quickly enough to address problems such as weakening explosive infrastructure – such as containers holding the gas produced by sewage – and cracks in reservoirs. They said Thames’s management and the regulator, Ofwat, had been slow to address these problems, allowing them to escalate.The supply of water to capital is on a “knife-edge”, insiders claim, saying the scale of deterioration of Thames’s critical infrastructure and pressures on its staff have not been grasped by regulators or the company.Thames Water is labouring under £15bn of debt and has said it cannot repay some of its lenders. The company serves 16 million customers across London and the south-east.Whitehall sources fear that it will inevitably face a form of temporary renationalisation that will ultimately come at huge expense for the taxpayer.Current and former staff claimed that Thames Water’s finances were so dire that managers had tried to block or slow down spending on critical chemicals, forcing them to order water treatment chemicals without agreement from senior management. Processes had become so slow, with costs above £50,000 being subject to additional checks from senior bosses, that the only way to keep clean water flowing was to “proceed without approval”, staff said.A spokesperson for Thames Water said: “We take a rigorous approach to financial discipline throughout the company in order to operate within budget, as any business in turnaround would be expected to do.”Several staff also claim there is a culture of intimidation on costs. With management unwilling to approve the necessary budgets, it was impossible to order basic, urgent IT upgrades, leaving a key part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure exposed to cyber-attacks, they claimed. Staff claimed that they had been belittled by senior figures in meetings and correspondence when asking for extra resources.Others claim that after inspecting critical infrastructure such as reservoirs they were asked by managers if they had deliberately manipulated images to show cracks and other signs of deterioration.Thames Water’s head office in Reading. The company said it took ‘a rigorous approach to financial discipline’. Photograph: Geoffrey Swaine/ShutterstockThe state of Thames and its peers’ debt piles, as well as their impact on the environment, has triggered public debate over how weak regulation may have allowed decades of exploitative privatisation and financial mismanagement. Thames Water’s cash pile was being burned through at far more rapid rate that was initially expected this year, sources claimed, as repairs regarded as critical for safety become imperative.Thames Water now needed £23bn to repair its failing infrastructure, sources claimed. There were also fears that the figure could balloon further as a “catch-22” of regulatory pressure to cut costs and keep bills low comes after years of “doing less than the bare minimum”, a senior source at the company said.With about £15bn in debt for its operating company, the total bill posed by Thames being thrust into a form of temporary renationalisation could be as high as £38bn. However, much of the debt could be wiped out and creditors forced to shoulder losses in such an event.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThames is close to securing a £3bn debt lifeline, without which it faces insolvency by Christmas.The £23bn needed is an estimate based on a series of reviews of the state of its assets, including the network of pipes and treatment works that provide water to 16 million customers. It relies on interviews with water quality experts, IT technicians and health and safety professionals and documents to work out the latest costs involved in urgent repairs.The rate of deterioration across all aspects of the water company’s operations has gathered pace such that a previous disclosure of £19bn in failing assets, reported by the company in 2023, is now regarded as a significant underestimate.It goes some way to explaining the accelerating cash burn at the company that led it to warn this autumn that it needed more time to make payments on its debts. Its deteriorating credit rating now breaches its obligations under its licence, granted by Ofwat.While some managers and workers have tried to make changes at the company, many have quit or become disillusioned with the senior leadership team and some board members.A Thames Water spokesperson said: “The wellbeing and safety of our colleagues and customers is our highest priority. We supply 2.6bn litres of water every day, rated among the highest quality of drinking water anywhere in the world.“We’ve been very open about the ‘asset deficit’ we face, and the challenges we will have meeting future demand if it’s not addressed. That’s why we have set out an ambitious plan for 2025-30 which asks for £20.7bn of expenditure and investment with an additional £3bn through gated mechanisms, so that we can meet our customers’ expectations and environmental responsibilities.“Further, we take our requirements to protect customers’ personal data and maintain essential services extremely seriously. We regularly review our systems to ensure their continued reliability.”An Ofwat spokesperson said: “The Guardian has raised a number of serious allegations about Thames Water. We will take action if there is evidence of breach of the company’s obligations.“We have been pushing Thames Water to make significant improvements in its operational performance and financial resilience for some time. It is of course essential that all water companies provide a safe and reliable water supply. The company has made a request for a substantial increase in expenditure, including to address issues of asset health, as part of the current price review process. We are reviewing that request and the supporting information provided, and will announce our final decisions in December.“In assessing the business case put forward by companies and in our enforcement work, we work closely with other regulators where needed and seek their views. This includes the Drinking Water Inspectorate in regard to security and cyber measures related to water services, and the Health and Safety Executive and National Cyber Security Centre on matters relating to safety and cybersecurity.”A spokesperson for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which regulates water companies, said: “The Drinking Water Inspectorate considers the provision of a continuous, safe supply of clean drinking water to be the highest priority of a water company. Furthermore, this is a duty under the regulations. Where there are any circumstances which give rise to a concern to drinking water, the company are required to notify the inspectorate.“Similarly, water company staff are able report matters directly to the inspectorate. In both cases the inspectorate will carry out an investigation and will take action as necessary to maintain the high standard of drinking water in England. The inspectorate carry out a programme of risk-based audits to identify, monitor and verify areas of concern, and take enforcement action based on our enforcement policies.”

Exclusive: Company has failed to tackle serious safety concerns or upgrade vital IT systems, Guardian investigation revealsFloods, explosions, asbestos: Thames faces problems on all frontsThames Water has £23bn of assets that are in urgent need of repair and the supply of water to its 16 million customers is “on a knife-edge”, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Britain’s biggest water company has failed to tackle adequately serious safety concerns, has not upgraded essential IT systems and has tolerated a culture of intimidation among staff, according to insiders and an analysis of documents. Continue reading...

Thames Water has £23bn of assets that are in urgent need of repair and the supply of water to its 16 million customers is “on a knife-edge”, a Guardian investigation can reveal.

Britain’s biggest water company has failed to tackle adequately serious safety concerns, has not upgraded essential IT systems and has tolerated a culture of intimidation among staff, according to insiders and an analysis of documents.

The investigation suggests that the company is in a worse financial state than previously admitted, and neither its managers or regulators appear to have grasped the perilous state of some of its reservoirs and pipes.

The Guardian has also discovered that key data is still managed on obsolete software that dates to 1989. Sources claim that the company has been subject to cyber-attacks from groups affiliated with hostile states, including Russia.

A spokesperson for Thames Water said: “The wellbeing and safety of our colleagues and customers is our highest priority.” Regarding cyber-attacks, Thames declined to comment on the record, but a source at the company said it had “not experienced any cyber-attacks, full stop”.

The Guardian has spent several months investigating the finances and culture of Thames Water.

Sources described how concerns about the company’s governance and operations had been raised at the highest levels of management. Yet they claimed that the problems had not been tackled, suggesting that the scale of the turnaround required at Thames may have been underestimated.

“Operations have been hollowed out and cut to the bone,” a senior source at Thames said. “We’re putting the public at risk by failing to invest in the most basic needs.”

They added that, in their view, management had not moved quickly enough to address problems such as weakening explosive infrastructure – such as containers holding the gas produced by sewage – and cracks in reservoirs. They said Thames’s management and the regulator, Ofwat, had been slow to address these problems, allowing them to escalate.

The supply of water to capital is on a “knife-edge”, insiders claim, saying the scale of deterioration of Thames’s critical infrastructure and pressures on its staff have not been grasped by regulators or the company.

Thames Water is labouring under £15bn of debt and has said it cannot repay some of its lenders. The company serves 16 million customers across London and the south-east.

Whitehall sources fear that it will inevitably face a form of temporary renationalisation that will ultimately come at huge expense for the taxpayer.

Current and former staff claimed that Thames Water’s finances were so dire that managers had tried to block or slow down spending on critical chemicals, forcing them to order water treatment chemicals without agreement from senior management. Processes had become so slow, with costs above £50,000 being subject to additional checks from senior bosses, that the only way to keep clean water flowing was to “proceed without approval”, staff said.

A spokesperson for Thames Water said: “We take a rigorous approach to financial discipline throughout the company in order to operate within budget, as any business in turnaround would be expected to do.”

Several staff also claim there is a culture of intimidation on costs. With management unwilling to approve the necessary budgets, it was impossible to order basic, urgent IT upgrades, leaving a key part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure exposed to cyber-attacks, they claimed. Staff claimed that they had been belittled by senior figures in meetings and correspondence when asking for extra resources.

Others claim that after inspecting critical infrastructure such as reservoirs they were asked by managers if they had deliberately manipulated images to show cracks and other signs of deterioration.

Thames Water’s head office in Reading. The company said it took ‘a rigorous approach to financial discipline’. Photograph: Geoffrey Swaine/Shutterstock

The state of Thames and its peers’ debt piles, as well as their impact on the environment, has triggered public debate over how weak regulation may have allowed decades of exploitative privatisation and financial mismanagement. Thames Water’s cash pile was being burned through at far more rapid rate that was initially expected this year, sources claimed, as repairs regarded as critical for safety become imperative.

Thames Water now needed £23bn to repair its failing infrastructure, sources claimed. There were also fears that the figure could balloon further as a “catch-22” of regulatory pressure to cut costs and keep bills low comes after years of “doing less than the bare minimum”, a senior source at the company said.

With about £15bn in debt for its operating company, the total bill posed by Thames being thrust into a form of temporary renationalisation could be as high as £38bn. However, much of the debt could be wiped out and creditors forced to shoulder losses in such an event.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Thames is close to securing a £3bn debt lifeline, without which it faces insolvency by Christmas.

The £23bn needed is an estimate based on a series of reviews of the state of its assets, including the network of pipes and treatment works that provide water to 16 million customers. It relies on interviews with water quality experts, IT technicians and health and safety professionals and documents to work out the latest costs involved in urgent repairs.

The rate of deterioration across all aspects of the water company’s operations has gathered pace such that a previous disclosure of £19bn in failing assets, reported by the company in 2023, is now regarded as a significant underestimate.

It goes some way to explaining the accelerating cash burn at the company that led it to warn this autumn that it needed more time to make payments on its debts. Its deteriorating credit rating now breaches its obligations under its licence, granted by Ofwat.

While some managers and workers have tried to make changes at the company, many have quit or become disillusioned with the senior leadership team and some board members.

A Thames Water spokesperson said: “The wellbeing and safety of our colleagues and customers is our highest priority. We supply 2.6bn litres of water every day, rated among the highest quality of drinking water anywhere in the world.

“We’ve been very open about the ‘asset deficit’ we face, and the challenges we will have meeting future demand if it’s not addressed. That’s why we have set out an ambitious plan for 2025-30 which asks for £20.7bn of expenditure and investment with an additional £3bn through gated mechanisms, so that we can meet our customers’ expectations and environmental responsibilities.

“Further, we take our requirements to protect customers’ personal data and maintain essential services extremely seriously. We regularly review our systems to ensure their continued reliability.”

An Ofwat spokesperson said: “The Guardian has raised a number of serious allegations about Thames Water. We will take action if there is evidence of breach of the company’s obligations.

“We have been pushing Thames Water to make significant improvements in its operational performance and financial resilience for some time. It is of course essential that all water companies provide a safe and reliable water supply. The company has made a request for a substantial increase in expenditure, including to address issues of asset health, as part of the current price review process. We are reviewing that request and the supporting information provided, and will announce our final decisions in December.

“In assessing the business case put forward by companies and in our enforcement work, we work closely with other regulators where needed and seek their views. This includes the Drinking Water Inspectorate in regard to security and cyber measures related to water services, and the Health and Safety Executive and National Cyber Security Centre on matters relating to safety and cybersecurity.”

A spokesperson for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which regulates water companies, said: “The Drinking Water Inspectorate considers the provision of a continuous, safe supply of clean drinking water to be the highest priority of a water company. Furthermore, this is a duty under the regulations. Where there are any circumstances which give rise to a concern to drinking water, the company are required to notify the inspectorate.

“Similarly, water company staff are able report matters directly to the inspectorate. In both cases the inspectorate will carry out an investigation and will take action as necessary to maintain the high standard of drinking water in England. The inspectorate carry out a programme of risk-based audits to identify, monitor and verify areas of concern, and take enforcement action based on our enforcement policies.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Water levels across the Great Lakes are falling – just as US data centers move in

Region struggling with drought now threatened by energy-hungry facilities – but some residents are fighting backThe sign outside Tom Hermes’s farmyard in Perkins Township in Ohio, a short drive south of the shores of Lake Erie, proudly claims that his family have farmed the land here since 1900. Today, he raises 130 head of cattle and grows corn, wheat, grass and soybeans on 1,200 acres of land.For his family, his animals and wider business, water is life. Continue reading...

The sign outside Tom Hermes’s farmyard in Perkins Township in Ohio, a short drive south of the shores of Lake Erie, proudly claims that his family have farmed the land here since 1900. Today, he raises 130 head of cattle and grows corn, wheat, grass and soybeans on 1,200 acres of land.For his family, his animals and wider business, water is life.So when, in May 2024, the Texas-based Aligned Data Centers broke ground on its NEO-01, four-building, 200,000 sq ft data center on a brownfield site that abuts farmland that Hermes rents, he was concerned.“We have city water here. That’s going to reduce the pressure if they are sucking all the water,” he says of the data center.“They’re not good, I know that.”Two years ago, the company said it would invest about $202m on a “hyperscale” data center that would employ 18 people and dozens more in the construction process. Although the company claims it uses a closed-loop, air-cooled system for cooling its computers that can reduce the need for water, artificial intelligence, machine-learning and other high power-demand processes do rely on water as a cooling agent.All the while, a 10-minute drive north, the shoreline of Lake Erie hasn’t been this low in years.Water levels across all five Great Lakes have begun to drop in recent months as part of a long-term fall. Since 2019, the Great Lakes have seen water-level decreases of two to four feet. While experts say this is a natural decrease given the record highs the lakes have experienced since 2020, it’s happening at a time when a huge new consumer of water has appeared on the horizon: data centers.The source of the largest single deposit of freshwater on the planet, the Great Lakes, in particular Lake Erie, are already struggling with the fallout of drought and warmer water temperatures that, at this time of year, fuel major lake-effect snowstorms, and greater than normal levels of evaporation due to the absence of ice cover.With major cities such as Chicago, Toronto, Detroit and Pittsburgh all within a few hundred miles of each other, small, under-resourced communities around the Great Lakes have become hugely attractive for data-center companies.In Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, Microsoft is building what it calls the “world’s most-powerful AI data center” that is set to open early next year and expected to use up to 8.4bn gallons of municipal water from the city of Racine every year. Racine gets its water from Lake Michigan. Similar stories are playing out in Hobart, Indiana, where AWS is planning to build a data center two miles from Lake Michigan’s shoreline, and in Port Washington, Wisconsin.In Benton Harbor, Michigan, locals are concerned that a proposed $3bn data center would contribute to environmental pollution and traffic.Forty miles west of Aligned’s under-construction data center in Ohio, in Woodville Township, hundreds of people showed up to a public meeting last October to voice concern about another proposed data center project in their rural community.“The Great Lakes region, especially in states such as Illinois and Ohio, [is] among the most data-center dense states in the region. In addition to the high volumes of water used on site for cooling, our recent research found that even more water may be consumed to generate electricity to power data centers’ energy needs,” says Kirsten James, senior program director for water at Ceres, a nonprofit headquartered in Boston.“These impacts can conflict with communities’ water-resource planning efforts.”The Great Lakes Compact, a 2005 accord signed by the governors of eight US states and two Canadian provinces, means that Great Lakes Water must only be used within the regional basin.Research by Purdue University found that data centers on average consume about 300,000 gallons of water a day. Water used by data centers is warmed significantly and for those that do not use a closed loop system, that heated effluent water, just 20% of the initial amount, is often discharged back into local wastewater systems or the environment, with potentially serious consequences for flora, fauna and human consumers. Even closed-loop systems that reuse the same water repeatedly need millions of gallons of water.While many new data centers are drawing water from local municipalities that, in turn, get their water from groundwater, much of that supply comes from the Great Lakes watersheds.Some communities are fighting back. Last month, residents of Fife Lake, Michigan, were overjoyed after hearing a plan for a data center in their town of 471 residents would be scrapped due to local opposition.Similar stories of successful opposition have played out in Indiana and elsewhere.But the data centers are fighting back.Private firms representing data center companies have often successfully sued community authorities, accusing them of illegally excluding certain types of developments, making small towns powerless in the battle to keep out giant water-guzzling corporations.In Michigan’s Saline Township, a community of about 400 people outside Ann Arbor, OpenAI and Oracle used a representative company to successfully sue the local authority to overcome opposition and build a massive facility that would use 1.4 gigawatts of electricity – roughly the equivalent of powering 1.4 million homes.The Detroit Free Press editorial board assailed the move, calling it a “a fait accompli, hammered into this tiny Washtenaw county community over the objections of residents, the elected board that represents them, and Michigan’s attorney general, absent expert or outside testimony save a cursory public hearing held over Microsoft Teams”.Data companies and their backers, however, say their presence is a net gain for Great Lakes communities by providing jobs and investment over the course of years.Aligned has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perkins Township, the local school system and a career center. In return, it gets a 15-year tax exemption from local authorities. A representative declined to respond to questions from the Guardian asking how much water it intends to use at the data center and from where it originates.Local municipalities that support these facilities claim that the data centers will increase tax revenue and help rebuild ageing infrastructure such as water delivery systems that, in some places, are in significant need of upgrading. Calls, emails and messages left with Erie county commissioners asking if local authorities plan to supply the Perkins Township data center with water were not responded to.Some Perkins Township residents say a number of local companies have been hired during the construction phase, bringing work to the area.But many argue those investments are not worth the long-term price the community may pay.Amanda Voegle, who works at a heating business now directly facing the data center, is concerned about water and many other issues.“A couple of years ago, there was a water pollution issue at the site. I’m very concerned. Is this [water] going back into the lake?”Two years ago, the construction site upon which the data center is being built was found to be the source of contamination of a river that flows into Lake Erie, with the remediation company responsible cited by the Ohio EPA for unauthorized discharges into state waters.“I don’t understand why they built it so close to the street, because it’s an eyesore,” says Voegle.She says there have been other unusual incidents at her workplace recently, including power surges.“I don’t know if it’s related [to the data center]. It’s probably almost weekly that we lose power and have to fully reboot everything. There was a couple of things we actually had to replace because [the power surge] fried it.”

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

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.