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.

Toilet to tap: El Paso is about to embark on a whole new way to save its limited water supply

News Feed
Thursday, April 10, 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. EL PASO — It all starts with a flush of a toilet. Wastewater travels underground through this arid city’s pipes to a wastewater treatment facility where it goes through multiple treatment steps to filter out contaminants. The next step is purification. Membranes filter out contaminants at high pressure. Ultraviolet light and chlorine disinfect the water. A dash of minerals is added. The end result? Clean drinking water. Behind this effort is El Paso Water, the utility that serves 220,000 homes, businesses and government agencies in far West Texas. The Pure Water Center, which is expected to be fully operational in 2028, is the agency's latest attempt to use every drop of water and make it drinkable — a solution the city sees as essential for its future. El Paso has become a national leader in water innovation — pioneering brackish groundwater desalination, wastewater reuse, and aggressive conservation efforts, according to water experts. Now, it's taking another step forward. This advanced water purification system will deliver 10 million gallons daily in a city that used roughly 105 million gallons per day last year. Some say it will be the first direct potable reuse, or “toilet-to-tap” facility in the country. Inside a primary clarifier, resembling petri-dish tanks, heavy solids and grease sink to the bottom and machines skim off particles at the top at the Roberto Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant in El Paso. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Left: Sewage sludge from the Roberto Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant is dewatered before being trucked to and disposed of in open fields. Right: Treated water leaves the plant to be reused for irrigation in El Paso. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Other cities have reused wastewater for drinking, including Big Springs. However, they send it to a reservoir or river where it blends with surface water and then treat it again before it reaches taps. El Paso’s facility will be the first to send purified water straight into the distribution system — pipe to pipe. Gilbert Trejo, vice president of operations and technical services at El Paso Water, said the utility gained public support and eased the “ick factor” by educating residents on how the project maximizes the city’s existing water supply. Related Story March 13, 2025 “A lot of cities pay money to bring water to their community through reservoirs or investing in water importation. We owe it to our customers to develop our current water,” Trejo said. As Texas faces mounting water challenges, with lawmakers searching for solutions to an impending water crisis — including transporting water from water-rich areas to dry ones through pipelines — some water experts say El Paso's approach could serve as a blueprint for other cities, especially those in West Texas, where communities get little to no rain and have limited water resources to tap into. El Paso, a city of nearly 679,000 people, occupies a unique geographic and hydrological position. Nestled in the far western corner of Texas, it sits at the headwaters of the Rio Grande within the state, where the river first enters Texas after flowing through Colorado and New Mexico. Just across the U.S. border lies Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, a city of about 1.5 million, and to the northwest the state of New Mexico. El Paso’s water challenges are deeply interconnected with its neighbors, making water management a complex balancing act between three governments and multiple agencies. Like much of the state, El Paso relies on two main water sources: groundwater from its aquifers and surface water. The city’s two underground aquifers, the Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson supply about 55% of the city’s water supply. While the Rio Grande, fed by snowmelt from Colorado and stored in New Mexico’s Elephant Butte Reservoir before being released downstream to farmers and cities, supplies about 40% (in a year without drought). Both supplies are shrinking and becoming increasingly unreliable. Latest in the series: Running Out: Texas’ Water Crisis Loading content … Experts warn that this freshwater supply may only last a few more decades at current usage rates. Elephant Butte is at historic lows, sometimes holding just 6% of its capacity. The city’s surface water allotment, which last year was from March to October, is predicted to dwindle to about eight weeks this year. This has city leaders juggling as they determine how much water to suck out of its aquifers. While some border towns are just now beginning to face severe water constraints, El Paso has been grappling with that for decades. Unlike other parts of Texas, where massive reservoirs were built after the devastating drought of the 1950s to store rainwater for dry years, El Paso’s dry climate — where annual rainfall averages less than 9 inches — reservoirs have never been a viable option for El Paso. The Rio Grande supplies about 40% of El Paso’s water supply. Experts worry that freshwater supply will only last a few more decades at current usage rates. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Shane Walker, director of the Water and the Environment Research Center at Texas Tech University said El Paso has become one of the most progressive water utilities in the country. “They're always thinking ahead. They're thinking 50 years or even 100 years down the road,” Walker said. “There are so many other water utilities that benefit from El Paso Water leadership because they're willing to to spend the extra work to figure things out the first time.” El Paso became a leader out of need Inside the utility’s water center, or TecH2O, there’s a timeline of the city’s water history. A black and white photo from 1892 shows the city’s first water supply plant — a small building and water pipe bursting with water flowing into a canal. In the early 1900s, the city relied almost entirely on groundwater from the Hueco and Mesilla Bolsons. As the population grew, city leaders recognized that groundwater alone wouldn’t be enough. In the 1920s, the Rio Grande Project was developed to manage and distribute river water each year for irrigation. Again, there was still not enough. El Paso’s pioneering efforts in water reuse began in the 1960s, when the city started using treated wastewater for irrigation. By the 1980s, the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant was treating wastewater to drinking water standards using ozone disinfection — one of the earliest examples of advanced water reclamation in the country. That treated wastewater was used to replenish the aquifer. (Today it’s sold to El Paso Electric Company for cooling towers, and used to water a golf course, parks and a cemetery in the city.) In the 1990s, El Paso expanded its recycled water program with a purple pipe system that delivered treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial use. Within that same decade, the city also launched conservation rebate and incentive programs, including a toilet rebate program that offered a $50 rebate per toilet, up to two toilets per household, for customers who purchase water-efficient toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush, as opposed to older toilets that use as much as six gallons per flush. “This time was a massive change in the way people thought about water and used water,” said Jennifer Barr, the utility's water conservation manager. As the city’s water challenges intensified, El Paso continued to diversify its water portfolio. In 2007, it opened the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant, a large inland desalination facility capable of producing at max capacity 27.5 million gallons of fresh water daily from brackish groundwater. The city has also embraced aquifer recharge, storing treated water underground for future use. It also reuses treated wastewater for irrigation or to replenish and maintain the Rio Bosque Wetlands, a 372-acre nature preserve located near the U.S.-Mexico border along the Rio Grande. Jennifer Barr, TecH20 Center’s water conservation manager, says the center hosts educational field trips for students where they learn about how to reduce their water consumption. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Left: An exhibit depicting the water reclamation in El Paso at the TecH20 conference and learning center. Right: Painted Dunes Desert Golf Course receives water treated by the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune The city has also secured additional water rights from nearby Dell City. However, treating and transporting the water 90 miles to the city will be expensive. The water from the city would need to be desalinated. Since the 1990s, the utility has delivered more than 180,000 acre-feet of recycled water for irrigation and industrial use, helping to reduce the amount of groundwater pumped from aquifers. That’s enough to supply water to 1 million Texans for a year. Recycled water — 80,000 acre feet — has also been used to recharge the Hueco Bolson Aquifer. Meanwhile, the city's conservation programs have cut water use by 40% since the 1970s. Without these efforts, the utility estimates it would need to produce an additional 35,000 acre-feet of water each year to meet current demand. Although the city has a drought contingency plan in place to manage water shortages, it hasn’t implemented mandatory water restrictions since 2003 — when a severe river drought forced residents to limit outdoor watering to once a week. What can the state learn from these water leaders? Generations of El Pasoans have developed what Trejo, with the water utility, calls a “high water IQ,” shaped by constant drought and the unpredictable Rio Grande. Many grew up with the utility’s smiling mascot, Willie the Waterdrop, which some residents remember from when they were young. “The generation that grew up having to be very water conscious are now the adults in the room,” Trejo said, which he sees as an opportunity. This long-standing awareness helped El Paso gain public acceptance for its new toilet-to-tap project. More than a decade ago, El Paso Water launched an outreach campaign, training employees to deliver a clear, informative pitch. They put together a 30-minute presentation that walked residents through the city’s history of water reuse, explained why the next step was necessary, and broke down the advanced treatment process. Over the course of a year, the utility visited 30 community organizations, including neighborhood associations, rotary clubs, and news media outlets. The discussions weren’t one-on-one but held in group settings, where residents could ask questions and voice concerns. The timing helped. The region was just coming off the severe 2013 drought when El Paso had only six weeks of surface water left and had to ask residents to cut back. That fresh memory underscored the need to prepare for the future, according to the utility’s spokesperson. The Pure Water Center broke ground earlier this year and may be the nation's first direct potable use system or "toilet-to-tap" facility. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune The utility’s message was simple: “toilet-to-tap” was a logical next step. By the time the project moved forward, the groundwork had already been laid for community buy-in. An initial survey in 2013 showed 84% of residents approved the concept — proof, Trejo says, that years of public education paid off. While “toilet-to-tap” may sound unappealing, utility experts emphasize that advanced treatment removes pharmaceuticals, forever chemicals and other contaminants, with multiple safeguards built in. The water from the resident's sink, shower or toilet is so thoroughly purified that minerals are added back for taste. The state’s environmental regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, authorized El Paso Water to begin construction of the advanced purification facility in October 2024. The utility broke ground earlier this year. As water supplies dwindle nationwide, other cities are watching. Two Arizona cities are already exploring similar systems. “When you're the first one to do something novel and unique, it's a pain in the butt,” Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University, said. “But once that first entity goes through and figures it all out, it becomes easier for everyone else.” El Paso isn’t the first Texas city to attempt direct potable reuse. Big Spring in West Texas became the first in the U.S. to treat wastewater for drinking in 2013, blending the purified water with raw water before sending it to a treatment plant. Wichita Falls implemented a temporary system during a severe drought in 2014. Several other Texas cities, including San Marcos, Buda, and Marble Falls, are looking to implement direct reuse projects as part of their water supply planning for the future, according to Mace. Trejo says this approach offers a smarter alternative to expensive new reservoirs or water pipelines. Gilbert Trejo, vice president of operations and technical services at El Paso Water, stands in front of 72 RO membranes at the Kay Bailey Desalination Plant in El Paso. The membranes clean salty water and make it drinkable. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune Left: El Paso Water's mascot, Willie the Waterdrop, stands behind a stack of applications offering cash to residents who replace their toilets with high efficiency models. Right: Jessiel Acosta tests the water hardness of the raw water feeding into the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune “Everything is about recycling — except water? If we’re investing in desalination, why not reuse what we already have?” he said. At a state level, Trejo said he is disappointed that water recycling is not more part of the water strategy discussions at the Capitol. Lawmakers are expected to pledge billions of dollars to save the state’s water supply. Most of the conversation has been around what water experts call “new water supply.” That includes desalination or the process of removing salt from seawater or brackish groundwater to make the water drinkable. Another strategy: constructing pipelines to transport water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas. Some worry that other water strategies, like what El Paso is doing, will get left out of the funding. “Communities will need to have funding,” Trejo said. “If the state is not going to include water recycling in the discussion, it will affect us greatly.” The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation awarded El Paso $3.5 million in 2019 for the facility’s design. It later committed an additional $20 million in 2022 to support construction. The total project cost is currently estimated at $295 million. The utility says it continues to pursue additional state and federal funding. According to recommendations in the state water plan, Texas could rely on direct potable reuse for 62,000 acre-feet per year by 2070 — enough to supply 372,000 people annually. The money is important. But it won’t solve every crisis. El Paso has approached water management with preparation rather than panic. That steady, forward-looking mindset has helped build the trust with the public needed to take bold steps driven by vision, not desperation. Trejo’s advice to other utilities: Start preparing now. Disclosure: El Paso Electric Company and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters 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. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

El Paso’s dry climate — it rains just 9 inches annually — is one of the reasons the city has taken water management so seriously.

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.

EL PASO — It all starts with a flush of a toilet.

Wastewater travels underground through this arid city’s pipes to a wastewater treatment facility where it goes through multiple treatment steps to filter out contaminants. The next step is purification. Membranes filter out contaminants at high pressure. Ultraviolet light and chlorine disinfect the water. A dash of minerals is added.

The end result? Clean drinking water.

Behind this effort is El Paso Water, the utility that serves 220,000 homes, businesses and government agencies in far West Texas. The Pure Water Center, which is expected to be fully operational in 2028, is the agency's latest attempt to use every drop of water and make it drinkable — a solution the city sees as essential for its future.

El Paso has become a national leader in water innovation — pioneering brackish groundwater desalination, wastewater reuse, and aggressive conservation efforts, according to water experts. Now, it's taking another step forward. This advanced water purification system will deliver 10 million gallons daily in a city that used roughly 105 million gallons per day last year. Some say it will be the first direct potable reuse, or “toilet-to-tap” facility in the country.

Inside a primary clarifier, resembling petri-dish tanks, heavy solids and grease sink to the bottom and machines skim off particles at the top at the Roberto Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant in El Paso. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune
Left: Sewage sludge from the Roberto Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant is dewatered before being trucked to and disposed of in open fields. Right: Treated water leaves the plant to be reused for irrigation in El Paso. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune

Other cities have reused wastewater for drinking, including Big Springs. However, they send it to a reservoir or river where it blends with surface water and then treat it again before it reaches taps. El Paso’s facility will be the first to send purified water straight into the distribution system — pipe to pipe.

Gilbert Trejo, vice president of operations and technical services at El Paso Water, said the utility gained public support and eased the “ick factor” by educating residents on how the project maximizes the city’s existing water supply.

Related Story

“A lot of cities pay money to bring water to their community through reservoirs or investing in water importation. We owe it to our customers to develop our current water,” Trejo said.

As Texas faces mounting water challenges, with lawmakers searching for solutions to an impending water crisis — including transporting water from water-rich areas to dry ones through pipelines — some water experts say El Paso's approach could serve as a blueprint for other cities, especially those in West Texas, where communities get little to no rain and have limited water resources to tap into.

El Paso, a city of nearly 679,000 people, occupies a unique geographic and hydrological position. Nestled in the far western corner of Texas, it sits at the headwaters of the Rio Grande within the state, where the river first enters Texas after flowing through Colorado and New Mexico. Just across the U.S. border lies Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, a city of about 1.5 million, and to the northwest the state of New Mexico. El Paso’s water challenges are deeply interconnected with its neighbors, making water management a complex balancing act between three governments and multiple agencies.

Like much of the state, El Paso relies on two main water sources: groundwater from its aquifers and surface water. The city’s two underground aquifers, the Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson supply about 55% of the city’s water supply. While the Rio Grande, fed by snowmelt from Colorado and stored in New Mexico’s Elephant Butte Reservoir before being released downstream to farmers and cities, supplies about 40% (in a year without drought). Both supplies are shrinking and becoming increasingly unreliable.

Latest in the series: Running Out: Texas’ Water Crisis

Loading content …

Experts warn that this freshwater supply may only last a few more decades at current usage rates. Elephant Butte is at historic lows, sometimes holding just 6% of its capacity. The city’s surface water allotment, which last year was from March to October, is predicted to dwindle to about eight weeks this year. This has city leaders juggling as they determine how much water to suck out of its aquifers.

While some border towns are just now beginning to face severe water constraints, El Paso has been grappling with that for decades. Unlike other parts of Texas, where massive reservoirs were built after the devastating drought of the 1950s to store rainwater for dry years, El Paso’s dry climate — where annual rainfall averages less than 9 inches — reservoirs have never been a viable option for El Paso.

The Rio Grande supplies about 40% of El Paso’s water supply. Experts worry that freshwater supply will only last a few more decades at current usage rates. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune

Shane Walker, director of the Water and the Environment Research Center at Texas Tech University said El Paso has become one of the most progressive water utilities in the country.

“They're always thinking ahead. They're thinking 50 years or even 100 years down the road,” Walker said. “There are so many other water utilities that benefit from El Paso Water leadership because they're willing to to spend the extra work to figure things out the first time.”

El Paso became a leader out of need

Inside the utility’s water center, or TecH2O, there’s a timeline of the city’s water history. A black and white photo from 1892 shows the city’s first water supply plant — a small building and water pipe bursting with water flowing into a canal.

In the early 1900s, the city relied almost entirely on groundwater from the Hueco and Mesilla Bolsons. As the population grew, city leaders recognized that groundwater alone wouldn’t be enough. In the 1920s, the Rio Grande Project was developed to manage and distribute river water each year for irrigation. Again, there was still not enough.

El Paso’s pioneering efforts in water reuse began in the 1960s, when the city started using treated wastewater for irrigation. By the 1980s, the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant was treating wastewater to drinking water standards using ozone disinfection — one of the earliest examples of advanced water reclamation in the country. That treated wastewater was used to replenish the aquifer. (Today it’s sold to El Paso Electric Company for cooling towers, and used to water a golf course, parks and a cemetery in the city.)

In the 1990s, El Paso expanded its recycled water program with a purple pipe system that delivered treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial use. Within that same decade, the city also launched conservation rebate and incentive programs, including a toilet rebate program that offered a $50 rebate per toilet, up to two toilets per household, for customers who purchase water-efficient toilets that use 1.28 gallons per flush, as opposed to older toilets that use as much as six gallons per flush.

“This time was a massive change in the way people thought about water and used water,” said Jennifer Barr, the utility's water conservation manager.

As the city’s water challenges intensified, El Paso continued to diversify its water portfolio. In 2007, it opened the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant, a large inland desalination facility capable of producing at max capacity 27.5 million gallons of fresh water daily from brackish groundwater. The city has also embraced aquifer recharge, storing treated water underground for future use. It also reuses treated wastewater for irrigation or to replenish and maintain the Rio Bosque Wetlands, a 372-acre nature preserve located near the U.S.-Mexico border along the Rio Grande.

Jennifer Barr, TecH20 Center’s water conservation manager, says the center hosts educational field trips for students where they learn about how to reduce their water consumption. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune
Left: An exhibit depicting the water reclamation in El Paso at the TecH20 conference and learning center. Right: Painted Dunes Desert Golf Course receives water treated by the Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune

The city has also secured additional water rights from nearby Dell City. However, treating and transporting the water 90 miles to the city will be expensive. The water from the city would need to be desalinated.

Since the 1990s, the utility has delivered more than 180,000 acre-feet of recycled water for irrigation and industrial use, helping to reduce the amount of groundwater pumped from aquifers. That’s enough to supply water to 1 million Texans for a year. Recycled water — 80,000 acre feet — has also been used to recharge the Hueco Bolson Aquifer.

Meanwhile, the city's conservation programs have cut water use by 40% since the 1970s. Without these efforts, the utility estimates it would need to produce an additional 35,000 acre-feet of water each year to meet current demand. Although the city has a drought contingency plan in place to manage water shortages, it hasn’t implemented mandatory water restrictions since 2003 — when a severe river drought forced residents to limit outdoor watering to once a week.

What can the state learn from these water leaders?

Generations of El Pasoans have developed what Trejo, with the water utility, calls a “high water IQ,” shaped by constant drought and the unpredictable Rio Grande. Many grew up with the utility’s smiling mascot, Willie the Waterdrop, which some residents remember from when they were young.

“The generation that grew up having to be very water conscious are now the adults in the room,” Trejo said, which he sees as an opportunity.

This long-standing awareness helped El Paso gain public acceptance for its new toilet-to-tap project. More than a decade ago, El Paso Water launched an outreach campaign, training employees to deliver a clear, informative pitch. They put together a 30-minute presentation that walked residents through the city’s history of water reuse, explained why the next step was necessary, and broke down the advanced treatment process.

Over the course of a year, the utility visited 30 community organizations, including neighborhood associations, rotary clubs, and news media outlets. The discussions weren’t one-on-one but held in group settings, where residents could ask questions and voice concerns.

The timing helped. The region was just coming off the severe 2013 drought when El Paso had only six weeks of surface water left and had to ask residents to cut back. That fresh memory underscored the need to prepare for the future, according to the utility’s spokesperson.

The Pure Water Center broke ground earlier this year and may be the nation's first direct potable use system or "toilet-to-tap" facility. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune

The utility’s message was simple: “toilet-to-tap” was a logical next step. By the time the project moved forward, the groundwork had already been laid for community buy-in.

An initial survey in 2013 showed 84% of residents approved the concept — proof, Trejo says, that years of public education paid off.

While “toilet-to-tap” may sound unappealing, utility experts emphasize that advanced treatment removes pharmaceuticals, forever chemicals and other contaminants, with multiple safeguards built in. The water from the resident's sink, shower or toilet is so thoroughly purified that minerals are added back for taste.

The state’s environmental regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, authorized El Paso Water to begin construction of the advanced purification facility in October 2024. The utility broke ground earlier this year.

As water supplies dwindle nationwide, other cities are watching. Two Arizona cities are already exploring similar systems.

“When you're the first one to do something novel and unique, it's a pain in the butt,” Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University, said. “But once that first entity goes through and figures it all out, it becomes easier for everyone else.”

El Paso isn’t the first Texas city to attempt direct potable reuse. Big Spring in West Texas became the first in the U.S. to treat wastewater for drinking in 2013, blending the purified water with raw water before sending it to a treatment plant. Wichita Falls implemented a temporary system during a severe drought in 2014. Several other Texas cities, including San Marcos, Buda, and Marble Falls, are looking to implement direct reuse projects as part of their water supply planning for the future, according to Mace.

Trejo says this approach offers a smarter alternative to expensive new reservoirs or water pipelines.

Gilbert Trejo, vice president of operations and technical services at El Paso Water, stands in front of 72 RO membranes at the Kay Bailey Desalination Plant in El Paso. The membranes clean salty water and make it drinkable. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune
Left: El Paso Water's mascot, Willie the Waterdrop, stands behind a stack of applications offering cash to residents who replace their toilets with high efficiency models. Right: Jessiel Acosta tests the water hardness of the raw water feeding into the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant. Credit: Justin Hamel for The Texas Tribune

“Everything is about recycling — except water? If we’re investing in desalination, why not reuse what we already have?” he said.

At a state level, Trejo said he is disappointed that water recycling is not more part of the water strategy discussions at the Capitol.

Lawmakers are expected to pledge billions of dollars to save the state’s water supply. Most of the conversation has been around what water experts call “new water supply.” That includes desalination or the process of removing salt from seawater or brackish groundwater to make the water drinkable. Another strategy: constructing pipelines to transport water from the water-rich regions of Texas to arid, drought-stricken areas. Some worry that other water strategies, like what El Paso is doing, will get left out of the funding.

“Communities will need to have funding,” Trejo said. “If the state is not going to include water recycling in the discussion, it will affect us greatly.”

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation awarded El Paso $3.5 million in 2019 for the facility’s design. It later committed an additional $20 million in 2022 to support construction. The total project cost is currently estimated at $295 million. The utility says it continues to pursue additional state and federal funding.

According to recommendations in the state water plan, Texas could rely on direct potable reuse for 62,000 acre-feet per year by 2070 — enough to supply 372,000 people annually.

The money is important. But it won’t solve every crisis.

El Paso has approached water management with preparation rather than panic. That steady, forward-looking mindset has helped build the trust with the public needed to take bold steps driven by vision, not desperation.

Trejo’s advice to other utilities: Start preparing now.

Disclosure: El Paso Electric Company and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters 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.


Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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