Drinking Fountains and Public Health: Improving National Water Infrastructure to Rebuild Trust and Ensure Access

Pacific Institute | February 27th, 2017

Public drinking fountains are disappearing across the U.S., yet many people – including children, commuters, joggers, tourists, and the homeless – rely on them for ch

Public drinking fountains are disappearing across the U.S., yet many people – including children, commuters, joggers, tourists, and the homeless – rely on them for cheap, accessible, and safe municipal water. Concerns over drinking water quality and possible disease transmission as well as widely-publicized water contamination incidents are both contributing factors in the decline. Are drinking fountains truly a cause of illness? What would it take to rebuild public trust in this important water infrastructure so drinking fountains can continue to be a safe, accessible resource for those who rely on them? In this Pacific Institute report, the authors examine epidemiology studies and other evidence of drinking fountain-related health issues. They find limited evidence of a causal relationship between illness and the use of drinking fountains. Further, problems that were identified can be traced to contamination from poor cleaning and maintenance or from old water infrastructure in buildings, rather than contamination at the point of use, and these problems can be fixed.

Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from California's Central Valley

California Law Review | February 1st, 2012

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water gove

The American West is notorious for its water wars, and California's complex water allocation and governance challenges serve as a bellwether for contemporary water governance across western states, Policy makers and environmental advocates typically represent California's water woes as a regulatory problem - a failure to balance the needs of growing urban populations with ecological preservation and agricultural irrigation. These debates, however, often elide the issue of water deprivation, and they do not adequately address the concerns of an important constituency: low-income, rural communities. This Comment argues that a focus on regulation misses a fundamental feature of water inequality: the structure and design of local water districts. Utilizing a case study of California's Central Valley to illustrate how these structural barriers operate, I argue that Calfornia's complex system of local water districts fractures governance, limits electoral participation, and undermines the State's stated environmental, equity, and utilitarian water goals. I offer suggestions for alternative local water district organization in order to address the constraints of Calfornia's current water governance regime.

Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 6th, 2020

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of H

The Division of Drinking Water’s precursor, the Drinking Water Program of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and earlier, the California Department of Health Services, CDHS, established health-based advisory levels, called “notification levels” (referred to as “action levels" through 2004), as needed since the early 1980s. These have been used to provide information to public water systems and others about certain non-regulated chemicals in drinking water that lack maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).  When chemicals are found at concentrations greater than these levels, certain requirement and recommendations apply.  Generally, notification levels have been established in response to actual contamination of drinking water supplies, e.g., perchlorate, which now has an MCL. However, notification levels for a number of chemicals were established in anticipation of possible contamination, such as from a hazardous waste site containing many pesticides (in the 1980s), or from a Superfund site (in the 2000s).  Chemicals for which notification levels are established may eventually be regulated by MCLs (through a formal regulatory process), depending on the extent of contamination, the levels observed, and the risk to human health. Most, however, have not proceeded to MCLs. Once established, a notification level generally stays in place, unless it is replaced by an MCL.On occasion, though, we have revised the numeric value of an individualnotification level to reflect new risk assessment information on the particularchemical. For some of the chemicals that had advisory levels established early on, if noMCL was adopted and the need for the notification level had passed, the advisory levelwas archived. Archived advisory levels may nevertheless be updated to reflect any newrisk information that may become available, and may be used as notification levels ifneeded. To date, of the 93 chemicals for which notification levels have been established; 40 now have MCLs. Of the remaining 53 chemicals, 29 are chemicals with current notification levels. 24 are chemicals with archived advisory levels (AALs). Note that following adoption of an MCL, the notification level is no longer used. For more about AALs and notification levels, go to: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/NotificationLevels.shtml. 

Drinking Water Quality Report 2018

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) | September 2nd, 2019

Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution (Resource Management Strategy)

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29th, 2016

Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public water systems must develop and

Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public water systems must develop and maintain adequate water treatment and distribution facilities. In addition, the reliability, quality, and safety of the raw water supply are critical to achieving this goal. In general, public water systems depend greatly on the work of other entities to help protect and maintain the quality of the raw water supply. Many agencies and organizations have a role in protecting water supplies in California. For example, the basin plans developed by the regional water quality control boards recognize the importance of this goal and emphasize protecting water supplies — both groundwater and surface water. A public water system is defined as a system for the provision of water for human consumption, through pipes or other constructed conveyances, which has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days of the year (Health and Safety Code Section 116275[h]). Public water systems are divided into three principle classifications: community water systems (CWS), non-transient non-community (NTNC) water systems, and transient non-community (TNC) water systems. As the name indicates, CWS serve cities, towns, and other residential facilities occupied by year-round users. Examples include everything from apartment complexes served by their own wells to systems serving California’s largest cities. NTNC systems are public water systems that are not CWS and provide water to the same non-residential users daily for at least 180 days of the year. Examples include schools, places of employment, and institutions. TNC systems are places that provide water for a population that mostly comes and goes. Examples include campgrounds, parks, ski resorts, rest stops, gas stations, and motels. CWS serve approximately million of the estimated 37.7 million people throughout the state, or 97 percent of the state’s population. The remaining estimated 1.1 million people in the state (3 percent of the population) receive their drinking water from private wells serving their individual residences or from other sources. Virtually every Californian and visitor to the state will use drinking water from a regulated public water system through their work, while on vacation, or while traveling through the state.

Drought and Equity in California

Pacific Institute | January 9th, 2017

Drought and Equity in California is the first statewide analysis of the impacts of the drought on California’s most vulnerable communities. This report provides informa

Drought and Equity in California is the first statewide analysis of the impacts of the drought on California’s most vulnerable communities. This report provides information community groups can use to advocate for their own interests, as well as to inform policymakers and other decision-makers interested in crafting more effective drought response strategies, particularly to address the needs of the state’s most vulnerable communities. The report finds that during the state’s ongoing drought, water shortages and price hikes affected access to safe, affordable water for Californians, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution. The report also examines the effects of a rapidly declining salmon population on commercial and tribal fishermen and finds that the decline and variability of salmon populations during droughts has impacted those dependent on the fish for income, food, and cultural traditions.

Drought and Equity in the San Francisco Bay Area

Pacific Institute | June 29th, 2016

California’s ongoing drought has wide-reaching impacts, from how we grow crops to the price of electricity. Often overlooked is its impact on disadvantaged communities.

California’s ongoing drought has wide-reaching impacts, from how we grow crops to the price of electricity. Often overlooked is its impact on disadvantaged communities. The Pacific Institute and The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) conducted community-based participatory research with eight Bay Area community-based groups to explore and document the drought’s impacts on low-income people in the San Francisco Bay Area. Through a series of collaborative meetings, surveys, and in-depth analyses of data, the group produced a groundbreaking report that sheds light on specific drought-related hardships faced by low-income residents and offers recommendations for mitigating those impacts. “This report is the first examination of the drought’s impacts on low-income communities in the Bay Area,” says Colin Bailey, Executive Director of EJCW. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the report shows the same hardships that befall California’s more rural communities are present in urban areas as well. The report calls on decision makers to account for and address these inequities in our drought responses.” The project team examined available data on drought impacts for the Bay Area, such as the number of households without water. The group identified affordability and water infrastructure conditions as key concerns for low-income communities, along with inequitable water use, whereby wealthier households typically use more water than lower income households. These are persistent concerns in many communities but have been exacerbated by the drought.

Drought Management and Climate Adaptation among Small, Self-Sufficient Water Systems in California

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) | August 27th, 2018

 Examining human impacts, responses, and challenges to extreme climatic events can give insight into needed directions for climate adaptation to reduce future risks. Thi

 Examining human impacts, responses, and challenges to extreme climatic events can give insight into needed directions for climate adaptation to reduce future risks. This study focuses on the 2012-2016 Drought in California, documenting how small self-sufficient drinking water systems were affected and challenged by, and responded to the extreme event. The majority of small, self-sufficient water systems in the state serve rural, low income communities, and many have low technical, managerial, and financial capacity compared to larger systems. This increases the risk that these drinking water systems will be disproportionately impacted by droughts or other disruptions. To assess the impact of drought on small water systems, we employed an iterative approach to gathering perspectives and experiences from drinking water system managers across the state. The goal of employing these iterative methods is to better understand the breadth and scope of impacts, responses, and barriers to dealing with the 2012- 2016 Drought. The first stage of the data collection involved interviewing managers of drinking water systems, which were transcribed and analyzed using semi-grounded theory methods. To cross-check and advance findings from interviews in additional locations, we conducted three small regional workshops and then a larger policy forum. Multiple data collection methods allowed us to gather insights about experiences from nearly 200 water managers. This project uses local knowledge to document the social dimensions within drinking water systems during the 2012-2016 Drought and expresses the value of local knowledge in reflecting on future drinking water system needs in response to extreme events.  We found that drinking water systems, despite size or government project water reliance, experienced a similar set of drought impact, response, and barrier categories (e.g., water quantity and water quality). However, within these categories, the types of impacts, responses, and barriers differed based on both system size and water source portfolio. Common disadvantages that hinder drought resilience, and thus climate adaptation, of small self-sufficient drinking water systems include: staff capacity; financial burden of revenue loss during drought compounded with increased need for staff time for additional reporting; customer awareness and outreach challenges; and consolidation. We found that consolidation is valuable but in many case needs more state support to implement and incentivize. From a long term perspective, the absence of expressed duty and lack of concern for risks of climate change among water managers indicates a major dearth in adaptation planning among these drinking water systems. Documentation of experiences from the 2012-2016 Drought can be used to inform future planning for droughts and more broadly climate change. 

Economic tradeoff between domestic well impact and reduced agricultural production with groundwater drought management: Tulare County, California (USA), case study

Hydrogeology Journal (Springer) | November 8th, 2021

Formal policy analysis can aid resource management where groundwater is used intensively. Approaches for developing equitable and effective pumping allocations for drough

Formal policy analysis can aid resource management where groundwater is used intensively. Approaches for developing equitable and effective pumping allocations for drought are evaluated in the context of the 2012–2016 drought in Tulare County, California, USA. Potential economic impacts of policy alternatives on two user groups with conflicting interests are considered. Tradeoffs between losses of agricultural profit and response costs for domestic wells that run dry are estimated for various maximum groundwater depth policies. A welfare maximizing approach for identifying policies that limit depth to groundwater is evaluated and found to be ineffective because agricultural opportunity costs are much larger than domestic well costs. Adding a fee for additional drought groundwater pumping is proposed as a more impactful and balanced management policy approach. For the case study presented, a fee range of $300 to $600/acre-foot ($300–$600/1,233 m3) yielded an effective groundwater management policy for reducing domestic well impacts from drought and balancing agricultural impacts of drought with the need to replenish additional drought pumping in wetter years. Recent management policies enacted in the study area agree with this finding. These results may provide a useful perspective for analytically examining and developing groundwater management policies near the study area and elsewhere.

Environmental Justice in California Government

State of California | October 1st, 2003

In California, we have spent over a century and billions of dollars to preserve and protect the environment for current and future generations. The EJ movement asks us to

In California, we have spent over a century and billions of dollars to preserve and protect the environment for current and future generations. The EJ movement asks us to put real people in that environment, particularly the most vulnerable populations such as ethnic minorities, low-income persons, the young and the elderly. In a nutshell, EJ can be said to be the vision and process of creating socially just, sustainable human and ecological systems, where all participate fully in decisions affecting their lives. The Governor’s Office of Planning & Research (OPR) assists the Governor and the Administration in land use planning, research, liaison with local government, small business advocacy, rural policy, and various interagency taskforces. 1999 legislation defined EJ in California law and also established OPR as the coordinating agency in state government for environmental justice (EJ) efforts. The placement of the central EJ program within OPR demonstrates the Legislature’s understanding that EJ efforts require coordination at the highest level of state government.  Indeed, California is the only state that has placed its EJ effort within the Chief Executive’s Office. The legislation establishing OPR as the “coordinating agency in state government for environmental justice programs” (California Government Code § 65040.12) directs the OPR director to consult with state agencies and interested members of the public and private sectors in this state, coordinate its efforts and share information regarding EJ programs with federal agencies, and review and evaluate any information from federal agencies that is obtained as a result of their respective regulatory activities. This policy report is intended to provide a brief history of EJ, report on the status of OPR's efforts, and provide an outline of EJ findings, goals and policies for future EJ efforts within state government. Much work remains to ensure that the most vulnerable of Californians, including people of color and low-income persons, are treated with dignity and respect regarding environmental decisions. OPR views its work thus far as a modest, although significant beginning.