Arsenic in California Drinking Water

Environmental Integrity Project | September 15th, 2016

More than three years after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found California in noncompliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 95 community water system

More than three years after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found California in noncompliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 95 community water systems in the state, serving more than 55,000 people, are still providing water with illegal levels of arsenic, according to an examination of state data for the last two years. Arsenic occurs naturally in the soil and groundwater in parts of California and is a known carcinogen that may also damage the developing brains of children and cause other health problems. Many of the people drinking excessive levels of arsenic are poor and/or Latino or African- American, with a cluster in the San Joaquin Valley. Nearly all have been exposed to excessive arsenic levels for at least five years and probably longer.

Assessing Water Affordability

Pacific Institute | August 14th, 2013

A new pilot study in California shows many households, even within affluent communities, routinely spend over the affordability threshold of 2 percent of their household

A new pilot study in California shows many households, even within affluent communities, routinely spend over the affordability threshold of 2 percent of their household income on their water bill. The number of water systems with “unaffordable” rates varies by region and measure used – which has important implications for policy makers. Assessing Water Affordability: A Pilot Study in Two Regions of California, from the Pacific Institute in partnership with Community Water Center and Fresno State University, looks at both an urban and rural case: the Sacramento metropolitan area and the Tulare Lake Basin. In Sacramento, using the most common form of determining affordability – the annual water bill as a percent of median household income at the water system scale – few water systems appeared to suffer from unaffordable rates. In contrast, in the Tulare Lake Basin, 18 percent of systems had unaffordable rates. Using a more fine-grained measure based on household income levels reveals even higher levels of unaffordability in both regions. In the Sacramento metropolitan region, measuring on a water-system-wide scale vs. a household scale means the difference between recognizing zero water systems with unaffordable rates vs. 100,000 households with unaffordable water rates. In the rural Tulare Lake Basin, measuring on these different scales means finding only nine out of 51 water systems with unaffordable rates vs. nearly 4000 households with unaffordable water rates – some 40% of the households in the study group. “Water rate affordability is a central element to water access, and cost makes water excludable and inaccessible to those who cannot afford it,” said Dr. Juliet Christian-Smith of the Pacific Institute. “Water affordability is also a major concern to public welfare, safety, and security. When households are unable to make their water payments, consequences can include public health crises, social unrest, and lost revenue for water providers that can threaten their fiscal stability.” The study’s results show that a significant number of areas within water systems have unaffordable rates, even if the system as a whole does not, and so it may be more important to consider household income rather than median income when assessing and addressing water affordability.

At Risk: Public Supply Well Vulnerability Under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

Pacific Institute | June 1st, 2021

California’s Climate Adaptation Water Strategy: An Analysis of Implications for Individual and Community Rights and Responsibilities

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 31st, 2009

The inevitable consequences of climate change will put some of California's people and communities more at risk than others. Because of location and a limited capacity to

The inevitable consequences of climate change will put some of California's people and communities more at risk than others. Because of location and a limited capacity to adapt, vulnerable populations may face profound and disproportionate harm. California's Climate Adaptation Strategy planners are seeking ways to address this potential harm. The California Adaptation Strategy (CAS) Working Groups are seeking to address the impact of climate change on the state’s vulnerable populations. This analysis therefore asks how California can create a policy environment for equitable adaptation processes and outcomes. This analysis begins with a literature review on equity issues in adaptation planning, then examines the Water Working Group’s draft climate adaptation strategies, and then presents the results of twenty-six expert interviews. Two key concerns in the development of adaptation policy that arise in this analysis are feedback loops between vulnerable communities and policymakers and direct access to resources to enable greater adaptive capacity. While this analysis looks closest at the Water Working Group’s strategies, it is anticipated that many of the findings will apply to the overall strategy.

Californians Without Safe Water and Sanitation

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | October 30th, 2014

While most Californians enjoy access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, some residents live in communities or areas that do not have access to safe drinking

While most Californians enjoy access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, some residents live in communities or areas that do not have access to safe drinking water and/or adequate sanitation facilities. This report provides a framework for estimating the number of Californians that lack safe drinking water and/or adequate sanitation facilities.  It also focuses on small (rural and urban) communities and tribal communities who often face similar challenges in accessing safe water and providing adequate sanitation. These challenges include aging infrastructure, more stringent water quality standards, financial capacity, and the affordability of operation and maintenance costs associated with new treatment systems. This report was prepared as part of the California Water Plan Update 2013 process and is an update to the 2005 Californians without Safe Water report. It continues the dialogue regarding Californians without safe drinking water and/or adequate sanitation facilities and includes 14 recommendations towards ensuring that all Californians have safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities. The report also highlights Governor Brown’s goal of ensuring that all Californians have access to safe drinking water, as specified by his signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 685 and the release of the California Water Action Plan that includes Action 7, “Provide Safe Water for All Communities.” In recent years, there has been significant progress in heightening the awareness of the drinking water and sanitation problems facing small and disadvantaged communities in California, as evidenced by the numerous plans and reports on the issue. However, despite these efforts, there is still a lot of work to do to ensure that all Californians have access to safe drinking water and sanitation. In support of this effort, the report lists 14 recommendations that were developed with input from State agencies and public stakeholders.

Californians Without Safe Water and Sanitation: California Water Plan Update 2013

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | February 20th, 2015

This report was prepared as part of the California Water Plan Update 2013 process and is an update to the 2005 Californians without Safe Water report. It continues the d

This report was prepared as part of the California Water Plan Update 2013 process and is an update to the 2005 Californians without Safe Water report. It continues the dialogue regarding Californians without safe drinking water and/or adequate sanitation facilities and includes 14 recommendations towards ensuring that all Californians have safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities. The report also highlights Governor Brown’s goal of ensuring that all Californians have access to safe drinking water, as specified by his signing of Assembly Bill (AB) 685 and the release of the California Water Action Plan that includes Action 7, “Provide Safe Water for All Communities.”

Changing the course? What's worked, what hasn't and what's next for the SCWP: An assessment of the first three rounds of the Safe Clean Water Program

Los Angeles Waterkeeper (LA Waterkeeper) | February 16th, 2023

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the

In 2018, Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved “Measure W” — a 2.5 cent per square foot parcel tax on impervious surface on all land parcels within the LA County Flood Control District to fund multi-benefit stormwater infrastructure. The Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) was developed to distribute and manage the funds raised, approximately $280M annually. The SCWP operates through three distinct programs: the District Program (10% of funds), the Municipal Program (40% of funds), and the Regional Program (50% of funds). The Regional Program has recently completed its third round of funding awarded through a competitive grant process. This assessment focuses on how the Regional Program is performing in achieving the SCWP’s overarching goals of water quality, water supply, and community investment benefits as provided in the ordinance authorizing this measure for the ballot. It also explores how well the program is meeting its goals around community engagement and support, benefits to disadvantaged communities, and green workforce development. The purpose of this assessment is to help the SCWP’s Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) and ultimately other decision-makers such as the LA County Board of Supervisors better understand what is working well with the program and where improvements could be made as part of the biennial review.

Climate Change and Rural Water for Frontline Communities in the Southwest United States

Pacific Institute | March 26th, 2024

Climate change is threatening rural water supply and quality in the Southwest United States and will intensify water challenges in the coming years. Climate impacts such

Climate change is threatening rural water supply and quality in the Southwest United States and will intensify water challenges in the coming years. Climate impacts such as prolonged drought conditions and extreme high temperatures paired with groundwater depletion and reduced mountain snowpack are increasing the risk of water supply shortages in the region. Climate change models project an increase in temperature and an overall decline in average annual precipitation in the Southwest, though punctuated with extreme precipitation and more damaging flooding events.

Collaborative Governance and Environmental Justice: Disadvantaged Community Representation in California Sustainable Groundwater Management

Western Political Science Association | April 18th, 2019

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and ine

A consistent critique of the theory and empirical research on collaborative governance is a lack of conceptualization and analysis of the role of political power and inequality (Foster 2002; Franks and Cleaver 2007; Morrison et al. 2017; Purdy 2012). The critique is more broadly applied to public policy and institutional analysis in general (Knight 1992; Moe 2005), and has implications the democratic legitimacy of governance arrangements (Alexander, Doorn, and Priest 2018). Political institutions provide differential access to decision-making (Besley and Case 2003), while political groups and individuals have higher or lower capacity to participate in governance systems and influence the outcomes (Olson 2009; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Stigler 1971). Thus, there continues to be a need for empirical research focused on the crucial issue of how these factors affect the structure and function of governance institutions. This article contributes to this discussion by analyzing the representation of disadvantaged communities in the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in California.

Communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source for drinking water

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2013

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities

AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that identifies: 1) communities in California that rely on contaminated groundwater as a primary source of drinking water; 2) the principal contaminants and other constituents of concern; and 3) potential solutions and funding sources to clean up or treat groundwater or provide alternative water supplies. A “community,” for the purposes of this report, is defined as a Community Public Water System (Health and Safety Code Section 116395). When this report refers to communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from a contaminated groundwater source prior to any treatment. Over 95 percent of the 38 million Californians get their drinking water from a public water system. The findings in this report do not reflect private domestic wells or other unregulated water systems since the state does not require these groundwater users to sample their wells, and consequently a comprehensive database for these groundwater sources does not exist. This report identifies 680 community water systems that, prior to any treatment, relied on a contaminated groundwater source during the most recent California Department of Public Health (CDPH) compliance cycle (2002-2010). It is important to note that, according to CDPH, over 98% of Californians on public water supply are served safe drinking water. Although many water suppliers draw from contaminated groundwater sources, most suppliers are able to treat the water or blend it with cleaner supplies before serving it to the public. Consequently, when this report refers to communities that rely on contaminated groundwater, it is referring to community public water systems that draw water from one or more contaminated groundwater wells prior to any treatment or blending. Some community water systems, however, cannot afford treatment or lack alternative water sources, and have served water that exceeds a public drinking water standard. Of the 680 community water systems that rely on a contaminated groundwater source, 265 have served water that exceeded a public drinking water standard during the most recent CDPH compliance cycle (2002-2010).