The Struggle for Water Justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Focus on Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | February 1st, 2018

In California, lack of access to clean, safe, and affordable water is a threat to public health and well-being, and violates the state’s newly codified Human Ri

In California, lack of access to clean, safe, and affordable water is a threat to public health and well-being, and violates the state’s newly codified Human Right to Water (HRTW). In low-income communities located outside city boundaries (otherwise known as disadvantaged unincorporated communities or DUCs), drinking water is often unsafe to drink. In many such localities, drinking water is contaminated by industrial by-products (usually associated with agriculture, oil and gas production, transportation, and manufacturing) and compromised by inadequate wastewater treatment and disposal systems, as well as naturally occurring toxic substances like arsenic and uranium. Many DUC residents in the San Joaquin Valley pay a triple penalty to obtain safe water: they bear the health costs of unsafe drinking water; they purchase that unsafe water at high costs; and they must also purchase “substitute” water—typically expensive bottled water—for drinking and cooking purposes. Lack of access to clean, safe and affordable drinking water has a racial and ethnic component: the vast majority of the valley’s DUC residents are people of color who also face cumulative impacts from environmental contamination brought on by proximity to air pollution, pesticides, toxic facilities and waste disposal. Without city governments to directly represent their interests and provide essential services, residents of these DUCs have been systematically deprived of access to important means of democratic governance (Anderson 2008). California’s San Joaquin Valley is the source of much of the state and the nation’s agricultural wealth. Yet it is also a region where poverty persists amidst prosperity (Taylor and Mar n 1998). Many of the region’s DUC residents hold low-wage and dangerous jobs, and confront severe and cumulative environmental contamination of their air, water, and land (London, Huang, Zagofsky 2011). The well-being of the nearly 350,000 residents living in 450 DUCs throughout San Joaquin Valley is therefore an important environmental health, and social justice issue that demands urgent attention by policy makers, public agencies and advocates. Over the past two decades, community leaders, advocates, and policymakers have pursued a range of strategies to address unsafe drinking water in the valley’s DUCs and elsewhere in California. For example, in 2004, resident advocates won a case against the City of Modesto in 2003 for its systematic exclusion from city services of communities of color living in nearby DUCs (Molina 2014). In 2011, Senate Bill (SB) 244 required cities and counties to address the infrastructure needs of California DUCs in land use and municipal service plans, and in annexation decisions. In 2012, an HRTW policy was passed in response to massive community mobilization. Known as Assembly Bill (AB) 685, and signed by Governor Jerry Brown, it codified that every human being has a right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water to meet basic human needs, and required state agencies to consider this right when establishing policies and regulations. A 2013 report by the Community Equity Initiative (led by PolicyLink, California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation) developed a sophisticated analysis of the conditions of DUCs in the San Joaquin Valley. California Unincorporated: Mapping Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley (Flegal et al. 2013) put DUCs on the map by using a new methodology to identify these communities, and to highlight the need for new policies and funding mechanisms to address the significant challenges they face. This report, and the dedicated work of water justice advocates, have greatly increased public awareness of water inequality in DUCs. This has helped direct new public funding to improve water infrastructure, and encouraged collaborative solutions among interest groups that historically have been in conflict with each other. However, all parties agree that much more needs to be done to understand the complex issues facing DUCs, and to provide their residents with safe and affordable drinking water. Our report analyzes this situation in detail, and offers several recommendations to inform policy and advocacy on how to improve water access to these communities. To do so, we have used maps of DUCs, CWSs, and State Small Water Systems (SSWSs), as well as water quality reports, demographic data, and expert interviews. Together, these sources have helped us highlight gaps in the provision of safe and a ordable drinking water. Our main conclusion is that California’s legislature, regulatory agencies, and water suppliers need to undertake more concerted and well-resourced efforts to ensure that the HRTW is ensured for all of the San Joaquin Valley’s residents.

The Sustainability Outlook: A Summary

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 13th, 2018

Whether making water resource decisions or taking action, aligning desirable outcomes with four societal values — public health and safety, healthy economy, ecosystem v

Whether making water resource decisions or taking action, aligning desirable outcomes with four societal values — public health and safety, healthy economy, ecosystem vitality, and enriching experiences — is critical to managing water for sustainability. It can be as simple as being mindful of not wasting water, and as complex as predicting and planning for the next drought or flood. Daily, every Californian is responsible for doing their part. But how will Californians know whether their actions are moving the state in the right direction?  One basic long-standing challenge to water resource resilience and reliability in California is the lack of a consistent and practical method for assessing current and future sustainability (California Department of Water Resources, in prep.). Productive planning and the setting of policy priorities require a mutual understanding of challenges, resource limitations, management deficiencies, and shared intent. Managing for sustainability must be rooted in what Californians value, as expressed by stakeholders and corroborated by extensive outreach. Accordingly, there is a need to identify, through the lens of the four societal values, desirable water management outcomes (intended outcomes) and indicators to track status and progress toward sustainability.  The Sustainability Outlook, described in this document, provides a well-organized and consistent approach for tracking local, regional, and State actions and investments. It will also assist in setting future water management priorities. When applied at a watershed scale, the Sustainability Outlook can increase the effectiveness of State water policies and return on investments. Conducting and reporting watershed conditions will more clearly reveal trends, progress, and return on investment that would be difficult to discern at a statewide scale. Watershed evaluations will also allow for the introduction of additional indicators important to specific regions of the state. Through progressive application of the Sustainability Outlook, decision-makers will be able to identify needed analytical tools and data gaps, expand on the information available to make decisions, and build a common understanding of how individual and collective actions have affected the management of water resources for sustainability.  Because sustainability is not something achieved once and forever, the Sustainability Outlook will help water resource managers adapt to changing circumstances and lessons learned. This document underscores the urgency and rationale for the recommended actions in California Water Plan Update 2018 (Update 2018), Chapter 3, “Actions for Sustainability,” as well as the importance of follow-through by those who would implement those actions.” 

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act challenges the diversity of California farms

California Agriculture (UCANR) | November 16th, 2016

California’s agricultural sector, a major groundwater user, finds itself in the midst of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The la

California’s agricultural sector, a major groundwater user, finds itself in the midst of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The law mandates the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and adoption of groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for all overdrafted groundwater basins across the state by 2020. Each GSA will be unique, with its own governance structures and rules, including the size and composition of the governing board, mechanisms for representing different interests, opportunities for stakeholders to participate, and rules concerning the allocation of pumping “rights” and the use of economic instruments, such as pumping permits, pumping taxes or tiered pricing, to incentivize pumping curtailments (DWR 2016). This new water management landscape may threaten the diversity of the state’s farming operations.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Governance Conference: Research and Practice Synthesis Report 2018

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 8th, 2018

“The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Governance Conference: Research and Practice,” held at the UC Davis in February 2018, assembled 55 social science research

“The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Governance Conference: Research and Practice,” held at the UC Davis in February 2018, assembled 55 social science researchers as well as practitioners from across the state to discuss the ongoing implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The California Legislature passed SGMA in 2014. SGMA required the formation of new groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) by June 2017 in order to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for 127 medium- and high-priority groundwater basins by 2020 and 2022. With such a large task at hand, and given the importance of groundwater to California’s public health, environment, and economy, strengthening collaboration across research teams as well as between researchers and practitioners is crucial to increasing the capacity for learning about governance processes and to bridging the science-policy divide in order to support the creation of effective governance institutions. The goals of this report are to synthesize key lessons learned about SGMA at the nexus of research and practice, and to create a roadmap and research agenda going forward. Sharing information and knowledge among research teams enables a comparative perspective that cannot be achieved by one team alone. Furthermore, perspectives from practitioners inform research directions, focus attention on relevant issues and knowledge gaps, and build relationships among the SGMA community for more collaborative applied research. Conference discussions focused on discovering what has been learned in the first three years of SGMA implementation and GSA development, identifying high priority questions for the next stage of GSP development, sharing research methods, and coordinating research activities.

The System of the River: Francis Newlands and the Improbable Quest to Irrigate the West

Stanford University | June 28th, 2018

The tradeoff between water savings and salinization prevention in dryland irrigation

Advances in Water Resources (Elsevier) | December 7th, 2023

Soil salinization is a global phenomenon that affects large tracts of arid farmland worldwide. It contributes to the loss of soil fertility, declining yields, and – in

Soil salinization is a global phenomenon that affects large tracts of arid farmland worldwide. It contributes to the loss of soil fertility, declining yields, and – in the most severe cases – land unsuitability for cultivation. Irrigation water applications are both the main cause of and the solution to, anthropogenic (or ‘secondary’) salinization because salt typically enters the soil column as dissolved in irrigation water and leaves it through excess water applications (e.g., leaching). Excess leaching, which places additional water costs in areas affected by water scarcity, can be achieved with different irrigation techniques and practices. Here, by complementing a process-based crop water model with a salt balance of the shallow soil, we investigate the tradeoff between root zone salinization and water conservation to limit withdrawals from the water source. We evaluate how such a tradeoff is achieved under different irrigation technology and excess leaching practices. Considering as a case study the cultivation of tomatoes in Egypt, we find that drip and furrow irrigation allows for better control of salt accumulation, thus preventing crop exposure to salt stress. Drip irrigation achieves this goal with minimal water applications because it maintains the soil wetter. Thus, the (rare) rainfall events find more suitable conditions to drain the excess moisture. Conversely, by using more irrigation water (and ‘less efficiently’), furrow irrigation allows for higher rates of soil drainage and salt leaching. The irrigation schedule typically adopted with sprinkler irrigation allows for soil drying, thus limiting the ability of rainfall events to drain the soil and leach its salts. Collectively, these results highlight the key role of irrigation technology and practices in the management of secondary salinity in dryland agriculture. Specifically, there is a tradeoff between minimizing water use and preventing salt accumulation in the root zone. Drip irrigation exhibits the co-benefit of achieving both goals, while furrow irrigation limits soil salinity at the cost of requiring greater volumes of applied irrigation water.

The Transfer of Water Rights In California: Background and Issues

Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law | December 1st, 1977

This paper is part of a series of background and issue papers prepared by the staff of the Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 

This paper is part of a series of background and issue papers prepared by the staff of the Governor's Commission to Review Water Rights Law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.  Water is a Marketable Resource II.  Legal Impediments to Water Rights Transfers in California III.  A Selective Review of Recent Water Rights Transfers in California IV.  Issues

The Treatment of Sediment-Carrying Mountain Streams in Europe, and its Application to California

Scientific American | September 12th, 1885

The debris question, so important to the interests of this State, is full of interesting features. It is of such intricate and complicate nature that only the most care

The debris question, so important to the interests of this State, is full of interesting features. It is of such intricate and complicate nature that only the most careful and impartial investigations of all the conditions bearing upon it can bring about its successful solution. The desire to contribute a small share to such has moved the writer to investigate what has been done in reference to sediment-carrying rivers, torrential streams, etc., in other parts of the world. The Alps in the southern and central part of Europe afford the best opportunity to study this question, as they have a great many such watercourses, which have damaged and partially continue to destroy the valleys by raising  the river bed and destroying adjoining agricultural ands by erosion or filling in. Certain portions of these, however, have been very successfully improved by comparatively simple and inexpensive means. The source of the detritus there is natural wash, and inno case hydraulic mining. In California the conditions are somewhat different, since the natural as well as the artificial source of the detritus must be considered.

The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | February 17th, 2017

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15-year drought on record. At least one-sixth to one-half (averag

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15-year drought on record. At least one-sixth to one-half (average at one-third) of this loss is due to unprecedented temperatures (0.9°C above the 1906–1999 average), confirming model-based analysis that continued warming will likely further reduce flows. Whereas it is virtually certain that warming will continue with additional emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, there has been no observed trend toward greater precipitation in the Colorado Basin, nor are climate models in agreement that there should be a trend. Moreover, there is a significant risk of decadal and multidecadal drought in the coming century, indicating that any increase in mean precipitation will likely be offset during periods of prolonged drought. Recently published estimates of Colorado River flow sensitivity to temperature combined with a large number of recent climate model-based temperature projections indicate that continued business-as-usual warming will drive temperature-induced declines in river flow, conservatively −20% by midcentury and −35% by end-century, with support for losses exceeding −30% at midcentury and −55% at end-century. Precipitation increases may moderate these declines somewhat, but to date no such increases are evident and there is no model agreement on future precipitation changes. These results, combined with the increasing likelihood of prolonged drought in the river basin, suggest that future climate change impacts on the Colorado River flows will be much more serious than currently assumed, especially if substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions do not occur.

The twenty‐first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | February 17th, 2017

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15‐year drought on record. At least one‐sixth to one‐half (

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15‐year drought on record. At least one‐sixth to one‐half (average at one‐third) of this loss is due to unprecedented temperatures (0.9°C above the 1906–1999 average), confirming model‐based analysis that continued warming will likely further reduce flows. Whereas it is virtually certain that warming will continue with additional emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, there has been no observed trend toward greater precipitation in the Colorado Basin, nor are climate models in agreement that there should be a trend. Moreover, there is a significant risk of decadal and multidecadal drought in the coming century, indicating that any increase in mean precipitation will likely be offset during periods of prolonged drought. Recently published estimates of Colorado River flow sensitivity to temperature combined with a large number of recent climate model‐based temperature projections indicate that continued business‐as‐usual warming will drive temperature‐induced declines in river flow, conservatively −20% by midcentury and −35% by end‐century, with support for losses exceeding −30% at midcentury and −55% at end‐century. Precipitation increases may moderate these declines somewhat, but to date no such increases are evident and there is no model agreement on future precipitation changes. These results, combined with the increasing likelihood of prolonged drought in the river basin, suggest that future climate change impacts on the Colorado River flows will be much more serious than currently assumed, especially if substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions do not occur.