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).

Community and Grower Engagement in Multibenefit Land Repurposing

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) | June 10th, 2022

Community estimate of global glacier mass changes from 2000 to 2023

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 19th, 2025

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, r

Glaciers are indicators of ongoing anthropogenic climate change1. Their melting leads to increased local geohazards2, and impacts marine3 and terrestrial4,5 ecosystems, regional freshwater resources6, and both global water and energy cycles7,8. Together with the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, glaciers are essential drivers of present9,10 and future11,12,13 sea-level rise. Previous assessments of global glacier mass changes have been hampered by spatial and temporal limitations and the heterogeneity of existing data series14,15,16. Here we show in an intercomparison exercise that glaciers worldwide lost 273 ± 16 gigatonnes in mass annually from 2000 to 2023, with an increase of 36 ± 10% from the first (2000–2011) to the second (2012–2023) half of the period. Since 2000, glaciers have lost between 2% and 39% of their ice regionally and about 5% globally. Glacier mass loss is about 18% larger than the loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and more than twice that from the Antarctic Ice Sheet17. Our results arise from a scientific community effort to collect, homogenize, combine and analyse glacier mass changes from in situ and remote-sensing observations. Although our estimates are in agreement with findings from previous assessments14,15,16 at a global scale, we found some large regional deviations owing to systematic differences among observation methods. Our results provide a refined baseline for better understanding observational differences and for calibrating model ensembles12,16,18, which will help to narrow projection uncertainty for the twenty-first century11,12,18. Click here for more about the Glacier Mass Balance Intercomparison Exercise 

Community Exposure to Tsunami Hazards in California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | February 20th, 2013

Evidence of past events and modeling of potential events suggest that tsunamis are significant threats to low-lying communities on the California coast. To reduce potenti

Evidence of past events and modeling of potential events suggest that tsunamis are significant threats to low-lying communities on the California coast. To reduce potential impacts of future tsunamis, officials need to understand how communities are vulnerable to tsunamis and where targeted outreach, preparedness, and mitigation efforts may be warranted. Although a maximum tsunami-inundation zone based on multiple sources has been developed for the California coast, the populations and businesses in this zone have not been documented in a comprehensive way. To support tsunami preparedness and risk-reduction planning in California, this study documents the variations among coastal communities in the amounts, types, and percentages of developed land, human populations, and businesses in the maximum tsunami-inundation zone.  The tsunami-inundation zone includes land in 94 incorporated cities, 83 unincorporated communities, and 20 counties on the California coast. According to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data, this tsunami-inundation zone contains 267,347 residents (1 percent of the 20-county resident population), of which 13 percent identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 14 percent identify themselves as Asian, 16 percent are more than 65 years in age, 12 percent live in unincorporated areas, and 51 percent of the households are renter occupied. Demographic attributes related to age, race, ethnicity, and household status of residents in tsunami-prone areas demonstrate substantial range among communities that exceed these regional averages. The tsunami-inundation zone in several communities also has high numbers of residents in institutionalized and noninstitutionalized group quarters (for example, correctional facilities and military housing, respectively). Communities with relatively high values in the various demographic categories are identified throughout the report. The tsunami-inundation zone contains significant nonresidential populations based on 2011 economic data from Infogroup (2011), including 168,565 employees (2 percent of the 20-county labor force) at 15,335 businesses that generate approximately $30 billion in annual sales. Although the regional percentage of at-risk employees is low, certain communities, such as Belvedere, Alameda, and Crescent City, have high percentages of their local workforce in the tsunami-inundation zone. Employees in the tsunami-inundation zone are primarily in businesses associated with tourism (for example, accommodations, food services, and retail trade) and shipping (for example, transportation and warehousing, manufacturing, and wholesale trade), although the dominance of these sectors varies substantially among the 94 cities.  Although the number of occupants is not known for each site, the tsunami-inundation zone contains numerous dependent-population facilities, such as schools and child daycare centers, which may have individuals with limited mobility. The tsunami-inundation zone includes a substantial number of facilities that provide community services, such as banks, religious organizations, and grocery stores, where local residents may be unaware of evacuation procedures if previous awareness efforts focused on home preparedness. There are also numerous recreational areas in the tsunami-inundation zone, such as amusement parks, marinas, city and county beaches, and State and national parks, which attract visitors who may not be aware of tsunami hazards or evacuation procedures. During peak summer months, estimated daily attendance at city and county beaches can be approximately six times larger than the total number of residents in the tsunami-inundation zone.  Community exposure to tsunamis in California varies considerably—some communities may experience great losses that reflect only a small part of their community and others may experience relatively small losses that devastate them. Among 94 incorporated communities and the remaining unincorporated areas of the 20 coastal counties, the communities of Alameda, Oakland, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, and San Diego have the highest number of people and businesses in the tsunami-inundation zone. The communities of Belvedere, Alameda, Crescent City, Emeryville, Seal Beach, and Sausalito have the highest percentages of people and businesses in this zone. On the basis of a composite index, the cities of Alameda, Belvedere, Crescent City, Emeryville, Oakland, and Long Beach have the highest combinations of the number and percentage of people and businesses in tsunami-prone areas.

Community Perspectives and Environmental Justice in California's San Joaquin Valley

University of California, Merced | December 1st, 2022

Community Perspectives on SGMA Implementation

University of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 13th, 2019

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect th

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 represents a historic opportunity to achieve long-term sustainable groundwater management and protect the drinking water supplies of hundreds of small and rural low-income communities that rely on this shared resource, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. Prior research, however, indicates that few of these communities are represented in the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed to implement the new law. This raises questions about other forms of community involvement, and concerns about the extent to which small and rural drinking-water interests are being incorporated into the process. This report details the results of twenty-three interviews with thirty-one representatives of small, low-income communities who rely on groundwater for their drinking-water supplies. The findings suggest community stakeholders are highly interested in SGMA and desire to be involved in its implementation, which many deemed indispensable for the future of their communities. Many are actively participating or following the process, including by serving on boards and committees, attending meetings and workshops, and monitoring meeting minutes and agendas. The experience of small and rural communities with SGMA is predictably diverse. Some interviewees have had very positive experiences thus far and are hopeful about the ways SGMA could benefit their communities and regions in the future. Others have felt overlooked or intentionally excluded. Yet many similarities also arose across the interviews including six common challenges and concerns about SGMA implementation: 1. Resource constraints to participation: Lack of staff, small budgets, in-house experts and an inability to pay for outside services/support limited communities’ formal participation in GSA governance and attendance and involvement in SGMA meetings. 2. Accessibility: Additional factors limiting the accessibility of the SGMA process included day-time meetings, language barriers, the proliferation of board and committee meetings, and irregular and unclear meeting schedules and notices. 3. Transparency: A lack of transparency in GSA decision-making as well as limited access to the data and information being used to develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) were common concerns for interviewees. 4. Lack of formal representation: The relegation of communities to advisory, rather than decision-making, roles in the SGMA process was also a common concern. 5. Limited opportunities to provide meaningful input and feedback: Whether participating as a decision-maker, committee member or as a member of the public attending meetings, many were frustrated at the lack of opportunities to provide meaningful input into decisions or on draft documents due to short turnaround times, not being provided necessary background or materials, and limited opportunities for public comment and open discussion. 6. Lack of addressing drinking water interests and priorities: Overwhelmingly, interviewees reported that drinking water interests, especially water quality and domestic wells, were not part of their local SGMA conversations, leading many to be skeptical that SGMA would have drinking-water benefits. Best practices detailed by interviewees with particularly positive experiences and suggestions and recommendations from all of the interviewees, however, demonstrate ample opportunities to address these issues and increase the integration of drinking-water stakeholders and interests into sustainable groundwater management. Targeted efforts to reduce barriers to participation, improve communication and transparency, and promote diverse representation could go a long way to ensuring the “consideration” and “active involvement” of this important, historically marginalized, stakeholder group. For example, communities can educate their GSA about drinking-water priorities and the variety of regulations and requirements public water systems must comply with and coordinate with other small and rural communities to elevate and advocate for drinking water needs. GSAs should incorporate available public data into Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) while developing plans to fill data gaps, provide ample time for feedback on staggered and sequential GSP sections and streamline and increase interaction with stakeholders in meetings. State agencies should consider requiring or incentivizing collaborative community projects be included in GSPs, and community representation in GSP development and implementation as well as provide funding to support meaningful community involvement in all phases of SGMA implementation.

Comparing and integrating fish surveys in the San Francisco Estuary: Why diverse long-term surveys are important

UnIversity of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 30th, 2020

Comparing domestic and public-supply groundwater quality in the northern San Joaquin Valley, 2019—California GAMA Priority Basin Project

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 5th, 2023

Groundwater quality in the Northern San Joaquin Valley region of California was studied as part of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambi

Groundwater quality in the Northern San Joaquin Valley region of California was studied as part of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program-Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP). The GAMA-PBP made a spatially unbiased assessment of the aquifer system used for domestic drinking-water supply in the study region and compared the results to the aquifer system used for public drinking-water supply. These assessments characterized the quality of raw groundwater to evaluate ambient conditions in regional aquifers and not the quality of treated drinking water. The study included two components: (1) a status assessment presenting study results summarizing the status of groundwater quality used for domestic supply in the Northern San Joaquin Valley and (2) a comparative assessment of groundwater resources used for domestic and public drinking-water supply in the study region.

Comparing Domestic and Public-Supply Groundwater Quality in the Northern San Joaquin Valley, 2019: California GAMA Priority Basin Project

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | June 5th, 2023

Analysis of construction data for wells included in the comparative assessment indicated that, although depth to top of perforations are comparable for domestic and publi

Analysis of construction data for wells included in the comparative assessment indicated that, although depth to top of perforations are comparable for domestic and public-supply wells in the Northern San Joaquin Valley (median depth about 60 meters [m]), public-supply wells have longer perforation intervals and extend to deeper parts of the aquifer system (exceeding 120 m) than domestic wells that typically draw exclusively from the shallower aquifer system in the upper 80 m of unconsolidated sediments. Analysis of the vertical and lateral distribution of constituents of interest (nitrate, fumigants, and arsenic) across domestic- and public-supply aquifers indicated that nitrate is prevalent in shallow aquifers throughout the Northern San Joaquin Valley but is potentially diluted by mixing with deeper, older groundwater at long-screened public-supply wells. Fumigants were prevalent in areas of urban and agricultural land use in the western part of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, particularly in areas near Lodi, California, but 1,2,3-TCP was more widespread than DBCP and was detected in shallow and deeper parts of the aquifer system, potentially because of its recalcitrance in groundwater and ability to be detected at low concentrations. Arsenic was most prevalent in the western part of the Northern San Joaquin Valley with proximity to deltaic sediments and was detected at high RCs in wells tapping shallow and deep parts of the aquifer system.

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 16th, 2008

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Del

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Delta is ailing and in urgent need of a new management strategy. This report concludes that building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta is the most promising way to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a reliable, high-quality water supply for California. More information can be found in the following supporting appendices: Appendix A. Policy and Regulatory Challenges for the Delta of the Future Appendix B. Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Appendix C. Delta Hydrodynamics and Water Salinity with Future Conditions Appendix D. The Future of the Delta Ecosystem and Its Fish Appendix E. Expert Survey on the Viability of Delta Fish Populations Appendix F. The Economic Costs and Adaptations for Alternative Delta Regulations Appendix G. Peripheral Canal Design and Implementation Options Appendix H. Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs Appendix I. The Economic Effects on Agriculture of Water Export Salinity South of the Delta Appendix J. Decision Analysis of Delta Strategies Interactive Map: Voting Patterns on Proposition 9 (Peripheral Canal), June 1982 Interactive Map: A Multi-Purpose, Eco-Friendly Delta Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (With Repairs) Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (No Repairs)