Water, Sanitation, and Climate Change in the United States Series, Part 2

Pacific Institute | October 15th, 2024

In the United States, federal, tribal, state, and local laws and policies exist to govern the provision of water and sanitation services to communities and homes. The law

In the United States, federal, tribal, state, and local laws and policies exist to govern the provision of water and sanitation services to communities and homes. The laws are designed to ensure the protection of public health and the environment; deliver sufficient, safe water for drinking, bathing, cooking, and other household needs; and remove and treat domestic (i.e., household) waste. People without complete plumbing or safe water live within the “water access gap.” As explored in the first report in this series, climate change—from extreme temperatures to droughts, floods, extreme storms, and wildfires—is making it hard to close this gap and keep it from growing. Water and sanitation systems in frontline communities already feel the disproportionate “first and worst” impacts of climate change to these systems and to their access to water and sanitation. Laws and policies should help anticipate and plan  or the incremental and catastrophic impacts of climate change and protect those most harmed by the effects. Unfortunately, in most cases, the climate is changing faster than the law can respond, thereby leaving frontline communities’ water and sanitation systems vulnerable to damage or destruction. This is part two in the three-part Water, Sanitation, and Climate Change in the United States series. Click here for part one and here for part three.

When Decentralization Fails: Governance and Inequity in California’s Drinking Water System

Western Political Science Association | April 4th, 2019

In the United States, there are more than 151,000 drinking water systems which operate at a variety of decision-making scales and under various governance and own

In the United States, there are more than 151,000 drinking water systems which operate at a variety of decision-making scales and under various governance and ownership structures (US EPA, 2015). This extreme level of decentralization and fragmentation may allow for local control and flexibility, but it has not guaranteed safe drinking water for all (Hughes & Mullin, 2017; Pannu, 2012). In California alone, there are more than a million people each year receiving unsafe drinking-water. To further our understanding of how system governance contributes to these drinking water disparities, we compile and analyze a novel dataset including all 2,886 of California’s active Community Water Systems and their health-based Safe Drinking Water Act violations (2012-2018) in order to answer two important questions: 1) how is California drinking water governance organized at the system level? 2) Do certain types of governance structures out-perform or under-perform compared to others? We find that while control variables such as population size remain most determinative of system performance, there are significant differences in SDWA compliance between distinct governance arrangements. These findings highlight the important role that governance, in its broader conception, plays in contributing to SDWA noncompliance and leads us to argue that determining the role of governance in creating disparities, therefore, is an important prerequisite to understanding how different arrangement might best address them.

Wildfire Induces Changes in Receiving Waters: A Review With Considerations for Water Quality Management

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | September 15th, 2022

Wildfires have increased in frequency in many ecosystems, with implications for human health and the environment, including water quality. Increased fire frequency and ur

Wildfires have increased in frequency in many ecosystems, with implications for human health and the environment, including water quality. Increased fire frequency and urbanization also raise the prospect of fires burning into urban areas, mobilizing pollutants few have considered to date. As a result, water quality managers lack information to anticipate, respond to and potentially mitigate wildfire impacts. Here, we reviewed the scientific literature to assess wildfire effects on response endpoints of a conceptual model linking fire to water quality, quantifying response directionality, magnitude and duration. Physically, water yield, sediments, and temperature all increased post-fire. Chemically, nutrients, ions, organic chemicals, and metals increased in burned watersheds, sometimes by orders of magnitude over pre-fire or reference conditions. In select cases, post-fire concentrations exceeded aquatic life criteria or drinking water standards, at times even in the finished drinking water. Biological assemblages commonly declined after post-fire runoff events. The duration of effects was less than 5 yr for most endpoints (e.g., metals) on average following fire, although effects did extend 15 yr or more in some individual cases. We found only a few studies on pollutants mobilized from wildfire impacted urban areas with benzene contamination in drinking water and high metal concentrations in ash prominent exceptions. Overall, this review provides a resource for understanding wildfire impacts on water quality endpoints, with the goal of informing the response of managers and other decision makers to this growing problem.