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.

Chlorinated Byproducts of Neonicotinoids and Their Metabolites: An Unrecognized Human Exposure Potential?

American Chemical Society (ACS) | January 14th, 2019

We recently reported the initial discovery of neonicotinoid pesticides in drinking water and their potential for transformation through chlorination and alkaline hydrolys

We recently reported the initial discovery of neonicotinoid pesticides in drinking water and their potential for transformation through chlorination and alkaline hydrolysis during water treatment. The objectives of this research were: (1) to determine if neonicotinoid metabolites are relevant to drinking water exposure and (2) to identify the products formed from chlorination of neonicotinoids and their metabolites. Desnitroimidacloprid and imidacloprid-urea, two known metabolites of imidacloprid, are documented for the first time in drinking water. Desnitro-imidacloprid was present above the lower level of detection (0.03 ng/L) in 67% of samples (six of nine) from drinking water systems but detectable in all samples (up to 0.6 ng/L). Although concentrations of desnitro-imidacloprid were lower than concentrations of the parent neonicotinoids, desnitro-imidacloprid exhibits significantly greater mammalian toxicity than imidacloprid. Using LC-HR-ToF-MS/MS analysis of  results from laboratory experiments, we propose structures for novel transformation products resulting from the chlorination of clothianidin, imidacloprid, desnitro-imidacloprid, imidacloprid-urea, and hydrolysis products of thiamethoxam. Formation of chlorinated neonicotinoid byproducts occurs at time scales relevant to water treatment and/or distribution for the imidacloprid metabolites (t1/2 values from 2.4 min to 1.0 h) and thiamethoxam hydrolysis products (4.8 h). Neonicotinoid metabolites in finished drinking water and potential formation of novel disinfection byproducts during treatment and/or distribution are relevant to evaluating the exposure and potential impacts of neonicotinoids on human health.

Chowchilla Subbasin Staff Assessment

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 1st, 2025

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multipl

The state intervention process for the Chowchilla Subbasin was triggered in March 2023 when DWR determined the subbasin’s 2022 GSP was inadequate and identified multiple deficiencies in the GSP. DWR identified issues regarding the local agencies’ plans for managing for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels and land subsidence (land sinking due to groundwater pumping). State Water Board staff reviewed the 2022 GSP and determined that implementing the 2022 GSP would result in additional groundwater level declines, potential impacts to drinking water wells, and damage to subbasin infrastructure, such as canals and levees, through continued land subsidence. The GSAs released a revised draft GSP in August 2024, which they adopted with slight revisions in March 2025 (2025 GSP). State Water Board staff evaluated the 2025 GSP to determine if identified deficiencies were addressed. The GSAs made significant progress through the 2025 GSP and adequately addressed deficiencies. Through the 2025 GSP, the GSAs show a greater commitment to protecting drinking water users and improved groundwater management. State Water Board staff concludes the GSAs amended the GSP such that a probationary designation of the Chowchilla Subbasin is unnecessary and recommends the Board return the Subbasin to DWR’s jurisdiction for continued evaluation of local management under SGMA.

Chowchilla Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (3rd Revision)

Madera County | January 3rd, 2025

In 2024-2025, the GSAs revised the Subbasin GSP to:  Amend the Domestic Well Mitigation Program Refine the Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Sites (RMS

In 2024-2025, the GSAs revised the Subbasin GSP to:  Amend the Domestic Well Mitigation Program Refine the Groundwater Level Representative Monitoring Sites (RMS) Network Refine Groundwater Level Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC)  Backstop Projects and Management Actions Refine Subsidence SMC and Provide for Subsidence Mitigation

Climate Change Impacts to Water and Sanitation for Frontline Communities in the United States Water, Sanitation, and Climate Change in the United States Series, Part 1

Pacific Institute | January 15th, 2024

Climate change is among the most urgent, wide-ranging crises we face. It poses significant challenges and is already resulting in severe impacts to drinking water and san

Climate change is among the most urgent, wide-ranging crises we face. It poses significant challenges and is already resulting in severe impacts to drinking water and sanitation access. This is true for both those currently living without access and for communities where forces like drought, flooding, sea level rise, wildfires, and intensifying storms threaten backsliding by degrading or stripping basic water and sanitation services from the people. Access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible, and affordable water and sanitation is essential for human health and wellbeing, as well as economic prosperity—and climate change will inevitably make ensuring all have access more challenging. Without water and sanitation access, people do not have water to drink, cannot clean, shower, or wash their hands, and cannot safely dispose of human waste. They may have to travel long distances to purchase and haul water back to their homes. Without access to water, they also have less ability to cool their homes, protect themselves from wildfires, and work or go to school. An economic assessment by DigDeep found that for every household in the United States without access to water and sanitation, the domestic economy loses $15,800 annually in extra health care costs, time and money spent on bottled water, lost educational or work opportunities, and premature death (DigDeep 2022). This is part one  in the Pacific Institute's three-part Water, Sanitation, and Climate Change in the United States series. Click here for part two and here for part three.

Climate information? Embedding climate futures within temporalities of California water management

Environmental Sociology (Taylor & Francis) | March 27th, 2018

This article uses the case of drinking water utility managers in California to understand uses of climate-change information in resource management. A dominant

This article uses the case of drinking water utility managers in California to understand uses of climate-change information in resource management. A dominant narrative suggests that producing management practices best adapted to climate-change impacts is a matter of reconciling the supply of scientific knowledge with the demand signals of resource managers. We question this narrative with reference to the diverse cultural and socio-technical structures in which the future climate takes on meaning in water management. Using interviews (n = 61), we analyze three ideal-typical ‘social temporalities’ of climate change: modeled futures, whose future?, and truncated futures. We define social temporalities as alternative constructions of the future built into socio-technical engagement with water and into collective orientations to climate change. Of the three ideal types, we found that only one (modeled futures) closely aligns with the supply-demand relationship as constructed in scholarly literature and climate adaptation-related policy. This leaves nonconforming types without guidance that resonates with their relationship to climate change information. Consideration of sociological dimensions of climate knowledge may warrant a revised or additional approach to climate service programs or related assistance efforts.

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 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.

Comparison of potential drinking water source contamination across one hundred U.S. cities

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | December 13th, 2021

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. B

Drinking water supplies of cities are exposed to potential contamination arising from land use and other anthropogenic activities in local and distal source watersheds. Because water quality sampling surveys are often piecemeal, regionally inconsistent, and incomplete with respect to unregulated contaminants, the United States lacks a detailed comparison of potential source water contamination across all of its large cities. Here we combine national scale geospatial datasets with hydrologic simulations to compute two metrics representing potential contamination of water supplies from point and nonpoint sources for over a hundred U.S. cities. We reveal enormous diversity in anthropogenic activities across watersheds with corresponding disparities in the potential contamination of drinking water supplies to cities. Approximately 5% of large cities rely on water that is composed primarily of runoff from non-pristine lands (e.g., agriculture, residential, industrial), while four-fifths of all large cities that withdraw surface water are exposed to treated wastewater in their supplies.