Drinking Water

Search Results

Browse All Documents

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water (With a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater)
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water (With a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater)
State Water Resources Control Board | January 1, 2012...
Summary
In 2008, Senate Bill SBX2 1 (Perata) was signed into law (Water Code Section 83002.5), requiring the State Water Resources Control Board (State...
In 2008, Senate Bill SBX2 1 (Perata) was signed into law (Water Code Section 83002.5), requiring the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), in consultation with other agencies, to prepare a Report to the Legislature to “improve understanding of the causes of [nitrate] groundwater contamination, identify potential remediation solutions and funding sources to recover costs expended by the State to clean up or treat groundwater, and ensure the provision of safe drinking water to all communities.”

The University of California prepared this Report under contract with the State Water Board as it prepares its Report to the Legislature. This executive summary focuses on major findings and promising actions. Details can be found in the Main Report and eight accompanying Technical Reports.

Key Issues

Groundwater is essential to California, and nitrate is one of the state’s most widespread groundwater contaminants. Nitrate in groundwater is principally a by-product of nitrogen use, a key input to agricultural production. However, too much intake of nitrate through drinking water can harm human health.

California’s governments, communities, and agricultural industry have struggled over nitrate contamination for decades. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has set the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate in drinking water at 45 milligrams per liter (as
nitrate). Nitrate concentrations in public drinking water supplies exceeding the MCL require water system actions to provide safe drinking water.

For this study, the four-county Tulare Lake Basin and the Monterey County portion of the Salinas Valley are examined. About 2.6 million people in these regions rely on groundwater for drinking water. The study area includes four of the nation’s five counties with the largest agricultural production. It represents about 40% of California’s irrigated cropland (including 80 different crops) and over half of California’s dairy herd. Many communities in the area are among the poorest in California and have limited economic means or technical capacity to maintain safe drinking water given threats from nitrate and other contaminants.

Nitrate in groundwater poses two major problems and risks:

• Public health concerns for those exposed to nitrate contamination in drinking water; in California’s Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley, roughly 254,000 people are currently at risk for nitrate contamination of their drinking water. Of these, 220,000 are connected to community public (>14 connections) or state small water systems (5–14 connections), and 34,000 are served by private domestic wells or other systems smaller than the threshold for state or county regulation and which are largely unmonitored.

• Financial costs of nitrate contamination include additional drinking water treatment, new wells, monitoring, or other safe drinking water actions; over 1.3 million people are financially susceptible because nitrate in raw source water exceeds the MCL, requiring actions by drinking water systems. Nitrate contamination of drinking water sources will continue to increase as nitrogen from fertilizer, manure, and other sources applied in the last half century continues to percolate downward and flow toward drinking water wells.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Assessing Water Affordability
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Assessing Water Affordability
Pacific Institute | August 14, 2013...
Summary
A new pilot study in California shows many households, even within affluent communities, routinely spend over the affordability threshold of 2 percent of...
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.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Californians Without Safe Water and Sanitation
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Californians Without Safe Water and Sanitation
Department of Water Resources | October 30, 2014...
Summary
While most Californians enjoy access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation, some residents live in communities or areas that do not have...
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.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source for drinking water
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Communities that rely on a contaminated groundwater source for drinking water
California State Water Resources Control Board | January 1, 2013...
Summary
AB 2222 (Caballero, Chapter 670, Statutes of 2008) requires the State Water Resources Control Board to submit a report to the Legislature that...
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).

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Drinking Fountains and Public Health: Improving National Water Infrastructure to Rebuild Trust and Ensure Access
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Drinking Fountains and Public Health: Improving National Water Infrastructure to Rebuild Trust and Ensure Access
Pacific Institute | February 27, 2017...
Summary
Public drinking fountains are disappearing across the U.S., yet many people – including children, commuters, joggers, tourists, and the homeless – rely on...
Public drinking fountains are disappearing across the U.S., yet many people – including children, commuters, joggers, tourists, and the homeless – rely on them for cheap, accessible, and safe municipal water. Concerns over drinking water quality and possible disease transmission as well as widely-publicized water contamination incidents are both contributing factors in the decline. Are drinking fountains truly a cause of illness? What would it take to rebuild public trust in this important water infrastructure so drinking fountains can continue to be a safe, accessible resource for those who rely on them?

In this Pacific Institute report, the authors examine epidemiology studies and other evidence of drinking fountain-related health issues. They find limited evidence of a causal relationship between illness and the use of drinking fountains. Further, problems that were identified can be traced to contamination from poor cleaning and maintenance or from old water infrastructure in buildings, rather than contamination at the point of use, and these problems can be fixed.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution (Resource Management Strategy)
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution (Resource Management Strategy)
Department of Water Resources | July 29, 2016...
Summary
Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public...
Providing a reliable supply of safe drinking water is the primary goal of public water systems in California. To achieve this goal, public water systems must develop and maintain adequate water treatment and distribution facilities. In addition, the reliability, quality, and safety of the raw water supply are critical to achieving this goal.

In general, public water systems depend greatly on the work of other entities to help protect and maintain the quality of the raw water supply. Many agencies and organizations have a role in protecting water supplies in California. For example, the basin plans developed by the regional water quality control boards recognize the importance of this goal and emphasize protecting water supplies — both groundwater and surface water.

A public water system is defined as a system for the provision of water for human consumption, through pipes or other constructed conveyances, which has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days of the year (Health and Safety Code Section 116275[h]).

Public water systems are divided into three principle classifications: community water systems (CWS), non-transient non-community (NTNC) water systems, and transient non-community (TNC) water systems. As the name indicates, CWS serve cities, towns, and other residential facilities occupied by year-round users. Examples include everything from apartment complexes served by their own wells to systems serving California’s largest cities. NTNC systems are public water systems that are not CWS and provide water to the same non-residential users daily for at least 180 days of the year. Examples include schools, places of employment, and institutions. TNC systems are places that provide water for a population that mostly comes and goes. Examples include campgrounds, parks, ski resorts, rest stops, gas stations, and motels.

CWS serve approximately million of the estimated 37.7 million people throughout the state, or 97 percent of the state’s population. The remaining estimated 1.1 million people in the state (3 percent of the population) receive their drinking water from private wells serving their individual residences or from other sources. Virtually every Californian and visitor to the state will use drinking water from a regulated public water system through their work, while on vacation, or while traveling through the state.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Drought and Equity in California
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Drought and Equity in California
Pacific Institute | January 9, 2017...
Summary
Drought and Equity in California is the first statewide analysis of the impacts of the drought on California’s most vulnerable communities. This report...
Drought and Equity in California is the first statewide analysis of the impacts of the drought on California’s most vulnerable communities. This report provides information community groups can use to advocate for their own interests, as well as to inform policymakers and other decision-makers interested in crafting more effective drought response strategies, particularly to address the needs of the state’s most vulnerable communities.

The report finds that during the state’s ongoing drought, water shortages and price hikes affected access to safe, affordable water for Californians, with substantial impacts on low-income families and communities burdened with environmental pollution. The report also examines the effects of a rapidly declining salmon population on commercial and tribal fishermen and finds that the decline and variability of salmon populations during droughts has impacted those dependent on the fish for income, food, and cultural traditions.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Drought and Equity in the San Francisco Bay Area
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Drought and Equity in the San Francisco Bay Area
Pacific Institute | June 29, 2016...
Summary
California’s ongoing drought has wide-reaching impacts, from how we grow crops to the price of electricity. Often overlooked is its impact on disadvantaged...
California’s ongoing drought has wide-reaching impacts, from how we grow crops to the price of electricity. Often overlooked is its impact on disadvantaged communities. The Pacific Institute and The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) conducted community-based participatory research with eight Bay Area community-based groups to explore and document the drought’s impacts on low-income people in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Through a series of collaborative meetings, surveys, and in-depth analyses of data, the group produced a groundbreaking report that sheds light on specific drought-related hardships faced by low-income residents and offers recommendations for mitigating those impacts.

“This report is the first examination of the drought’s impacts on low-income communities in the Bay Area,” says Colin Bailey, Executive Director of EJCW. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the report shows the same hardships that befall California’s more rural communities are present in urban areas as well. The report calls on decision makers to account for and address these inequities in our drought responses.”

The project team examined available data on drought impacts for the Bay Area, such as the number of households without water. The group identified affordability and water infrastructure conditions as key concerns for low-income communities, along with inequitable water use, whereby wealthier households typically use more water than lower income households. These are persistent concerns in many communities but have been exacerbated by the drought.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Environmental Justice in California Government
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Environmental Justice in California Government
State of California | October 1, 2003...
Summary
In California, we have spent over a century and billions of dollars to preserve and protect the environment for current and future generations....
In California, we have spent over a century and billions of dollars to preserve and protect the environment for current and future generations. The EJ movement asks us to put real people in that environment, particularly the most vulnerable populations such as ethnic minorities, low-income persons, the young and the elderly. In a nutshell, EJ can be said to be the vision and process of creating socially just, sustainable human and ecological systems, where all participate fully in decisions affecting their lives.

The Governor’s Office of Planning & Research (OPR) assists the Governor and the Administration in land use planning, research, liaison with local government, small business advocacy, rural policy, and various interagency taskforces. 1999 legislation defined EJ in California law and also established OPR as the coordinating agency in state government for environmental justice (EJ) efforts. The placement of the central EJ program within OPR demonstrates the Legislature’s understanding that EJ efforts require coordination at the highest level of state government. Indeed, California is the only state that has placed its EJ effort within
the Chief Executive’s Office.

The legislation establishing OPR as the “coordinating agency in state government for environmental justice programs” (California Government Code § 65040.12) directs the OPR director to consult with state agencies and interested members of the public and private sectors in this state, coordinate its efforts and share information regarding EJ programs with federal agencies, and review and evaluate any information from federal agencies that is obtained as a result of their respective regulatory activities.

This policy report is intended to provide a brief history of EJ, report on the status of OPR's efforts, and provide an outline of EJ findings, goals and policies for future EJ efforts within state government. Much work remains to ensure that the most vulnerable of Californians, including people of color and low-income persons, are treated with dignity and respect regarding environmental decisions. OPR views its work thus far as a modest, although significant beginning.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details
Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation (Resource Management Strategy)
$0.00
Add to Downloads

Groundwater/Aquifer Remediation (Resource Management Strategy)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | July 29, 2016...
Summary
Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some...
Portions of aquifers in many groundwater basins in California have degraded water quality that does not support beneficial use of groundwater. In some areas, groundwater quality is degraded by constituents that occur naturally (e.g., arsenic). In many urban and rural areas, groundwater quality degradation has resulted from a wide range of human (anthropogenic) activities.

Groundwater remediation is necessary to improve the quality of degraded groundwater for beneficial use. Drinking water supply is the beneficial use that typically requires remediation when groundwater quality is degraded.

Contaminants in groundwater can come from a many sources, naturally occurring and anthropogenic. Examples of naturally occurring contaminants include heavy metals and radioactive constituents, as well as high concentrations of various salts from specific geologic formations or conditions.

Climate change that results in altered precipitation, snowfall patterns, and rising sea levels may exacerbate salt water intrusion and flooding of low-lying infrastructure and urban facilities. These phenomena will add new challenges to protection of groundwater from contamination.

In addition, groundwater can be contaminated by anthropogenic sources with organic, inorganic, and radioactive constituents from point and non-point sources. These anthropogenic sources include industrial sites, mining operations, leaking fuel tanks and pipelines, manufactured gas plants, landfills, impoundments, dairies, septic systems, and urban and agricultural activities.

The contaminant having the most widespread and adverse impact on drinking water wells is arsenic, followed by nitrates, naturally occurring radioactivity, industrial/commercial solvents, and pesticides.

Groundwater remediation removes constituents, hereafter called contaminants, which affect beneficial use of groundwater. Groundwater remediation systems can employ passive or active methods to remove contaminants. Passive groundwater remediation allows contaminants to degrade biologically or chemically or disperse in situ over time. Active groundwater remediation involves either treating contaminated groundwater while it is still in the aquifer (in situ) or extracting contaminated groundwater from the aquifer and treating it outside of the aquifer (ex situ). Active in situ methods generally involve injecting chemicals into the contaminant plume to obtain a chemical or biological removal of the contaminant. Ex situ methods for treating contaminated groundwater can involve physical, chemical, and/or biological processes.

View Document
Become a member to access this feature
Download NowEmail Details