Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘I won’t let them drink the water’: The California towns where clean drinking water is out of reach

News Feed
Tuesday, September 10, 2024

In summary Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years. In a major milestone, state regulators announced in July that nearly a million more Californians now have safe drinking water than five years ago.  But across the state, the problem remains severe: More than 735,000 people are still served by the nearly 400 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Latino farm communities struggling with poverty and pollution are especially hard-hit.  About three-quarters of the failing systems in California have violated state or federal standards for contaminants that are linked to serious health problems, such as cancer and effects on developing babies, according to a CalMatters analysis of state data. Among the most pervasive contaminants are arsenic, nitrate and a chemical called 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or 1,2,3-TCP. Combined, elevated levels of these chemicals contaminate more than 220 failing systems serving nearly half a million people. Unsafe drinking water is a chronic, insidious and sometimes hidden problem in a state where attention more often focuses on shortages than the quality of the water. The failing systems are clustered in rural farm areas that have experienced decades of groundwater contamination. Many residents are afraid to drink tap water, or even bathe their children in it, relying on bottled water instead.   “It is morally outrageous that we can’t provide the level of basic human rights that people need, and that it’s primarily low income communities of color who are facing these disparate impacts,” said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director with the Community Water Center, a nonprofit group. “While the state’s made a lot of good progress … more needs to be done.”  Twelve years ago, California became the first state to recognize clean, safe, affordable and accessible drinking water as a human right. In 2019, Legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a law that gave rise to the state’s Safe and Affordable Funding program. Today, about 98% of Californians are served by water systems that meet state standards, and over $1 billion in state grants have helped disadvantaged communities tackle drinking water problems. But despite all the systems that have been removed from the state’s failing list, about 600 others serving 1.6 million people are at risk of failure and more than 400 others serving another 1.6 million are deemed “potentially at risk.”  “We have continuing degradation of groundwater from all our human activities — farming, industry, drought itself with our climate change,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board and head of its Division of Drinking Water. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.”   “It is morally outrageous that we can't provide the level of basic human rights that people need."Kyle Jones, Community Water Center Ensuring safe and reliable drinking water for all Californians will cost about $16 billion, according to a recent state analysis. But the state water board projects that it has only $2 billion available for grants in communities and $1.5 billion for loans. Suppliers that violate drinking water standards are required to notify residents and reduce their exposure, often by treating or blending water supplies. State regulators are pushing for long-term fixes, like consolidating some smaller suppliers with bigger systems nearby. The state auditor lambasted California water officials two years ago for "a lack of urgency," pointing to lengthy funding timelines and other problems. But infrastructure takes time and advanced planning, which is a struggle for smaller water systems, state officials say. Violations “can be resolved in a matter of days, or it can take years,” according to a 2023 water board report. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” Darrin Polhemus, state water resources control board Some water providers, such as in the town of Lamont in Kern County, are poised to fix their water problems with millions of dollars in state funding. Other, smaller communities, like Allensworth in Tulare County and San Lucas on the Central Coast, have been waiting for clean water for years. Meanwhile, rural residents are left to weigh the risks flowing through their taps for themselves.  “You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette,” said Tequita Jefferson, a longtime resident of Pixley, where the water system has elevated levels of the chemical 1,2,3-TCP, which has been linked to cancer.  “It scares me. All of it scares me,” said Jefferson. “And then no one thinks about it. Here, we’re in a rural community, and people have a tendency to overlook us.”  In this small town, pesticide residue is the culprit In the San Joaquin Valley community of Pixley, home to about 3,800 people, the jobs are rooted in agriculture — and so are the water problems.  Widespread use of soil fumigants starting in the 1950s contaminated Central Valley groundwater with 1,2,3-TCP, which is an impurity in those fumigants and also is used as an industrial solvent. Though the fumigants were pulled from the market or reformulated in California by the 1990s, elevated levels continue to taint the water in wells throughout the San Joaquin Valley. In the absence of federal standards, state regulators set the most stringent drinking water limits for the chemical in the country in 2017.  The chemical has been linked to cancers in animal studies. People can be exposed to 1,2,3-TCP by drinking it, cooking with it and breathing in vapor from household water use.  “You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette...It scares me. All of it scares me."Tequita Jefferson, Pixley resident Christina Velazquez, who has lived in Pixley for 44 years and had her own brush with cancer, estimates that she spends at least $30 per month to buy filters and water bottles, on top of her water and sewer bill.  “That’s what I make my grandkids drink — I won’t let them drink the water from the faucet,” Velasquez said. “We shouldn’t have to buy water when we’re already paying for it.”  First: Christina Velazquez uses filters to clean the water in her kitchen. Last: Velazquez runs the water at the highest pressure in her Pixley home on Sept. 4, 2024. Velazquez doesn’t let her family drink the water because of contamination of local wells. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Pixley received $11.5 million from pesticide manufacturers in 2021 to settle a lawsuit about the contamination, according to attorney Chad Lew, counsel for the Pixley Public Utility District. But David Terrel, a teacher and vice president of the district’s board, said there still isn't enough funding to fix the contamination problem. “If we could handle it on our own, we would be doing that,” he said.  Pixley is holding out hope for a construction grant from the state. The district has received about $750,000 for planning and technical assistance, as well as for installing filtered-water vending machines, according to a state database.  Other water systems also have won large payouts from pesticide manufacturers. Fresno, for instance, received $230 million in a recent case. But Polhemus, with the state’s Division of Drinking Water, said these settlements are rarely enough.  “We're still pretty broken when it comes to corporate responsibility for wide-scale pollution,” Polhemus said. The money will “last for a decade or two, but what about the third and fourth and fifth decade, when they're still dealing with that contaminant?”   In Lamont, about an hour south of Pixley near Bakersfield, the failure of one well forced more than 18,200 people to rely more heavily on a well contaminated with elevated levels of 1,2,3-TCP.   “Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue... We don’t have $30 million laying around.”Scott Taylor, Lamont Public Utility District Lamont Public Utility District General Manager Scott Taylor said a fix is already in the works, thanks to a new well built with state funds. Another $25.4 million grant from the water board will help Lamont install three new wells to provide water to Lamont and a smaller arsenic-plagued system nearby.  “Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue. And I'm glad I don’t have to find out,” Taylor said. “We don’t have $30 million laying around.” In Allensworth, arsenic is a decades-long problem Just 20 minutes away from Pixley, in Allensworth, Sherry Hunter keeps catching herself running the tap to brush her teeth.  The tiny Tulare County community of about 530 people, 93% of them Latino, has struggled with arsenic leaching into its wells for decades, one of which still regularly exceeds state health limits. And the crisis keeps worsening. Hunter waters her plants in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Drinking arsenic-contaminated water over a long period of time can cause cancers and has been linked with fetal deaths and malformations in test animals as well as harm to the developing brains of babies and young children.  Arsenic is found naturally in rocks and soils throughout California, though it is worsened by groundwater over-pumping to irrigate farm fields in the San Joaquin Valley. The Allensworth Community Services District, where Hunter serves as president, has tried to reduce the contamination by blending in water from a less tainted well.  But in July, both wells failed because of suspected electrical issues, according to the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises. Though the more contaminated well was brought back online, it, too, began sputtering out in August —  leaving residents with either arsenic-contaminated water or no water at all. Farmworkers living in Allensworth found themselves unable to shower after long days in the heat, Hunter said. “It’s a horrible feeling … We don’t have rich people that live in Allensworth.” Communities of color like Allensworth are more likely to be served by water systems that violate state and federal limits for the contaminant, according to UC Berkeley researchers.  Hunter stores bottled water in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local The town has been working for years to install a new well. But efforts have lagged for over a decade — delayed by logistics including land purchases tied up in probate and lengthy environmental permitting, including for impacts on endangered and other protected species.  In the meantime, Allensworth has been piloting alternative water sources as a test site for hydropanels designed to extract freshwater from the atmosphere and for lower cost treatment technology out of UC Berkeley. By the end of August, Allensworth had qualified for emergency state water board funding through Self-Help Enterprises to repair the wells and investigate the source of the electrical issues. Hunter said she’s excited to know that help is on the way, but she’s frustrated with how long it’s taking to bring reliably clean water to her community.  “It wouldn't have happened in none of the other little cities around here,” Hunter said. “People of color are always put on the back burner. Latinos, and Blacks, we’re always sitting on the back of the bus.”  Nitrate spikes in a Monterey County town's wells Two hours toward the coast, in the agricultural Monterey County community of San Lucas, Virginia Sandoval mixes formula with bottled water for her 2-month-old twin granddaughters. She’s afraid to even bathe the babies, born prematurely, in the tap water.  For over a decade, the largely Latino town of about 300 residents has struggled with nitrate contamination in its well, which is located on nearby farmland. The contaminant leaches into water supplies from crop fertilizer.  When consumed in high enough quantities, nitrate has been linked to cancers and pregnancy complications and can reduce the capacity of a baby’s blood to carry oxygen, leading to a sometimes deadly condition known as “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrate is not absorbed through the skin, and the California Department of Public Health says babies can be bathed in nitrate-contaminated water.  San Lucas' water system is designated as failing because of nitrate levels that wax and wane, according to Andrew Altevogt, an assistant deputy director of the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water. Though the levels have averaged well below the federal health standard for the past decade, they have occasionally spiked to double the state’s limit, according to a recent engineering report.  “Nitrate’s an acute contaminant, so if it does happen, it’s an immediate concern,” Altevogt said. The water system has also been plagued with other contaminants that affect taste, odor and color. For years, residents have relied on bottled water mandated by regional regulators and provided by the farmer where the well is located.  The supplies often don’t last the week for Sandoval. She regularly drives the 20-mile round trip to King City to purchase more bottles — a cost of more than $20 per week, she estimates, on top of her monthly water bill.  “It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.” Nitrate is a pervasive problem in the Central Coast,  where 90% of drinking water is pumped from the ground and farms discharge nitrogen waste at a rate “approximately an order of magnitude greater” than what scientists consider “protective of water quality,” according to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.  “It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’... I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”Virginia Sandoval, SAN LUCAS resident Three years ago, regional water regulators issued an order setting limits on the amount of fertilizer applied to crops. But two years later, state officials overturned them, saying that an expert panel needed to evaluate whether there was enough data to support the restrictions, according to a statement from the state water board. “You really can’t grow a lot of these crops without fertilizer,” said Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. “We can’t artificially reduce that overnight and continue to produce the food items that are important to our nation’s dinner tables.”  Community and conservation organizations sued both the state and regional regulators. Another coalition, including San Lucas community members, filed a racial discrimination complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The groups say the state board’s rollback of the fertilizer limits “disproportionately harmed Latinx communities and other communities of color,” which are 4.4 times more likely to have groundwater contamination above the state limits.  Meanwhile, residents are still waiting for reliably clean water. A decade-old plan to connect San Lucas with King City’s water supply via an 8-mile pipeline stalled after state regulators said the long pipeline would be too expensive and urged the county to find a new groundwater source instead, according to correspondence posted by Monterey County.  Now, eight years and a state-funded study later, state, county, regional and water district officials are once again weighing their options.  “We sit here today counting years. It’s mind-blowing,” said Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez. “I feel like we’ve failed (residents) as a society so much, without being able to give them the clean drinking water that they deserve.”  Data journalist Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett contributed to this report.

Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years.

A woman standing in front of a faucet in a bathroom pours herself a cup of water of water from a container to brush her teeth without using contaminated water

In summary

Drinking water contamination is a chronic, insidious threat in California’s rural communities. Some have been waiting for clean water for years.

In a major milestone, state regulators announced in July that nearly a million more Californians now have safe drinking water than five years ago. 

But across the state, the problem remains severe: More than 735,000 people are still served by the nearly 400 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water. Latino farm communities struggling with poverty and pollution are especially hard-hit

About three-quarters of the failing systems in California have violated state or federal standards for contaminants that are linked to serious health problems, such as cancer and effects on developing babies, according to a CalMatters analysis of state data.

Among the most pervasive contaminants are arsenic, nitrate and a chemical called 1,2,3-trichloropropane, or 1,2,3-TCP. Combined, elevated levels of these chemicals contaminate more than 220 failing systems serving nearly half a million people.

Unsafe drinking water is a chronic, insidious and sometimes hidden problem in a state where attention more often focuses on shortages than the quality of the water. The failing systems are clustered in rural farm areas that have experienced decades of groundwater contamination. Many residents are afraid to drink tap water, or even bathe their children in it, relying on bottled water instead. 

 “It is morally outrageous that we can’t provide the level of basic human rights that people need, and that it’s primarily low income communities of color who are facing these disparate impacts,” said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director with the Community Water Center, a nonprofit group. “While the state’s made a lot of good progress … more needs to be done.” 

Twelve years ago, California became the first state to recognize clean, safe, affordable and accessible drinking water as a human right. In 2019, Legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom approved a law that gave rise to the state’s Safe and Affordable Funding program.

Today, about 98% of Californians are served by water systems that meet state standards, and over $1 billion in state grants have helped disadvantaged communities tackle drinking water problems.

But despite all the systems that have been removed from the state’s failing list, about 600 others serving 1.6 million people are at risk of failure and more than 400 others serving another 1.6 million are deemed “potentially at risk.” 

“We have continuing degradation of groundwater from all our human activities — farming, industry, drought itself with our climate change,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the State Water Resources Control Board and head of its Division of Drinking Water. “We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” 

 “It is morally outrageous that we can't provide the level of basic human rights that people need."

Kyle Jones, Community Water Center

Ensuring safe and reliable drinking water for all Californians will cost about $16 billion, according to a recent state analysis. But the state water board projects that it has only $2 billion available for grants in communities and $1.5 billion for loans.

Suppliers that violate drinking water standards are required to notify residents and reduce their exposure, often by treating or blending water supplies. State regulators are pushing for long-term fixes, like consolidating some smaller suppliers with bigger systems nearby.

The state auditor lambasted California water officials two years ago for "a lack of urgency," pointing to lengthy funding timelines and other problems. But infrastructure takes time and advanced planning, which is a struggle for smaller water systems, state officials say.

Violations “can be resolved in a matter of days, or it can take years,” according to a 2023 water board report.

“We’re seeing the dawn of a new age where treatment is required on almost all our groundwater sources, and these small communities are not prepared for what that means.” 

Darrin Polhemus, state water resources control board

Some water providers, such as in the town of Lamont in Kern County, are poised to fix their water problems with millions of dollars in state funding. Other, smaller communities, like Allensworth in Tulare County and San Lucas on the Central Coast, have been waiting for clean water for years.

Meanwhile, rural residents are left to weigh the risks flowing through their taps for themselves. 

“You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette,” said Tequita Jefferson, a longtime resident of Pixley, where the water system has elevated levels of the chemical 1,2,3-TCP, which has been linked to cancer

“It scares me. All of it scares me,” said Jefferson. “And then no one thinks about it. Here, we’re in a rural community, and people have a tendency to overlook us.” 

In this small town, pesticide residue is the culprit

In the San Joaquin Valley community of Pixley, home to about 3,800 people, the jobs are rooted in agriculture — and so are the water problems. 

Widespread use of soil fumigants starting in the 1950s contaminated Central Valley groundwater with 1,2,3-TCP, which is an impurity in those fumigants and also is used as an industrial solvent. Though the fumigants were pulled from the market or reformulated in California by the 1990s, elevated levels continue to taint the water in wells throughout the San Joaquin Valley.

In the absence of federal standards, state regulators set the most stringent drinking water limits for the chemical in the country in 2017. 

The chemical has been linked to cancers in animal studies. People can be exposed to 1,2,3-TCP by drinking it, cooking with it and breathing in vapor from household water use. 

“You’re pretty much playing Russian Roulette...It scares me. All of it scares me."

Tequita Jefferson, Pixley resident

Christina Velazquez, who has lived in Pixley for 44 years and had her own brush with cancer, estimates that she spends at least $30 per month to buy filters and water bottles, on top of her water and sewer bill. 

“That’s what I make my grandkids drink — I won’t let them drink the water from the faucet,” Velasquez said. “We shouldn’t have to buy water when we’re already paying for it.” 

Pixley received $11.5 million from pesticide manufacturers in 2021 to settle a lawsuit about the contamination, according to attorney Chad Lew, counsel for the Pixley Public Utility District.

But David Terrel, a teacher and vice president of the district’s board, said there still isn't enough funding to fix the contamination problem. “If we could handle it on our own, we would be doing that,” he said. 

Pixley is holding out hope for a construction grant from the state. The district has received about $750,000 for planning and technical assistance, as well as for installing filtered-water vending machines, according to a state database. 

Other water systems also have won large payouts from pesticide manufacturers. Fresno, for instance, received $230 million in a recent case. But Polhemus, with the state’s Division of Drinking Water, said these settlements are rarely enough. 

“We're still pretty broken when it comes to corporate responsibility for wide-scale pollution,” Polhemus said. The money will “last for a decade or two, but what about the third and fourth and fifth decade, when they're still dealing with that contaminant?”  

In Lamont, about an hour south of Pixley near Bakersfield, the failure of one well forced more than 18,200 people to rely more heavily on a well contaminated with elevated levels of 1,2,3-TCP.  

“Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue... We don’t have $30 million laying around.”

Scott Taylor, Lamont Public Utility District

Lamont Public Utility District General Manager Scott Taylor said a fix is already in the works, thanks to a new well built with state funds. Another $25.4 million grant from the water board will help Lamont install three new wells to provide water to Lamont and a smaller arsenic-plagued system nearby. 

“Without the state help, what would we have done? Honestly, I don't have a clue. And I'm glad I don’t have to find out,” Taylor said. “We don’t have $30 million laying around.”

In Allensworth, arsenic is a decades-long problem

Just 20 minutes away from Pixley, in Allensworth, Sherry Hunter keeps catching herself running the tap to brush her teeth. 

The tiny Tulare County community of about 530 people, 93% of them Latino, has struggled with arsenic leaching into its wells for decades, one of which still regularly exceeds state health limits. And the crisis keeps worsening.

A woman is shown watering a dying plant in her living room next to a window.
Hunter waters her plants in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Drinking arsenic-contaminated water over a long period of time can cause cancers and has been linked with fetal deaths and malformations in test animals as well as harm to the developing brains of babies and young children

Arsenic is found naturally in rocks and soils throughout California, though it is worsened by groundwater over-pumping to irrigate farm fields in the San Joaquin Valley.

The Allensworth Community Services District, where Hunter serves as president, has tried to reduce the contamination by blending in water from a less tainted well. 

But in July, both wells failed because of suspected electrical issues, according to the nonprofit Self-Help Enterprises. Though the more contaminated well was brought back online, it, too, began sputtering out in August —  leaving residents with either arsenic-contaminated water or no water at all.

Farmworkers living in Allensworth found themselves unable to shower after long days in the heat, Hunter said. “It’s a horrible feeling … We don’t have rich people that live in Allensworth.”

Communities of color like Allensworth are more likely to be served by water systems that violate state and federal limits for the contaminant, according to UC Berkeley researchers. 

A stack of water bottles wrapped up in plastic and stored in the corner of a room for saving.
Hunter stores bottled water in her Allensworth home. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The town has been working for years to install a new well. But efforts have lagged for over a decade — delayed by logistics including land purchases tied up in probate and lengthy environmental permitting, including for impacts on endangered and other protected species

In the meantime, Allensworth has been piloting alternative water sources as a test site for hydropanels designed to extract freshwater from the atmosphere and for lower cost treatment technology out of UC Berkeley.

By the end of August, Allensworth had qualified for emergency state water board funding through Self-Help Enterprises to repair the wells and investigate the source of the electrical issues.

Hunter said she’s excited to know that help is on the way, but she’s frustrated with how long it’s taking to bring reliably clean water to her community. 

“It wouldn't have happened in none of the other little cities around here,” Hunter said. “People of color are always put on the back burner. Latinos, and Blacks, we’re always sitting on the back of the bus.” 

Nitrate spikes in a Monterey County town's wells

Two hours toward the coast, in the agricultural Monterey County community of San Lucas, Virginia Sandoval mixes formula with bottled water for her 2-month-old twin granddaughters. She’s afraid to even bathe the babies, born prematurely, in the tap water. 

For over a decade, the largely Latino town of about 300 residents has struggled with nitrate contamination in its well, which is located on nearby farmland. The contaminant leaches into water supplies from crop fertilizer

When consumed in high enough quantities, nitrate has been linked to cancers and pregnancy complications and can reduce the capacity of a baby’s blood to carry oxygen, leading to a sometimes deadly condition known as “blue baby syndrome.” Nitrate is not absorbed through the skin, and the California Department of Public Health says babies can be bathed in nitrate-contaminated water. 

San Lucas' water system is designated as failing because of nitrate levels that wax and wane, according to Andrew Altevogt, an assistant deputy director of the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water.

Though the levels have averaged well below the federal health standard for the past decade, they have occasionally spiked to double the state’s limit, according to a recent engineering report

“Nitrate’s an acute contaminant, so if it does happen, it’s an immediate concern,” Altevogt said.

The water system has also been plagued with other contaminants that affect taste, odor and color.

For years, residents have relied on bottled water mandated by regional regulators and provided by the farmer where the well is located. 

The supplies often don’t last the week for Sandoval. She regularly drives the 20-mile round trip to King City to purchase more bottles — a cost of more than $20 per week, she estimates, on top of her monthly water bill. 

“It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’” Sandoval said in Spanish. “I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”

Nitrate is a pervasive problem in the Central Coast,  where 90% of drinking water is pumped from the ground and farms discharge nitrogen waste at a rate “approximately an order of magnitude greater” than what scientists consider “protective of water quality,” according to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

“It's very stressful to be thinking every morning ... 'Do I have water or do I not have water?' What am I going to do?’... I even had to look for coins, pennies, so that I can go pick up water.”

Virginia Sandoval, SAN LUCAS resident

Three years ago, regional water regulators issued an order setting limits on the amount of fertilizer applied to crops. But two years later, state officials overturned them, saying that an expert panel needed to evaluate whether there was enough data to support the restrictions, according to a statement from the state water board.

“You really can’t grow a lot of these crops without fertilizer,” said Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. “We can’t artificially reduce that overnight and continue to produce the food items that are important to our nation’s dinner tables.” 

Community and conservation organizations sued both the state and regional regulators. Another coalition, including San Lucas community members, filed a racial discrimination complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The groups say the state board’s rollback of the fertilizer limits “disproportionately harmed Latinx communities and other communities of color,” which are 4.4 times more likely to have groundwater contamination above the state limits. 

Meanwhile, residents are still waiting for reliably clean water. A decade-old plan to connect San Lucas with King City’s water supply via an 8-mile pipeline stalled after state regulators said the long pipeline would be too expensive and urged the county to find a new groundwater source instead, according to correspondence posted by Monterey County. 

Now, eight years and a state-funded study later, state, county, regional and water district officials are once again weighing their options

“We sit here today counting years. It’s mind-blowing,” said Monterey County Supervisor Chris Lopez. “I feel like we’ve failed (residents) as a society so much, without being able to give them the clean drinking water that they deserve.” 

Data journalist Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett contributed to this report.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘Britain’s wildlife safari’: baby boom in Norfolk as seal colonies flourish

Grey seals are growing in numbers on England’s east coast as a result of environmental safe havens and cleaner North Sea watersIt is a cold winter’s day to be lying on a beach, but the seal pup suckling from its mother doesn’t mind. A few metres away, a pregnant seal is burrowing into the sand, trying to get comfortable, while a third seal, which has just given birth, is touching noses with her newborn pup.The shoreline – a mass of seals and their white pups – is one of Britain’s greatest wildlife success stories: a grey seal colony on the east Norfolk coast. Continue reading...

It is a cold winter’s day to be lying on a beach, but the seal pup suckling from its mother doesn’t mind. A few metres away, a pregnant seal is burrowing into the sand, trying to get comfortable, while a third seal, which has just given birth, is touching noses with her newborn pup.The shoreline – a mass of seals and their white pups – is one of Britain’s greatest wildlife success stories: a grey seal colony on the east Norfolk coast.More than 1,200 seal pups were born between the colony in Horsey and a neighbouring beach in November, and 2,500 more are expected to be born before the breeding season ends in January. It is a dramatic increase since 2002, when the seals first formed a colony at Horsey and 50 pups were born.Richard Edwards, a volunteer seal warden at Winterton beach in Norfolk during the pupping season. Photograph: Joshua Bright/The GuardianStanding on a sand dune that overlooks the North Sea, Richard Edwards, a volunteer seal warden, is keeping a close watch over the colony from a distance. “We can all take pride that this is happening on our doorstep,” he says. “It’s incredible.”Why go to the wilds of Africa when there is such an extraordinary spectacle on the Norfolk coast, he asks, adding: “This is Britain’s wildlife safari.”Seals are flourishing about 50 miles farther south, too. In 2021, a group of grey seals established the first seal colony in nearby Suffolk and began breeding on a remote shingle beach at Orford Ness, now a National Trust site but once the location for cold war weapons-testing.“One day, there were none, and the next day there were 200,” says Matt Wilson, a countryside manager for the trust. “Since then, they’ve come back each year, and the juveniles have stayed.”Grey seals are known to form breakaway groups when colonies reach a certain size and Wilson says he is “fairly sure” the seals migrated from north Norfolk. In just three years, the number of pups born at the site has increased fivefold, with more than 600 seals recorded there this year.“Mortality seems to be much lower than in other colonies,” he says. The first seal pup of this season was born there just over a month ago.The 10-mile beach at Orford Ness, which is closed to the public in winter, is a safe haven for seals during their breeding season, says Wilson. “We don’t get a lot of big boats coming close to shore and disturbing the marine environment locally. Also, in bad weather, the seals can come farther inland to shelter behind a ridge.”The grey seal colony at Horsey in Norfolk. Access to the seals’ beaches is restricted over the breeding season. Photograph: Joshua Bright/The GuardianThis is crucial to the survival of the species because as sea levels rise and storms become more frequent and severe, conservationists fear the mortality rate of seal pups is rising.Sue Sayer, founder of the Seal Research Trust, says: “In Cornwall last year, we had more seal deaths than births – and over half were of seals under a year old.”If seals cannot move inland during a storm, pups can become separated from their mothers by a high surge of water or get washed out to sea. Edwards says: “They die of hypothermia or starvation, or drown.”Some species have seen dramatic declines of up to 90%, just on our site, so to have a species swimming against the tide is amazingIn Norfolk, the charity Friends of Horsey Seals has created a safe, fenced-off area of the dune where seals can retreat inland during a storm, and access to the seals’ beaches is restricted over the winter breeding season. Volunteer wardens such as Edwards patrol the site daily to raise awareness about the need for the public to keep their distance and keep dogs on leads: a female seal, if scared enough, will desert her pup and head into the sea.Volunteer seal wardens at Winterton beach in Norfolk try to keep the visiting public at a distance from the seals during the pupping season. Photograph: Joshua Bright/The GuardianWilson and Sayer speculate that more seals are breeding on the east coast because offshore windfarms may have provided a new footing there for underwater vegetation, crustaceans, molluscs, small fish and other marine life, creating a fish nursery that the seals are feeding on.The structures also form a physical barrier near the coast, pushing shipping traffic further out and preventing commercial fishing boats from competing with seals by the shoreline.Another likely cause of the population growth is that grey seals have been displaced from northern Scotland, where numbers of sand eels – which seals love to eat – have declined.“The seals seem to be moving south, and this is likely to be to do with food,” says Sayer. These seals may be preying on other displaced species, such as anchovies from the Bay of Biscay, which are becoming more common in southern British waters due to global heating, she suggested.Cleaner water in the North Sea may also have contributed to the increase in seal numbers on the east coast, she added. In 2021, an analysis of two decades of research by the North Sea Foundation revealed there is now 27% less beach waste on non-tourist beaches than there was 10 years ago.Another reason why seals are thriving in Britain today is that people are no longer hunting and killing them. “We only stopped culling seals in 1978 and it only became illegal for a fisher to kill a seal in March 2021,” says Sayer.For Wilson, the new seal colony in Suffolk is a source of hope. “We do a lot with wetland birds and waders,” he says. “Some species, particularly large gulls, have seen dramatic declines of up to 90% in their numbers, just on our site, never mind the national picture.“So, to have a species going in the opposite direction – literally, swimming against the tide – is amazing.”The success of the seal colony at Winterton-on-Sea can be measured in the 2,000 pups born there this season. Photograph: Joshua Bright/The Guardian

Revealed: Thames Water diverted ‘cash for clean-ups’ to help pay bonuses

Exclusive: UK’s biggest water company assessed risks before cutting back on cost of environmental work, investigation showsThames Water intentionally diverted millions of pounds pledged for environmental clean-ups towards other costs including bonuses and dividends, the Guardian can reveal.The company, which serves more than 16 million customers, cut the funds after senior managers assessed the potential risks of such a move. Continue reading...

Thames Water intentionally diverted millions of pounds pledged for environmental clean-ups towards other costs including bonuses and dividends, the Guardian can reveal.The company, which serves more than 16 million customers, cut the funds after senior managers assessed the potential risks of such a move.Discussions – held in secret – considered the risk of a public and regulatory backlash if it emerged that cash set aside for work such as cutting river pollution had been spent elsewhere.This could be seen as a breach of the company’s licence commitments and leave it vulnerable to accusations it had broken the law, according to sources and material seen by the Guardian.Thames Water continued to pay staff bonuses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, and also paid tens of millions in dividends as recently as March this year, while cutting back on its spending promises. The company did so despite public claims from its leaders that improvements to its environmental performance, including on pollution, were a priority.Wildlife presenter Liz Bonnin and naturalist and TV presenter Chris Packham join thousands of environmental campaigners from more than 130 organisations in a March for Clean Water on 3 November 2024 in London. Photograph: Mark Kerrison/In Pictures/Getty ImagesSources told the Guardian that internal deliberations about cutting back on the environmental works occurred as early as the end of 2021 and throughout 2022, when bosses weighed up the political and reputational risks of such a move.Meanwhile, Thames continued to charge customers for the works and Ofwat was only formally told of some of the company’s plans not to deliver these major projects in August 2023. A letter, seen by the Guardian, was sent to the head of the regulator Ofwat, David Black, by the company’s then interim co-chief executive and former boss of the watchdog, Cathryn Ross.In its response to the Guardian and the 2023 letter to Ofwat, Thames said sharp increases in its costs such as energy and chemicals – which it claims went beyond standard measures of inflation – lay behind its decisions to delay the works.It told the regulator that it would not deliver 98 of 826 schemes under the water industry national environment programme (Winep) during the five-year window it had promised. The delivery of these projects, which include schemes to reduce phosphorus pollution in rivers, was a key justification for how much Thames was allowed to charge customers.The revelation comes as Britain’s biggest water company fights for its survival. It is trying to secure £3bn in emergency funding and at least £3.25bn more in equity investment to prevent its collapse, after years of poor performance, fines and hefty dividend payouts.Winep projects include statutory obligations for water companies with potential criminal liability if they breach their licence by failing to deliver them.Thames decided behind the scenes to hold up almost 100 projects as early as 2022 without first warning its regulators. Sources said of some of the projects Thames delayed were among the largest it agreed to do when it asked Ofwat for higher bills as part of its 2019 price review.The cuts to environmental works did not stop the company from paying dividends or bonuses to staff. It continued to pay both throughout the 2020-25 billing period, for which it claimed it lacked the funds to complete works.Ofwat fined the company £18.2m on 19 December for breaching rules on paying “unjustified” dividends, after the company paid out £37.5m in October 2023 and £158.3m in March 2024. On the same day it also gave Thames permission to increase consumer bills by 35% by 2030.Thames’s regulated water services are part of a sprawling network of holding companies. Dividends were paid out of its operating company up towards its shareholders.Ofwat’s dividend rules, which were toughened in April 2023, are meant to stop companies taking money out businesses where their performance does not merit it, and where the payouts do not take financial resilience into account, or “service delivery for customers and the environment”.A spokesperson for Thames Water did not deny that it had delayed environmental works that it had promised and been paid to carry out. The spokesperson also did not deny that some of the funds had been used for other business costs including bonuses and dividend payments.When first asked for a response by the Guardian, Thames said that allegations that it had diverted funds were “entirely false and without merit”.In a later statement, Thames said only that the allegation that it did so “secretly” was false.In public statements from its six chief executives over the past five years, Thames has consistently maintained its position that environmental improvements are a high priority for the company.“Maintaining and improving the health of the rivers in our area matters to me, and I have made reducing pollution a key part of the turnaround plan for the company,” Chris Weston, the current chief executive at Thames Water, said in a river health report published by the company this year. His comments echo those of predecessors in the top job at the water company.The document states that “addressing the level of nutrients (particularly phosphorus) in our rivers remains a key focus”, despite the company secretly trying to cut the money pledged to address such concerns.Phosphorus in rivers and waterways can cause algal blooms that suffocate wildlife.“It is right that we are held to account for complying with our legal obligations,” Weston said on a call with journalists on 10 December, as he noted a sharp increase in pollution caused by the business.“We’ve also maintained high levels of capital investment for the benefit of our customers and the environment,” its former joint chief executive and chief financial officer Alastair Cochran said on the same call.The government’s Winep effort was created to address water companies’ “role in protecting and enhancing the environment” after a series of sewage and pollution scandals. It was intended to “challenge” water suppliers to provide resilient, safe and environment enhancing services to consumers.Thames could face criminal prosecution and unlimited fines if it was found to have breached its permits by Ofwat or the Environment Agency (EA).The EA has fined water companies more than £130m since 2015 and fined Southern Water £90m in 2021, after what was then its largest ever criminal investigation.In response to detailed questions from the Guardian, a Thames spokesperson said: “The allegation of ‘secretly diverted money’ is entirely false and without merit.“The board and leadership team of Thames Water remain focused on turning round the business, and have submitted to Ofwat a robust business plan for the next five years that proposes record investment in our assets.“We’ve been very open about the challenges of delivering all the elements of our Winep 7 programme, which has been impacted by cost increases that are higher than the inflation index applied to our allowances. In this Winep 7 period, we are forecast to spend £601m against an allowance of £369m. This is well documented in our business plan for 2025-30 and on our website.“We remain fully committed to delivering all our Winep commitments, and indeed all the outstanding projects are currently under way and in the process of being delivered.“Shareholders have not received an external dividend since 2017, and our business plan assumes dividends will not be paid before 2030.”

South Texas Groups Sue State Agency for Allowing SpaceX to Discharge Industrial Water Without Permit

Rio Grande Valley groups are accusing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in a lawsuit of bypassing state regulations by allowing SpaceX to temporarily discharge industrial water at its South Texas launch site without a proper permit

MCALLEN, Texas (AP) — Rio Grande Valley groups are suing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, accusing the agency of bypassing state regulations by allowing SpaceX to temporarily discharge industrial water at its South Texas launch site without a proper permit.The groups — the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, along with the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and Save RGV — filed the lawsuit Monday after the agency decided last month to allow SpaceX to continue its operations for 300 days or until the company obtained the appropriate permit.It is the latest in a string of lawsuits filed by environmental groups aimed at curbing the possible environmental impacts of SpaceX’s operations at Boca Chica on the southern tip of Texas.Earlier this year, TCEQ cited SpaceX for discharging water into nearby waterways after it was used to protect the launchpad from heat damage during Starship launches four times this year.SpaceX did not admit to any violation but agreed to pay a $3,750 penalty. Part of the penalty was deferred until SpaceX obtains the proper permit and on the condition that future water discharges meet pollution restrictions.The environmental groups say that allowing SpaceX to continue is a violation of permitting requirements and that TCEQ is acting outside of its authority.“The Clean Water Act requires the TCEQ to follow certain procedural and technical requirements when issuing discharge permits meant to protect public participation and ensure compliance with Texas surface water quality standards,” Lauren Ice, the attorney for the three Rio Grande Valley organizations, said in a statement.“By bypassing these requirements, the Commission has put the Boca Chica environment at risk of degradation,” Ice said.A TCEQ spokesperson said the agency cannot comment on pending litigation.Some of the Rio Grande Valley groups are also involved in a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration for allegedly failing to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX’s rocket test launch in April. The case remains pending in federal court.They also sued the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for agreeing to a land exchange that would give 43 acres of Boca Chica State Park to SpaceX in exchange for 477 acres adjacent to Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. SpaceX canceled the deal in November.This story was originally published by The Texas Tribune and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

After Victory Over Florida in Water War, Georgia Will Let Farmers Drill New Irrigation Wells

For more than a decade, farmers in parts of southwest Georgia haven’t been able to drill new irrigation wells to the Floridian aquifer

ATLANTA (AP) — Jason Cox, who grows peanuts and cotton in southwest Georgia, says farming would be economically impossible without water to irrigate his crops.“I'd be out of business,” said Cox, who farms 3,000 acres (1,200 hectares) acres around Pelham.For more than a decade, farmers in parts of southwest Georgia haven't been able to drill new irrigation wells to the Floridian aquifer, the groundwater nearest the surface. That's because Georgia put a halt to farmers drilling wells or taking additional water from streams and lakes in 2012. Farmers like Cox, though, will get a chance to drill new wells beginning in April. Gov. Brian Kemp announced Wednesday that Georgia's Environmental Protection Division will begin accepting applications for new agricultural wells in areas along the lower Flint River starting April 1. Jeff Cown, the division's director, said in a statement that things have changed since 2012. The moratorium was imposed amid a parching drought and the collapse of the once-prolific oyster fishery in Florida's Apalachicola Bay. The state of Florida sued in 2013, arguing that Georgia's overuse of water from the Flint was causing negative impacts downstream where the Flint and Chattahoochee River join to become the Apalachicola River. But a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 rejected the lawsuit, saying Florida hadn't proved its case that water use by Flint River farmers was at fault.That was one lawsuit in decades of sprawling litigation that mostly focused on fear that Atlanta’s ever-growing population would suck up all the upstream water and leave little for uses downstream. The suits include the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint system and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa system, which flows out of Georgia to drain much of Alabama. Georgia also won victories guaranteeing that metro Atlanta had rights to water from the Chattahoochee River's Lake Lanier to quench its thirst.Georgia officials say new water withdrawals won't disregard conservation. No new withdrawals from streams or lakes will be allowed. And new wells will have to stop sucking up water from the Floridian aquifer when a drought gets too bad, in part to protect water levels in the Flint, where endangered freshwater mussels live. New wells will also be required to be connected to irrigation systems that waste less water and can be monitored electronically, according to a November presentation posted by the environmental agency.In a statement, Cown said the plans "support existing water users, including farmers, and set the stage to make room for new ones. We look forward to working with all water users as they obtain these newly, developed permits.”Georgia had already been taking baby steps in this direction by telling farmers they could withdraw water to spray vulnerable crops like blueberries during freezing temperatures.Flint Riverkeeper Gordon Rogers, who heads the environmental organization of the same name, said Georgia's action is “good news.” He has long contended that the ban on new withdrawals was “an admission of failure," showing how Georgia had mismanaged water use along the river. But he said investments in conservation are paying off: Many farmers are installing less wasteful irrigators and some agreed to stop using existing shallow wells during drought in exchange for subsidies to drill wells to deeper aquifers that don't directly influence river flow.“What we’re going to do is make it more efficient, make it more equitable and make it more fair," Rogers said. "And we’re in the middle of doing that.”A lawyer for Florida environmental groups that contend the Apalachicola River and Bay are being harmed declined comment in an email. Representatives for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and state Attorney General Ashley Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Cox, who lives about 165 miles (265 kilometers) south of Atlanta, said he's interested in drilling a new well on some land that he owns. Right now, that land relies on water from a neighboring farmer's well. He knows the drought restrictions would mean there would be times he couldn't water his crops, but said data he's seen show there wouldn't have been many days over the last 10 years when he would have been barred from irrigating, and that most of those days wouldn't have been during peak watering times for his crops.Three years ago, Cox drilled a well for some land into a deeper aquifer, but he said even spending $30,000 or more on a shallower well would boost the productivity and value of his land.“It would enhance my property if I had a well myself," Cox said.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

South Texas groups sue TCEQ for temporarily allowing SpaceX to discharge industrial water without a permit

In the lawsuit, the groups accuse TCEQ of exceeding its authority by allowing the discharges.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. McALLEN — Rio Grande Valley groups are suing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, accusing the agency of bypassing state regulations by allowing SpaceX to temporarily discharge industrial water at its South Texas launch site without a proper permit. The groups — the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, along with the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and Save RGV — filed the lawsuit Monday after the agency decided last month to allow SpaceX to continue its operations for 300 days or until the company obtained the appropriate permit. It is the latest in a string of lawsuits filed by environmental groups aimed at curbing the possible environmental impacts of SpaceX’s operations at Boca Chica on the southern tip of Texas. Earlier this year, TCEQ cited SpaceX for discharging water into nearby waterways after it was used to protect the launchpad from heat damage during Starship launches four times this year. SpaceX did not admit to any violation but agreed to pay a $3,750 penalty. Part of the penalty was deferred until SpaceX obtains the proper permit and on the condition that future water discharges meet pollution restrictions. The environmental groups say that allowing SpaceX to continue is a violation of permitting requirements and that TCEQ is acting outside of its authority. “The Clean Water Act requires the TCEQ to follow certain procedural and technical requirements when issuing discharge permits meant to protect public participation and ensure compliance with Texas surface water quality standards," Lauren Ice, the attorney for the three Rio Grande Valley organizations, said in a statement. "By bypassing these requirements, the Commission has put the Boca Chica environment at risk of degradation," Ice said. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. A TCEQ spokesperson said the agency cannot comment on pending litigation. Some of the Rio Grande Valley groups are also involved in a lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration for allegedly failing to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX's rocket test launch in April. The case remains pending in federal court. They also sued the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for agreeing to a land exchange that would give 43 acres of Boca Chica State Park to SpaceX in exchange for 477 acres adjacent to Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. SpaceX canceled the deal in November. Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. Disclosure: Texas Parks And Wildlife Department has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.