N ITRATE C ONTAMINATION AND I MPACTED C OMMUNITIES IN THE C ENTRAL V ALLEY CV S ALTS P RESENTATION M ARCH AGUA Clean Water Action Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Community Water Center

The Need for an Effective Groundwater Program Nitrate contamination in Central Valley groundwater is widespread and increasing.

Increasing nitrate levels Pacific Institute regression analysis Trend of Nitrate Levels in Monitored Wells Kern County ( ) Pacific Institute 2010

Five-year moving average of wells for exceeding the MCL in a given year Salinas Valley and Tulare Lake Basin Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water UC Davis Center for Watershed Science

Nitrate Health Effects Acute: Methemoglobinemia (children < 6 months) Severe gastroenteritis Chronic: Cancer (thyroid, stomach, colon, others) Impaired in utero growth, pre-term birth Birth defects Pancreatitis Nervous system defects

Incidence of nitrate contamination

Extent of problem AB 2222 report, February 2013 – Communities that Rely on a Contaminated Source of Groundwater Nitrate - #2 contaminant wells in 205 water systems, CDPH Annual compliance report (2011) – 280 systems in violation of drinking water standard GAMA Geotracker - Region 5 Public Supply and domestic wells, wells exceeding the drinking water standard

San Joaquin Valley communities 92 public water systems serving over 1 million residents in San Joaquin Valley (2005-8) CDPH small water system list has 32 small community water systems serving approx. 7,000 people

Tulare Lake Basin UC Davis # - population of 254, 000, 34,000 on private wells – exceeded drinking water standard in Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley USGS 2006 Tulare County domestic well survey – 40% of wells tested exceeded drinking water standard

What don’t we know 2 million Californians not served by a public water system Estimate – 20% of rural Region 5 residents are not served by a public water systems Information on State small systems and domestic wells generally not kept at county level

Population at risk Population of San Joaquin Valley – Approx 4 million Under 5 years of age - 9% Over 65 years of age – 11% Immune compromised, pregnant – impossible to determine

Barriers to safe drinking water Single source of water contaminated Cost of treatment exorbitant

Financial Burden* In a study of four communities impacted by Nitrate Contamination, households spent an average of over $30 dollars on filters and / or bottled water in addition to monthly water charges and the costs of transportation to vending machines, etc. * Based on the Report, The Human Cost of Nitrate Contamination

Financial Burden* 95% of families surveyed in one community paid over the (1.5% of household income) affordability standard for water 70% of families paid over that 1.5% standard simply for the costs of avoiding contaminated water (filters, bottled water, vended water) Spent 4.6% of household income on Drinking water.

Barriers to Safe Drinking Water Available funding limited to capital needs – No source of funding exists to cover Operations/maintenance costs Rate base too small and/or low income to fund higher system costs State and local agencies unwilling to push for cost-effective regional solutions

Solution - governance Encourage consolidation and/or shared solutions in order to create needed economies of scale

Solution - funding Create ongoing funding source for nitrate treatment for systems facing higher rates due to nitrate contamination Ensure that assistance if available to impacted residents not served by a public water system

Solution - address data gaps Develop information systems at the county level to better track information on domestic wells and state small systems Change law that prohibits access to well drilling logs Identify rural and island communities not served by a public water system

Solution – adopt an effective pollution prevention program Meaningful data collection Monitoring Transparency Clear compliance standards Mitigation funding mechanism

Questions about proposed program What are the criteria for management zones? Where does data come from to support the delineation? If 50-80% of population is impacted, where is line for assistance drawn? How does this program incentivize source protection? How does program account for increase in impacted population?