Almost 400 water systems serving nearly a million Californians don鈥檛 meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water supplies 鈥� and fixing them would cost billions of dollars.
More than two-thirds of these failing water systems serve communities of color, and more than half are in places struggling , according to an annual assessment released today by the State Water Resources Control Board.
These water systems failed to provide water 鈥渨hich is at all times pure, wholesome, and potable,鈥� as required. Some violated drinking water . Others rely on bottled water, or have failed to meet treatment, monitoring or other requirements.
About 913,000 people, as of Jan. 1, were served by the water systems that didn鈥檛 meet the requirements, dropping to about 771,000 as of today. Even more Californians, around 1.54 million, got their drinking water from hundreds of water systems considered at risk of failing, the report said 鈥� and it rose to more than 1.8 million as of today. Nearly 144,000 wells were threatened by encroaching contaminants and shortages.
鈥� from tiny Del Norte County on the Oregon state line to San Diego and Imperial counties near the border with Mexico. They cluster densely in the Central Valley and along the Central Coast, , and 鈥� particularly in lower income communities of color.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a moral outrage. It鈥檚 unconscionable in a state that has so many resources that we can鈥檛 ensure that everybody has access to the human right to water,鈥� said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director 鈥淔olks shouldn鈥檛 have to suffer health impacts or added cost to have access to something that most of us take for granted and can get daily.鈥�
The price tag for ensuring safe, affordable and accessible water supplies for all Californians is staggering 鈥� an estimated $16 billion over the next five years 鈥� as the state grapples .
Without more state or federal funding, most of the total 鈥� around $13.9 billion 鈥� may fall on local communities and well owners, according to the report. That means some of the people least able to afford it will end up paying more for water.
The number of failing systems 鈥� and the cost of fixing them 鈥� is likely to climb as water suppliers must meet new state and federal standards for the contaminant made infamous by the movie 鈥淓rin Brockovich,鈥� as well as .
鈥淭he subtext of this report is pretty clear,鈥� said , director of UCLA鈥檚 Human Right to Water Solutions Lab, who commended the water board鈥檚 transparency and extensive analysis. 鈥淭he state just needs to put its money where its mouth is.鈥�
It鈥檚 been to recognize clean, safe, affordable and accessible drinking water as a human right. Today about 98% of Californians are served by water systems that meet state standards.
Yet despite California鈥檚 reputation as an economic powerhouse and climate leader, the state has long struggled to ensure safe drinking water for all 鈥� especially those in rural, disadvantaged communities. Californians relying on household wells, for instance, .
The annual assessment comes from the water board鈥檚 , established by . Nearly a billion dollars has been spent on grants in disadvantaged communities.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a moral outrage. It鈥檚 unconscionable in a state that has so many resources that we can鈥檛 ensure that everybody has access to the human right to water.鈥�KYLE JONES, THE COMMUNITY WATER CENTER
The list of failing water systems typically hovers between 380 and 400, state officials said. And nearly every year, with only a couple of exceptions, more water systems have been added to the 鈥渇ailing鈥� list than removed.
Still, about 283, or 42% of 715 systems that were on the list, came off between 2017 through 2023. About 700,000 more people have safe water than in 2019, according to the water board.
But the pace of ensuring safe drinking water is too slow, the state auditor said in a report two years ago. It 鈥渉as funding available to help these failing systems improve the quality of their drinking water. Nonetheless, the board has generally demonstrated a lack of urgency in providing this critical assistance,鈥� the auditor said.
Kristyn Abhold, a senior environmental scientist at the water board who led today鈥檚 report, said infrastructure takes time. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not just the funding side, but it鈥檚 the planning. It鈥檚 the engineering reports, the community engagement, it鈥檚 getting the right permits in place,鈥� she said.
The cost estimates have risen about $1.1 billion, or about 26%, since a 2021 assessment for failing and at-risk public water systems, and $3.6 billion for high-risk private, household wells and small water systems that serve only a handful of customers 鈥� a 264% increase, said Jackie Carpenter, a water board spokesperson.
Part of the increase is due to inflation, Abhold said. Some is because the latest analysis favors long-term, higher-cost fixes, such as merging struggling water systems with more secure ones nearby. And some is because the analysis now includes water systems and household wells at risk for shortages, rather than just ones grappling with poor water quality.
The water board projects that it can cover about $2 billion of the $15.9 billion estimated cost with grants 鈥� leaving $13.9 billion to be shouldered by water suppliers and well owners, including those that are least financially able to weather such a blow.
Smaller systems already charge about $32 more a month than larger ones, according to the report, and about 13% of community water systems face medium to high affordability burdens.
Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill to establish a program to help low income Californians pay for water because ,鈥� though another is now winding its way through the Legislature.
State officials said drinking water programs have largely escaped the major funding cuts in the latest budget deal: While more than $152 million from the general fund from drinking water and wastewater was cut, nearly $225 million from cap and trade proceeds was included. 鈥淚n sum, we do not anticipate a net reduction in funding available for drinking water projects,鈥� said water board spokesperson Dimitri Stanich.
Safe drinking water advocates say that it is still far too little.
The funding gap identified in the report 鈥渋s huge, particularly given how little the program will receive over the next two years,鈥� said Jennifer Clary, California director of Clean Water Action. Clary advocated for drinking water funding in a climate bond that is still being negotiated.
鈥淒rinking water infrastructure isn鈥檛 a luxury item. Without these projects, thousands of Californians will continue to lack access to safe and clean drinking water.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.