By Patrick Porgans and Lloyd G. Carter
Part One of a two-part series
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: Health and Safety Code sections 116270, subdivisions (a) and (b).
(a) Every citizen of California has the right to pure and safe drinking water.
(b) Feasible and affordable technologies are available and shall be used to remove toxic contaminants from public water supplies.
In the heart of California's farm country, San Joaquin Valley growers get better quality river water for irrigation while farmworkers, farm families and rural communities often get polluted groundwater unfit to drink.
Making matters worse, California officials have known for decades that groundwater used for drinking and home use is polluted by pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, industrial wastes and "treated" city waste water, but have done little to take advantage of nearly half a billion dollars in federal low interest loans available to address the problem.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking water. Under SDWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards.
The 1996 amendments to the SDWA created the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SDWSRF). The SDWSRF is a loan program that provides low-cost financing to eligible entities within the state and tribal lands for public and private water systems infrastructure projects needed to achieve or to maintain compliance with SDWA requirements and to protect public health. Small water systems and disadvantaged communities are given higher funding priority. Under the SDWA, the federal government makes available to the states low cost loans for drinking water projects, provided they are timely.
However, according to an April 19 letter from EPA’s Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, to Dr. Ron Chapman, Director of the California Department of Health (CDPH), California has failed to properly administer and disburse $455 million of the $1.5 billion made available beginning in 1996. Blumenfeld said California has the worst record of all 50 states in failing to take advantage of the federal grant money. In recent years, California has received an estimated $80 million in federal money annually for the fund. The state provides a 20 percent match and manages the loan repayments which helps replenish the fund, according to the Associated Press.
Blumenfeld's letter is the first “Determination of Noncompliance” notice issued to the CDPH, according to EPA staff. However, back in 2002 EPA issued a determination of noncompliance to the State Water Resources Control Board, for similar reasons, citing mismanagement and misuse of federal funds provided to the State under the provisions of the Clean Water Act section 602(b) and 40 CFR part 35.3013(c). According to EPA the State Water Board has been in compliance since the 2002 notice.
In his letter to CDPH, Blumenfeld cited administrative problems, insufficient staff and unqualified personnel at CDPH as causes for non-compliance. However, EPA allows for the state to use four percent of the grant and loan funds towards administrative and personnel costs. Ironically, EPA reported that CDPH had more than $6.4 million at its disposal for such costs but did not use it.
Since 1978 the State has received on average $600 million to $800 million annually for clean water programs that are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. EPA officials estimate California needs $39 billion in capital improvements through 2026 for water systems to continue providing safe drinking water to the public. Instead, Gov. Brown is pushing a $14 billion twin tunnel project to ship relatively clean Sacramento River water around the beleaguered Delta estuary.
Under the revolving fund, the State Water Board is supposed to provide financial assistance through various State and federal loan and grant programs to help local agencies, businesses, and individuals meet the costs of water pollution control, development of locally available sustainable water supplies, and cleanup.
But what has happened is that significant portions of those federal funds have been expended on band-aid attempts to deal with the discharge of billions of gallons of highly contaminated wastewater and runoff resulting from agricultural drainage; one of the State’s major unresolved sources of pollution of both surface and ground water supplies. This farm drainage water discharged into the lower Delta contains pesticides and the trace element selenium, which caused the poisoning of fish and birds at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County three decades ago.
Another major source of surface and groundwater contamination results from the annual application of toxic pesticides. “Pesticide use in California rose in 2010 after declining for four consecutive years," according to data released in December 28, 2011 by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). "More than 173 million pounds of pesticides were reported applied statewide, an increase of nearly 15 million pounds – or 9.5 percent – from 2009. The increase reflected a 15 percent jump in acres treated with pesticides – up 9.7 million acres to a total of 75 million acres in 2010," The DPR data stated.
Pesticide use varies from year to year depending on many factors, including weather, pest problems, economics and types of crops planted. Increases and decreases in pesticide use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years do not necessarily indicate a trend.
The greatest pesticide use occurs in the San Joaquin Valley. Indeed, the San Joaquin Valley is probably the most chemically-drenched landscape in the world. The top five counties in order of most pesticide pounds applied in 2010 were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, San Joaquin and Madera. All are major producers of agricultural products. All of those counties receive subsidized water from government projects. . read more...
