California’s best chance for enough water in the future is to bolster local supplies today

Date:

Jacky Lowe washes her dogs’ water bowls in her kitchen inside her home in Hanford on April 4, 2024. In the last ten years, Lowe had to lower one ag well, drill another, and replace two domestic wells on her land. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

Guest Commentary written by

Sean Bothwell

Sean Bothwell is executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Imagine turning on your tap and not being sure it’s safe to drink what comes out. 

For one million Californians, this scenario is not hypothetical. In disadvantaged communities, including some in the Central Valley, families have been told for years to boil their tap water for safety or buy bottled water they cannot afford. 

Their water systems consistently fail to meet safe drinking water standards. Yet no meaningful action has been taken to fix this known problem. Meanwhile, 30,000 miles of the state’s coastlines, lakes and rivers fail basic water quality standards.

How does a state at the forefront of environmental leadership fail to ensure clean, reliable water for its people?

The short answer: California is managing 21st century water challenges with 20th century technology under 19th century law. And state leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, continue promoting infrastructure projects designed for precipitation patterns that climate change is already erasing.

This year’s rapid snowpack loss is not an anomaly; it is a preview. Yet the state keeps pushing large-scale projects which can’t deliver water to farms or families without a reliable Sierra snowmelt. Instead of more dams and diversions, we need to shift attention and resources to a local approach rooted in our new reality.

California Coastkeeper Alliance’s Blueprint to Climate-Ready Water Policy is a practical guide for state policymakers, regulators and the next governor to set a course for a more resilient and sustainable water future. The blueprint is built on several clear imperatives.

Prioritize resilient local water supplies

Instead of spending tens of billions moving water around the state, California must prioritize investment in wastewater recycling, stormwater capture and water efficiency. These systems deliver water regardless of how long the snowpack sticks around.

These types of systems are proven, scalable and drought proof. The payoff extends beyond reliability: California’s water sector consumes 19% of the state’s electricity and 30% of its natural gas, driven largely by importing water into urban centers from faraway places. Prioritizing local water supplies reduces water insecurity in a cost-effective and affordable way, while cutting the emissions that accelerate climate change.

Strengthen and enforce water laws 

The Trump administration’s rollbacks of the Clean Water Act have steadily eroded protections Californians have relied on since the 1970s. The most damaging change stripped federal protections from millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of seasonal streams, leaving them open to pollution and development. In response, the state must fortify its own standards.

We need enforceable rules that restore fisheries and protect coastal communities. California must adopt specific standards to confront the pollution driving ocean acidification and the ecosystem collapse that follows. We need real investment in floodplain restoration, forest health and natural infrastructure that shields communities from billion-dollar climate disasters.

Fix system of water governance

California’s water bureaucracy is antiquated, inequitable and unaccountable. The appointment process for our state’s water leaders is outdated, prioritizing engineering expertise over science and equitable representation. This approach results in continued reliance on gray infrastructure and engineered solutions over more sustainable and resilient nature-based solutions and urban greening. 

The result is a system where large water users — such as pistachio growers and data centers — get water on the cheap, while low-income communities subsidize their use.

We need reforms to address historical inequities and ensure those that demand more water pay for it. Environmental justice and tribal leadership must be involved in water planning from the start. And we must ensure polluters, not ratepayers or taxpayers, pay for cleaning up the water we drink and swim in.

Our economy and our communities depend on making the hard choices that will deliver clean, affordable water into the future. We will not get there by funding yesterday’s solutions and hoping the climate cooperates.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe to The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

Popular

More like this
Related

Moving to California with a gun? You might have to take a four-hour course

A person wearing ear protection and tinted safety glasses aims a handgun at an outdoor shooting range while another person stands closely behind, appearing to offer instruction. Bags and equipment rest on a wooden bench beside them, with hillside terrain blurred in the background.

In summary

Want to buy a gun in California? Lawmakers may have you set aside four hours — and bring ammo for the range

Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.

Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.

It’s the latest effort by California Democrats to add more restrictions on firearm ownership in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. However, it’s hardly certain the bill will become law. A similar measure died in the Legislature last year.

This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.

But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.

“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”

Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the Brady Campaign, told the committee there were more than 69,000 shootings resulting in death or requiring urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Around one in three of those shootings were accidental, she said. Many involved children.

Gun rights advocates said the bill would be challenged in court if it becomes law. 

Adam Wilson of Gun Owners of California called the proposed requirements “an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right.”

Clay Kimberling, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said that’s especially true for the estimated 115,000 gun owners who move to California each year.

“Whether they move into the state on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class … and take eight hours out of their day … for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state,” Kimberling said.

That original version of the bill also would have required new California arrivals to register firearms and take the course within 60 days. 

Will the bill make it to Newsom?

Under current law, Californians are required to pass a written test and pay $25 to obtain a five-year firearm safety certificate to purchase a gun, but no formal training course is required.

Licensed hunters are required to take a mandatory hunting-safety course and aren’t required to get a certificate when buying rifles or shotguns. Also exempt are those who’ve obtained a concealed weapons permit, which is issued after 16 hours of mandatory training that includes live-fire at a gun range.

Those exemptions would still apply.

For everyone else, the proposed four hours of training would include coursework on state and federal gun laws, secure firearm storage, safe handling, the dangers of guns, use-of-force laws, how to sell firearms legally and conflict resolution. The live-fire portion of the course would need to last at least an hour.

Second Amendment groups say paying a Department of Justice-certified firearms instructor would add at least $400 to the cost of buying a firearm. Applicants also would have to pay for ammunition, gun rentals and range fees. Fees and firearms taxes already can add more than $100 to the cost of a firearm in California. 

The training requirements would take effect July 1, 2028.

Until then, beginning on Jan. 1, gun owners moving to the state would be required to pass the current written test and register their firearms with the Department of Justice within 180 days.

Violating the proposed law would be a misdemeanor.

The bill now moves to the full Senate. It will then have to advance through the Assembly by this summer if Gov. Gavin Newsom is to sign it. He hasn’t taken a position on the legislation.

Last year, a bill with eight-hour training requirements died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

$6 gas intensifies clash between climate and cost of living

For many Californians, unseasonal winds and grass fires in...

‘OnlyFans’ comment about high schoolers in Speedos ignites controversy

An Inland Empire high school water polo player’s mother...

Moving to California with a gun? You might have to take a four-hour course

In summary Want to buy a gun in California? Lawmakers...