Down The Drain -

Down theDrain

Sujatha Jahagirdar

Environment California Research and Policy CenterJanuary 2003

Six Case Studies of Groundwater Contaminationthat are Wasting California's Water

Down the DrainEnvironment California

22222

The authors would like to thank Erik Olson and Jonathan Kaplan (Natural ResourcesDefense Council) for their comments. Thanks to Teri Olle, Dan Jacobson and Brad Heavnerfor their assistance in the development, drafting and production of the report. Thanks also toJames Dubick and Bernadette Del Chiaro for editorial assistance.

This report was made possible in part by the Bauman Foundation. The recommendationsare those of the Environment California Research and Policy Center. The views expressedin this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.

Cover photographs courtesy of ArtToday.com

© Environment California Research and Policy Center

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

Environment California Research and Policy Center3435 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 385Los Angeles, CA 90010

The Environment California Research and Policy Center, the new home of the CALPIRGEducation Fund's environmental programs, is a 501 (c)(3) organization that offers an inde-pendent, articulate voice on behalf of the public interest in California. Drawing upon 30years of experience, our professional staff combines independent research and practicalideas to uncover environmental problems, develop pragmatic policy solutions and engagecitizens in our work for meaningful results.

For more information about Environment California please contact: (213) 251-3688

Or visit the Environment California website at www.EnvironmentCalifornia.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


33333

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................. 2

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 5

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8

Santa Monica and MTBE ...................................................................................... 9

The San Gabriel Valley and Perchlorate ............................................................. 11

Fresno and Nitrates............................................................................................. 13

The City of San Diego and MTBE ....................................................................... 14

The Inland Empire and Perchlorate .................................................................... 16

Rancho Cordova and Perchlorate ....................................................................... 18

Policy Recommendations .................................................................................... 20

Endnotes ............................................................................................................. 23


44444


55555

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ing water supply unusable.5 Each year,6,897 acre-feet or 2.2 billion gallons oflocal water goes unused due to this con-tamination.6 The volume of water lostcould supply over 13,000 families withenough water for a year.7 The cost ofimporting replacement water, which willbe paid by the companies responsible forthe pollution, will total over $24 million.8

The San Gabriel Valley andPerchlorateHome to several manufacturers that emergedin the post-World War II industrial boom, theSan Gabriel Valley has over one million resi-dents.9 In 1979, local officials discoveredPCE and TCE, two chemicals used in a vari-ety of industrial practices, in local drinkingwater at dangerous levels. In 1997, officialsalso discovered the presence of perchlorate.PCE and TCE are linked to cancer, whileperchlorate can lead to thyroid problems inadults and decreased IQ in developing fe-tuses.10 The contamination currently disablesfifty wells in the community.11 These wellscould produce 127,369 acre-feet of watereach year, enough to supply water to over250,000 families. The cost to clean up thesewells through wellhead treatment will beover $350 million.12

Fresno and NitratesNitrates are potent toxins that cause a widerange of health problems, including ‘blue-baby syndrome.’13 City water officials haveclosed seven drinking water wells due to ni-trate contamination, which has seepedinto Fresno drinking water supply wellsfrom agricultural fertilizer and leakingseptic tanks.14 These seven wells are ca-pable of producing 8,083 acre-feet ofwater each year, enough to supply waterto 16,000 families.15 Fearing a lack ofsufficient water supplies for the upcom-ing summer, the city will pay over onemillion dollars in 2003 to treat four of thewells.16

The importance of California’s watersupply is immeasurable. Fromquenching thirsty cities to supporting

fragile ecosystems to making food grow, eachdrop of water in California is precious. Re-cent developments sharply underscore thisimportance. On January 1st, after years offailed negotiations between water purveyors,the U.S. Department of the Interior cutCalifornia’s Colorado River water supply byhalf.1 As the Colorado River is the singlelargest water source for Southern Califor-nia,2 this reduction adds enormous un-certainty to the state’s water future.

The Colorado River reduction highlightsthe importance of ensuring that California’sexisting and potential water supplies are thor-oughly protected. Despite this importance,however, careless practices pollute billionsof gallons of underground drinking watersupplies each year.

Down the Drain profiles six cases ofgroundwater contamination in California andtheir impact on the state’s water supplies.New analysis of data provided by water offi-cials finds that in these six cases alone, 70billion gallons of otherwise potable watersupplies are too polluted to drink. Were thesewater supplies available for consumption, thevolume could compensate for 35% of thewater just cut from the Colorado River andsupport 400,000 families for a year.3 BecauseCalifornia’s water supply is a finite, this lossalso increased local, regional and statewidepressures on water supply. If this contami-nation continues, communities across thestate may eventually run out of alternativesupplies to turn to.

Profile Summaries:

Santa Monica and MTBE

In 1996 city officials discovered MTBE, agasoline additive linked to cancer, in localdrinking water.4 The pollutant leaked intothe city’s supply wells from nearby gas sta-tions and rendered 80% of the city’s drink-


66666

The Inland Empire and PerchlorateAfter first discovering perchlorate, a com-ponent of rocket fuel that is linked to thy-roid cancer and decreased IQ, in localdrinking water supplies in 1997, three citiesin the Inland Empire have closed twentydrinking water wells due to the presence ofthe contaminant. These wells could produce61,790 acre-feet of water each year, enoughto supply water to over 120,000 families.17

Estimates of cleanup costs run upwards of$40 million.18 The small city of Colton,for example, pays $4,000 each day to pro-vide replacement water to its residents.19

San Diego and MTBEUnderneath Qualcomm Stadium, home tothis year’s Super Bowl, flows the largestplume of MTBE contamination in the city.The plume, which originates from a large

nearby petroleum storage facility,stretches 6,000 feet and threatens the SanDiego River.20 City officials would liketo use the polluted groundwater basin asa drinking water source by 2015.21 De-spite its potential as a water supply, treat-ing the contamination requirespermanently discarding 60 million gal-lons of water from the basin each year.The water is pumped out of the basin,treated and then released to a local creek,where it ultimately flows to the ocean.22

The MTBE contamination costs the city180 acre-feet in lost potential water sup-plies each year.

Rancho Cordova and PerchlorateRancho Cordova is a small community of50,000 located just east of Sacramento.23 Thecommunity bears the dubious distinction of

Lost Yearly Water Production Capacity from Wells Closed

due to ContaminationCommunity (acre-feet) Pollutant Polluter

Santa Monica 6,897 MTBE Oil Companies

Fresno 8,083 Nitrates Fertilizer, SepticTanks

The San Gabriel Valley 127,369 Perchlorate, Aerojet Corporation,Volatile Organic Other IndustrialCompounds Manufacturers

San Diego 180 MTBE Oil Companies

The Inland Empire 61,790 Perchlorate Goodrich Inc, Black &Decker, OtherIndustrialManufacturers

Rancho Cordova 12,818 Perchlorate Aerojet Corporation,Boeing Company

TOTAL 217,137*

*Equal to 35% of the recent water reduction to California from the Colorado River1

Table 1. Summary of Findings


77777

hosting the first documented case of drink-ing water contamination by perchlorate,a component of rocket fuel that can harmthe thyroid and development of fetuses.Originating from a missile manufacturingfacility operated by Aerojet, contamina-tion disables twelve local wells.24 Thecity’s contaminated wells are capable ofproducing 12,818 acre-feet of water eachyear, enough to supply water to 24,000families.

Policy Recommendations:If we are to succeed in ensuringCalifornia’s water future, it is essential toprotect our water supplies from costly andhealth-threatening contamination. To pre-vent contamination of California’s pre-cious underground water supplies, werecommend the following:

1. Reduce the use of contaminants thatthreaten our drinking water sources;

2. Increase public access to informationabout pollution threats;

3. Require full payment of cleanup costs andreplacement of lost water supplies by en-tities that cause contamination;

4. Increase citizen participation in pollutionprevention;

5. Fully enforce discharge permits to surfacewater;

6. Establish protective zones around drink-ing water wells;

7. Increase the monitoring of undergrounddrinking water sources for contamination;and

8. Require permits for all discharges intoCalifornia water bodies, including agri-cultural runoff.


88888

INTRODUCTION

massive scale. Groundwater provides 30%of California’s water supply in normal years,and our reliance increases dramatically intimes of drought.28 Stored in undergroundaquifers throughout the state, groundwateris a valuable and stable source that is notsubject to evaporation or rapid fluctuationsin precipitation.

Despite the importance of groundwater towater supply, the quality of California’sgroundwater is in serious trouble. Acrossthe state, pollutants compromise thousandsof groundwater sources. MTBE, for ex-ample, a gasoline additive linked to cancer,has contaminated 10,000 groundwater sitesacross the state.29 Perchlorate, a componentof rocket fuel, pollutes 292 undergrounddrinking water sources. DBCP, a pesticidelinked to cancer, pollutes the drinking waterof one million residents across the CentralValley. 30 This contamination causes billionsin cleanup costs and stunts economic growth.

Perhaps most relevant in today’s era ofwater uncertainty, however, is that ground-water contamination renders millions of gal-lons of water unusable every year. At a timewhen California’s water supply from theColorado River has been halved and the spec-tre of drought looms on the horizon, the needto protect our water supplies from pollutionhas never been greater.

The history of California is the history of its water supply. From goldmining and industrial agriculture to

sprawling cities and protected rivers, thecontrol of water has driven California’sdevelopment for two hundred years.From engineering the largest artificialwater delivery system in the world to ex-ploring grand-scale desalination, Califor-nians have invested countless resourcesin attempts to ensure sufficient water togrow food, build cities and protect the en-vironment. Long-term watersustainability, however, remains elusive.

On January 1, 2003, after years of com-plaints from Nevada and Arizona aboutCalifornia’s overuse of Colorado River wa-ter, the U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S.DOI) cut California’s entitlement to the Colo-rado River by 620,000 acre-feet. This re-duced Southern California’s water supply byhalf and threw California water policy-mak-ers into a tailspin. 26 Farmers in California’sImperial Valley filed an immediate lawsuitagainst the U.S. DOI to regain their waterentitlements and water utilities across thestate worried about meeting summer waterdemands. 27 Attempts to resolve the disputecontinue at a frantic pace.

Meanwhile, California’s existing ground-water supply suffers contamination on a


99999

SANTA MONICA AND MTBE

The City of Santa Monica is one ofthe most popular tourist destinationsin California. Boasting over three

million visitors each year, the city is hometo the widest stretch of beach on the Pa-cific Coast.31 In addition to its reputationas a vacation destination, the City of SantaMonica is widely known for its progres-sive environmental policies. The ‘Sustain-able Cities’ program adopted by the cityin 1994 includes several policies to reducethe city’s environmental impacts. Amongthese are ordinances that require the cityto purchase recycled products wheneverpossible, reduce its energy use by 16%,and ensure that 75% of city vehicles runon reduced-emission fuels.32

The City of Santa Monica’s water sup-ply plan is part of the ‘Sustainable Cities’program. According to the plan, the goalof city planners is to increase SantaMonica’s water independence from out-side sources.33 Running its own waterutility, the City of Santa Monica producedonly 31% of its own water in 1990; 69%was imported from the Metropolitan Wa-ter District, a Southern California waterbroker that pulls most of its water fromthe Colorado River.34 Worried aboutover-reliance on an outside water sourcethat is highly susceptible to drought, theCity Council decided to invest heavily indeveloping local groundwater sources andwater conservation programs. 35

The plan worked. From 1990 to 1995,the City of Santa Monica developed agroundwater basin management plan anddramatically increased its local water in-dependence. In just five years, the per-centage of the city’s total water supplycoming from groundwater increased from31% to 70%.36 By the end of the century,the city hoped to produce up to 90% of itswater supply locally.37 This plan not onlybenefited the city economically and in-creased the reliability of its water supply,it also benefited the Southern California

region by reducing pressure on thestrained Colorado River. Between 1990and 1995, the City of Santa Monica in-creased groundwater production by 101%,leaving the rest of Southern Californiaenough extra water to supply 10,000 fami-lies.38

The optimism of city planners wascrushed, however, on October 15, 1995,when city officials discovered the chemi-cal Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) ina local city drinking water well. MTBEis a potent chemical linked to cancer thattravels extremely quickly in water. Testsrevealed the toxic at concentrations 50times higher than state drinking waterstandards.39 Further testing found simi-lar concentrations of MTBE in six othercity wells. All seven were shut off. Thesewells supplied 80% of the city’s drinkingwater supply.40

Several months later, investigators deter-mined that oil companies that operatednearby gas stations with chronically leakinggasoline storage tanks caused the contami-nation.41 Tests conducted as early as 1992revealed gasoline storage tanks with ‘six inchrot’ at the bottom, but the oil companies, suchas Chevron and Exxon-Mobil, did nothingto prevent contamination of the nearby drink-ing water wells.42 The City of Santa Monicapursued legal action to require the compa-nies to clean up the wells. In 2002, six yearsafter contamination was first discovered, oilcompanies finally settled the court case and

SANTSANTSANTSANTSANTA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICA MONICAAAAA

6,897 6,897 6,897 6,897 6,897 AAAAACRE-FEET OF CONTCRE-FEET OF CONTCRE-FEET OF CONTCRE-FEET OF CONTCRE-FEET OF CONTAMINAMINAMINAMINAMINAAAAATEDTEDTEDTEDTEDWWWWWAAAAATER UNUSED EATER UNUSED EATER UNUSED EATER UNUSED EATER UNUSED EACH CH CH CH CH YEARYEARYEARYEARYEAR

Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant: MTBE, a possible carcinogen

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Oil Companies

Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation: All oil compa-nies should phase out the use of MTBEimmediately


1010101010

due to contamination, the City of SantaMonica cannot use its contaminated wells.Due to contamination, 6,897 acre-feet ofwater lies in contaminated wells and is notused each year.

In addition, local officials estimate thatLos Angeles County alone is home tomore than 280 sites that are leaking MTBEinto local groundwater. 44 Despite thisthreat to underground water supplies, sev-eral companies continue to use the can-cer-causing contaminant in petroleum.Large companies like Exxon and Ultramarhave yet to announce a phase-out of thechemical. In order to protect California’svital groundwater resources, it is essen-tial to immediately phase-out use of thechemical.

agreed to pay for full clean up of the city’slost wells.

In addition to the impact of contamina-tion on public health, the contaminationhad massive consequences for SantaMonica’s drinking water supply. In oneyear the city went from importing 31% ofits drinking water supply from outsidesources like the Colorado River to import-ing 80% of its drinking water. Even withoptimistic cleanup projections, the MTBEcontamination of Santa Monica’s wellswill force the city to import an additional61,475 acre-feet of water by 2015.43 Thisis enough water to supply over 120,000families for a year. Importing this vol-ume of water will cost $24.5 million. Inaddition to the water that must be imported


1111111111

THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY AND PERCHLORATE

In 1997, a new contaminant was discov-ered in the Valley’s water supply. Perchlor-ate, a component of rocket fuel, was foundat concentrations 40 times higher than thestate’s provisional safety standard.51 The dis-covery turned on its head what little progresshad been made toward cleanup. Governmentagencies continued lengthy settlement battleswith numerous responsible parties. In 2002,five years after the discovery of perchlorate

The contamination of the San GabrielValley is one of the most notoriouscases of drinking water pollution in

the country’s history. Since the 1940’s,twenty companies polluted the groundwaterof the region with chemicals like PCE, TCEand perchlorate that are linked to cancer andother health problems.45 The contaminationhas resulted in more than $390 million incleanup costs so far, caused numerous healthproblems in the community and has made127,369 acre-feet of water unusable. This isenough to supply over 250,000 families fora year.46

The San Gabriel Valley, bordered by theSan Gabriel Mountains, is home to one mil-lion people and 30 incorporated cities. Thedevelopment of the region is marked byheavy industrial and manufacturing activity.Numerous Fortune 500 companies have ma-jor offices or plants in the San Gabriel Val-ley such as Edison International, MillerBrewing Company, Montgomery Watson andAvery Dennison. In addition, the regionserved as a major hub for the aerospace in-dustry in the post World-War II militaryboom, hosting companies such as Jet Pro-pulsion Laboratory (JPL), Aerojet andMcDonnel Douglas. 47

In 1979, volatile organic compounds(VOCs), a class of chemicals used in a vari-ety of industrial processes and that have beenlinked to cancer, were detected in local drink-ing water supplies. Further testing found thepresence of certain VOCs like PCE and TCEin drinking water supply wells at exponen-tially higher levels than state safety stan-dards.48 In one well monitored by U.S.EPA officials, for example, PCE levelsreached 8,900 parts per billion (ppb). Thestate safety standard for PCE in drinkingwater is, in contrast, 5 ppb.49 Over the nextseveral decades, the parties responsible forthe contamination such as Aerojet foughtcleanup efforts by local, state and nationalofficials.50

SAN GABRIEL SAN GABRIEL SAN GABRIEL SAN GABRIEL SAN GABRIEL VVVVVALLEYALLEYALLEYALLEYALLEY


PPPPPollutants:ollutants:ollutants:ollutants:ollutants: Perchlorate and Volatile Or-ganic Compounds, toxics that cause thy-roid problems and cancer

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Aerojet Corporation, other indus-trial manufacturers

Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation: Governmentshould use all available tools, includingcivil penalties, to ensure cleanup of drink-ing water sources proceeds as quickly aspossible

Pho

to c

redi

t: N

AS

A


1212121212

tal $75 million. While the ultimatecleanup costs have never been tallied, thecurrent costs involved in cleaning up con-tamination in the San Gabriel Valley totalover $390 million dollars.55

The resulting pressure on local water sup-plies is enormous. In a region of 400 sup-ply wells, prior to contamination, localgroundwater provided 90% of the region’swater supply.56 Fifty wells currently areclosed because of contamination by VOCsand perchlorate. These 50 wells are capableof producing a maximum of 79,000 gallonsof water each minute, with a total annual pro-duction of 127,369 acre/feet of water. Inaddition, due to lost local supply capacity,imports of water have increased 10,000 acre-feet each year.57

In order to protect local water supplies likethe San Gabriel Valley’s in the future, it isessential to expedite the cleanup process;cleanup of groundwater contaminationshould not take two decades. U.S. EPA hasthe power to issue civil penalties up to$27,500 each day to parties responsiblefor contamination that fail to comply withcleanup requirements. Despite years ofdelay by Aerojet, U.S. EPA never issuedany fines. In order to hasten cleanup ef-forts, government agencies should employall available tools, including imposingthese civil penalties.

and twenty years after contamination wasfirst discovered, the major responsible par-ties agreed to a final cleanup settlement.52

Despite this agreement, however, physi-cal cleanup of many wells has not yet be-gun.

The public health and economic costsof the contamination of the San GabrielValley’s drinking water supply are tremen-dous. In 1997, 2,500 residents of the SanGabriel Valley filed suit against their wa-ter suppliers and Aerojet, alleging a vari-ety of harmful health effects from drinkingcontaminated tapwater. Most victims citedblood cancers and blood disorders as themajor health effects of the contamination.After five years of court battles, the Cali-fornia Supreme Court ruled in favor of thecommunity, holding water utilities respon-sible for the water quality delivered to theircustomers.53

The economic costs of contamination tothe San Gabriel Valley are also severe. In2002, Aerojet Corporation signed a $250million settlement agreement to clean updrinking water contamination.54 Thissettlement, however, covers only a frac-tion of the total cost of cleanup. In thepast 20 years, public entities have paidover $85 million dollars in unrecoveredcleanup costs. Additional cleanup agree-ments for contamination in the valley to-


1313131313

Billing itself as the state’s “New Fron-tier,” the City of Fresno is locatedin the San Joaquin Valley, the most

productive agricultural county in the coun-try. In 2000, Fresno County growersgrossed over $3.4 billion from the pro-duction of more than 200 commercialcrops. 58 The city forms the populationhub of the region and is home to 60% ofthe county’s residents. 59

The economic strength of Fresno hingesupon its water supply. Nitrate contami-nation, however, threatens this essentialresource. Chronic exposure to nitrates thatare found in fertilizers and leak from sep-tic tanks can cause increased urination,decreased circulatory function and ruptureof the spleen.60

Nitrate contamination of drinking wa-ter sources is widespread in the CentralValley. Between 1984 and 2000, nitrateswere found in drinking water sources9,263 separate times.61 Nitrate contami-nation has forced the closure of eightdrinking water wells in the City of Fresno,and levels in remaining wells remainhigh.62 As a result, in its 2001 report toconsumers on water quality, the City ofFresno recommended pregnant womenseek medical advice before drinking thewater.63

The costs involved in treating nitrate pol-lution in drinking water are tremendous.Water officials estimate that treating ni-trate-contaminated water increases the costof supplying water five-fold from $300/acre-foot to $1,500/acre-foot.64 Treatingjust four of the wells will cost more than$1 million. On January 6, the City Coun-cil, fearing for its ability to supply waterto consumers on high demand hot sum-mer days, voted to pay for treatment andreopen four of the wells for the summer.The city cannot afford to open all eight. 65

Given the problems plaguing its ground-water supply, projected growth for the re-gion, and the cost of treatingnitrate-contaminated wells, the City ofFresno plans to turn to the San Joaquin

River for increased water supply. In or-der to do this, the city must build a watertreatment plant that is estimated to cost$31.5 million. The treatment plant willbe completed in 2004.66

The contamination of Fresno’s ground-water supplies has created a great deal ofpressure on local supplies. The intermit-tent closure of seven wells has cost thecity 8,083 acre-feet in lost water in the pastyear alone.67 This is sufficient water tosupply 16,000 families for a year.

In order to prevent future situations likethe City of Fresno’s, it is necessary to tar-get the source of pollution. In 1998, Presi-dent Clinton passed a ‘Plan of Action’ thatrequired all all states to develop nutrientmanagement criteria based on nationalguidelines. U.S. EPA published theseguidelines in October 2002.68 Californiamust now use these guidelines to set statelimits on the amount of nitrate pollutionthat enters local water bodies. These lim-its should be set quickly and incorporatedinto other relevant programs to limit pol-lution.

In addition to incorporating nitrates intopollution limits set by the state, state agen-cies should also fully enforce state lawsthat govern construction and maintenanceof individual disposal systems such as sep-tic tanks.

FRESNO AND NITRATES

FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO FRESNO


PPPPPollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant: Nitrates, chemicals found infertilizer that can damage the spleenand causes ‘blue baby’ syndrome.

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Fertilizer manufacturers,septic tanks

Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation: Increase theadoption of nutrient management plansto reduce amounts of nitrates that con-taminate drinking water sources.


1414141414

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND MTBEDiego River is one of the primary sources oflocal surface water in the San Diego region.Providing water to as many as 760,000 resi-dents in the region, San Diego River water isstored in five reservoirs along the water-way.72 Groundwater in the San Diego re-gion has historically not been heavily used asa water supply source, primarily because ofhigh salt content. Projections outlined in theUrban Water Plan, however, list groundwa-ter as a source of increased water supply.To meet increased demand, San Diego wa-ter planners project an increase in ground-water use of 91% by 2020.73

Located directly adjacent to QualcommStadium, home of the 2003 Super Bowl, theMission Valley Tank Farm was establishedin 1963 as a major storage facility for petro-leum to be distributed throughout San Di-ego County. With a storage capacity of 25million gallons, the tank farm is owned andoperated by some of the largest oil compa-nies in the world, including Shell Oil andExxon-Mobil.74

In 1991, the San Diego Regional WaterQuality Control Board, the local agency incharge of enforcing water quality laws in thearea, received several reports of massive con-tamination underneath the storage facility’spetroleum storage tanks. The report detailedheavy concentrations of poisonous gasolinechemicals well above state health standards.These chemicals included toxics like ben-zene, toluene and xylene that have beenlinked to cancer. One company even reporteda well that contained one foot of leaked pe-troleum at its bottom.75 Despite the discov-ery of this extensive contamination andcleanup orders issued by the San Diego Re-gional Water Quality Control Board, the re-sponsible oil companies stalled cleanup.Failing to meet the deadline for full cleanupin 1995, the companies asked for—and re-ceived—an extension until 1999.76

In 1996, under state mandate, the oilcompanies began testing for MTBE, acomponent of petroleum linked to cancer that

The City of San Diego is one of thefastest-growing cities in the coun-try. With a population growth rate

twice that of the national average, the SanDiego region expects to add over one mil-lion residents in the next thirty years.69

People move to San Diego for good rea-son: boasting an average yearly tempera-ture of 70o and miles of beautiful coastline,the city offers something for everyonefrom surfers to suburbanites.

The rapid growth of the San Diego regionhas sparked great concern among water re-source planners. According to official esti-mates, an additional one million residents ofthe San Diego Region will require a 30%increase in water supply.70 Most of this wa-ter will be imported from the MetropolitanWater District. Local sources, however, willplay an increasingly important role. Accord-ing to the 2000 Urban Water ManagementPlan, published by the San Diego CountyWater Authority and that lays out the region’swater supply strategy for the next thirty years,“Local resources provide the Authority andits member agencies with highly reliablewater, under local control, with more pricecertainty than is provided by Metropolitan[Water District], the Authority’s main sup-plier of imported water.”71

These local resources include both sur-face water and ground water. The San

SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO

180 180 180 180 180 AAAAACRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WAAAAATERTERTERTERTEREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAR

Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant:Pollutant: MTBE, toxin linked to can-cer

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Large oil companies like ShellOil and Exxon-Mobil

PPPPPolicy Recommendaolicy Recommendaolicy Recommendaolicy Recommendaolicy Recommendation:tion:tion:tion:tion: Require pollut-ers to pay costs of replacing contami-nated water that will be a futuredrinking water source


1515151515

oil companies falsely touted as the answerto California’s air quality problems. Highlymobile in water, MTBE was found to havetravelled 6,000 feet from the site and wasthreatening the groundwater quality of theentire area. 77 Despite the discovery ofMTBE and the extension of the cleanupdeadline, oil companies continue to delay fullcleanup. While the companies have installedsome treatment wells that have removed upto 650,000 pounds of hydrocarbons from thegroundwater, the contamination continues tospread.78

The impact on local water supplies ofthe Mission Valley Tank Farms cannot beunderestimated. In an attempt to slow thespread of contamination, oil companies arepumping massive amounts of groundwa-ter from the basin, treating it to meet ba-sic water quality standards, then releasing thewater into the San Diego River to be washedinto the ocean. This groundwater, containedin the Mission San Diego Hydrologic Sub-area, is listed by the city as a potential sourceof drinking water. The city would like to tapinto the area for drinking water by 2015.79

Each year, however, millions of gallons arepumped out of the aquifer and permanentlydisposed of in a nearby creek. In 2002, be-tween March and October, 39 million gal-lons of treated water from the basin waswashed out to sea. Should cleanup takeuntil 2015, the total amount of potentialwater supply lost to San Diego Countyfrom MTBE pollution will amount to 10%of the total amount of groundwaterneeded to meet the San Diego region’sneeds over the next twenty years.80

Pho

to c

redi

t: C

ity o

f San

Die

goTable 2. Potential Drinking Water

Pumped out of Local GroundwaterBasin and Released to Ocean Due to

Contamination in 2002

Month Amount (gallons)

March 5,312,640April 5,248,130May 5,281,020June 5,133,030July 3,035,690August 4,314,200September 4,858,480October 5,843,390Total for 8 months 39,026,580


1616161616

The Inland Empire is made up ofRiverside and San Bernardinocounties. The region, a rapidly ex-

panding network of small cities and sub-urbs is located just east of Los AngelesCounty and boasts affordable housing andsafe living for all newcomers. In recentyears, the region has experienced an eco-nomic boom. The Inland Empire Eco-nomic Partnership reports, “The InlandEmpire produces new jobs at a five per-cent rate, or nearly 50,000 per year, out-pacing all other state regions.” The personalincome of the region reaches $58 billion andsurpasses that of eighteen states. 81

The rapid economic growth projected forthe Inland Empire, however, is in jeopardy.This past year local water agencies shutdown twenty local drinking water wells dueto contamination by perchlorate, a compo-nent of rocket fuel.82 The chemical, whichcan cause decreased IQ and affects the braindevelopment of unborn fetuses at very lowconcentrations, was present in some wellsat 250 times the state safety standard.83

Inland Empire cities such as Colton lost athird of their drinking water supplies.84

Companies that caused the contaminationare fighting cleanup efforts. In all, the SantaAna Regional Water Quality Control Board(Regional Board) the local agency that over-sees water quality in the region, has identi-fied 30 responsible parties. Among these are

huge companies like Black & Decker andGoodrich Inc.85

Slow handling by the Regional Board hasallowed the contamination to spread quickly.In 1997, the City of Rialto discovered per-chlorate in one of its drinking water wells.86

Despite this report, the Regional Board didnot move to identify the polluters and limitthe spread of contamination. The contami-nation soon spread to 19 other wells in threeother cities. Finally forced to act by pres-sure from local legislators, the RegionalBoard conducted investigations and foundthat the source of contamination was a land-fill purchased by the County of San Bernar-dino from several companies that usedperchlorate decades ago.

This discovery, however, was not enoughto prompt cleanup measures. The Countyof San Bernardino, which had covered thesite with one million cubic yards of dirt, de-nied all responsibility for the contamination.87

Other responsible parties identified by theRegional Board, such as Black & Decker,also denied any responsibility for the cleanup.Meanwhile, fearing the collapse of theregion’s water supply and lacking the re-sources to begin cleanup, local water utilitiesimplored officials to act.88

Responding to these pleas, State SenatorNell Soto established a regional PerchlorateTask Force to speed up cleanup efforts.89

In response to its prompting, the RegionalBoard issued an order requiring the pollutingcompanies to pay the full costs of providingthe community with replacement water andcleanup costs.90 The next day, however, ina meeting closed to the public, the RegionalBoard rescinded the order.91 On January12th, affected water utilities reached a settle-ment agreement with one of the responsibleparties, Goodrich. The other 29 responsibleparties have yet to contribute any resourcesto the cleanup effort.

The perchlorate contamination that affectsthe Inland Empire is wreaking havoc withlocal water supplies. The six-mile long plume

THE INLAND EMPIRETHE INLAND EMPIRETHE INLAND EMPIRETHE INLAND EMPIRETHE INLAND EMPIRE

61,790 61,790 61,790 61,790 61,790 AAAAACRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WCRE-FEET OF UNUSED WAAAAATERTERTERTERTEREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAREACH YEAR

PPPPPollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant: Perchlorate, thyroid-damagingchemical

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Large manufacturers like Black& Decker and Goodrich

Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation: Implement an‘early warning system’ that notifies com-munities of imminent contamination

THE INLAND EMPIRE AND PERCHLORATE


1717171717

San Bernardino currently question whetherthere will be enough water to supply existingresidents this summer, let alone hundreds ofthousands of additional residents projectedby growth estimates. To meet growth de-mands, the San Bernardino Municipal WaterDistrict estimated that it needed to increaselocal groundwater capacity to 240,000/acre-feet per year.96 With 61,790 acre-feet or25% of this estimated need each year tiedup by contamination, the economic future ofthe Inland Empire is in serious jeopardy.

The contamination of the drinking wa-ter of the Inland Empire by perchlorate isparticularly egregious because of the lackof warning to the community. When per-chlorate was first discovered in Rialto, ithad not yet spread to surrounding com-munities. Despite the likelihood that thecontaminant had spread, however, sur-rounding towns like Colton and Fontanawere not provided any warning. If theyhad been aware of the danger, the im-pacted water systems could have imple-mented measures to confront contaminationearlier. In order to prevent future cases,‘early warning systems’ should be imple-mented that notify communities of potentialcontamination threats before they pollute lo-cal drinking water supplies. After contami-nation has already occurred, cleanup costsand replacement water costs escalate dra-matically; preventing contamination in the firstplace is cost effective and the safest optionfor public health.

stretches into the water supplies of four cit-ies, Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino, andFontana, and threatens the water supplies ofnearby Riverside. In total, the contaminantis found in 75 supply wells in San BernardinoCounty. To date, the contamination has re-sulted in 61,790 acre-feet in lost water sup-plies each year. This lost capacity iscrippling. Several local officials warn thatdue to contamination, the region will not haveenough water to carry it through the sum-mer.92

The costs involved in importing extra wa-ter are enormous. The City of Colton esti-mates that it currently spends about $4,000 aday to import water.93 Perchlorate has de-stroyed a third of the city’s water supply. Thecost to treat the contaminated wells is inca-pacitating as well. Officials estimate that thecost of cleanup will be approximately $2 mil-lion per well; treatment will increase the costof water produced from $100/acre-foot to$455/acre-foot. This amounts to $44 millionthat must be paid by polluters, but does notinclude the extra costs already shoulderedby the public. In November 2002, the StateWater Resources Control Board approved a$3 million emergency loan to the City ofColton to begin cleanup efforts. 94

In addition to the economic impact of thecontamination, perchlorate is throwing theregion’s plan for growth into serious jeop-ardy. A state law passed last legislative ses-sion mandates that before any new housingcan be built, a builder must demonstrate areliable water supply.95 Water officials in


1818181818

drinking water wells. By the time testing wascomplete, perchlorate contaminated 55% ofthe city’s water supply.100

The discovery prompted a public out-cry and demands of compensation fordamages done to public health. In 1997,several community members living inclose proximity to the plant filed a law-suit claiming that Aerojet Corporationcommitted fraud in denying leaks from itsfacility. Complaints surfaced of entirefamilies who were afflicted by thyroidabnormalities and other diseases linked toperchlorate exposure. Greg Voetsch, alocal minister, described a litany of thy-roid-related problems that afflicted himand family members. These health prob-lems ranged from cancerous thyroid tu-mors to abnormal hormone conditions.101

In addition to the public health problemssustained by citizens of Rancho Cordova,the contamination of the community’swater supply also threw local water sup-ply plans into chaos. After losing overhalf of its water supply from contamina-tion, the City of Rancho Cordovasearched frantically for new sources. In1998, Arden Cordova filed suit againstAerojet to recover the costs of building alocal water treatment plant.102

In all, eleven drinking water wells inRancho Cordova are currently closed dueto contamination. These wells are capableof producing 7,260 gallons each minuteor 12,818 acre-feet of water each year,enough to supply over 25,000 families fora year. An additional six are threatenedby spreading contamination.103

This contamination has led to concernsthat the community drinking water needwill be unmet in coming years. The com-munity has managed to obtain temporarywater supplies from nearby cities, but along-term solution to replacing the con-taminated water remains elusive. Onesuggestion is to deposit treated ground-

Rancho Cordova, a small suburbancommunity in Northern California,offers a quiet, safe haven for

20,000 largely middle-class families.97

But, located 10 miles east of Sacramento,near the confluence of the American andSacramento Rivers, the region is victimto one of the oldest groundwater contami-nation controversies in the state.

Since 1951, Aerojet Corporation, one ofthe industry’s leading makers of solid andliquid propellants, has operated an indus-trial facility in the northeast corner of thecity. Violating numerous environmentaland safety codes for decades, operatorsat the plant dumped waste chemicals intodeep, unlined pits. Among these chemi-cals was perchlorate, a component ofrocket fuel. Perchlorate is an extremelyhazardous toxic that can cause decreasedIQ in developing fetuses and thyroid prob-lems in adults. 98

According to U.S. EPA records, the per-chlorate dumped on the grounds radiatedfrom the site in six plumes. The plumesspread into local drinking water sourcesand were first officially noted in the mid1980’s.99 In 1997, after performing moresensitive tests, local water officials discov-ered the contaminant in several local

RANCHO CORDO RANCHO CORDO RANCHO CORDO RANCHO CORDO RANCHO CORDOVVVVVAAAAA

12,818 12,818 12,818 12,818 12,818 AAAAACRE-FEET OF WCRE-FEET OF WCRE-FEET OF WCRE-FEET OF WCRE-FEET OF WAAAAATER UNUSEDTER UNUSEDTER UNUSEDTER UNUSEDTER UNUSEDEAEAEAEAEACH CH CH CH CH YEAR DUE YEAR DUE YEAR DUE YEAR DUE YEAR DUE TO CONTTO CONTTO CONTTO CONTTO CONTAMINAMINAMINAMINAMINAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

PPPPPollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant:ollutant: Perchlorate, thyroid-damagingchemical

Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter:Polluter: Large industrial manufacturerslike Aerojet Corporation and The BoeingCompany

Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation:Policy Recommendation: Communitiesshould have access to information thatidentifies potential drinking water con-tamination sources in a community.

RANCHO CORDOVA AND PERCHLORATE


1919191919

water into the nearby American River andwithdraw the equivalent volume of waterdownstream. This proposal, however,raises concerns over additional contami-nation of the vital waterway.

In order to protect California’s watersupplies from such contamination in thefuture, the California Department ofHealth Services (DHS) must make all in-formation about potential drinking watercontaminants sources readily available tothe public. The DHS Drinking WaterSource Assessment Program, as requiredby the federal Safe Drinking Water Act,identifies and maps all potential sourcesof drinking water contamination in a com-munity. If the citizens of Rancho Cordovahad access to such information readily, thecommunity may have identified the sourceof the mysterious ailments plaguing itscitizens much sooner than it did. Armedwith this information, the communitycould have acted sooner to stop the spreadof contamination.

In order to prevent such harm in the fu-ture, DHS should provide specific infor-

Production Amount of PotentialWell capacity (gallons Water Supply LostNumber per minute) (acre-feet per year)

1 405 652.973 750 1209.204 350 564.297 700 1128.5911 760 1225.3312 675 1088.2813 950 1531.6614 800 1289.8215 300 483.6816 500 806.1319 1760 2837.60Total: 7,950 12,817.54

Table 3. Drinking Water Wells in RanchoCordova Closed Due to Contamination81

mation to the public on which facilities areprone to contamination. This informationshould be readily accessible on the Internetand in an easily understandable format.


2020202020

plans to stop using the additive. This de-lay continues despite the recent one-yeardelay of a statewide ban on MTBE use.These companies should immediatelyphase out the chemical from their petro-leum supplies.

• In 1998, U.S. EPA announced plans toformulate a national nutrient managementstrategy. As part of this effort, U.S. EPAreleased national objectives to limit theoccurrence of nitrates in water suppliesin October 2002. State officials shouldincorporate these guidelines and set ni-trate pollution limits throughout Cali-fornia. These guidelines should also beincorporated into other state programsthat set pollution limits.

2. Increase public access to informa-tion about pollution threats.

Although drinking water quality is a ma-jor concern to Californians, communitiesare often unaware of contamination threatsfacing their drinking water supplies.• Despite knowledge of leaks at their fa-

cilities, companies often fail to warncommunities of impending contamina-tion. Had the City of Santa Monicabeen warned of nearby MTBE leaks byoil companies, for example, local wa-ter officials may have been able to pre-vent the shut down of 80% of the city’swater supply. In order to protect pub-lic health and reduce cleanup costs,water suppliers should have access toinformation about the use and leaks ofcontamination-prone chemicals in thevicinity of drinking water wells.

• The California Department of HealthServices (DHS) Drinking Water SourceAssessment Program identifies andmaps potential threats to drinking wa-ter sources. This information shouldbe posted on the Internet and availableto the public in an easily understand-able, detailed format. Had the citizens

Each drop of water in California isprecious. From the rivers of theNorth to the aquifers of the South,

every ounce of available water in the stateis needed to grow food, quench thirst orsupport the environment. At a time whenCalifornia’s water supply from the Colo-rado River has been halved, and the spec-tre of drought looms on the horizon, ourneed to tap all possible water sources hasnever been greater.

Due to contamination, however, many ofour water supplies are unusable and manymore are threatened. Across the state, pol-lution has contaminated the groundwater thatmillions rely upon. An examination of justsix of these cases reveals that billions of gal-lons of water each year go unused becauseof this contamination. This water is suffi-cient to supply over 400,000 families for ayear and to make up 35% of the water justlost from the Colorado River.

As California continues to grow, the needto protect the drinking water sources that wehave left becomes increasingly urgent. Ifwe do not adopt measures to protect ourwater supplies, we place the very future ofthe state in jeopardy.

The following recommendations suggestpolicy changes that would prevent additionalcontamination of California’s precious un-derground water supplies.

1. Reduce the use of contaminants thatthreaten our drinking water sources.

From MTBE to perchlorate to nitrates,chemicals linked to serious health problemsare used in massive quantities throughout thestate.• MTBE is a gasoline additive linked to

cancer that contaminates 10,000 ground-water sites throughout the state. Whilemany of California’s retail gasoline com-panies recently revealed intentions tophase out MTBE from their supplies,several major companies such as Exxonand Ultramar have not announced any

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS


2121212121

of Rancho Cordova been apprised of thepotential contamination threat posed by theAerojet facility, the community may haveidentified the source of the mysterious ail-ments plaguing its citizens much sooner.

3. To prevent pollution, governmentagencies should require full payment ofcleanup costs and replacement of lost wa-ter supplies by companies that cause con-tamination.

• When a local drinking water supply ispolluted, the cost of providing replace-ment water often falls to the community.In the case of the City of Colton in theInland Empire, for example, the cityspends $4,000 a day to provide its citi-zens with safe replacement water. Thoseresponsible should pay the full cost ofproviding replacement water to a com-munity whose water supply they havetainted.

• Often when a community drinking wa-ter supply is contaminated, responsibleparties delay cleanup for years. In theSan Gabriel Valley, for example, a fi-nal cleanup agreement was signed 20years after contamination was first dis-covered. Government agencies shoulduse all available tools, including civilpenalties, to ensure that cleanup of con-taminated drinking water sources pro-ceeds as quickly as possible.

4. Increase citizen participation in pol-lution prevention.

• Volunteer citizen monitoring is an increas-ingly powerful, cost-effective tool tomonitor our most important drinking wa-ter sources. Government agencies shouldfully utilize data obtained through citizenmonitoring programs and provide techni-cal assistance to these programs.

• Information regarding contaminationthreats should be fully disseminated to thepublic and all public meetings should beannounced far in advance. The public

should also be fully involved in the zoningand siting of facilities that use or storechemicals likely to contaminate ground-water.

5. Fully implement and enforce dis-charge permits to surface water.

• National Pollution Discharge EliminationPermits limit the discharge of contami-nants into surface water bodies. Accord-ing to the 2002 Legislative Analyst’sOffice Budget Analysis, however, in 2001the State Water Resources Control Boardissued fines to only 44% of significantNPDES permit violators. Full enforce-ment of these permits will protectCalifornia’s underground water suppliesby reducing the amount of contaminationthat percolates through the soil and intothe groundwater.

6. Establish protective zones to protectdrinking water wells.

Groundwater aquifers that provide drinkingwater to a community should be protectedfrom activities that could contaminate thelocal underground water supply.• The U.S. EPA Sole Source Aquifer pro-

gram provides protection to groundwaterbasins that provide over 50% of the drink-ing water in a community. Mandated bythe federal Safe Drinking Water Act, theprogram requires that U.S. officials re-view any facility that could endanger asole-source aquifer before construction.A groundwater basin is designated a sole-source aquifer after a petition is submit-ted by a private citizen, communityorganization or local agency. In order tomaximize the effectiveness of the programand protect California’s drinking watersources, all qualifying aquifers in Califor-nia should be registered with the U.S EPAand protected to the maximum extent.

7. Increase the monitoring of under-ground drinking water sources for pol-lution.


2222222222

8. Require permits for all dischargesinto California water bodies, includingagricultural runoff.

• Agricultural runoff is a major source ofthe nitrate contamination of California’swaterways. Unlike other discharges ofits kind, however, agricultural runoff isnot subject to pollution permits set bystate water quality agencies. On De-cember 5th, 2002, the Central ValleyRegional Water Quality Control Boardvoted to extend this waiver for twomore years. This decision will greatlyharm the quality of the state’s water-ways and drinking water. In order toprotect the state’s waterways from ni-trate pollution, the Central Valley Re-gional Water Quality Control Boardshould lift the agricultural runoffwaiver.

• In order to protect California’s under-ground water supplies, it is essential tomonitor them for pollution. Despite theoverlapping jurisdiction of several govern-ment agencies, no coordinated groundwa-ter monitoring program exists in California.In response to this problem, in 2001 thelegislature passed and Governor Davissigned AB 599 into law. The law requiresthat state government agencies establisha coordinated statewide groundwatermonitoring program. A task force will de-sign this program with representativesfrom various responsible governmentagencies and members of the public. Therecommendations issued by the task forceshould be adopted quickly by all respon-sible agencies. Only when California’sgroundwater is monitored comprehen-sively will contamination of drinking wa-ter supplies be prevented.


2323232323

1. US Department of the Interior, Press Release ‘Inte-rior Department Transmits 2003 Water Order Approv-als to Colorado River Users.’ 27 December 2002

2. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,Report on Metropolitan’s Water Supplies, 11 Febru-ary 2002

3. Tony Perry, ‘Southland Share of Water to Be Cut asDeal Collapses’ The Los Angeles Times 1 Jan 2003One acre-foot is approximately enough to supply twofamilies with sufficient water from the year

4. California Department of Health Services, MTBEOccurrence Database, Last Updated 7 January 2003

5. Nancy Vogel, ‘Tough Rule Urged for Gas Additivein Drinking Water,’ Sacramento Bee, 9 May 1998

6. City production levels provided by Charmaine Bao,Water Supply Engineer, City of Santa Monica, 9 Janu-ary 2002. In 1990, the City of Santa Monica produced1.625 billion gallons from local groundwater sources.In 1995, the city produced 3.270 billion gallons

7. One acre-foot is enough to supply two familieswith water for a year

8. U.S. EPA Region 9, ‘Unilateral Administrative Or-der for Water Replacement, Shell Oil Company, ShellOil Products Company, Equilon Enterprises LLCI,U.S. (docket no. RCRA 7003-09-99-0007), 10 March2000

9. valleynet.org, ‘The Economic Partnership,’ down-loaded 17 January 2002

10. epa.gov/superfund, ‘U.S. EPA,’ downloaded 13January 2002

11. Number of disabled wells and capacity providedby Kevin Smead, Engineer, Main San Gabriel BasinWatermaster

12. ‘U.S. EPA,’ downloaded 13 January 2002

13. epa.gov, ‘U.S. EPA,’ Consumer Factsheet on: Ni-trates/Nitrites, downloaded 12 January 2003

14. Well capacities and closure numbers provided byDouglas Kirk, City of Fresno, 20 January 2002

15. Ibid.

16. Pablo Lopez, ‘Fresno to Restore Four Wells,’ TheFresno Bee, 5 June 2002

17. Well capacities and closure numbers provided byLeon Long, Assistant General Manager, West San Ber-nardino Municipal Water District

18. Andrew Silva, ‘Our Troubled water,’ San Bernar-dino County Sun, 14 December 2002

19. Andrew Silva, ‘Water Board Spares Companiesfrom Cleaning Order,’ 13 September 2002

20. Kelly Dorsey, Engineering Geologist, San DiegoRegional Water Quality Control Board, Clean WaterTask Force Presentation, 5 December 2002

21. Letter to Mayor, City of San Diego from John H.

Robertus, Executive Officer, San Diego Regional Wa-ter Quality Control Board, 15 November 2002

22. Volumes of treated water discharged provided byCheryl, Engineer, San Diego Regional Water QualityControl Board, 10 January 2003

23. populations.com, ‘The World News Network,’downloaded 21 January 2003

24. Number of disabled wells, well capacities providedby Alex MacDonald, Central Valley Regional WaterQuality Control Board, 13 January 2003

25. US Department of the Interior, Press Release ‘Inte-rior Department Transmits 2003 Water Order Approv-als to Colorado River Users.’ 27 December 2002. To-tal amount of Colorado River water cut to California is204,900 acre-feet to Imperial Irrigation District and415,100 acre-feet to Metropolitan Water District ofSouthern California.

26. ‘Interior Department to cut California Water Sup-ply,’ Associated Press, 28 December 2000

27. Press Release, Imperial Irrigation District, ‘Impe-rial Irrigation District Sues Department of Interior toDefend Water Rights,’ 10 January 2003

28. California Department of Water Resources,‘Drought Preparedness Home Page,’ downloaded fromhttp://watersupplyconditions.water.ca.gov, 14 January2003

29. Happel, Halden, Beckenbach, ‘An Evaluation ofMTBE impacts to California Groundwater Resources’,Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, June 11, 1998; Na-tional Institute of Health Sciences, MTBE Factsheet,downloaded from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/gas.htm, 13 January 2002

30. California Department of Health Services, Perchlo-rate in California Drinking Water: Monitoring Update,Perchlorate in Drinking Water Sources (Year InitiallyFound), Last Update: January 7, 2003; “PerchlorateEnvironmental Contamination: Toxicological Reviewand Risk Characterization,” United States Environmen-tal Protection Agency, National Center for Environ-mental Assessment, Office of Research and Develop-ment, January 16, 2002, External Review Draft; Pesti-cide Watch, Environmental Working Group ‘Tap Wa-ter in 38 Central Calif. Cities Tainted With BannedPesticide Some Bottle-Fed Infants May Exceed ‘Safe’Dose Before Age 1,’ 15 November 1999

31. househunt.com, “Santa Monica Real Estate,” down-loaded 9 January 2003.

32. City of Santa Monica, - “Sustainable City HomePage.” Downloaded from www.santa-monica.org/en-vironment/policy, 9 January 2003

33. Santa Monica City Council, meeting minutes (item6-S), 9 October 1990

34. City of Santa Monica, ‘Urban Water ManagementPlan,’ December 2000

ENDNOTES


2424242424

35. Santa Monica City Council, meeting minutes (item6-S), 9 October 1990

36. City of Santa Monica, Urban Water ManagementPlan

37. Conversation with Charmaine Bao, Utilities Engi-neer, City of Santa Monica, 6 January 2002

38. City production levels provided by Charmaine Bao,Water Supply Engineer, City of Santa Monica, 9 Janu-ary 2002. In 1990, the City of Santa Monica pro-duced 1,625 million gallons from local groundwatersources. In 1995, the city produced 3,270 milliongallons. One acre-foot is equivalent to approximately326,000 gallons of water, approximately enough tosupply two families for a year.

39. California Department of Health Services, MTBEOccurrence Database, Last Update 7 January 2003

40. Nancy Vogel, “Tough Rule Urged for Gas Addi-tive in Drinking Water,” Sacramento Bee, 9 May 1998

41. U.S. EPA, Region 9, Unilateral Administrative Or-der for Water Replacement, Shell Oil Company, ShellOil Products Company, Equilon Enterprises LLCl,U.S.(docket no. RCRA 7003-09-99-0007), March 10, 2000

42. Ibid.

43. Charmaine Bao, City of Santa Monica

44. California Environmental Protection Agency, ‘-Geotracker’- Database, 10 January 2003

45. PCE (perchloroethylene), TCE (trichloroethylene)San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, Press Re-lease ‘San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority andother Water Agencies Finalize Historic $250 millionGroundwater Cleanup Deal,’ 28 March 2002

46. Cleanup costs obtained from epa.gov/superfund,‘U.S.EPA Superfund Program’, last updated 13 No-vember 2002

47. arcadia-realtors.com, Arcadia Realtors, downloaded17 Jan 2002

48. epa.gov/superfund, U.S. EPA, Downloaded 13January 2002

49. CA DHS, ‘Primary MCLs’ downloaded from http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/chemicals/MCL/primarymcls.htm, 13 January 2003.

50. San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, PressRelease ‘Water Authority Calls on EPA to Make Pol-luters Pay,’ 3 December 2001

51. dhs.ca.gov, ‘Department of Health Services, Per-chlorate Monitoring Data’, downloaded 13 January2002

52. San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, PressRelease ‘San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authorityand other Water Agencies Finalize Historic $250 mil-lion Groundwater Cleanup Deal,’ 28 March 2002

53. Hartwell vs. Superior Court, S082782

54. San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 28March 2002

55. epa.gov/superfund, 13 November 2002

56. epa.gov/superfund, updated 1 December 2002

57. Number of well closures and well capacity figuressupplied by Main San Gabriel Water Master, email fromEric Smead, Engineer, 20 January 2002

58. fresno-county.com, Fresno City and County Con-vention and Business Bureau, downloaded 14 January2003

59. censusscope.org, Censusscope, downloaded 14January 2003; Jim Davis and John Ellis “Water key toaccord: County, city adopt pact on growth that mayhinge on Fresno installing meters,” The Fresno Bee, 7January 2003

60. epa.gov ‘U.S. EPA’, Consumer Factsheet on: NI-TRATES/NITRITES, downloaded 12 January 2003

61. dhs.ca.gov, California Department of Health Ser-vices, Drinking Water: Overview of Monitoring Re-sults 1984-2000, Last Update: 10 September 2001

62. Pablo Lopez, “Fresno to Restore Four Wells,” TheFresno Bee, 5 June, 2002

63. 2001 Water Quality Annual Report, City of Fresno,page 5

64. Increased cost estimate provided by Douglas Kirk,City of Fresno, personal communication, 10 January2003

65. Pablo Lopez, 5 June 2002

66. Ibid.

67. Douglas Kirk, City of Fresno, 13 January 2002.

68. U.S. EPA ‘EPA Water Quality Criteria,’ down-loaded from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/stan-dards/nutrient.html, 17 January 2002

69. San Diego Association of Governments, Demo-graphic ‘Fast Facts,’ http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/fastfacts/sand.htm, downloaded January 11, 2001

70. San Diego County Water Authority, 2000 UrbanWater Management Plan – p 2-1

71. Ibid, p 4-1

72. ‘Project Cleanwater,’ downloaded fromwww.projectcleanwater.org

73. EXISTING AND PROJECTED GROUNDWA-TER SUPPLIES (AF/YR), San Diego County WaterAuthority 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, Ap-pendix E

74. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board,Cleanup and Abatement Order, 92-01, p 3

75. Ibid. p 2

76. Addendum No. 1 to Cleanup and Abatement Order


2525252525

92-01, California Regional Water Quality ControlBoard, San Diego, 9 May 1994

77. Kelly Dorsey, Engineering Geologist, San DiegoRegional Water Quality Control Board,Clean WaterTask Force Presentation, 5 December 2002

78. Ibid.

79. Letter to Mayor, City of San Diego from John H.Robertus, Executive Officer, San Diego Regional Wa-ter Quality Control Board, 15 November 2002

80. Ibid.

81. ieep.com, Inland Empire Economic Partnership,downloaded 19 January 2002

82. Leon Long, Assistant General Manager, West SanBernardino Municipal Water District

83. California Department of Health Services,Perhclorate Monitoring Update, Last Updated 7 Jan2003

84. Emily Sachs, “Closure of three wells stirs action,’San Bernardino Sun, 7 May 2002

85. Andrew Silva, ‘Our Troubled Water,’ San Bernar-dino County Sun, 14 December 2002

86. Rick McLaughlin, ‘Plume focus of Rialto Meet-ing,’ 29 October 2002

87. Andrew Silva, ‘Task Force Pushes its Toxic Casesvs. County,’ San Bernardino County Sun, 12 Septem-ber 2002

88. Letter from Senator Soto to Santa Ana RegionalWater Quality Control Board, September 12, 2002

89. Rick McLaughlin ‘Plume Focus of Rialto Meet-ing,’ San Bernardino County Sun, 29 October 2002

90. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,Testimony of Executive Officer, Senate Committee onUrban and Economic Development, 28 October 2002

91. Rick McLaughlin, ‘Water panel broke meeting laws,state lawmaker alleges,’ San Bernardino County Sun,21 September 2002

92. Pumping capacity and number of contaminated wellsprovided by Leon Long, Assistant General Manager,West San Bernardino Municipal Water District, per-sonal communication, 10 Jan 2002

93. Andrew Silva, ‘Water Board Spares CompaniesFrom Cleaning Order,’ San Bernardino County Sun,13 September 2002

94. Staff Reports, ‘Board Okays $3 million forcleanup,’ Fresno Bee, 20 November 2002

95. legweb.com, SB 221, 2001-2002 Senator SheilaKuehl

96. West San Bernardino Urban Water ManagementPlan, 2002

97. populations.com, ‘The World News Network,’downloaded 21 January 2003

98. epa.gov/superfund ‘U.S. EPA National PriorityList,’ downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nar905.htm, downloaded 20 Janu-ary 2003

99. Ibid.

100. bcwaternews.com, “Brown and Caldwell,” down-loaded 13 January 2002.

101. Peter Waldman, ‘Perchlorate Runoff Flows ToWater Supply of Millions,’ Wall Street Journal, 16 De-cember 2002

102. Chris Bowman, ‘Water utility targets latest Aerojetmove,’ Sacrmento Bee, 20 October 2001

103. Data provided by Alex MacDonald, Aerojet SiteCleanup, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Con-trol Board, 13 January 2003


2626262626


2727272727


2828282828

Down The Drain -

Documents

Transcript of Down The Drain -