ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Water Contamination in the San

Joaquin Valley
Maya Cota, Environmental Studies Program, California State University, Monterey Bay

Introduction

Water Contamination in California

Water lies at the center of all that is living. As the world is increasingly affected by
climate change and anthropogenics activity, freshwater availability is becoming scarce. Through
more frequent drought events, variable precipitation rates, higher temperatures and water
contamination less water will meet standards for human consumption. Humans are impacting
access to water through contamination by using them in tandem with other practices, such as
agriculture, fracking and general development (Figure 1). Nonetheless, researchers have found
that in the coming years climate change has the potential to further exacerbate the issue of water
contamination (Elkstrom, 2017). There are many climate change scenarios that would affect
water quality such as, extreme precipitation which would increase runoff polluting water bodies,
and temperature rise could increase the frequency of bacteria and algae blooms (Elkstrom, 2017).
In drought events, contaminants become concentrated and are more easily transferred closer to
intakes and other aquifers (Elkstrom, 2017). With human activity and infrastructure working
alongside the threats of climate change it is necessary to address the severity of water
contamination and its potential impact on life itself.

The San Joaquin Valley currently serves as one of the largest agricultural producers in the
United States, and is home to some of the most contaminated water systems. Those who hold a
particular stake in contaminated water systems include community members (including
farmworkers), the agricultural sector (primarily landowners/managers), environmental agencies
and government agencies. As the agricultural sector continues to perpetuate the issue of water
contamination in the San Joaquin Valley, environmental and government agencies are searching
for solutions to increase the quality of life for residents of the Valley. Should there be no action
taken to solve water contamination, residents will be faced with increased costs for water and
adverse health impacts. In addition, the agricultural sector will be faced with a decreased
workforce considering most of the farm laborers in the Valley are local residents. State and local
governments should heed the impacts water quality is having on the San Joaquin Valley and its
residents by creating a plan to lessen the burden it is causing. It is necessary to understand how
this occurred? Who is involved? And how do we attempt to solve the issue of water
contamination?

Background

Scientific

Drinking water contamination in the San Joaquin Valley is mainly caused by runoff from
water systems that have a natural presence of elements such as nitrates, phosphates, and other
organic compounds. At small concentrations these compounds are able to be filtered through,
however, elevated concentrations can become harmful to human health (Balazs, 2011).
Groundwater has been contaminated through run-off and leachate from wastewater treatment,
fertilizer, animal agriculture, and septic systems (Esser, 2002). There is evidence that suggests
some 5.6 million Americans, that use public water systems, are at risk to be affected by use of
water with increased N levels (Balazs, 2012). About 10% of all of California's drinking water
contains water that is contaminated with levels of nitrates that exceed regulations for water
quality (Esser, 2011). The Central Valley of California is a key case study for this issue, as most
of the communities are in close proximity to agriculture that is irrigated and drained near public
water sources.

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency has set in place maximum contaminant levels
(MCL’s) in order to ensure water is safe for human consumption. For a contaminant such as
nitrate the MCL is 10 mg/L nitrate-N. Between the years 1993 and 1995 a quarter of the
domestic wells in the Eastern San Joaquin Valley had nitrate levels that exceeded the maximum
contaminant level (Dubrovsky, 1998). Between 2001 and 2002, high percentages of public-
supply wells in Fresno and Modesto were found to have low concentrations of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) (Wright, 2004). In 2006, approximately 10% of all of California's drinking
water contains water that is contaminated with levels of nitrates that exceed regulations for water
quality (Esser, 2011). This issue is persisting and will continue should there be no action taken to
regulate the agricultural practices responsible. Nitrate in drinking water has been known to cause
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby syndrome, and has been linked to reproductive toxicity, birth
defects, and cancers (Ward, 2005).
Figure 1. Average nitrate levels in Community Water Systems in the San Joaquin Valley (Balazs,
2011)

History

The San Joaquin Valley has been an agricultural hub since the 19th century and over the
last few centuries the land and resources in the Valley have been overused due to consistent
growth in the demand for the agricultural sector (Escriva-Bou, 2017). In order to sustain the
increasing level of agricultural production in the Valley, demands for water have increased
substantially since the 1800’s. Several studies have discovered that the San Joaquin Valley uses
more groundwater than most other states in the nation, accounting for 13% of groundwater
withdrawals in the country (Maupin, 2005). With years of accumulated pesticide and fertilizer
use in the San Joaquin Valley, coupled with unregulated irrigation practices has led to
contamination of soil with salts, selenium, nitrates and other chemicals (Olmstead, 2017).
 Through the past several decades of environmental awareness there have been changes to
practices in the Valleys soil and water use. However, one pervasive issue regarding water quality
is the accumulation of contaminants in groundwater, due to decades of intensive use of nitrogen
fertilizer and dairy manure on fields (Escriva-Bou, 2017). Much of the nitrogen not consumed by
crops moves slowly downward into groundwater supplies, eventually threatening drinking water
sources (Hanak, 2019). Some three-
quarters of the state's violations
concerning nitrate levels in drinking
water could be traced to the San Joaquin
Valley (Balazs, 2010). Studies have
shown that the use of contaminated water
imparts costs to overall human health and
Figure 2. Map developed by has the potential to cause financial
the Pacific Institute to show
distribution of water damage to both the consumer and the
contamination through distributor (Pannu, 2012). Events of water
California in relation to
nutrients and pesticides contamination occur more frequently than
are reported and researchers have found
that these events are disproportionately affecting low-income communities that are often
communities of color (Shaider, 2019).

The infrastructure for these communities' water systems are often in close proximity to
agriculture, fracking sites, manufacturing plants, or power plants and rely heavily on ground
water. A big contributor to this disproportionate access is due to the general functions of
Community Water Systems (CWS) in lower income neighborhoods that often have lower
homeownership rates and higher percentage of BIPOC (Shaider 2019). This is a result of a lack
of funding to comply with testing water quality standards, and institutional barriers that do not
allow for proper management of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure (Shaider, 2019).

Water Contamination Policy

 Figure 3. Hydrologic cycle as it refers to
While water
groundwater quality
sources issues were
in California. Imageaddressed
provided at the federal level, California developed its
by California Department of Water Resources
own system for regulating water quality. Through the formation of the State Water Regulations
Board, California has been able to make changes from within since the 1960’s. In California's
San Joaquin Valley, there are high concentrations of contaminants present in several
groundwater sources. To date there are several relevant policies that aim to address this issue
including the Clean Water Act (1972), the Porter Cologne Act (1969), and more recently the
Irrigated Lands Program (2003) and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (2014).
However, in application these acts have variable impacts on affected communities.

Federal Water Policy

The Clean Water Act (CWA) or Federal Water Pollution Control Act was established in
1972 as the nation began to become more concerned with the state of the environment. The act
was put in place to “restore and maintain” all aspects of the nation's water supply (i.e chemical,
biological, physical integrity). This act has made it so that discharge of any pollutant into the
waters of the United States is considered unlawful without a permit. In addition, this act assumes
that the enforcement of technology usage, testing and treatment facilities, would make it so that
the issue of pollution would cease (Clean Water Act, 1972). Moreover, the CWA is responsible
for designating use for water supply, providing individual implementation plans for public use,
agricultural use, fish and wildlife, industrial use, and recreation (ibid). By enacting more
stringent water quality standards the act requires triennial review of water sources, and must be
approved by the USEPA (ibid). Should the USEPA decide that the results of the review are not
consistent with the guidelines of the act or the state refuses to act on the guidelines they will
create water quality standards (ibid).
In many cases the USEPA is not directly involved in the formulation of water quality
standards despite the state's non-compliance with water quality standards. Unfortunately, this is a
result of insufficient funding for water quality testing in small water systems, found in rural
communities or low-income communities, that have underdeveloped water infrastructure. In
2012 the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) conducted a study to identify the
state's small water systems that were not meeting standards detailed in the CWA (U.S. EPA,
2012). Through this study the CDPH identified that 50% of the systems that were not up to
standard could be found in the San Joaquin Valley (U.S. EPA, 2012).

State Policy

In 1969 the California state government passed the Porter Cologne Act which set
precedent for the Federal Clean water Act. The Porter-Cologne Act was recognized as one of the
country’s strongest pieces of anti-pollution legislation. The law was considered strong enough to
become the basis of the later written Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Two
main results of the policy established the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional
Water Quality Control Boards. The State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for state
policy on water quality control and finalizes decisions proposed by the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (Porter-Cologne Act 1969). The Porter-Cologne Act (1969) calls for the use of
waste discharge requirements as water quality tools. These are permits for the discharge of any
kind that could impact the quality of California's water, surface or groundwater. This act
addresses discharge from both point and nonpoint sources, allowing for a wider range of
accountability for different businesses and agencies that contribute to the general contamination
of water sources. The act entrusts the Regional Water Boards with the daily implementation of
the Porter-Cologne Act and the Clean Water Act (Porter-Cologne Act 1969).

SGMA and The Irrigated Lands Program

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for several
different programs specific to regulating groundwater quality through looking at managing
sources. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act has created a framework for the boards
to implement Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in areas that have medium to high priority
basins (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, 2014). The formation of these agencies
supports the notion that there is no single solution for groundwater use and misuse management
across the country, therefore, it is best that the local government is responsible for the creation
and implementation of regulatory systems (SGMA, 2014). In addition, these agencies are
responsible for forming local Groundwater Sustainability Programs aiming to address lowering
of groundwater levels, reductions in groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, land subsidence
surface water depletion that has a significant and unreasonable impact on beneficial uses and
degradation of water quality (SGMA, 2014). The act aims to bring groundwater basins into
balance by 2040 by addressing their uses and potential sources of degradation.

Moreover, the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies of the Central Valley are working
alongside programs such as the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). This program was
formed in 2010 by the Regional Water Board, originally focusing on limiting the pollutants in
water sources caused by farmland (California Water Resources Board, 2020). Later the program
began to focus more on addressing the farmers themselves, urging them to change their practices
in order to reduce general contaminant output (California Water Resources Board, 2020). To
date, approximately six million acres of farmland are enrolled in the ILRP, working to prevent
agricultural discharge from negatively impacting water quality.

Stakeholders Introduction
Stakeholder Representative Stakeholder What are the What does the
Group Examples Values concerns of the stakeholder
stakeholder? contribute?

Government EPA Moralistic, Upholding and Forming legal steps

Agencies Regional Water Board - Utilitarian, developing legal to regulate water
Central Valley Ecologistic requirements for quality
Scientific water quality Ensuring economic
feasibility

Environmental Community Water Center Moralistic, Impacts of water Bringing awareness

Agencies Environmental Justice Ecologistic contamination on to the issue
Coalition of Water Scientific communities Providing necessary
research to support
at-risk communities

Community Farmworkers - and their Moralistic, Negative impacts of Advocating for clean
Members families Utilitarian water costs and water
Townspeople health concerns Make up a large
BIPOC related to percentage of
contaminants agricultural
 workforce

Agricultural Farmers, producers Dominionistic, Water costs and Economic

sector Utilitarian restrictions limiting contributions to state
(landowners) production and country
Production of food
to the country at
exponential rates

Table 1. Stakeholders perspectives

Community Members
Many towns in the San Joaquin Valley, epicenter to the agricultural industry in
California, are what are considered, unincorporated communities, meaning there is no municipal
government system in place to implement streetlights, road signs and even ensure there is clean
water (Lohan, 2017). There are approximately 310, 000 people living in these unincorporated
communities in the San Joaquin Valley alone (Lohan, 2017.) Many residents note that they are
consistently notified that their tap water is contaminated, one resident even notes that she
“[doesn't] use it at all for cooking, not even for beans.” (Del Real, 2019.) The contamination
crisis has become so severe that youth have begun to find themselves concerned. In Fresno, a
group of youth explores the water contamination in their community further after seeing
“firsthand that not all houses in Fresno have clean water.” (Martinez, 2021.)
Another such community experiencing water contamination is Woodville in Tulare, a
county known for its large scale animal agriculture operation (Lohan, 2017.) People working as
water and wastewater service managers from these unincorporated communities have noted that
the rigor of this work is seldom compensated in an equitable manner, making it difficult to
maintain qualified staff (Lohan, 2017.) With water contamination affecting hundreds of
thousands of people everyday, the contamination persists through unsafe levels of nitrates in
drinking water. Animal agriculture, fertilizer and wastewater runoff are responsible for high
levels of nitrates in groundwater (Lohan, 2017.) Exposure to more than the maximum
contaminant level of 10 mg/L nitrates-N can cause severe health impacts in adults and infants
alike; in infants it is known to cause methemoglobinemia, otherwise known as “blue baby
syndrome” (Lohan, 2017.) The community members of the San Joaquin Valley at large express a
moralistic-utilitarian approach to the water contamination issue as it affects their health and
hinders their right to water.

Environmental Agencies

Independent agencies, specifically grassroots organizing projects in the Central Valley

are responsible for a majority of the efforts made to resolve the water contamination crisis in the
Valley. Namely organizations such as the Central California Environmental Justice Network are
working to ...There is this unanimous position held by the environmental agencies of the Central
Valley reiterating over and over again that the contamination crisis faced by the residents is
unlawful and has caused an abundance of harm. This voice is supported by organizations such as
the Community Water Center, which works to fight to realize the human right to water in rural
communities disproportionately impacted by water scarcity and contamination (Community
Water Center, mission + history.) Many of these community agencies are working to provide
access to clean water across the towns they are working in. Susana de Anda, a co-founder of the
Community Water Center, goes so far as to defend the position of people in rural communities
exposed to small water systems stating “you should not be penalized and live in conditions with
unaffordable and toxic water because you're rural” (Lohan, 2017).

Agricultural sector perspective

Agricultural business owners, namely CEO’s and landowners, serve a different

community role than farmworkers and residents. They are in charge of running a business that
provides a large percentage of the country's agricultural output. There are two major perspectives
people hold about California formers; either they are progressive, educated and effective or
capitalist who are exploiters of resources and people (Olmstead, 2017). With split perspectives of
the agricultural sector, commonalities lay in the action carried out by farmers. Water boards
continue to allow farmers to be passive about the impacts pesticide and fertilizer runoff have on
human and environmental health (Bothwell, 2019). Kari Fisher, the California Farm Bureau
Federation’s senior counsel imparts opinions held by the farmers at large. On multiple occasions
Fisher has advocated to protect the economic viability of agricultural businesses through
scrutinizing environmental policy (Leslie, 2020). The agricultural sector upholds a utilitarian and
dominionistic approach to the environment, with a major focus on the economic impact
environmental restrictions will have on their business. Understanding they have a responsibility
to meet population consumption demands, it is necessary to strike a balance among costs and
benefits of upholding environmental policy.

Discussion
Lasting change related to water quality in the San Joaquin Valley will ultimately come
from the government agencies responsible for protecting and conserving resources. The policy-
makers responsible for water quality in the San Joaquin Valley will be responsible for the
methods and timelines of remedying the issues facing the community members of the Valley.
Varying factors have exacerbated the water quality crisis in the California, San Joaquin Valley,
thus the solution must take them into account in order to make lasting and feasible change. Some
policy options that could contribute to solving this issue include 1) providing strict guidelines for
and support recurring water testing in small water systems, 2) plan to enforce the equitable
implementation of existing policy, and 3) enforce improved leachate and runoff management
systems from agricultural use for regulating nutrient and pesticide transport. Each policy option
will be measured based on its ability to fulfill major goals for the San Joaquin Valley such as,
economic feasibility, equitable action, drinking water protection, harm reduction,
pollution/nutrient reduction and agricultural reform (Table 1).

Policy Option 1: Provide strict guidelines for and support recurring water quality testing in
small water systems
This policy option aims to work alongside communities that do not have the resources to
keep their water systems in compliance with federal regulations. Every water system is
responsible for testing their water quality, this is often a responsibility delegated to the water
board in which the system resides. However, the government does not provide additional funding
for water systems in rural areas that have less connections to neighboring water systems and
often serve smaller populations (Balazs, 2012). With revised regulations regarding contaminant
levels in water systems, government agencies are not considering the economic burden
compliance may have on these small water systems (Balazs, 2012).
In order to ensure the small water systems are supported a separate committee should be
established which focuses on allocating funds to these systems. Many of these systems require
what Balazs et al (2012) refer to as a “joint burden analysis” which takes into account the ability
a community has to comply with water quality standards and the impact exposure to these
contaminants has on them. The San Joaquin Valley is home to 140 small water systems which
fail to comply with safe drinking water standards and exceed multiple maximum contaminant
levels (MCL’s). Knowing that small water systems, and Community Water Systems (CWS),
which serve more than 25 residents or have at least fifteen service connections, historically find
themselves unable to comply with these standards it is necessary to provide them with the
capacity to carry out these measures (U.S. EPA, 2012). This policy option would expand upon
the existing regulations by making them attainable for all communities. By using a “joint burden
analysis” governing agencies could find which communities require aid and how much, in order
to keep their water systems in compliance with state and federal regulations.
It is prudent to provide communities with the necessary tools to uphold the regulations
they are expected to uphold. Providing strict guidelines for and supporting water quality testing
in small water systems is a viable policy recommendation to ensure guidelines are met in an
equitable fashion and ensuring water quality is a top priority. This policy option works to
support small water systems by providing state sanctioned support, ensuring that testing is
being carried out and maintaining water quality standards.

Policy Option 2: Plan to enforce the equitable implementation of existing policy

The existing policies including the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act
aim to protect the interests of corporations and the public while upholding standards of health
and resource management. These policies provide important precedent for environmental
regulations and standards that concern water quality. However, environmental policies, such as
these, often overlook the ways in which they are providing solutions that cannot equitably
address impacted communities.
The San Joaquin Valley is home to many racial and ethnic minorities who are
disproportionately impacted by living and health conditions, as well as, having low economic
standing (Balazs, 2011). In addition to fulfilling social and economic characteristics mentioned
above, these communities are often faced with the issue of lacking healthcare services, making
treatment for water contamination related illness less likely to be treated (Balazs, 2011).
Coupling these communities' capacity to afford mitigation strategies and ability to pursue
proper health intervention related to water contamination, the policies in place seem to
perpetuate these cycles of social environmental impact (Balazs, 2011).
The equitable implementation of existing policy will allow for disproportionately
impacted communities to thrive while addressing the environmental issue at hand. Using the
concepts and standards set in place by existing policy, such as upholding contaminant level
standards, and adding elements that breakdown socio-economic barriers to being able to
resolve these issues within all impacted communities will benefit the most vulnerable. While
implementing this policy may be costly for the entities fulfilling these regulations, the overall
human capital that will benefit from them increases their ability to thrive. When the
communities being impacted are alleviated of some existing burdens caused by policies, such
as the Clean Water Act, they would gain the capacity to take action and work to manage water
contamination from within.
Policy Option 3: Enforce improved leachate and runoff management systems for
agricultural use for regulating pesticide and nutrient transport
A major component of water contamination in the San Joaquin Valley is related to
runoff and leachate caused by agricultural land use. Some forms of contaminants, such as
nitrates, go through a process called attenuation turning it into nitrogen gas; this does not affect
the groundwater source (Moore, 2011). However, with the use of fertilizers on farmland being
so great, nitrates are not able to be absorbed at the rate they are inputted into the environment.
Nitrate has the potential to leach into the groundwater and increase the level of contaminants
present in drinking water sources. Enforcing improved leachate and runoff management
systems for the agricultural sector requires an upshift in action taken by the farmers
themselves.
The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program has begun to set in motion action that will
place standards upon how to manage discharge from irrigated lands. The program issues waste
discharge requirements that include water quality monitoring of receiving waters and
corrections set in place to solve irregularities as they arise (California Water Boards, Irrigated
Lands Regulatory Program 2021). A solution for these irregularities could be to include
vegetative barriers, woodchip bioreactors and saturated buffers to absorb excess nutrients
passing through the soil (EPA, The Sources and Solutions: Agriculture). These elements would
require a budgetary shift to add funding to support and implement innovative techniques to
resolving water quality issues. Because these practices are not required to be included in the
average agricultural fields found in the Valley the federal government will need to provide
support for the smaller farms that do not have the financial resources to include these
technologies (California Water Boards, Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program 2021). This policy
option is centered around the protection of water as it is related to agricultural reform, however
the policy does not account for equitable implementation.

Criteria Policy Option 1- Provide Policy Option 2 - Policy Option 3 -

strict guidelines for and Plan to enforce Enforce improved leachate
support recurring water the equitable and runoff management
testing in small water implementation systems for agricultural use
systems of existing policy

Economic --- --- ---

feasibility

Drinking +++ +++ +++

water
protection

Equitable +++ +++ ---

action

Pollution/ +++ -/+ +++

nutrient
 reduction

Harm +++ +++ +++

reduction
(illness,
disease, etc.)

Agricultural -/+ +++ +++

reform

Key: Strong: +++ Neutral: -/+ Weak: —

Recommendation

Each of the aforementioned policy options lead to positive impacts on the people of the
San Joaquin Valley susceptible to harm by water contamination. Individually measured by their
ability to be implemented equitably, economic feasibility, ability to protect drinking water,
reform agricultural practices, reduce pollution and human harm. As studies continue to arise,
connecting water contamination with adverse health impacts, the government will further
experience pressure from environmental justice organizations attempting to support the needs of
the residents of the San Joaquin Valley.

My recommendation for the San Joaquin Valley is to pursue all of the policy options as
two of them are simply revisions to existing policy and the last addresses the source of the issue,
posing important benefits to the human and non-human. Attempting to take on all three policy
options at once would be difficult considering the budgetary requirements necessary to carry out
the work they require. The policy options that require revisiting existing policy intend to provide
equitable resolution to legislation that inadequately addresses vulnerable communities. If
application of these policy options is economically feasible and executed properly, they have the
capacity to better the quality of life of Valley residents, decrease overall contaminant levels in
the water systems and provide communities with lasting resources to promote resiliency against
environmental threats.

When analyzing the policy options above, enforcing the implementation of leachate and
runoff management practices has the weakest overall potential to succeed. However, it does
serve the importance of addressing the source of the issue. Should this policy be implemented
there wouldn't be an equitable application in this process as it would only address the concrete
environmental implications of runoff and leachate management options. Introducing
management of runoff and leachate through technological advancements would be a helpful
strategy in mitigating the introduction of contaminants into water sources. The other two policy
options more directly address the human lives impacted by water contamination and ensure the
communities are given proper support to carry out policy requirements. The limitation to
pursuing all three options would be the economic strain of attempting to implement all three
options at once.

Conclusion

Although the San Joaquin Valley will continue to be a large agricultural hub there are
opportunities to provide holistic solutions to water contamination exacerbated by farm practices.
Water contamination is concentrated in small water systems that serve smaller communities and
have less service connections. Understanding the way water contamination disproportionately
affects low-socioeconomic communities and communities of color, there must be equitable
solutions to providing residents with clean drinking water. Pursuing policy options that
encompass the needs of the community and further enforce existing policy will most benefit the
San Joaquin Valley.
Literature Cited

Balazs, C., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A., & Ray, I. (2011). Social disparities in nitrate-
contaminated drinking water in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Environmental health
perspectives, 119(9), 1272-1278.

Balazs, C. L., Morello-Frosch, R., Hubbard, A. E., & Ray, I. (2012). Environmental justice
implications of arsenic contamination in California’s San Joaquin Valley: a cross-sectional,
cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems.
Environmental Health, 11(1), 1-12.

Balazs, C. L., & Ray, I. (2014). The drinking water disparities framework: on the origins and
persistence of inequities in exposure. American journal of public health, 104(4), 603-611.

Bothwell, S. (2019). Advocates for Clean Water Fight For Environmental Justice as Pollution
from California BigAg Creates Looming Central Valley "Flint" Crisis. ImpactFund.
Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.impactfund.org/social-justice-blog/cali-
coastkeeper

Brougher, C. M. (2008). California Water Law and Related Legal Authority Affecting the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Congressional Research Service.

California Water Resources Board, 2020, Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program: Overview
Retrieved October 25, 2021, from
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/
Del Real, J. A. (2019, May 21). They grow the nation's food, but they can't drink the water. The
New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/california-central-valley-tainted-water.html

Dubrovsky, N.M., Kratzer, C.R., Brown, L.R., Gronberg, J.M., and Burow, K.R., 1998, Water
quality in the San Joaquin– Tulare Basins, California, 1992–95: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1159, 38 p.

16
Ekstrom, J. A., Bedsworth, L., & Fencl, A. (2017). Gauging climate preparedness to inform
adaptation needs: local level adaptation in drinking water quality in CA, USA. Climatic
change, 140(3-4), 467-481.

Escriva-Bou, A., Gray, B., Green, S., Harter, T., Howitt, R., MacEwan, D., & Seavy, N. (2017).
Water Stress and a Changing San Joaquin Valley. Public Policy Institute of California.
https://www. ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_0317EHR. Pdf.

Esser, B. K., Hudson, G. B., Moran, J. E., Beller, H., Carlsen, T., Dooher, B., ... & Rosenberg, N.
(2011). Nitrate contamination in California groundwater: an integrated approach to basin
assessment and resource protection (No. LLNL-TR-466420). Lawrence Livermore National
Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States).

Gronberg, Jo Ann M., Charles R. Kratzer, Karen R. Burow, Joseph L. Domagalski, and Steven
P. Phillips (2004). Water-Quality Assessment of the San Joaquin–Tulare Basins—Entering a
New Decade. Sacramento, CA: U.S. Geological Survey.

Hanak, E., Escriva-Bou, A., Gray, B., Green, S., Harter, T., Jezdimirovic, J., ... & Seavy, N.
(2019). Water and the future of the San Joaquin Valley. Public Policy Institute of California,
100.

Leslie, J. (2019). Op-Ed: One water district is trying to make sure agriculture cleans up its own
mess. Retrieved October 26, 2021, from https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-
24/nitrate-groundwater-central-coast-salinas-valley-santa-maria-valley-vegetable-farms

Lohan, T. (2017, July 14). Systemic failure: Why 1 million californians lack safe drinking water.
Water. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from
https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/articles/2017/07/05/systemic-failure-why-1-
million-californians-lack-safe-drinking-water

Martinez, N. (2021, August 7). Water and environmental justice in the Central Valley.
Community Alliance. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from https://fresnoalliance.com/water-
and-environmental-justice-in-the-central-valley/?fbclid=IwAR3UdMXFEn-
pxstbuGECEAHNV-3oyfjsyTP5SJun1fVxx2dRdgvJ-N-W8vs.

17
Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005, Estimated withdrawals from principal aquifers in the
United States, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1279, 52 p.

Mission + history. Community Water Center. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2021, from
https://www.communitywatercenter.org/history.

Moore, E., Matalon, E., Balazs, C., Clary, J., Firestone, L., De Anda, S., Guzman, M. (2011).
The Human Costs of nitrate-contaminated drinking water in San Joaquin Valley. Pacific
Institute.

Olmstead, A. L., & Rhode, P. W. (2017). A history of California agriculture. Giannini

Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California.
Pannu, C., Seaton, P., Firestone, L., Dawson, M., & Nguyen, P. (2018). The struggle for water
justice in California’s San Joaquin Valley: A focus on disadvantaged unincorporated
communities. UCDAVIS

Pannu, C. (2012). Drinking water and exclusion: A case study from California's Central Valley.
California Law Review, 223-268.

RECHARGE, U. (2008). Hydrogeology, water chemistry, and factors affecting the transport of
contaminants in the zone of contribution of a public-supply well in Modesto, eastern San
Joaquin Valley, California.
Schaider, L. A., Swetschinski, L., Campbell, C., & Rudel, R. A. (2019). Environmental justice
and drinking water quality: are there socioeconomic disparities in nitrate levels in US

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, Cal. Water Code § 10720 (2020).
https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMAGroundwater-Management

The Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C §§ 1251 et seq. (2012). https://www.epa.gov/laws-
regulations/summary-clean-water-act
The Porter-Cologne Act of 1969, Water Code, § 13000 et seq. (2020).
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, National primary and secondary drinking water
standards: Washington D.C., Office of Water, EPA 816-F-03-016.

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): Actions for Cleaner Water: Safer Drinking
Water. 2012,[ https://www.epa.gov/sanjoaquinvalley/actions-cleaner-water ]

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): Public Drinking Water Systems: Facts and
Figures. 2012, [http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/factoids.cfm]

Wright, M.T., Belitz, K., Johnson, T., 2004, Assessing the susceptibility to contamination of two
aquifer systems used for public water supply in the Modesto and Fresno metropolitan areas,
California, 2001 and 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-
5149, 35 p.

Ward, M. H., DeKok, T. M., Levallois, P., Brender, J., Gulis, G., Nolan, B. T., & VanDerslice, J.
(2005). Workgroup report: drinking-water nitrate and health—recent findings and research
needs. Environmental health perspectives, 113(11), 1607-1614.

19