ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

Agricultural Nitrate Contamination

of Groundwater Drinking Sources
in California’s Central Valley
Annie Jones, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Figure 1: Tap water. businessinsider.com

Introduction
It is a hot summer day in California’s Central Valley. A child goes on their tiptoes to open the
kitchen cabinet to retrieve a glass. The child moves to the kitchen sink, opens the tap, and fills their glass
with water. The water appears clean like the water in Figure 1, but is contaminated with nitrates from
agricultural runoff, a common occurrence in Central Valley water systems.
The Central Valley spans 20,000 square miles from as far north as Redding and the Cascade
mountain range to the Tehachapi Mountains south of Bakersfield (U.S. Geological Service [U.S.G.S],
2021a). The eastern edge of the Valley is bordered by the Sierra Nevadas and the western edge is
bordered by the Coast Ranges and the Bay Area (see the center of Figure 2). This bathtub-shaped valley is
a hub of agriculture; about 25% of food in the United States is produced here, ranging from dairy products
to produce (U.S.G.S., 2021a). The agricultural practices of using nitrogen-based fertilizer have created
stress on the drinking water system, as these practices can contaminate drinking water (Blazas et al.,
2012).
Despite both the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
of 1974 being passed nearly 50 years ago, many American communities still do not have access to clean
or safe drinking water (Blazas et al., 2012). Flint, Michigan is one example of a city in the United States
with poor water infrastructure and high levels of contamination that made national headlines (Pulido,
2016). The Central Valley in California is experiencing a similar situation of lack of access to safe
drinking water in its rural, incorporated communities as a result of poor water infrastructure and high
contamination levels (Pannu, 2012). California water quality is monitored through the 2005 Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Implementation of the CWA, SDWA, and Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act have all been criticized because they do not adequately address water quality issues,
including nitrate contamination. Central Valley residents, the agriculture industry, the government, and
California State Water Resources Control Board are all directly impacted by water quality policy. Nitrate
contamination needs to be discussed because all Central Valley residents have a right to clean, drinkable
water.

Figure 2: Map of California and the Central Valley. istockphoto.com

2
Background

History

Water Inequality and Poverty in the Central Valley

Poor water quality in the Central Valley often coincides with low income, rural, and/or minority
communities. Many of these rural areas are unincorporated census-designated locations. The Central
Valley is one of the poorest areas in the United States, especially the San Joaquin Valley section (Pannu,
2012). In a 2012 case study, Camille Pannu compares the Valley’s poverty, unemployment, and
enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or CalFresh rates to the California
and national average, as seen in Figure 3. Pannu states, “These figures only capture a fraction of the
impact of underinvestment and exclusion within unincorporated Valley communities,” (2012, p. 230).

Figure 3: Poverty, unemployment, and SNAP or CalFresh enrollment rates

from 2012.
Due to poor infrastructure and oftentimes proximity to farmland, residents of these
unincorporated areas experience water insecurity. Many of these communities were founded by migrants,
farmworkers, and refugees seeking agricultural jobs after being pushed out of the formal cities (Pannu,

3
2012). Dannielle M. Purifoy of the Duke Human Rights Center defines “unincorporated communities”
as, “residents have neither formed their own municipal governments nor been annexed into another
town’s local government,” as many of these communities are adjacent to established towns (n.d., para. 3).
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a census-designated place as, “statistical geographic entities representing
closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name,” (2018,
Summary section). These communities in the Central Valley were often improperly resourced and
purposefully racially segregated (Pannu, 2012). As these communities are outside of the city, they are
closer to agricultural land, and therefore are at a higher risk of agricultural runoff that contains nitrates
from fertilizers, and nitrate contamination in their tap water. City water systems are also vastly different
from rural water systems. Many unincorporated areas and rural communities rely on public or private well
water, which is monitored differently from municipal water. A large portion of “unincorporated, low-
income, rural communities of color spend over 10 percent of their annual incomes purchasing residential
water,” which is “four times larger than the U.S. EPA’s recommended threshold payment level for
affordable water,” (Pannu, 2012, p. 243). Unclean tap water might be the cheapest option, so using water
delivery companies like Culligan may not be accessible to everyone. Finances and additional
contaminants put these low-income communities at a much higher risk than higher income communities.
Since these at-risk communities are so close to farmland, agricultural runoff full of nitrates from fertilizer
leaches into their water supply and contaminates the water.

Scientific Background

Nitrates and Agriculture

Fertilizer use has become increasingly common to raise crop productivity (Criss & Davisson,
2004). Fertilizers use nitrogen in the form of chemicals or animal manure because it is an essential
element to plant growth (U.S.G.S., 2021b). Nitrogen produces nitrates (NO3) during the nitrogen cycle.
Nitrates can contaminate water sources and groundwater through runoff because nitrogen becomes a
contaminant when it dissolves into water. It then leaches into the aquifer, polluting the groundwater
across the nation, as seen in Figure 4 (Luo & Shrestha, 2018). Irrigational leaching is the primary source
of leachate, as precipitation is low in most of the Central Valley (Mayzelle et al., 2015). The level of
contamination that an aquifer experiences depends on “hydrogeological conditions like shallow water
table, high permeability, and high hydraulic conductivity,” (Luo & Shrestha, 2018, p. 2). Places like the
Central Valley with high permeability and low elevation tend to have higher levels of nitrate. In the case
of high permeability, there is a large amount of space between the sediment grains, allowing for easy

4
drainage of contaminated water into the groundwater. Additionally, groundwater is the primary water
source for most rural communities in the Central Valley and is acquired through pumping. Pumping the
groundwater changes the water flow pattern within the aquifer, which can shift the transport mechanism
of the dissolved nitrate in the groundwater (Luo & Shrestha, 2017).

Despite the massive agriculture industry in the Central Valley and the entire state, water
contamination from agricultural sources was not regulated until 2011 (Pannu, 2012). The EPA’s
Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) for nitrates is 10 mg/L (Luo & Shrestha, 2017). Many
groundwater sources in the Central Valley have nitrate levels far higher than 10 mg/L. Tulare County has
the highest rate of nitrate violations compared to the other counties in the Central Valley (Pannu, 2012).
Long-term exposure to nitrate can have drastic health effects that differ between adults and children.
Babies can develop methemoglobinemia, more commonly known as “blue baby syndrome” (Blazas et al.,
2012). Blue baby syndrome “disrupts the body’s ability to carry oxygen around in the blood, resulting in
slow, painful suffocation,” and a slight blue tinge to the skin (Pannu, 2012, p. 244). Adults can experience
“hormone disruption, often undermining reproductive ability or increasing the likelihood of birth defects
and miscarriages,” (Pannu, 2012 p. 244). Additionally, prolonged exposure to nitrates has been linked to
thyroid disease and colorectal cancer, as “nitrate is a precursor in the formation of N-nitroso compounds,”
which are mostly carcinogens and teratogens (Ward et al., 2018, p. 2). In order to prevent detrimental
health effects caused by nitrates and other contaminants, federal and state policies exist to monitor water
quality.

Figure 4: Nitrate contamination across the United States. usgs.gov

5
Policy Context

Federal Water Quality Policy

The Clean Water Act was initially established in 1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and serves as the base for water quality standards for surface waters and pollutant discharge regulation
(EPA, 2020b). The name was changed in 1972 to the Clean Water Act (CWA) as it was expanded and
reorganized. The EPA is responsible for establishing and implementing wastewater standards, water
quality levels for surface waters, and controlling pollutant discharges through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (CWA, 1972). Two years later, a new federal water quality policy was
passed with a different focus.

Similar to the CWA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was established to monitor drinking
water quality in 1974 (SDWA, 1974). However, this act differs from the CWA, due to the focus on safe
drinking water from groundwater or above ground sources (EPA, 2020a). The EPA is also responsible for
minimal drinking water standards and makes it mandatory for water systems to meet these standards.
State governments are also allowed to implement the EPA standards along with the federal Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) and the SDWA establishes state programs to protect
groundwater sources (EPA, 2020a).

The EPA sets standards for various potential water contaminants. To be considered safe to drink,
the water cannot surpass the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) from the EPA standards. There are
multiple categories for contaminants with various MCLs depending on the contaminant. Nitrates are
considered an inorganic chemical contaminant and the MCL is 10 mg/L (EPA, 2021). The MCLs are put
in place to establish safe drinking water standards for human health.

California State Water Quality Policy

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act was passed in 2005 and established the California
State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs) (California State Water Resources Control Board [CSWRCB], 2008). The state boards are
responsible for monitoring water quality, ensuring water rights, implementing pollution control under the
CWA, and creating state water quality policy. They also serve as the governing body for the RWQCBs.
The nine RWQCBs’ budgets are controlled by the CSWRCB, but the RWQCBs are responsible for the
daily implementation of CWA and Porter-Cologne within the state (CSWRCB, 2008). The RWQCBs’

6
water quality control plans are referred to as “Basin Plans” that are required to be approved by the
CSWRCB and consist of three elements: “beneficial uses,” “water quality objectives to reasonably protect
beneficial uses,” and “implementation program for water quality objectives,” (CSWRB, 2008, p. 14). All
basin plans are required to comply with the CWA, are approved by the EPA, and are reviewed every three
years.

In Camille Pannu’s 2012 case study “Drinking Water and Exclusion: A Case Study from
California’s Central Valley,” she criticizes the lack of implementation of these policies. The policies can
be enforced from multiple jurisdictions and yet they remain ineffective or ignored. Additionally, data was
not recorded according to SDWA standards. In a summary comparing the CWA to the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act by the California Water Board from 2008, the CWA’s limitations have
problems. To implement the CWA’s water quality standards, more stringent regulations are necessary.
Pannu’s criticism of the Central Valley’s water quality is based on the lack of implementations of the
CWA and SWDA. Additionally, Hanak et. al (2011) criticize the CWA in Managing California’s Water:
From Conflict to Reconciliation for its lack of effective management of nonpoint source pollution, such as
agricultural runoff. The CWA has mostly monitoring and operational practices instead of limiting the
agricultural discharges that cause nitrate pollution (Hanak et al., 2011). This failure to implement
limitations has likely contributed to the excess nitrate contamination found in the Central Valley.
However, the complex water policy system makes it difficult to implement water quality policies in the
state.

Pannu also criticizes this delegation of water policy, referring to it as a “labyrinthine, fragmented,
and outdated system of state and local water governance,” (2012, p. 245). Pannu (2012) goes on to argue
that the multiple levels of policymaking and implementation have led to contradicting policies and
overlap of jurisdiction. The boards also prioritize water for aquaculture over water for drinking.
Additionally, citizens do not elect water board leaders. Power from these boards can be delegated down to
the local level, making water expensive and inaccessible in addition to local boards not prioritizing human
welfare over private interest in water (Pannu, 2012). Hanak et. al similarly criticize the system’s failure to
coordinate an alignment between “management oversight with the appropriate geographical scale (e.g.,
basins and watersheds) and that connects activities across different functional areas to benefit water
supply, flood protection, water quality, and ecosystems,” (2011, p. 133). This communication gap has led
to the poor implementation of water quality policy. Hanak et al. (2011) also criticize the state’s limited
capacity for technical and scientific information. This limitation makes it difficult for water quality to be

7
monitored, which leads to the high levels of nitrates and other contaminants in Central Valley drinking
water systems. These limitations also impact groups who have a stake in this situation.

Stakeholder Perspectives

As water quality policy is drafted in the Central Valley, the perspectives of those who have a stake must
be considered to satisfy as many stakeholders as possible. Table 1 examines the relevant stakeholders,
their values, contributions, and concerns regarding water quality policy. Following Table 1, this section
examines the stakeholders and their concerns and values in greater detail.

Table 1: Stakeholder Perspectives

Stakeholder Representative Stakeholder Contributions Stakeholder Concerns

Groups Values
Community Water Utilitarian Community organization Usable water
Central Valley Center
residents Dominionistic Advocacy Illness
Committee for a
Lack of water infrastructure
Better Seville
Lack of funding
la Asociación de
Gente Unida por el
Agua
Various towns and
unincorporated areas
Western Growers Utilitarian Lobbyist organizations Time-consuming
Farmers Association
Dominionistic Pollution Changes in regulations
East San Joaquin
Working with regulatory Amount of contamination
Growers Association
groups to reduce nitrogen use
Sustainable Utilitarian Lobbyist organizations Taxes
Dairymen Conservation
Dominionistic Pollution Changes in regulations
(working with
dairymen) Working with regulatory Amount of contamination
groups to reduce nitrogen use
Senator Kamala Utilitarian Water quality legislation Satisfying citizen interests for clean
Government Harris drinking water
Dominionistic Water quality legislation
State Assembly enforcement Satisfy agricultural interests
members in the
Solutions to water quality Economic impact
Central Valley (ex:
issues
Devon Mathis) Funding
State Representatives
(ex: Kevin McCarthy)
California State Water Utilitarian Creation of regulations Satisfy citizens who lack clean
Water Resource Resource Control drinking water
Control Board Enforcements of regulations
Board
Satisfy farmers and dairymen
Regional Water
Fit all community needs
Quality Control Board
(Irrigated Lands Funding
Regulatory Program)
County Water
Districts

8
Central Valley Residents Perspective

The people of the Central Valley, especially those in unincorporated rural areas, suffer from
nitrate contaminated water from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff. Many of the people who
live in these communities are “the same people who make up most of the low-wage workforce of the
agriculture industry itself,” (Miller, 2013, para. 5). Community Water Center and la Asociación de Gente
Unida por el Agua are community organizations that were created to represent areas that have no access
to clean water (Miller, 2013). These communities are so underrepresented due to the lack of a formal
government that they must represent themselves to obtain drinkable water. “It’s OK to be rural and small.
You should not be penalized and live in conditions with unaffordable and toxic water because you’re
rural,” states Susana De Anda, Community Water Center’s co-founder and co-executive director (Lohan,
2017, para. 11). De Anda explains that community size and location should not coincide with the
importance of clean water. Clean water is a necessary utility for all life and small, rural communities
should not be ignored when it comes to access to this fundamental resource.

Many of these communities are extremely poor, oftentimes made up of Black, Latinx, or Native
American individuals, and are unable to pay the cost necessary to fix their water systems (Vaughn, 2021).
For example, the estimated average household income in the community of Woodville is $18,000 to
$22,000 per year; in a High Country News article, Lohan states, “That’s well below the official poverty
line of $24,000 a year for a family of four and the $30,000 a year figure for a family of four calculated by
the California Poverty Measure,” (2017, Economies of scale section, para. 2). If these communities were
able to, they would pay the necessary amount to acquire clean water and new water systems, but it is not
feasible. Moreover, in the East Orosi community, the tap is so contaminated with nitrates that parents do
not use the water for baby formula and wonder if it’s safe to give to their dogs (Miller, 2013). Residents
live in fear of the water in their own homes. These community members are working toward access to
cleaner water, but the financial burden of fixing the water system is too great for the people to afford.

Farmer and Dairymen Perspective

Farming and dairy are major industries in the Central Valley. For example, “Tulare is the top
milk-producing county in the country, bringing in $1.6 billion a year,” (Lohan, 2017, Economies of scale
section, para. 3). Farming and dairies are also very connected; manure from the dairy cattle is used as
fertilizer and in turn, the crops produced are often used to feed the cows (Gies, 2017). California has a
long-term plan to combat nitrate pollution, but “many farmers find it burdensome to report on their nitrate
regulation,” (Gies, 2017, para. 7). “If you have thousands and thousands of acres, it is time-consuming,”

9
says Parry Klassen, a small peach farmer near Kings River and manager of the East San Joaquin Growers
Coalition (Gies, 2017, Controlling Source Pollution section, para. 6). The long-term plan is called a
nitrogen management plan, in which farmers are required to “record how much nitrogen they apply and
when, whether it’s commercial, synthetic, or organic,” as stated by Sue McConnell, Irrigated Lands
Regulatory Program manager with the Central Valley water board (Gies, 2017, Controlling Source
Pollution section, para. 1). Crop yields are also reported because the difference between crop yield and
estimated amount of nitrogen each crop will use can be calculated to determine an approximate amount of
nitrogen left in the soil (Gies, 2017). Farmers and dairymen are concerned with the tedious nature of
nitrogen management plans. For farmers, time is of the essence for each harvesting season and nitrogen
management plans require farmers to take the time to log their nitrogen use.

However, there are farmers and dairymen who are working toward reducing their nitrogen usage.
Environmental group Sustainable Conservation is working with dairymen to fix dairy waste leaching and
lagoons (Gies, 2017). Sustainable Conservation has been using a new technology that allows water mixed
with fertilizer to easily pass-through drip irrigation so dairy farmers can irrigate their fields using manure-
based fertilizer with minimal nitrate pollution (Gies, 2017). So far, the results of their efforts have been
promising. Many farmers are part of grower coalitions that encourage nitrogen reduction (Gies, 2017).
Farmers have found some solutions such as pump and fertilize, where farmers measure the amount of
nitrogen in the groundwater they tap to irrigate their fields in an effort to “reduce the amount of new
fertilizer they apply to their crops,” (Gies, 2017, New Ideas section, para. 1). While nitrogen management
plans are tedious, some farmers have taken steps to reduce their nitrogen usage to curb nitrogen pollution
of drinking water systems.

California State Water Resources Control Board Perspective

California water is managed under the California State Water Resources Control Board, meaning
regulations are established and enforced by this board. The board is broken down regionally and by
county. The CSWRCB wants to assist the residents in the 680 communities across California with
contaminated groundwater drinking supplies, but finances and location compared to the neighboring
water system of certain communities create complications (Lohan, 2017). Federal funding for water has
been decreasing, making it more difficult for the CSWRCB to assist poor communities in fixing their
water systems (Vaughn, 2021). Nitrogen management plans are designed to help farmers and dairymen
reduce their nitrogen use to limit nitrate contamination of water sources, but “growers are not required to
submit them,” (Gies, 2017, Controlling Source Pollution section, para. 5). The CSWRCB has power, but

10
it is criticized for its failure to implement programs and regulations. Additionally, they are struggling to
find a solution to the nitrate contamination problem. The situation has been a long process and it will
continue to be a lengthy process to regulate nitrates and their contamination of groundwater sources.
Nitrate regulation and water pollution control policies need to be examined to fit the stakeholders’
concerns and solve the nitrate contamination issue.

Discussion

Policy Options

Table 2 on the following page examines three policy options regarding the Central Valley’s
agricultural nitrate contamination problem to address the stakeholders’ needs: maintaining the current
state water governance, restructuring the current California water governance, and involving the federal
government. The current California governance system is through the California State Water Resources
Control Board, which is policy option 1 (California State Water Resources Control Board [CSWRCB],
2020). The CSWRCB is the main governing body, followed by nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards and more governing bodies at the local level such as irrigation districts and city or county
jurisdiction (CSWRCB, 2020). Policy option 2, restructuring the current governance, would entail action
such as making more straightforward channels of water governance, as the complicated breakdown has
been a contributing factor to the nitrate contamination issues (Pannu, 2012). Policy option 3, federal
involvement, could mean grants, legislation, or new water quality programs.

These policy options are evaluated under the following criteria: expense, residential acceptance,
satisfying agricultural interests, and providing solutions to nitrate contamination from agriculture. Due to
the high average poverty rate in the Central Valley, funding can be difficult to come by, which is why
expense is considered as part of this policy analysis (Pannu, 2012). Residential acceptance is important
because the people of the Central Valley are affected by the impacts of neighboring agriculture. If the
policy is not agreed upon by the residents, their situation may not be improved. Satisfying agricultural
interests is important from an economic standpoint, as agriculture is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the
Central Valley (Lohan, 2017). Agriculture also provides jobs for thousands of Central Valley residents,
many of whom live with nitrate contaminated water (Miller, 2013). The final criterion is providing
feasible solutions to nitrate contamination because it is an ongoing problem with no successful solutions
thus far. Without solutions to the contamination, Central Valley residents will continue to be poisoned or
be obliged to obtain water from other sources (Miller, 2013).

11
Table 2: Analysis of Policy Options by Criteria

Criteria Maintain current state Restructure current Federal involvement

water governance state water
governance

Criteria 1 - Expense ++ -- +/-

Criteria 2 - Residential -- +/- ++

acceptance

Criteria 3 - Satisfy +/- +/- --

agricultural interests

Criteria 4 - Provide -- +/- +/-

feasible nitrate
contamination solutions

Key: ++ Positive, +/- Neutral/to be determined, -- Negative

Policy Option 1: Maintain current state water governance

This policy option would entail continuing with California’s State Water Resources Control
Board as the governance for water quality policy. The CSWRCB’s water policy must comply with the
CWA and SDWA (CSWRCB, 2008). This would likely be the least expensive policy option, as it does
not add to the current costs of water quality policy and implementation. However, the current water
governance is unsatisfactory to Central Valley residents. One of the biggest criticisms of this water
governance system is its lack of implementation, which has led to water quality issues across the Central
Valley (Pannu, 2012). The complex breakdown of the governance from the state level down puts the
responsibility of water quality on its residents, who form organizations like Community Water Center to
advocate for water rights (Miller, 2013). Agricultural interests could maintain a neutral stance behind
current water governance, as it currently benefits them. Farmers are encouraged, but not required to
submit nitrogen management reports to the California State Water Resources Control Board (Gies, 2017).
The nitrogen management reports are meant to help regulate nitrogen use, but the existence of
organizations like the Community Water Center are proof that these reports are not enough to stop the
contamination (Miller, 2013). Agricultural interests are also often prioritized over drinking water interests
(Pannu, 2012). However, this current system could be reexamined to better suit the people’s needs.

12
Policy Option 2: Restructure current state water governance

Restructuring the California State Water Resources Control Board means to simplify the system
for more streamlined governance. Restructuring an entire governmental system would likely be
expensive. Depending on how the changes would be made, it could result in job losses, but it could also
create new jobs. Restructuring the system could potentially have a higher approval rating, especially if
residents are more involved. Currently, residents do not elect water board leaders, so including citizens in
electoral processes could garner their support (Pannu, 2012). Due to the high rates of poverty in the
Central Valley, residents’ concerns and issues are notoriously ignored in state legislation (Lohan, 2017).
However, that situation could also get worse and completely ignore residents of the Central Valley. The
current system of government prioritizes agricultural interests over resident concerns, so if changes do not
reduce agricultural rights, agricultural interests will likely be satisfied (Pannu, 2012). Ensuring the
existence of this billion-dollar industry is an important factor to consider with restructuring. Lastly, a new
structure of government could potentially have better solutions for contamination. The current solutions
are reports that are not required to be turned in to the government. A new system of government could
look at the current systems and reevaluate them to find solutions. This could go well or poorly, but it has
potential to yield the changes that the people desire.

Policy Option 3: Federal involvement

Federal government involvement is also widely variable. For example, a federal grant to improve
water quality and infrastructure could ease the financial burden from the state government and from the
residents who have been trying to fix their water infrastructure themselves. However, poor allocation of
that money by the state government could be problematic and continue the trend of not including citizens
and increasing bureaucracy (Pannu, 2012). Depending on action taken by the federal government,
agricultural support could easily be lost or gained. Currently, there is a fee of about $100 to $180 per ton
of nitrogen fertilizing materials (California State Water Resources Control Board [CSWRCB], 2013). A
2013 California State Water Resources Control Board on nitrates in groundwater states, “the economic
disadvantage of paying for excess nitrogen fertilizer would function as an incentive to reduce total
nitrogen loading to the environment,” (p. 25). Additional fees or taxes from the government could serve
as other incentives for farmers to reduce their nitrogen use, but it could also cause frustration due to the
extra expense. Finally, the government has many options for how it would manage nitrate contamination
such as, tax cut incentives, more thorough and frequent monitoring of nitrates, and more. There are a
number of potential routes that the state can take that could be successful or unsuccessful.

13
Recommendation

To avoid the problem of state versus federal power, my recommendation is to restructure the
California State Water Resources Control Board. Additionally, state boards are closer to their constituents
and more likely to understand and/or act on the constituents’ needs. The current status quo is cost
effective and is doing something to help with water quality issues, but it has shown to not be enough. The
most significant criticism of the current governance is it does not implement water quality standards
adequately. The federal government could provide sufficient funds that the state would not have.
However, federal involvement could result in nothing happening, unequal allocation of resources, major
pushback from agricultural groups, and competition with state power. Restructuring the CSWRCB is
incredibly complicated; the CSWRCB is broken down further and further the closer you get to the local
level. Changing an entire state governmental system is expensive or could result in job losses. However,
these potential drawbacks could be mitigated through a job retention program that employs former
CSWRCB employees in the new water governance system or taxing agriculture industries that use nitrates
and dedicating that revenue to creating the new governmental system. There is a myriad of potential
hidden in rebuilding water governance. For example, direct citizen involvement in water governance to
address their needs, incentivizing nitrate reduction, and increasing nitrate testing are just a few outcomes
that could occur. The CSWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Boards could remain in power but
have smoother channels for implementation and to hear constituent concerns. There are many options that
the CSWRCB can change and improve its function for itself and its constituents, and overall bring change
at a more efficient pace.

Conclusion
Nitrate contamination of drinking water sources in California’s Central Valley causes a health
hazard for Central Valley residents. A change in current state water governance could help to better
manage and monitor nitrate contamination. Central Valley residents, agricultural interests, and the
California State Water Resources Control Board all wish to find a way to fix the water contamination
without damaging the Central Valley’s multi-billion-dollar agriculture economy. Nitrogen is a significant
component to add to fertilizer to help increase crop yield, but it can be used sparingly or become more
thoroughly monitored to minimize the nitrates in agricultural runoff. The current water governance is
ineffectively managing nitrate contamination due to its complicated breakdown and a more streamlined
form of governance could help acknowledge all constituents’ concerns. People have a right to clean

14
drinking water and some changes to the current system could improve the health and quality of life of
thousands of Central Valley residents.

15
Literature Cited

Blazas C., Hubbard A., Morello-Frosch R., & 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(84), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-11-84
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2008). Overview of California water quality law.
[PDF]. Waterboards.ca.gov. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_reference/docs/wq_law.pdf
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2013, February 20). Recommendations Addressing
Nitrate in Groundwater. [PDF]. Waterboards.ca.gov.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nitrate_project/docs/nitrate_rpt.pdf
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2020, November 25). About The Water Board.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/
Clean Water Act, Congress, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. -- 92nd United States Congress (1971-1972)
Criss R. E. & Davisson M. L. (2004). Fertilizers, water quality, and human health. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 112(10).
Environmental Protection Agency. (2020a, August 3). Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act
Environmental Protection Agency. (2020b, September 9). Summary of the Clean Water Act.
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act
Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, January 5). National primary drinking water regulations.
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations#main-content
Gies, E. (2017, August 31). Why California’s nitrate problem will take decades to fix. Water Deeply:
Toxic Taps. https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/articles/2017/08/31/why-californias-
nitrate-problem-will-take-decades-to-fix
Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., Moyle, P., & Thompson, B. (2011).
Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation. Public Policy Institute of
California. https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211EHR.pdf
Lohan, T. (2017, July 6). Why 1 million Californians lack safe drinking water. High Country News.
https://www.hcn.org/articles/why-1-million-californians-lack-safe-drinking-water

16
Luo W. & Shrestha A. (2017). Analysis of groundwater nitrate contamination in the Central Valley:
Comparison of Geodetector method, principal component analysis and geographically weighted
regression. International Journal of Geo-Information. 6(297). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6100297
Luo W. & Shrestha A. (2018). Assessment of groundwater nitrate pollution potential in Central Valley
aquifer using Geodetector-Based Frequency Ratio (GFR) and Optimized-DRASTIC Methods.
International Journal of Geo-Information. 7(211). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7060211
Mayzelle M. M., Viers, J. H., Mendellin-Azaura, J., Harter, T. (2015). Economic feasibility of irrigated
agricultural land use buffers to reduce groundwater nitrate in rural drinking water sources. MDPI:
Water. 7(12-37). https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010012
Miller, J. (2013, June 24). California farm communities suffer tainted drinking water. High Country
News. https://www.hcn.org/issues/45.11/california-farm-communities-suffer-tainted-drinking-
water
Pannu, C. (2012). Drinking water and exclusion: A case study from California’s Central Valley.
California Law Review, 100(1), 223-268
Porter-Cologne Act, California State Legislature, Wat. § 13000 et seq. -- California State Senate (2003-
2004)
Pulido, L. (2016). Flint, environmental racism, and racial capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism. 27:3.
1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1213013
Purifoy, D. M. (no date). Living Unincorporated. https://humanrights.fhi.duke.edu/living-unincorporated/
Safe Drinking Water Act, Congress, 42 U.S.C. §300f et seq. -- 93rd United States Congress (1973-1974)
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, November 9). Census Designated Places (CDPs) for the 2020 Census-Final
Criteria. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/13/2018-24571/census-designated-
places-cdps-for-the-2020-census-final-criteria
U.S. Geological Service. (2021a). California’s Central Valley: Regional Characteristics
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html
U.S. Geological Service. (2021b). Nitrogen and Water. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-
science-school/science/nitrogen-and-water?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-
science_center_objects
Vaughn M. (2021, January 21). Kamala Harris says California’s water crisis is a racial injustice. Will
she champion equity? The Fresno Bee.
https://www.fresnobee.com/fresnoland/article248643865.html
Ward, M. H., Jones, R. R., Brender, J. D., De Kok, T. M., Weyer, P. J., Nolan, B. T., Villanueva, C. M.,
& van Breda, S. G. (2018). Drinking water nitrate and human health: An updated review. MDPI

17
 International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 15(1557).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071557

18