In January of 2013, California passed a Human Right to Water bill. This was the biggest governmental action that has been taken since passing the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. The bill declared, "Every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” The bill itself was the result of a strong grassroots campaign by a number of communities around California. While it serves as a significant marker and symbol for the goals and aspirations of water advocates, many complain of its limited enforcement power. While it requires state agencies to "keep the policy in mind" when revising regulations, it doesn’t necessarily require them to provide clean water or alternatives for residents dealing with water contamination. Regardless, proponents of the bill still see it as progress and a step in the right direction, hopefully putting the issue of water quality and access into the forefront of current issues.

One of the biggest factors contributing to contamination in California is the presence of harmful nitrates in the groundwater systems. Nitrate is a plant-based chemical that is used heavily in agricultural operations and is applied through animal manure fertilization. The main issue that occurs is when excess fertilizer is used, the chemicals turn into run-off which then enters the water sources. Once in the groundwater, the nitrate can persist and accumulate for decades. And while one would hope the answer would be as simple as reducing the amount of fertilizer that is used on crops, currently there is very little incentive for farmers to limit their fertilizer use considering the low price of purchasing and risk of lower yields if they under-fertilize.

Instead, it is the communities dependent on the groundwater that end up paying the price for this harmful chemical. Not only does nitrate contamination cause skin rashes, hair loss, and birth defects, but it also causes the potentially fatal “blue-baby syndrome” and has been linked to higher rates of cancer. Furthermore, it is also a danger to the environment as it promotes the growth of algae in water sources, de-oxygenating and damaging fish populations. And finally, the financial burden of having to treat contaminated water is crushing low-income communities throughout the state. For example, it was cited by the Pacific Institute that households in Tulare County spent almost 5 percent of their annual income on water, over three times the “affordability threshold” set by the EPA. And generally, utilities and citizens in affected areas can expect to pay $20-36 million per year for water treatment and alternative supplies. This is something that is simply undoable for many communities around California, and it is these communities that are most hard hit by this issue.

Currently, despite the science that exposes the harmful impacts nitrates are having on communities, very little is being done to curb the contamination. Right now, 10 percent of households are currently drinking nitrate contaminated water, and if nothing is done to stem the problem, over 80 percent of residents will be drinking water contaminated by nitrates by 2050. And while the agricultural agency has tried to argue that it is not solely their responsibility as nitrates can come from other sources, a report by UC Davis revealed that 96 percent of nitrate contamination comes from agriculture while the other 4 percent comes from a combination of water treatment plants, septic systems, food processing, and other sources.

Furthermore, when we look at the types of communities most heavily affected by contamination, research has shown a strong correlation between the average incomes of community members and level of contamination. In general, rural residents are at a greater risk as in most cases they depend on private wells which are usually shallower and unmonitored by the government. Specifically, for example, in the late '80s, California public health workers found a cluster of childhood cancers in a community where water quality was especially poor, and all of those children were the children of farmworkers. And furthermore, not only are the levels of contamination much higher to start with, for many communities the costs of purifying the water is simply impossible. The water providers would have to charge residents much more to be able to provide clean water, and knowing the residents would not be able to afford it, they don’t bother to change it. A disproportionate percentage of these communities are heavily Hispanic, and because many of the families are linguistically isolated (when all adults in the family speak only non-english languages), it is much more difficult for these families to advocate for themselves and make civic change.

So what can we do about it?

The best way that we can improve this issue of nitrate contamination is to start with prevention. While it is much more easily said than done, we can greatly reduce the amount of fertilizers entering our waterways by communicating with and educating farmers. Research has shown that too much fertilizer can actually reduce yields, so encouraging just the right amount of usage is crucial. Additionally, something that would monetarily incentivize farmers to reduce the amounts of fertilizer they use would be to institute a fertilizer tax. Currently, there is no state tax on fertilizer, and adding an additional cost to this damaging chemical would take just a little bit of the financial burden off the communities it damages.

Currently, there is little political will to tackle the problem; mainly because it is most heavily affecting the poor communities, and any richer individuals affected are able to pay the costs of obtaining clean water. But the thing politicians don’t want to accept is that the problem will only get bigger and affect more and more people if nothing is done to change the status quo. The issue of clean water cannot be ignored forever. It really comes down to a question of who is responsible for keeping these common resources clean and safe and is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.

Perhaps we could move to institute programs similar to those of countries like Switzerland where drinking water providers from contracts with farmers and provide subsidies to those who eliminate fertilizers and use organic farming methods. There is much we can do to improve the living conditions within our own country, and while it can sometimes seem futile to try, I always remember my favorite quote by Margaret Mead:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”