![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/growingreturns\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/52\/files\/2019\/05\/EDF-8280-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/a>No economies of scale <\/strong><\/p>\n In 2017, about 300 public water systems in California failed to comply with federal drinking water standards, according to a state water board report. Ninety percent of those violations were in systems that served communities with less than 500 service connections. (A service connection is the point of connection between the customer\u2019s piping or constructed conveyance and the water system\u2019s meter. One service connection could serve multiple people, for example a family of five.)<\/p>\n These communities have trouble affording new plants to treat contamination because they lack the economies of scale of larger water districts, which can spread costs among thousands more customers.<\/p>\n Maciel has served 14 years as an elected board member of the Armona Community Services District, which covers only 4 square miles. \u201cIt\u2019s got a lot of very poor, underprivileged people living here, working to do the best we can,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Yet they pay among the highest utility bills in the state: $94 per month for water, sewer, garbage and streetlights.<\/p>\n During the drought, one of Armona\u2019s groundwater wells fractured because years of pumping in the area caused the ground to shift. The cost to fix it: $340,000. The district\u2019s other well has gone out of compliance with arsenic standards twice as standards and water conditions have changed, first requiring an investment of about $2 million to comply and then $9 million to build a new treatment plant, completed less than two years ago<\/a>.<\/p>\n The district has only 1,150 customers to share these costs. For the $9 million treatment plant, that amounts to $7,826 per household.<\/p>\n Funding annual operations<\/strong><\/p>\n After building a new plant, communities then need to cover the ongoing, annual costs to operate those plants \u2013 another factor that contributes to Armona\u2019s high utility bills. These costs could include salaries for new engineering staff, for instance.\u00a0California was the first state in our nation to recognize the fundamental human right to water through legislation in 2012. It\u2019s unacceptable that nearly 1 million Californians still do not have safe, affordable drinking water. <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n However, nearly all state and federal drinking water funding sources currently prohibit using that funding for long-term operation and maintenance costs. An analysis commissioned by the Water Foundation pegged this additional need at $100 million year in California.<\/p>\n A drop in the bucket<\/strong><\/p>\n After failing to pass legislation last year, state lawmakers this year are debating the best way to raise $140 million annually to cover both operating and capital costs to finally provide safe water to all Californians. Gov. Gavin Newsom has said safe, affordable drinking water is a top priority, giving us more reason for optimism.<\/p>\n AB 217<\/a>, introduced by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, proposes a 50-cent monthly residential water bill fee as well as fees on fertilizer, dairies, feedlots and industrial water users. Low-income customers could get an exemption. A budget proposal by Newsom<\/a> takes a similar approach, with a slightly higher but still very low monthly residential fee set at 95 cents.<\/p>\n SB 669, sponsored by water utilities, proposes using money from the state\u2019s general fund during a surplus year.<\/p>\n Regardless of funding source, $140 million is a drop in the bucket for a state with the world\u2019s fifth-largest economy and an annual budget of more than $100 billion.<\/p>\n