Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drinking Water Impacts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lost Hills and Kern residents testify of unsafe faucets and urge stronger mitigation, some ask for probation
Summary
Residents from Lost Hills and other disadvantaged communities told the Board about years of discolored, odorous water, health complaints and high costs for bottled water; community groups urged probation and stronger mitigation eligibility, notification and funding for small systems.
Residents from Lost Hills, Shafter and other communities in the Kern County Subbasin testified at length Sept. 17 that household water has been unreliable and unsafe for years, and they urged the State Water Resources Control Board to ensure mitigation and protections are enforced as the basin moves to implementation.
Lost Hills resident Saul Ruiz described longtime problems with his community’s water supply: "Our water would come out with a brownish color, yellowish color," he told the Board, and said families often pay substantially for bottled water and suffer health ailments they associate with poor water quality. Similar testimony from Annabel Marquez and Irma Medina described brown or yellow water, damaged plumbing, skin rashes and significant monthly costs for purchased water.
Community advocates from Clean Water Action and the Central California Environmental Justice Network emphasized that outreach barriers, fear resulting from immigration enforcement and the logistics of participation limited some residents’ ability to appear, and submitted a petition with more than 100 signatures requesting probation for the subbasin. Advocates argued that current mitigation eligibility — which excludes wells already over objectives as of Jan. 1, 2015 — can leave affected households without assistance. They recommended that GSAs proactively assist wells that approach 80% of the water‑quality objective and ensure state small water systems are fully eligible for mitigation.
GSA representatives and Board staff responded that the 2025 plans contain a revamped exceedance action plan, an independent exceedance investigation to be completed within 60 days, and new notification procedures that will reach homeowners within about a three‑mile radius of an impacted monitoring well. The plan includes two mitigation tracks (domestic well mitigation up to $90,000 per well; a technical assistance track for public systems up to $50,000) and a proposed funding assistance track for state small water systems with up to $100,000 per well in development.
Board members acknowledged the testimony and said they expected staff to verify mitigation commitments in the final adopted GSPs prior to completing the referral to DWR. Several members encouraged GSAs to be proactive — not just to wait until exceedances cross Maximum Contaminant Levels — and recommended continued, accessible engagement with vulnerable communities as the plan moves to implementation.
