Authorities in Iran have sprayed clouds with chemicals to induce rain, in an attempt to combat the country’s worst drought in decades.
Known as cloud-seeding, the process was conducted over the Urmia lake basin on Saturday, Iran’s official news agency Irna reported.
Urmia is Iran’s largest lake, but has largely dried out leaving a vast salt bed. Further operations will be carried out in east and west Azerbaijan, the agency said.
Rainfall is at record lows and reservoirs are nearly empty. Last week President Masoud Pezeshkian warned that if there is not enough rainfall soon, Tehran’s water supply could be rationed and people may be evacuated from the capital.
Cloud seeding involves injecting chemical salts including silver or potassium iodide into clouds via aircraft or through generators on the ground. Water vapour can then condense more easily and turn into rain.
Iran’s meteorological organisation said rainfall had decreased by about 89% this year compared with the long-term average, Irna reported.
“We are currently experiencing the driest autumn the country has experienced in 50 years,” it added.
Officials have also announced plans to penalise households and businesses that consume excessive amounts of water.
Women during the rainfall prayer at the Saleh Shrine in northern Tehran [EPA/Shutterstock]
The head of Iran’s National Centre for Climate and Drought Crisis Management, Ahmad Vazifeh said dams in Tehran, West Azerbaijan, East Azerbaijan and Markazi are in a “worrying state”, with water levels in the single-digit percentages.
On Friday, hundreds gathered at a mosque in Tehran to pray for rainfall.
Iranian meteorologists reported there was some rainfall in the west and northwest of the country on Saturday – with video showing snowfall on a ski resort north of Tehran for the first time this year.
Texas voters appeared to support all 17 constitutional amendments on Tuesday’s ballot, as each of the measures — including tax exemptions and bans, a $20 million investment into the state’s water supply, bail reform and dementia research — held strong leads late Tuesday.
With only early votes, mail-in ballots and 30 out of 600 precincts reporting in Harris County just after 11 p.m., it appeared local voters narrowly rejected Proposition 6, which bans new taxes on security transactions, and Proposition 17, a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line.
But it’s the statewide numbers that count, and political experts say constitutional amendments rarely fail.
Proposition 1 creates an endowment for 11 Texas State Technical Colleges, including one in Fort Bend County, to purchase loans and buildings. This measure supports a skilled workforce and broader career choices in the college system.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.79 percent approval.
About 66.46 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 2 prohibits the establishment of a capital gains tax on assets like real estate, investments and personal property. Critics say it protects wealthy Texans and could stunt the state’s economic growth.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.19 percent approval.
About 56.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 3 requires the denial of bail for individuals accused of violent felony offenses. The measure supports denying bail for high-risk defendants but creates a financial barrier for poor Texans, increasing the likelihood of overcrowded jails and neglect of mental health issues.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 63.66 percent approval.
About 61.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 4dedicates the first $1 billion per fiscal year of sales tax revenue exceeding $46.5 billion to the Texas Water Fund over the next 20 years. Voters supported funding to increase the Lone Star State’s water supply and repair aging infrastructure.
Critics expressed concerns about spending mandates in the constitution and whether the funds would be allocated fairly by a three-person board appointed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 70.6 percent approval.
About 67.23 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 5 exempts Texans from taxes on animal feed. The amendment was advertised as potential assistance for farmers and ranchers who are already dealing with rising costs.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 65.78 percent approval.
About 52.22 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 6 bans new taxes on securities transactions and financial market operators (aimed at those who work in the stock market today or will work in the new Texas Stock Trade in Dallas). Critics said this was a tax break for the rich and would benefit only the wealthiest Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 57.92 percent approval.
About 46.2 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 7 provides a property tax exemption for spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty, if the widow or widower has not remarried.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 86.92 percent approval.
About 84.32 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
As of late Tuesday evening, it appeared likely that all 17 constitutional amendments would be approved. Credit: April Towery
Proposition 8 bans taxes on estate and inheritance. Texas does not have estate taxes, and a ban would prevent future regulations that could level the playing field to shift the tax burden from working families to wealthy Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.91 percent approval.
About 63.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 9 is a tax exemption for up to $125,000 worth of business inventory or equipment. The measure is viewed as an incentive for small businesses that could also help the Texas economy.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 67.1 percent approval.
About 55.88 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 10 is a temporary tax exemption for homeowners whose properties were destroyed by fire. While most property owners have home insurance, this exemption could offer extra support.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 90.18 percent approval.
About 86.87 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 11 increases school property tax exemptions from $10,000 to $60,000 for elderly and disabled homeowners. The amendment provides support for about 2 million homeowners who are likely to be on a fixed income.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 79.55 percent approval.
About 75.38 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 12 expands the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates judicial misconduct and reviews the termination of judgeships. Approval of this measure means new members would have less power than governor-appointed residents, which critics say could politicize the judicial process. Supporters say it will promote accountability.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 64.49 percent approval.
About 54.25 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 13 increases a school property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners, saving an average of about $490 per year. The state will pay for an estimated $2.7 billion in revenue losses to school districts for the 2026-27 school year.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 81.78 percent approval.
About 76.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 14 will establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, providing $3 billion in funding for dementia research and prevention to study brain-related conditions. Critics have said that brain research should be funded by the private sector.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.13 percent approval.
About 68.24 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 15 codifies “parental rights” language in the state constitution. Critics say this could weaponize the Constitution to propagate right-wing culture wars involving LGBTQ+ families, book bans, and what’s taught in public schools. Parental rights are already outlined in federal case law.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 72.23 percent approval.
About 63.85 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 16 adds citizenship requirements to the Constitution and is redundant because U.S. citizenship is already a requirement to register to vote in Texas. Critics say it is an inflammatory response aligned with anti-immigration policies and stokes fear about non-citizen voting.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.94 percent approval.
About 69.37 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 17 provides a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line. Critics say this could incentivize support for border security infrastructure and shift the tax burden onto other property owners.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 60.86 percent approval.
About 48.08 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
From the Rio Grande to Lake Travis, from the Ogallala Aquifer to the Red River, Texas’ water supply is under duress. The state’s rapidly expanding population, deteriorating infrastructure, and warming climate threaten its water supply — and by extension, its economy and way of life. The state’s regional diversity and patchwork of governments complicate matters further.
To understand the threat each region faces, Texas Tribune journalists traveled across the state and closely followed the legislative debate in Austin. This special report presents their ongoing work.
Texas voters will be asked this fall to approve a $10 billion package to protect the state’s water supply. The proposal — which was approved by lawmakers earlier this year — calls for 50% to be spent on improving the state’s water infrastructure. The other half will be spent on finding new water supply, like cleaning salty groundwater. Voters previously approved a similar, but much smaller package, in 2023. While it might sound like a lot of money — and it is — the $10 billion is just a fraction of what some experts believe the state needs to invest going forward.
Below, you’ll find guides explaining the problem and possible solutions, an AI-powered chatbot answering questions about the state’s water supply and a tool for local water supply data, and our best reporting from across the state. The Tribune will have full coverage of the election this fall.
Join us Oct. 8 in Longview or online to discuss the state’s water crisis and the November election.
Water gushes from Rick Bradbury’s truck to Shannon Montague’s reservoir as the Bradbury’s make a delivery Saturday, March 16, 2024 in Terlingua.
The state’s water supply faces numerous threats. And by one estimate, the state’s municipal supply will not meet demand by 2030 if there’s a severe drought and no water solutions are implemented Read more
Understanding water lingo
The secondary clarifier at the Bustamante Waste Water Treatment Plant expansion in El Paso on March 5, 2025.
Water is complex. So are the terms used to describe it. Get to know the language as Texas debates how to save its water supply. Read more
How the state is trying to save its water supply
Treated water at the Walnut Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 in Austin, TX. The treatment plant will undergo a billion dollar expansion starting this summer to meet the increasing demand due to the growth the city has faced. Sergio Flores for The Texas Tribune
State lawmakers are poised to devote billions to save the state’s water supply. These are some of the ways the state could spend the money. Read more
Shape the future of Texas at the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin! We bring together Texas’ most inspiring thinkers, leaders and innovators to discuss the issues that matter to you. Get tickets now and join us this November.
NEWBURYPORT — Support for new projects addressing combined sewage overflows and updates on ongoing ones were discussed by dozens of local and state officials during Thursday’s meeting at the Newburyport Senior/Community Center.
EDITOR’S NOTE: A new “Vegas Myths Busted” publishes every Monday, with a bonus Flashback Friday edition. Today’s edition originally ran on July 9, 2024.
Las Vegas is the second driest city in the US after Yuma, Ariz., according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with an average rainfall of just 5.37 inches a year. So why on Earth was a big city built in such a waterless hellscape?
Large portions of downtown Las Vegas used to look like this. This is Stewart Ranch, circa 1905. Occupying the site of the Old Mormon Fort, its water supply came entirely from a bubbling creek fed by mountain runoff. (Image: nps.gov)
Because it wasn’t.
While rain barely falls on Las Vegas, it falls plenty in the mountains surrounding it. For more than 15,000 years, runoff from snowmelt and downpours at higher altitudes fed springs and streams that broke through the desert floor and flowed freely (and, during storms, uncontrollably) through Las Vegas.
Large portions of downtown Las Vegas used to look like this. This is Stewart Ranch, circa 1905. Occupying the site of the Old Mormon Fort, its water supply came entirely from a bubbling creek fed by mountain runoff. (Image: nps.gov)
Rather than a harsh desert, the region was actually an oasis inside a harsh desert when it was founded in 1905. (“Las Vegas” is Spanish for “The Meadows.”)
Today, its underground aquifers are drained nearly dry and the mountain runoff is funneled into concrete flood channels that deliver it directly to Lake Mead. But when they were allowed to (and could) flow naturally, the main waterways — Las Vegas Creek, Duck Creek, and what’s known today as the Flamingo Wash — provided ample water to drink and bathe with, as well as to sustain lush grass and thickets of mesquite and willow trees that supported their own diverse array of nondesert wildlife.
This water source allowed Native Americans to survive and thrive here for at least 5,000 years. Then it made Las Vegas a vital stop on the Old Spanish Trail between Santa Fe and Los Angeles.
In fact, it was while mapping that trail in 1829 that Raphael Rivera, a scout for the first Mexican expedition through Southern Nevada, bestowed upon the region its Spanish name.
Two unidentified hunters stalk prey in an unidentified Las Vegas waterway in an undated photo. (Image: Las Vegas Springs Preserve)
Related Bonus Myth
The first permanent European settlement in Las Vegas wasn’t abandoned because of a lack of water. A combination of factors caused 32 Mormon missionaries to ditch the Old Mormon Fort two years after they built it on the Las Vegas Creek in 1855.
These factors included disappointing mining and crop yields, dissension among the leaders, deteriorating relations with the Native Americans they tried converting to Mormonism, and the beginning of what the Mormons refer to as the Utah War against the US government, which they returned home to help fight.
Troubled Water
In 1902, Las Vegas pioneer Helen J. Stewart sold most of her ranch on Las Vegas Creek, and its water rights, to Montana Sen. William A. Clark and his San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad. This allowed the railroad to build a system that pumped running water from the creek directly to the 1,200 business and residential lots it sold in what eventually became downtown Las Vegas.
Five years later, the new city’s residents began drilling wells into the aquifer for extra water. Often, these wells weren’t capped, allowing copious amounts of the precious resource to gush aboveground where most of it evaporated. People didn’t understand where the water came from, and the force with which it gushed gave them the misconception that its supply was endless.
By the summer of 1935, so much more of its water was pumped out than had been naturally replenished, Las Vegas Creek dried up for the first time. This prompted Nevada State Engineer Alfred Merritt Smith to declare Las Vegas dangerously overdrawn.
An unidentified man and his pooch pose in front of a ranch house on Las Vegas Creek circa 1902. (Image: UNLV Special Collections)
Smith proposed metering water usage, but the Nevada State Legislature opposed all such anti-development crazy talk.
By 1962, the water table finally sank so low, the Las Vegas Springs stopped flowing to the surface entirely. This killed most of the vegetation its springs and streams had sustained, as well as several distinct species of frogs and fish.
By 1972, the last remnant of Las Vegas Creek was doomed to be paved over for a new expressway. This remnant still quenched a green but slowly dying half-mile swath of vegetation just west of downtown and adjacent to the Meadows Mall. (Get the name? Most people don’t because there aren’t many meadows left in Las Vegas.)
By this time, Las Vegas was drawing most of its water from the Colorado River, via pipes poked into a completely full Lake Mead, so no loud alarm bells sounded.Preserve)
Until UNLV archeology professor Claude Warren conducted a survey that found evidence of human occupation on the site dating back thousands of years.
One of 14 habitat ponds restored with Las Vegas Creek water by the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. (Image: Las Vegas Springs
The Las Vegas Valley Water District, with the help of concerned citizens, used this surprise to get the Las Vegas Springs added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. And that’s what forced the Nevada Department of Transportation to divert US 95 around the 180-acre site.
To protect, and attempt to restore, what little remains of the Las Vegas Springs, the Las Vegas Springs Preserve was established on the site in 2007.
To date, according to the organization’s website, it has restored seven acres of wetlands, including a stream and 14 habitat ponds.
That may be a drop in the bucket, but it beats doing nothing at all.
Look for “Vegas Myths Busted” every Monday on Casino.org. Visit VegasMythsBusted.comto read previously busted Vegas myths. Got a suggestion for a Vegas myth that needs busting? Email corey@casino.org.
SWAMPSCOTT — Even as local elected officials gathered to celebrate the seeming success of a new temporary treatment unit in treating stormwater drainage to make King’s Beach safe for the public, neighbors protested about the noise the unit makes.
Local leaders gathered on the corner of Eastern Avenue and Humphrey Street in Swampscott on Friday morning for a ribbon-cutting of a the treatment unit, a joint effort between Swampscott and Lynn.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
MIDLAND, Mich., July 25, 2024 (Newswire.com)
– Today, Rivers are Life unveiled the latest documentary highlighting the Zambezi River and the surrounding communities that depend on it for access to clean water. As Zimbabwe’s dry seasons increase in length, with 2022 being its driest year on record, river levels drop and can no longer generate energy used for electricity, as well as clean water used for bathing, drinking and growing crops for the 32 million people that call it home. In 2017, Leonard Maronda and “Brother Bill” Evans began working together to drill boreholes in these remote villages to provide fresh water, free of charge.
Leonard Maronda, who is the local facilitator of the Mission House in Zimbabwe, as well as International Director at Far and Away Missions handles the preparation and coordination of the borehole drilling in these rural areas that lack infrastructure. Alongside Leonard is “Brother Bill” Evans, a pastor and Director of Non-Profit, Quench Ministries, which helps facilitate the digging of freshwater wells for the underserved around the world.
“I had been asked to come here to preach the gospel and we gathered underneath the tree, and I see all the children sitting out in front of me with their water jugs and I saw how dirty their jugs were,” said Brother Bill. “I thought to myself, ‘I wouldn’t give my dog water out of those jugs,’ and it broke my heart, and I knew I had to do something.”
To date, Leonard and Brother Bill have installed 11 wells in remote areas, while repairing a number of others that have provided an estimated 44,000 gallons a day of potable drinking water. As power outages in the area are a normal occurrence, varying from five minutes long to being without power for five days, these boreholes are essential in providing clean water for people who would have otherwise had very limited and/or painstaking access to this vital resource.
“Under the African Sun” premieres July 25 and will be a reminder for just how essential clean water access is to communities and ecosystems across the globe.
HAVERHILL — The city will borrow $12.4 million for a project aimed at reducing the amount of combined sewer overflows reaching the Merrimack River.
The City Council this week unanimously approved borrowing $12.4 million for a project intended to reduce CSOs pouring into the Little River and into the Merrimack River while also improving the water distribution system in the Locke Street area.
In his request for the funding, DPW Director Robert Ward told the council the amount of the loan order increased by about $2 million since the original request passed about a year ago.
He said the project was deferred a year due to permitting issues hit by cost increases.
He said a number of things, including the need for additional quantities of items such as 18-inch diameter pipes, the creation of additional stormwater outfalls not in the original cost estimates, the need to rehabilitate some stormwater drain pipes, additional roadway restoration costs and other items.
The council was provided with documents explaining the project, which will play out in three phases over the next 10 years.
In his letter to the council, Ward noted that in 2016 the city entered into a consent decree with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requiring the city to reduce CSOs.
Ward said that before the 1960s, sewage and stormwater were commonly collected in the same pipe. These combined sewers were designed and built to overflow into nearby waterways to prevent excessive flooding during rain storms from backing up into basements, streets, parking lots and other areas.
Ward said the Locke Street area is the city’s biggest contributor to CSO overflows into the Merrimack River.
This Locke Street Phase 1 combined sewer overflow (CSO) separation and water system improvements project will involve separating the combined sewer system in that area into separate wastewater and stormwater systems, thereby reducing excessive stormwater entering the sewer system during rain events.
Ward noted that Phase 1 separates about 3,500 feet of combined sewers in the Locke Street area by installing new stormwater pipes, disconnecting catch basins from them, and connecting them to the separate stormwater lines. The project also involves upsizing existing storm drains, installing new outfalls to increase capacity of the existing storm drain system, and rehabilitating existing sewers and manholes.
In conjunction with the sewer and drain work, old, undersized water mains in the Phase 1 area will be replaced and upsized. Ward said it makes sense to upgrade water lines in that area rather than return at a future date and having to dig up the streets again.
The average household’s sewer rate impact from this project will be less than $21 annually, Ward stated in his letter. The water rate impact will add about $8 to the annual bill for an average size household, he said.
The loan order funds Phase 1 of three phases over the next 10 years or so. Phases 2 and 3 will be in other areas, including Primrose, Main Street and Lawrence Street, which also discharge into Little River and to the CSO outlet behind the downtown bus station.
“We’re paying for the sins of the past,” Ward said.
California’s mountains are covered with snow, reservoirs are mostly filled and hills across the state are sprouting green grass and wildflowers after the latest round of soaking storms.
The snowpack across the Sierra Nevada now stands at 105% of average for this time of year, and state officials will provide an update on conditions Tuesday when they conduct their April snow survey, which is typically when the snowpack reaches its peak.
The state’s major reservoirs are at 116% of average levels, and are set to rise further as snowmelt streams in.
After a second wet winter, the state is heading into spring and summer with boosted water supplies.
“It puts us in very good shape,” said Felicia Marcus, a water researcher at Stanford University. “Any time you get to average, that’s a great thing.”
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
She said the ample snow and rain this year provide the state some breathing room, but shouldn’t diminish the urgency of planning for the next severe drought and the effects of climate change.
“We’re on borrowed time,” Marcus said. “We need to save more water, even in the wet and the normal years, to get us through the increasingly frequent and drier dries that are inevitably going to come.”
In the last decade, California endured two severe droughts, and then came the historic series of atmospheric rivers of 2023, which brought one of the biggest accumulations of snow on record and triggered damaging floods in parts of the state.
This winter began with unusually dry conditions, but initial fears of a “snow drought” faded as storms in February and March pushed the snowpack to average levels.
Precipitation has been slightly above average statewide so far this year. And no part of California is currently in drought conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor’s data.
Water levels in the state’s largest reservoirs in Northern California are well above average levels for this time of year. Shasta Lake is now 92% full and continuing to rise with runoff from the latest rains, while Lake Oroville is at 88% of capacity.
In Southern California, Diamond Valley Lake is also nearly full.
Wetlands spread along the shoreline at Big Break in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta near Oakley.
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
Marcus, a former chair of the State Water Resources Control Board, said the reprieve this year buys the state a bit of time to advance conservation efforts in cities and farming areas, and to invest in projects to recycle wastewater, capture stormwater and recharge groundwater.
“It doesn’t mean we take our foot off the gas pedal,” she said. “Because every year could be the first year of a 10-year drought.”
Even with the state’s reservoirs at healthy levels, California continues to face complex water management problems, such as struggling fish populations and the depletion of groundwater in many farming areas.
Chronic shortages of supplies from the Colorado River, a key source for Southern California, are also forcing water managers to make plans for scaling back water use.
For Southern California’s cities, however, this year’s storms and the substantial amounts of water stored in reservoirs are expected to keep supplies flowing reliably — a dramatic change from 2022 and early 2023, when shortages led to mandatory drought restrictions for millions of residents.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers supplies to cities and local agencies that serve 19 million people, now has a record amount of water stored. That 3.4 million acre-feet of water, banked in various reservoirs and underground storage areas, equates to nearly three years’ worth of imported water, and a large portion of it accumulated thanks to conservation efforts, said Adel Hagekhalil, the MWD’s general manager.
“We in Southern California have done a great job in managing our water and reducing our water use,” Hagekhalil said.
While two wet years are helping the region’s water outlook for now, he said, the district’s officials are continuing to focus on long-term plans to ensure supplies during more severe droughts supercharged by climate change.
“We may be out of drought for the time being, but we’re not out of drought for the future,” Hagekhalil said. “This is the future climate, and we need to prepare for it.”
Last month, California increased the water allocations that suppliers will be able to receive this year from the State Water Project to 30% of their full allotments. That level of water deliveries “puts us in balance” with current water demand, Hagekhalil said, enabling the MWD to not draw down its stored supplies this year, and instead keep those reserves for when they’re needed.
Hopefully, he said, the latest storms will bring another increase in the state’s water allocations.
“That puts us in a place where we are storing water everywhere we can,” Hagekhalil said.
“Every drop that we can now store is a drop that we have available for the future,” he said. “This is the climate whiplash. We’re going to see hotter and drier days, and probably a number of years of drought coming to us, so this is the time to capture the water and store it.”
In the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the center of the state’s water system, a recent increase in the deaths of fish at pumping facilities has prompted criticism from environmental groups and led to limitations on pumping.
“Overall, our pumping has been low throughout the year,” said Lenny Grimaldo, environmental director for the State Water Project. “We’ve seen a lot of protections triggered for species.”
The powerful pumps at state and federal pumping facilities reverse the flow of water in parts of the south delta, and fish can be sucked into the pumps or eaten by predators. Some fish are regularly captured at the facilities and released.
State officials said the estimated losses of endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and threatened steelhead trout at the state and federal pumping facilities surpassed annual take limits on March 21, which prompted discussions among multiple government agencies about additional measures to protect fish.
As a result, Grimaldo said, state and federal officials have kept pumping to levels that they deemed are “protective of minimizing additional losses of fish but also protective of water supply.”
The pumps that supply the aqueducts of the State Water Project and the federally managed Central Valley Project have been operating at a little more than one-third of combined capacity.
The state’s water withdrawals have been reduced since February to protect migrating fish, and in the last week, pumping was slightly increased based on data suggesting that this level of pumping “is not drawing additional steelhead into the zone of influence of the pumps,” said Mary Fahey, a spokesperson for the state Department of Water Resources.
State officials believe “protections for steelhead have been suitable for winter-run salmon as well,” Fahey said. She said the uptick in pumping will be short-lived because rules to protect another fish species, longfin smelt, take effect this month.
Meanwhile, other debates over long-term water management are continuing.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and his administration are supporting plans to build Sites Reservoir, the state’s first new large reservoir in decades, as well as the proposed Delta Conveyance Project, a 45-mile tunnel that would transport water beneath the delta.
Newsom’s current plan for adapting to a hotter, drier climate predicts that California could lose 10% of its water supply by 2040.
Bidwell Bar Bridge spans Lake Oroville in February.
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
State water regulators are considering alternatives for new water quality standards that will determine how much water may be drawn from the delta.
In farming areas in the Central Valley, local water agencies are starting to plan for mandatory reductions in agricultural water use to comply with the state’s groundwater law, which calls for curbing overpumping by 2040.
And for urban areas, the state water board is considering new conservation rules that will require each city or local supplier to meet a locally tailored water-use budget. After an initial proposal encountered criticism from water agencies, the board’s staff issued a revised proposal that includes less stringent water-saving standards and would reduce the number of suppliers that need to make large cutbacks.
The changes were supported by water agencies. But environmental groups and conservation advocates have objected to the weakened plan and urged the state to adopt strong water-efficiency standards to help the state prepare for more severe droughts and hotter temperatures.
Marcus said she agrees with the conservation camp and thinks it’s short-sighted to roll back the requirements to the extent state officials are proposing.
“We’re in a climate emergency and a water emergency that’s decadal at minimum,” Marcus said.
“The red alert is on for this, and conservation is the most cost-effective in the long run for communities,” she said. “We’ve got to definitely do a much better job of cutting back on our water use in the most creative ways we can come up with.”
Over the next two decades, Los Angeles County will collect billions more gallons in water from local sources, especially storm and reclaimed water, shifting from its reliance on other region’s water supplies as the effects of climate change make such efforts less reliable and more expensive.
The L.A. County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted the county’s first water plan, which outlines how America’s largest county must stop importing 60% of its water and pivot over the next two decades to sourcing 80% of its water locally by 2045.
The plan calls for increasing local water supply by 580,000 acre-feet per year by 2045 through more effective stormwater capture, water recycling and conservation. The increase would be roughly equivalent to 162 billion gallons, or enough water for 5 million additional county residents, county leaders said.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
“We need to conserve every drop of water possible for beneficial reuse by reducing demand, by recycling our water, by capturing much more stormwater in our natural aquifers. And I know that the public is watching to make sure we do exactly that,” said Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath. “As climate change makes our important water resources less reliable and more expensive, I would like to see the majority of our stormwater be diverted for beneficial reuse rather than washed out to the ocean where it pollutes our coast.”
The development of the county’s water plan started in 2019 when former L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl authored a motion that created the county’s sustainability plan and paved the wave for a water plan.
Horvath, her successor, closed the loop Tuesday on her first day as board chair with her motion to implement the plan. At 41, Horvath is the youngest person to serve as board chair.
Mark Pestrella, L.A. County Department of Public Works director, said pivoting the county from a long history of importing water “is aspirational, but it is actually achievable.”
There are at least 200 independent water districts or agencies in L.A. County responsible for delivering safe, clean water, and Pestrella said the plan was aimed at fostering collaboration.
In 2020, the county asked each for input and also held 90 stakeholder meetings over three years with local and tribal leaders, community members and advocate groups, Pestrella said.
Most of the 200 agencies are on record agreeing to adopt the county water plan.
“For years, we’ve been basically letting each of those any one or a number of those water agencies sort of lead the way or actually just act individually in the interest of the county of Los Angeles,” Pestrella said. The water plan however “has brought all those people together saying what makes sense for this region in terms of our best and highest use of our water.”
The plan will focus on a number of goals: improving the reliability of the region’s water supply; collecting and storing groundwater; increasing the quality and resilience of small systems that are at risk of failing; mitigating the impact of wildfires on the water supply and managing watershed sediment.
The county’s water plan, Pestrella said, also sets the county up to be more competitive in applying for state and federal money.
Environmental advocacy groups, such as Heal The Bay and the Natural Resources Defense Council, applauded Tuesday’s move.
“I think I (was in) the very first stakeholder group when this was first formed, and at that time, I admit I was very skeptical of the effort,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of watchdog group L.A. Waterkeeper. However, he said, the county listened to stakeholders and developed a “a plan I think we can all be really proud of.”
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, whose Fifth District includes Antelope Valley, said L.A. County is mandated by the state to build 90,000 more housing units by 2029 and asked how the plan incorporates that mandate.
Pestrella said it’s built into the plan, but it will require conservation as “an absolute way of life for us to not only maintain our current water supply but to meet the demands you’re describing.”
The supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting stressed how important it was that all residents have access to clean water.
Of the 200-plus water agencies in L.A. County, 11 are failing, 23 are at risk of failing, and 33 are potentially at risk of failing, according to the county water plan. Many of these systems provide water to low-income communities.
Pestrella said the purpose of the plan is not to call out and punish these systems — the state regulates water systems, not the county — but to instead of bring them into the fold and give them resources to improve their systems.
“Full immunity — come out and tell us what your needs are, work with us, don’t hide the problem, put it on the table, there’s actually help,” Pestrella said. “In their defense, I’m sure in the past they’ve asked for help, and they don’t get the help they need.”
Supervisor Hilda L. Solis said there must be standards that everyone follows.
The water quality for some residents in the First District, Solis said, which includes East L.A. and many factories, is “least to be desired,” whether that is because of old systems that need to be maintained or because of illegal discharge from industrial areas.
Supervisor Holly J. Mitchell agreed, highlighting residents of Compton and Willowbrook who for years dealt with “putrid groundwater that they paid top dollar for” from the failed Sativa Water District, which suffered poor maintenance and mismanagement. The county’s Department of Public Works assumed full control after the district was dissolved in 2019.
“That shouldn’t happen anywhere,” Mitchell said. “And the regional program that’s being proposed in this plan to identify and support the small potentially at-risk and failing systems will be instrumental in ensuring that nothing like Sativa happens again.”
I grew up in a nonstick-pan home. No matter what was on the menu, my dad would reach for the Teflon-coated pan first: nonstick for stir-fried vegetables, for reheating takeout, for the sunny-side-up eggs, garlic fried rice, and crisped Spam slices that constituted breakfast. Nowadays, I’m a much fussier cook: A stainless-steel pan is my kitchen workhorse. Still, when I’m looking to make something delicate, such as a golden pancake or a classic omelet, I can’t help but turn back to that time-tested fave.
And what a dream it is to use. Nonstick surfaces are so frictionless that fragile crepes and scallops practically lift themselves off the pan; cleaning up sticky foods, such as oozing grilled-cheese sandwiches, becomes no more strenuous than rinsing a plate. No wonder 70 percent of skillets sold in the U.S. are nonstick. Who can afford to mangle a dainty snapper fillet or spend time scrubbing away crisped rice?
All of this convenience, however, comes with a cost: the unsettling feeling that cooking with a nonstick pan is somehow bad for you. My dad had a rule that we could only use a soft, silicon-edged spatula with the pan, born of his hazy intuition that any scratches on the coating would cause it to leach into our food and make us sick. Many home cooks have lived with these fears since at least the early 2000s, when we first began to hear about problems with Teflon, the substance that makes pans nonstick. Teflon is produced from chemicals that are part of an enormous family of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroakyl substances, or PFAS, and research has linked exposure to them to many health conditions, including certain cancers, reproductive issues, and high cholesterol. And that is about all we know: In kitchens over the past two decades, the same questions around safety have lingered unanswered amid the aromas of sizzling foods and, perhaps, invisible clouds of Teflon fumes.
It is objectively ridiculous that the safety of one of the most common household items in America remains such a mystery. But the reality is that it is nearly impossible to measure the risks of PFAS from nonstick cookware—and more important, it’s probably pointless to try. That’s because PFAS have for many decades imparted a valuable stain- and water-resistance to many types of surfaces, including carpets, car seats, and raincoats.
At this point, the chemicals are also ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the water supply. Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency established new safety guidelines for the level of certain PFAS in drinking water; a study published around the same time showed that millions of deaths are correlated with PFAS exposure. By the Environmental Working Group’s latest count, PFAS have contaminated more than 2,850 sites in 50 states and two territories—an “alarming” level of pervasiveness, researchers wrote in a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report last year. But something about nonstick pans has generated the biggest freak-out. This is not surprising, given their exposure to food and open flames. After all, people do not heat up and consume raincoats (as far as I know).
Since research into their health effects began, certain types of PFAS have been flagged as more dangerous than others. Two of them, PFOA and PFOS, were voluntarily phased out by manufacturers for several reasons, including the fact that they were deemed dangerous to the immune system; now many nonstick pans specify that their coatings are PFOA free. (If you’re confused by all the acronyms, you aren’t the only one.) But other types of PFAS are still used in these coatings, and their risks to humans aren’t clear. Teflon claims that any flakes of nonstick coating you might ingest are inert, but public studies backing up that claim are difficult to find.
In the absence of relevant data, everyone seems to have a different take on nonstick pans. The FDA, for example, allows PFAS to be used in nonstick cookware, but the EPA says that exposure to them can lead to adverse health effects, and last year proposed labeling certain members of the group as “hazardous substances.” According to the CDC, the health effects of low exposure to these chemicals are “uncertain.” Food experts are similarly undecided on nonstick pans: A writer for the culinary site Serious Eats said he “wouldn’t assume they’re totally safe,” whereas a Wirecutterreview said they “seem to be safe”—if used correctly.
That’s about the firmest answer you’re going to get regarding the safety of nonstick cookware. “In no study has it been shown that people who use nonstick pans have higher levels” of PFAS, says Jane Hoppin, a North Carolina State University epidemiologist and a member of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee to study PFAS. But she also told me that, with regard to the broader research on PFAS-related health risks, “I haven’t seen anybody say it’s safe to use.”
Certainly, more research could be done on PFAS, given the lack of relevant studies. There is no research, for example, showing that people who use nonstick pans are more likely to get sick. The one study on exposure from nonstick pans mentioned in the report that Hoppin and others published last year found inconclusive results after measuring gaseous PFAS released from heated nonstick pans, though the researchers tested only a few pans. Another study in which scientists used nonstick pans to cook beef and pork—and an assortment of more glamorous meats including chicken nuggets—and then measured the PFAS levels likewise failed to reach a conclusion, because too few meat samples were used.
More scientists could probably be convinced to pursue rigorous research in this field if PFAS exposure came only from nonstick pans. Investigating the risks would be tough, perhaps impossible: Designing a rigorous study to test the risks of PFAS exposure would likely involve forcing unwitting test subjects to breathe in PFAS fumes or eat from flaking pans. But given that we are exposed to PFAS in so many other ways—drinking water being chief among them—what would be the point? “They’re in dental floss, and they’re in your Gore-Tex jacket, and they’re in your shoes,” Hoppin said. “The relative contribution of any one of those things is minor.”
As long as PFAS keep proliferating in the environment, we might never fully know exactly what nonstick pans are doing to us. The best we can do for now is decide what level of risk we’re willing to accept in exchange for a slippery pan, based on the information available. And that information is frustratingly vague: Most nonstick products come with a disclosure of the types of PFAS they contain and the types they do not. Sometimes they also include instructions to avoid high heat, especially above 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Hoppin recommends throwing nonstick pans away once they start flaking; in general, it seems worth it to use the pans only when essential. There is likewise a dearth of guidance on breathing in the fumes from an overheated pan, though breathing in PFAS fumes in industrial settings has been known to cause flulike symptoms. If you’re concerned, Hoppin said, you could use any of the growing number of nonstick alternatives, including ceramic and carbon-steel cookware. (Her preference is well-seasoned cast iron.)
Still, perhaps it’s time to accept that exposure to PFAS is inevitable, much like exposure to microplastics and other carcinogens. At this point, so many harmful substances are all around us that there doesn’t seem to be any point in trying to limit them in individual products, though such efforts are underway for raincoats and period underwear. “What we really need to do is remove these chemicals from production,” Hoppin said. The hope is that doing so would broadly reduce our exposure to PFAS, and there’s evidence that it would work: After PFOS was phased out in the early 2000s, its levels in human blood declined significantly. But until PFAS are more tightly regulated, we’ll continue our endless slide through nonstick limbo, with our grasp of the cookware’s safety remaining slippery at best.
I’ve tried to cut down on my nonstick-pan use for sheer peace of mind. Many professional chefs reject nonstick pans as unnecessary if you know the proper technique; French chefs, after all, were flipping omelets long before the first Teflon pan was invented—by a French engineer—in 1954. Fancying myself a purist, I recently attempted to cook an omelet using All-Clad stainless steel, following a set of demanding instructions involving ungodly amounts of butter and a moderate amount of heat. Unlike my resolve to avoid nonstick pans, the eggs stuck.
