When Cynthia Ruiz turns on her kitchen faucet, she hears a slight squeak before a cloudy liquid spurts from the spout. The water in his Central Valley town of East Orosi is clean enough most of the time for washing dishes, flushing toilets and taking showers, but it is not safe to swallow. Drinking water is trucked twice a month.

“There are times when the water is so bad that you can’t even do the dishes,” said Ruiz, who is advised not to drink tap water, which is laden with nitrates – the runoff from the orange and nectarine fields surrounding the town of around 400 inhabitants. “We need help to solve our water problem.”

On the November ballot, a $10 billion climate bond is planned to improve drinking water quality for communities such as East Orosi. Proposition 4 It would dedicate $610 million to providing clean, safe and reliable drinking water and require at least 40% to be spent on projects benefiting vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities. But that’s only a fraction of what the state says is necessary.

Although most Californians have access to clean drinking water, approximately 750,000 people as of late October, they were served by 383 failing water systems, many of which are clustered in remote, sparsely populated areas. A June assessment by the California State Water Resources Control Board put the cost of repairing failing and at-risk public water systems at approximately $11.5 billion.

“We have communities in California that have been receiving drinking water that has not met regulatory standards for potent toxins like arsenic for years,” said Lara Cushing, associate professor in the Department of Health Sciences. Environmental Studies at UCLA.

And climate change is eroding people’s access to clean water, she said. “It’s sort of a perfect storm, if you will, of compounded dangers. »

Supporters say Proposition 4, to enact the Clean Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Act of 2024, would jump-start improvements by authorizing grants and loans to local governments to repair water systems contaminated with lead, arsenic and nitrates. , or other chemicals related to cancer, liver and kidney problemsand other serious health problems.

Water priorities vary by region, and the bond would give communities the flexibility to meet their needs, said MJ Kushner, a policy advocate at the Community Water Center, a statewide nonprofit. of the state. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution,” Kushner said.

A taxpayer group opposed to the bond says the state will take on more debt on piecemeal projects. He says the state is increasingly approaching its climate-related programs through bonds, which he sees as the most expensive way for government to finance things, rather than through the state budget. State.

The legislators in July added Proposition 4 to the ballot after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, facing a A deficit of 47 billion dollarscut climate spending from the state budget by $6.6 billion, according to Department of Finance spokesperson HD Palmer. Reductions followed $3.1 billion in the climate reductions that Newsom and lawmakers passed in 2023.

Susan Shelley, a spokeswoman for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the state has already borrowed billions and now is not the time to add more debt given the deficit.

“If the legislature chooses to remove them from the budget, they should not be used on credit cards,” Shelley said. “It’s irresponsible.”

According to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Analysts, the state regularly allocates state funds to climate-related programs, with about 15% coming from bonds. The office estimates it would cost taxpayers 400 million dollars per year for the next 40 years to repay the bond, a total of $16 billion.

Since 2000, California voters have approved eight water bonds totaling $27 billionfor projects involving flood management, habitat restoration, drought preparedness and drinking water improvement, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Scientists say climate change has led to more severe weather, including devastating floods and droughts; the spread of infectious diseases such as West Nile virus; and earlier deaths from respiratory diseases. Public health experts add that as climate change worsens, its impact on population health will become more severe and could cost the state more in the long term.

“If we quantify the damage associated with the policy of doing nothing, you will see that ultimately the bill plus interest will be less than the cost of doing nothing,” Kurt said. Schwabe, professor of environmental economics and policy at the University of California-Riverside.

If approved, Ruiz hopes Proposition 4 can help East Orosi, a predominantly Latino and low-income community. Although she receives 25 gallons of drinking water twice a month, she sometimes runs out of it. The last time the 47-year-old drank tap water at home was when she was in high school.

“I don’t think any community anywhere in California should have to wait that long to have clean drinking water,” Ruiz said.

This article was produced by KFF Health Newswho publishes California Health Linean editorial service independent of California Health Care Foundation.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is one of the primary operating programs of KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe at KFF Health News’ free morning briefing.