Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disadvantaged communities and drinking water: a case study of Los Angeles County

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses the challenges facing urban water systems in disadvantaged communities (DACs) using Los Angeles County as a case study area. We review issues of water contamination and rising water costs in the context of a highly fragmented and variable landscape of community water system sizes, types and available resources. A consideration of available state aid follows, including earmarks for disadvantaged communities, the criteria for qualifying as such, and the process of documenting disadvantaged status. We then present a useful data-driven technique for estimating the median incomes of community water system service areas. Examination of these case study results shows: (1) many local pockets of poverty cannot qualify as disadvantaged communities under current California laws and regulations; (2) extreme geographic concentrations of disadvantaged systems and class-based segregation call into question both the policy of agency consolidation and the presumptions of economies of scale on which it rests, and (3) Urban systems that are now potentially eligible for funds as DACs have far more difficulty than rural systems documenting their low median incomes due to complex and fragmented census geographies. We recommend applying our technique statewide to pre-qualify DAC water systems for state assistance, thus removing much uncertainty and risk for community water agencies considering applying for state funds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Between January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) raised the Volumetric Full-Service Treated Rate $979/Acre Foot to $1015/Acre foot, 3.7% in 1 year. A fixed capacity charge is added to that which went from $8000 to $8700, an 8.75% increase, and the Fixed Readiness-to-Serve Charge rose from $135 million to $140 million. Added to this are the costs of the wholesalers who bring the water from the end of the aqueducts to the retailers. Rate increases occurred in at least the last 7 years.

  2. The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) authorizes $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and restoration, water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, and drinking water protection.

  3. The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) authorized $5.388 billion in general obligation bonds to fund safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and water conservation efforts.

  4. California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018. Pursuant to Division 45 (commencing with Section 80000) of the Public Resources Code, relating to a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program.

  5. Maywood Mutual Water Company No. 2 v the City of Maywood (23 Cal App 3rd 266). This litigation was initiated by the Maywood Mutual Water Company No. 2 against the City of Maywood and was heard in 1972 to determine who was responsible for costs of relocating distribution pipelines when the City was initiating road maintenance and improvements. It should be noted that there was no mention of any efforts by the City prior to 1972 to acquire the water system.

  6. This is the method used by Christian-Smith et al. (2013).

  7. Because income distributions are right-skewed, with a small number of very large values, using means of income normally overstates the typical case. That is why median income is nearly always used in the analysis of income distributions.

  8. Because the interval boundaries don’t coincide with the income thresholds determined by the statewide median, it is necessary to estimate counts above and below the threshold within the relevant interval. See “Appendix 1”.

  9. For California community water systems, priority is given first based on the median income thresholds, then by priority of need. Funding is available for project planning, permitting and construction and technical assistance.

References

  • Amter, S., & Ross, B. (2001). Was contamination of Southern California groundwater by chlorinated solvents foreseen? Environmental Forensics, 2(3), 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakillah, M., Liang, S., Mobasheri, A., Arsanjani, J. J., & Zipf, A. (2014). Fine-resolution population mapping using OpenStreetMap points-of-interest. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(9), 1940–1963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biljecki, F., Ohori, K. A., Ledoux, H., Peters, R., & Stoter, J. (2016). Population estimation using a 3D city model: A multi-scale country-wide study in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloomquist, W. (1992). Dividing the waters, governing groundwater in Los Angeles County. Washington, DC: Center for Self-Governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blue Ribbon Report. (2011). Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Retrieved October 15, 2019 from http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/11_MWD_BlueRibbon_TaskForce_FinalReport_2011.pdf.

  • Briggs, D. J., Gulliver, J., Fecht, D., & Vienneau, D. M. (2007). Dasymetric modelling of small-area population distribution using land cover and light emissions data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 108(4), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttenfield, B. P., Ruther, M., & Leyk, S. (2015). Exploring the impact of dasymetric refinement on spatiotemporal small area estimates. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 42(5), 449–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christian-Smith, J., Balazs, C., Heberger, M., & Longley, K. (2013). Assessing water affordability: A pilot study in two regions of California. Pacific Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2019 from http://www.pacinst.org/publication/assessing-water-affordability/.

  • Coufal, E. L., Blevins, M. L., & Mann, J. F. Jr. (1986). Management of the San Fernando Valley groundwater basin, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/88129440.pdf.

  • Fisher, P. F., & Langford, M. (1995). Modeling the errors in areal interpolation between zonal systems by Monte-Carlo simulation. Environment and Planning A, 27(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego, F. J. (2010). A population density grid of the European Union. Population and Environment, 31(6), 460–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodchild, M. F., & Lam, N. S.-N. (1980). Areal interpolation: A variant of the traditional spatial problem. Geo-Processing, 1(1), 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotway, C. A., & Young, L. J. (2002). Combining incompatible spatial data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(458), 632–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallisey, E., Tai, E., Berens, A., Wilt, G., Peipins, L., Lewis, B., et al. (2017). Transforming geographic scale: A comparison of combined population and areal weighting to other interpolation methods. International Journal of Health Geographics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12942-017-0102-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanak, E., & Mount, J. (2015). Putting California’s latest drought in context. ARE Update, 18(5), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hise, G. (1993). Home building and decentralization in Los Angeles: The roots of the postwar urban region. Journal of Urban History, 19(2), 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., Hall, A. D., & Berg, N. (2018). Anthropogenic warming impacts on California snowpack during drought. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(12), 6215–6222. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, L. (2017). Adopting County policies which limit public water system sprawl and promote small system consolidation. Luskin School of Public Policy, UCLA. Retrieved September, 2019 from https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Adopting_County_Policies_which_Limit_Public_Water_System_Sprawl_and_Promote_Small_System_Consolidation.pdf.

  • Langford, M. (2013). An evaluation of small area population estimation techniques using open access ancillary data. Geographical Analysis, 45(3), 324–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, M., & Unwin, D. J. (1994). Generating and mapping population-density surfaces within a geographical information-system. Cartographic Journal, 31(1), 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., & Zhou, W. (2018). Dasymetric mapping of urban population in China based on radiance corrected DMSP-OLS nighttime light and land cover data. Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., & Bracken, I. (1991). Techniques for modelling population-related raster databases. Environment and Planning A, 23(7), 1069–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maywood Mutual Water Company No. 2 v the City of Maywood (23 Cal App 3rd 266). Civ. No. 36931. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five. February 2, 1972.

  • Mennis, J. (2003). Generating surface models of population using dasymetric mapping. Professional Geographer, 55(1), 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mennis, J. (2009). Dasymetric mapping for estimating population in small areas. Geography Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00220.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. (2018). Water rates and charges. Retrieved September, 2019 from http://www.mwdh2o.com/2018%20Background%20Materials/MWDOC%202016-18.pdf.

  • Pavia, J. M., & Cantarino, I. (2017). Can dasymetric mapping significantly improve population data reallocation in a dense urban area? Geographical Analysis, 49(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincetl, S., Porse, E., & Cheng, D. (2016). Fragmented flows: Water supply in Los Angeles County. Environmental Management, 58(2), 208–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porse, E., Glickfeld, M., Mertan, K., & Pincetl, S. (2015). Pumping for the masses: Evolution of groundwater management in metropolitan Los Angeles. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-015-9664-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reibel, M., & Agrawal, A. (2007). Areal interpolation of population counts using pre-classified land cover data. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(5–6), 619–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reibel, M., & Bufalino, M. E. (2005). A test of street weighted areal interpolation using geographic information systems. Environment and Planning A, 37(1), 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, K. D., Berg, N., Walton, D. B., Schwartz, M., Sun, F., Huang, X., et al. (2018). Climate change in the Sierra Nevada: California’s water future. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Climate Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruther, M., Leyk, S., & Buttenfield, B. (2015). Comparing the effects of an NLCD-derived dasymetric refinement on estimation accuracies for multiple areal interpolation methods. GIscience & Remote Sensing, 52(2), 158–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, J. P. (2017). Hybrid areal interpolation of census counts from 2000 blocks to 2010 geographies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1951.tb00088.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, W. (1979). Smooth pycnophylactic interpolation for geographic regions. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10481647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y. (1995). The overlaid network algorithms for areal interpolation problem. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 19(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zandbergen, P. A., & Ignizio, D. A. (2010). Comparison of dasymetric mapping techniques for small-area population estimates. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(3), 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., Lu, H., & Holt, J. B. (2011). Modeling spatial accessibility to parks: A national study. International Journal of Health Geographics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-10-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoraghein, H., & Leyk, S. (2019). Data-enriched interpolation for temporally consistent population compositions. GIscience & Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the California State University Water Resources and Policy Initiatives. The authors would like to thank Kelly Chan for helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, California State Polytechnic University Pomona and California State University Water Resources and Policy Initiatives, 3801 W. Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA, 91768, USA

    Michael Reibel

  2. Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California Los Angeles, 951496, 619 Charles E. Young Drive East La Kretz Hall, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1496, United States

    Madelyn Glickfeld & Peter Roquemore

Authors
  1. Michael Reibel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Madelyn Glickfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Roquemore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Reibel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This is to certify that the authors have no conflict of interest that might arise from publication of this article.

Human and animal rights

No human subjects or informants and no animals were used in the conduct of this research.

Informed consent

Informed consent is therefore not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Estimation of agency household proportions below thresholds from aggregated income interval counts

Appendix 1: Estimation of agency household proportions below thresholds from aggregated income interval counts

Because the income interval breaks used for Table B19001 do not match the 80th and 60th percentiles of state median income, estimating the proportion (percentage) of agency household below these thresholds requires an additional numerical interpolation procedure. In this procedure (steps 3 and 4 in the example below), we assume a smooth income distribution within the interval containing the threshold. We can thus partition the within-interval household count estimate proportionally into those below the threshold and those above, based on the position of the threshold in the range of interval values.

For example, to estimate the population at or below the 2016 DAC threshold of $51,026 (refer to the chart in Fig. 3):

  1. 1.

    Sum counts in all income intervals less than (up to) $50,000 = 156

  2. 2.

    80% of State Median Income is $51,026, which is 10.26% of the distance from $50,000 to $59,999

  3. 3.

    Since there are an estimated 28 households in interval $50,000 to $59,999, we estimate 10.26% × 28 or 3 households are between $50,000 and $51,026.

  4. 4.

    Add this increment (3) to the subtotal of lower incomes (156) = 159 estimated households below 80% threshold

  5. 5.

    Divide by total households (285) to get % below threshold = 54.7% which exceeds 50%. The local median (50th percentile) income is therefore below the threshold and this local area is a DAC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reibel, M., Glickfeld, M. & Roquemore, P. Disadvantaged communities and drinking water: a case study of Los Angeles County. GeoJournal 86, 1337–1354 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10121-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10121-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation