When Cynthia Ruiz turns on her kitchen faucet, she hears a slight squeak before cloudy fluid bursts out of the spout. The water in her Central Valley, California town of East Orosi is clean enough most of the time to wash dishes, flush toilets, and take showers, but it’s not safe to swallow. Drinking water is trucked in twice a month.

“There are times where the water is so bad you can’t even wash dishes,” said Ruiz, who is advised not to drink the tap water, which is laden with nitrates—runoff from orange and nectarine fields surrounding the town of roughly 400. “We need help to fix our water problem.”

Tucked into a $10 billion climate bond on the November ballot is an earmark to improve drinking water quality for communities such as East Orosi. Proposition 4 would allocate $610 million for clean, safe, and reliable drinking water and require at least 40 percent be spent on projects that benefit vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities. But it’s a fraction of what the state says is needed.

While most Californians have access to safe water, roughly 750,000 people as of late October are served by 383 failing water systems, many clustered in remote and sparsely populated areas. A June assessment by the California State Water Resources Control Board pegged the cost of repairing failing and at-risk public water systems at about $11.5 billion.

“We have communities in California that are served drinking water that has been out of compliance with regulatory standards for potent toxins like arsenic for years,” said Lara Cushing, an associate professor in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences.

And climate change is eroding people’s access to clean water, she said. “There is kind of a perfect storm, if you will, of compounding hazards.”

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

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

A taxpayer group opposing the bond says the state will go further into debt on piecemeal projects. It says the state is increasingly addressing its climate-related programs with bonds, which it calls the most expensive way for government to pay for things, rather than within the state budget.

Lawmakers in July added Proposition 4 to the ballot after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, facing a $47 billion deficit, cut $6.6 billion in climate spending from the state budget, according to Department of Finance Spokesperson H.D. Palmer. The reductions followed $3.1 billion in climate cuts Newsom and lawmakers enacted in 2023.

Susan Shelley, a spokesperson for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the state has already borrowed billions and that now isn’t the time to add more debt given the deficit.

“If the legislature chose to cut these from the budget, they should not go on the credit card,” Shelley said. “It’s irresponsible.”

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state has routinely allocated state funds for climate-related programs, with about 15 percent coming from bonds. The office estimates it would cost taxpayers $400 million a 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 billion for projects involving flood management, habitat restoration, drought preparation, 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 illnesses. Public health experts add that as climate change worsens, its impact on people’s health will grow more severe and could cost the state more in the long run.

“If we quantify the damages associated with the do-nothing policy, you’ll see that typically, at the end of the day, the bill plus the interest costs are going to be less than the cost if we do nothing,” said Kurt Schwabe, an environmental economics and policy professor at the University of California-Riverside.

If approved, Ruiz hopes Proposition 4 can help East Orosi, a predominantly Latino and low-income community. Though she receives 25 gallons of drinking water twice a month, she sometimes runs out. 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 this long to get clean water,” Ruiz said.

Image: Towfiqu Barbhuiya / Adobe Stock

The post Can a $10 billion climate bond address California’s water contamination problem? appeared first on Harvard Public Health Magazine.

It’s not hard to understand why Memphis, or other cities like it, would want an xAI computing facility built within its limits. Musk is lauded as a pioneer in clean energy—a leader in electric vehicles, electric charging infrastructure, and most recently, in deploying solar and energy storage. xAI’s Memphis facility is one of many AI data centers being built across the country—increasing energy demand at a time when the federal government is supporting new infrastructure and growth in clean electricity through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. These new centers promise good-paying modern jobs, as well as an opportunity to put new clean energy to work.

But these promises come true only if growth is handled the right way. AI data centers have been criticized by environmentalists for their carbon dioxide emissions, dangerous waste byproducts, and extraordinary demands on our electricity and water systems. One estimate holds that global AI infrastructure will soon use six times as much water as the nation of Denmark, and another that more than 30 percent of Ireland’s electricity will be devoted to AI computing centers by 2026.

So far, the Memphis project is not a model of how to do much more than move fast and break things. As NPR recently detailed, critics are concerned the tool “has fewer rules than other AI chatbots and has been known for creating controversial deepfake images, such as Mickey Mouse as a Nazi and Kamala Harris in lingerie,” as well as more indifference to curbing misinformation.

And that’s just the technology; the physical impact of the facility has also caused concern. It’s being built in South Memphis, known for both historically Black neighborhoods and poor air quality. It will place significant demands on the city’s electricity and water systems, and the impacts on both could harm residents.

To address these problems, xAI has made only promises—to coordinate with the city’s electric and water utility on a greywater facility and to install at least 50 megawatts (MW) of large battery storage facilities. So far, the promises aren’t plans; they’re talking points on a one-page factsheet, which lacks any mention of a timetable or detailed construction plan. And there are few avenues for accountability: The company has held no public meetings, nor communicated directly with the media. City officials signed nondisclosure agreements in order to engage xAI in negotiations to bring the plant to Memphis.

Expand Image”>

Meanwhile, the project perpetuates the problems caused by decades of reactive management: higher prices for customers, a growing number of power outages, a lack of consideration for the people impacted by the new construction, and more. And while new power lines and water facilities are sorely needed in Memphis and elsewhere, the fact remains that work like this causes pollution.

In fact, xAI has already begun polluting—without the necessary permits, according to local environmental groups—in a neighborhood already burdened by legacy pollution from a coal power plant. And the supercomputer in question, Colossus, is already online, according to Musk’s social media account. If, as environmentalists fear, the plant affects the water supply, then the whole city will be harmed.

Still, it’s not too late for some meaningful relief to those impacted. For one thing, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or more likely its Tennessee counterpart, TDEC, can and should immediately require xAI to stop burning gas until it has been issued appropriate permits.

Looking ahead, proactive grid planning could work more transparently to identify sites where projects like these would be less burdensome, or even more beneficial. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which supplies and regulates power in Memphis, has ultimate authority over whether and how to deliver the 150 MW of electricity xAI is asking to draw from the grid. This gives the TVA unique leverage: It has an opportunity to call for planning that considers the electric, environmental justice, and public health impacts of high-consumption projects. As other data centers go up around the country, local utilities will have their own chances to follow suit.

More broadly, construction and other industrial activities at Musk’s facility should be stopped until the community has been given a voice—through open processes conducted by state or local offices with authority over electricity planning (TVA), water system planning (MLGW), or environmental safety (TDEC). Subverting or ignoring these processes has already led to public outcry, but the true downsides—weaker infrastructure and higher rates of pollution, illness, and other maladies—can still be avoided.

Perhaps, as we all hope, this project will be a boon for the city, growing its economy and making it a technology hub—and a worthy model for future similar projects. But it won’t work if it breaks the rules. The AI boom needs infrastructure—water, power, people—to launch a brighter future. Taking shortcuts won’t make this happen—it will just make things easier for the rich and powerful, with the rest of us left to pay the cost.

Top image: A busy parking lot and rooftop cooling towers that are part of a recirculating chilled water system at the xAI facility can be seen from Riverport Road. (Andrea Morales for MLK 50)

The post It’s not too late for Elon Musk to take Memphis’s environmental health seriously appeared first on Harvard Public Health Magazine.