California has made significant progress helping small communities address problems of contaminated drinking water, but the costs of bringing safe tap water to hundreds of communities over the next five years will run more than $11.5 billion, according to a new state estimate.

In a newly released report, the staff of the State Water Resources Control Board estimated that at the start of this year approximately 913,000 Californians depended on public water systems that are failing to comply with drinking water regulations, while an additional 1.5 million people depended on water systems that are determined to be “at-risk.”

Officials carried out the assessment nearly five years after the state established the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience, or SAFER, drinking water program. They said in the report that under the program, the state water board has since 2019 given more than $831 million in grants for drinking water projects in disadvantaged communities, and that about 250 failing water systems serving more than 2 million people have come into compliance with drinking water standards.

“What our analysis has shown time and again is that the common denominator is size,” said Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the state water board. “Small systems struggle, especially in communities that have experienced discrimination and disinvestment, and their challenges will be amplified as weather grows more extreme, new contaminants emerge and costs increase.”

California declared access to clean, safe and affordable water a human right in 2012, but the state has faced significant challenges in developing policies and securing adequate funding to bring solutions for communities where people live with contaminated tap water.

In small rural communities across the state, the water pumped from wells contains harmful levels of contaminants including naturally occurring arsenic, bacteria from sewage leaks, nitrate from animal manure, fertilizers or other sources, and carcinogenic chemicals.

Not all systems that are deemed to be failing deliver water that is contaminated, but many of them have at least one contaminant at levels that violate safe drinking water standards.

According to state data, about 56% of the 385 failing water systems supply disadvantaged communities, and 67% of them supply majority communities of color.

“All of our current failing water systems are on track to come off the failing list,” said Kristyn Abhold, senior environmental scientist for the state water board. “They are working on long-term solutions, and our staff and funding resources are being targeted to the ones that are in most need.”

State water regulators have found that the vast majority of the failing water systems serve a small number of residents, while 98% of the state’s population receives water from sources and suppliers that meet drinking water standards.

For a water system to come into compliance with regulations, it takes not only funding but also planning, engineering work and permits, Abhold said.

State officials have assessed other communities that are at risk by analyzing the potential for water quality violations or water shortages, among other factors.

The number of people affected has fluctuated in recent months as some water systems have come off the list and others have been added. The state’s latest estimates show that 738,000 people currently receive water from failing systems, while more than 1.8 million people depend on 548 systems with drinking water supplies determined to be at risk.

The state’s report includes estimated costs for infrastructure solutions such as installing treatment systems, drilling a new well, or consolidating by connecting one water system to another.

The estimated costs of solutions in the latest report were substantially higher than previous state estimates. In a 2021 report, the state water board included a range of estimated costs up to $9.1 billion. Officials said they used new methods and improved data this time, including more water systems and risks in their analysis.

According to the report, the estimated costs of long-term solutions for failing and at-risk public water systems total $6.6 billion over five years, while the costs of solutions for “high-risk” small water systems and domestic wells total $4.9 billion.

Those combined costs, totaling more than $11.5 billion, would be significantly higher if loan repayment costs and operations and maintenance costs are included, the report said, pushing the total estimated cost of “achieving the human right to water” to $15.9 billion.

Officials projected that $2 billion in state grant funds will be available over five years, as well as $1.5 billion in state loans, leaving a substantial gap in available funding. Officials said a large portion of the money to address the problems may need to come from “local cost share” funds collected through rates, fees and taxes.

The report’s higher cost estimates were released amid discussions about budget cuts in Sacramento.

Citing recent cuts, more than 180 organizations, including environmental groups and other organizations, wrote to state leaders urging them to approve placing a $10 billion bond on the November ballot to provide “direct and meaningful investments in the California communities and natural resources most impacted by climate change.”

As part of that ballot measure, they called for including $1 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure for communities and tribes.

Leaders of the groups wrote that “recent and proposed cuts to funding for such programs have prompted consensus that additional bond funding is necessary to ensure priority programs continue beyond this year.”

Jennifer Clary, California director for the group Clean Water Action, said: ”drinking water infrastructure isn’t a luxury item. Without these projects, thousands of Californians will continue to lack access to safe and clean drinking water.”

Clean water advocates have also voiced concerns as state officials have reviewed the costs of a program that provides household tanks and hauls water by truck to thousands of low-income families whose wells have gone dry.

More than 3,000 domestic wells have run dry throughout California since 2020, according to reports submitted to the state. Those with dry wells have started relying on water delivered by tanker trucks to fill their tanks, while also receiving bottled water.

Leaders of the nonprofit group Self-Help Enterprises, which manages the water-hauling effort, recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state leaders to reject proposals that would take away critical funding for the program. They wrote in a June 11 letter that taking away $17.5 million would “cut off access to water for more than 20,000 people who are still awaiting a permanent solution.”

The letter, which was first reported by the news site SJV Water, was also signed by leaders of other organizations, including the Community Water Center and Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The reversions of these funds will cut off access to water for more than 20,000 people who are still awaiting a permanent solution,” the groups said. “Cutting funding for such a crucial program would have devastating effects on rural and disadvantaged communities by immediately cutting them off from their sole source of water supply, and doing so with no warning.”

Leaders of some groups said later that the funding for the program has been restored.

Mike Kennedy on Tuesday won the Republican nomination for Utah’s 3rd Congressional District to replace outgoing Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, becoming the immediate favorite to win the seat in November.

Kennedy beat fellow Republicans JR Bird, John Dougall, Case Lawrence and Stewart Peay in a packed primary pool for the district. Curtis is vacating his seat to run for U.S. Senate to replace outgoing Sen. Mitt Romney.

Kennedy, a state senator, had won the party’s nomination for the seat in April but faced challenges from other candidates who gathered signatures to be on the ballot. Peay had won the endorsement of Romney, who is also Peay’s wife’s uncle. Kennedy had won the endorsement of Sen. Mike Lee, who said he was needed to “fight against the Uniparty and help get this country back on track.”

‘SQUAD’ MEMBER FACES OUSTER FROM CONGRESS AS NEW YORK, COLORADO AND UTAH HOLD PRIMARIES ON TUESDAY

Bird, a mayor, emphasized his experience of running a small town as well as the importance of the energy sector and agriculture, according to the Deseret News.

Dougall, the state auditor, had run as an anti-MAGA candidate and had slammed some GOP legislation, including what he saw as an overly aggressive bill that tasks him with enforcing a ban on transgender-identifying individuals using restrooms that are inconsistent with their sex.

WATCH: THIS HOUSE PRIMARY IS MOST EXPENSIVE IN CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY

He has also been deeply critical of former President Trump. On Tuesday on X, he also questioned the “cavalier manner” of any official who swears to uphold the Constitution “then endorses Trump following January 6th.” He has advertised himself as “mainstream, not MAGA.”

At a debate this month, candidates split on the question of military funding to Ukraine as well as whether the federal government should explicitly ban abortion. Peay, Dougall and Case Lawrence – a trampoline park entrepreneur – had called on Congress to keep sending weapons to Ukraine to help it fend off the ongoing Russian invasion.

Bird and Kennedy disagreed, arguing that it was not beneficial to the U.S. to keep funding the Ukrainians, with the two calling for stronger sanctions and the seizure of Russian assets.

HEAD HERE FOR LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING FROM THE PRIMARY CAMPAIGN TRAIL

Sen. Mitt Romney (Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Kennedy will go on to face Democrat Glenn Wright in the November election, but the Republican is favored to win comfortably in a district that has voted Republican since 1997.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NEWS APP

Elsewhere in the state, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox, a major GOP Trump critic, held off a primary challenge from Phil Lyman, another 2020 election denier who easily won the state party convention.

The Associated Press and Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.

California news publishers and Big Tech companies appear to be inching toward compromise on a controversial bill that would require Google and huge social media platforms to pay news outlets for the articles they distribute.

After stalling last year, Assembly Bill 886 cleared a critical hurdle Tuesday when it passed the state Senate Judiciary Committee. Several lawmakers described the legislation as a work in progress aimed at solving a critical problem: The news business is shrinking as technology changes the way people consume information.

“I do believe the marketplace is the best mechanism to regulate industry,” Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), the committee chairman, said during a hearing on the bill.

However, he said, the demise of journalism harms democracy: “Thus, we have an obligation to find a way to support reasonable, credible journalism.”

The legislation, known as the “California Journalism Preservation Act,” would require digital platforms to pay news outlets a fee when they sell advertising alongside news content. It calls for creating a fund that the tech firms pay into, with the money being distributed to news outlets based on the number of journalists they employ. Publishers would have to use 70% of the money they receive to pay journalists in California.

Umberg noted that the bill does not specify an amount for the fund. He said it would be “a very elegant solution” for the parties involved to agree on what amount that should be.

Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) described talks as being “closer and closer to the place where we could actually land some kind of deal.”

In Canada, Google is paying $74 million annually into a fund for the news industry under a law similar to the one proposed in California.

Jaffer Zaidi, Google’s vice president of global news partnerships, testified against the California proposal during a hearing in which news executives from across the state lined up to express support for the bill, while tech industry lobbyists lined up in opposition. The bill is sponsored by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member.

“The bill would … break the fundamental and foundational principles of the open internet, forcing platforms to pay publishers for sending valuable free traffic to them,” Zaidi said.

“It puts the full burden of support on one or two companies, while shielding many other large platforms who also link to news from California publishers.”

He said Google had shared a proposal for a different way to support journalism “through targeted programs” that would be funded by more companies than just the very largest platforms. The current version of the bill would apply only to Google and Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook.

“We hope this can serve as a basis for a workable path forward together,” Zaidi said. “We remain committed to being here and constructively working towards an outcome.”

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), said she is “aggressively trying to engage” with companies that oppose the bill in the hopes that the sparring sides can reach an agreement that will allow the news industry to thrive.

“At the end of the day, I want the best solution to the problem,” Wicks said.

She closed the hearing by talking about the role journalism has played in exposing problems that lawmakers wind up addressing in the Capitol, such as crafting new laws to extend the statute of limitations for sexual abuse lawsuits after The Times’ investigation revealed a pattern of allegations against former USC gynecologist George Tyndall.

The bill now advances to the Senate Appropriations Committee. It will go to Gov. Gavin Newsom if it clears both houses of the Legislature by Aug. 31.