II. Secondly, we currently lack any real funding to address the increasing operations and maintenance costs and the ability to ensure an affordable rate for a basic amount of water. As a result, many of our most disadvantaged households are paying up to 10% of their income for water alone. Groundwater contamination and water scarcity, both exacerbated by the drought, force communities to install expensive treatment systems and pay increasingly costly drinking water just to meet their basic needs. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs create additional burden for local ratepayers, to whom costs are regularly transferred. This unmet funding need is especially acute in small disadvantaged communities. According to the 2013 Report by PPIC, CWC, and Fresno State University, in the Tulare Lake Basin: 9 (17%) water systems had unaffordable water rates 14 (27%) water systems had unaffordable rates, considering replacement costs 3,933 (29%) households had unaffordable rates 7,021 (51%) households had unaffordable rates, considering replacement costs Examples: Community Issue Average cost per household Percent of monthly Income Alpaugh Arsenic treatment $80/month 3.8% +$29/month on alternative 5.2% water supplies Cantua Creek Trihalomethane, must also $100-$170/month 5.3% purchase bottled water +$29/month on alternative 6.41% water supplies Porvenir Purchasing surface water $100-$200/month - supplies during the +$29/month on alternative drought plus bottled water water supplies Lanare Covering cost of $1.3 $54/month 1.4% million federal loan for +$29/month on alternative 2.2% arsenic treatment water supplies
II. Secondly, we currently lack any real funding to address the increasing operations and maintenance costs and the ability to ensure an affordable rate for a basic amount of water. As a result, many of our most disadvantaged households are paying up to 10% of their income for water alone. Groundwater contamination and water scarcity, both exacerbated by the drought, force communities to install expensive treatment systems and pay increasingly costly drinking water just to meet their basic needs. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs create additional burden for local ratepayers, to whom costs are regularly transferred. This unmet funding need is especially acute in small disadvantaged communities. According to the 2013 Report by PPIC, CWC, and Fresno State University, in the Tulare Lake Basin: 9 (17%) water systems had unaffordable water rates 14 (27%) water systems had unaffordable rates, considering replacement costs 3,933 (29%) households had unaffordable rates 7,021 (51%) households had unaffordable rates, considering replacement costs Examples: Community Issue Average cost per household Percent of monthly Income Alpaugh Arsenic treatment $80/month +$29/month on alternative water supplies 3.8% 5.2% Cantua Creek Trihalomethane, must also purchase bottled water $100-$170/month +$29/month on alternative water supplies 5.3% 6.41% Porvenir Purchasing surface water supplies during the drought plus bottled water $100-$200/month +$29/month on alternative water supplies - Lanare Covering cost of $1.3 million federal loan for arsenic treatment $54/month +$29/month on alternative water supplies 1.4% 2.2%