Toxic Ash from California’s Record Wildfires Is Clogging Drinking Water Supplies Across the State

Sediment-choked watersheds and erosion could become more frequent.

Beth J. Harpaz/AP

This story was originally published by High Country News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Fourmile Canyon Fire, sparked by a backyard burn west of Boulder, Colorado, in 2010, caused $220 million in damage and destroyed 168 homes. It also scorched nearly a quarter of a watershed that supplies water to the nearby community of Pine Brook Hills. The problems didn’t end there: Long after the blaze was put out, intense rainstorms periodically washed sediment and other particles downstream, disrupting water treatment and forcing the local water district to stop pulling water from Fourmile Creek, leaving it reliant upon water already collected in its reservoir.

“The water coming down Fourmile Creek would get so dirty that we simply would shut down moving any water (from the creek),” for days or even weeks, says district manager Robert de Haas. “If we hadn’t built the reservoir”—in 2006—“we’d have been in big trouble.”

Now, new research suggests that such water-quality problems might become more frequent across the West. Climate change is already causing a surge in wildfire activity. As a result, scientists expect to see a rise in erosion in most of the region’s watersheds in the coming decades. Sediment and ash running off burned hillsides into streams can clog reservoirs, smother fish and disrupt municipal water supplies.

In many places, however, water managers and other officials are already taking steps to prepare for both wildfire and its long-term aftereffects. For communities that rely on forested drainages for their water, “It is a key aspect of water supply and watershed protection to plan for a wildfire,” says Kate Dunlap, who works on source water protection for the city of Boulder.

In forested watersheds—the source of 65 percent of the West’s water supply—trees, soil and leaf litter soak up precipitation like a sponge, then slowly release it to aquifers, streams and rivers. But wildfires can sear the soil, making it water-repellant, and incinerate stabilizing plant roots. “Then, when it rains, all that water gets transported right off the surface,” ferrying sediment, nutrients and debris downstream, says Jeff Writer, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Sometimes precipitation triggers deadly mudslides that destroy homes and bury highways. Sediment can also shroud streambeds and reservoirs, forcing managers to dredge or conduct other costly fixes.

Floods of sediment and debris can also compromise water supplies. Spikes in nutrients can spark algae blooms, causing taste and odor problems. Small particles can clog filters. When organic matter reacts with treatment chemicals, it can create toxic compounds like chloroform. After the Fourmile Canyon Fire, Pine Brook Water District had to revamp its water treatment process to avert those noxious byproducts. “(These problems) can basically shut the whole plant down,” Writer says, though typically only for short periods of time. Still, the problem highlights the importance of having more than one municipal water source.

One of the lessons of the Fourmile Fire, which Writer and other researchers studied at length, was that both vigilance and patience are required post-fire. The fire occurred in September, leaving a 10-month gap before summer monsoons hit, causing severe erosion. Water managers may need to monitor flood forecasts, rainfall intensity and water quality for months or even years after fires.

“Even though fire is a natural component of (many Western ecosystems), there is a concern about increases in erosion and sedimentation, and increases in fire,” says Joel Sankey, a research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. Research he carried out with colleagues suggests that more than a third of Western watersheds could see their sediment load double by 2050, due to climate change and post-fire erosion, putting surface water supply and quality at risk. “There’s an opportunity for communities, watershed managers, to proactively respond to the information,” he says. Many are already doing so. Cities like Flagstaff, Arizona, Boulder and Fort Collins in Colorado, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, are thinning forests, stepping up water monitoring and studying watersheds to identify which areas are most susceptible to erosion.

Federal and local agencies can also reduce the threats to water quality by responding quickly after wildfires occur. Strategies include protecting bare ground with mulch to reduce erosion and building retention ponds to capture sediment before it can clog intake pipes at treatment plants, says Stephanie Kampf, a hydrologist and professor at Colorado State University. When blazes blast through urban areas, as this year’s deadly wildfires in Northern California did, toxic ash and remnants of paint and plastics add to the substances that can be swept downstream. Officials there are using sandbags to keep debris out of storm drains and taking other measures to protect water quality following the fires. “Wildfires are a natural part of the landscape—and they’re inevitable in the Western U.S.,” Kampf says. “I think that preparing for them, to minimize vulnerability to fire, is really the way to go.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate