A visit to Pure Water Southern California explores the science, opportunities, and public questions surrounding one of California’s emerging water supplies
What happens to water after it disappears down a household drain?
For much of the history of modern sanitation, the answer was straightforward: collect the wastewater, treat it sufficiently to protect public health and the environment, and discharge the treated water to a river, lake, or ocean.
But in a water-stressed region such as Southern California, another question is becoming increasingly important:
What if, instead of treating that water as something to dispose of, we treated it as a local water supply?
That question was at the center of a recent tour I attended at the Grace F. Napolitano Pure Water Southern California Innovation Center in Carson. The center is part of Pure Water Southern California, a proposed partnership between the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
The visit provided much more than a look at pipes, membranes, and treatment equipment. It offered a glimpse into an important transition in California water management: from a largely linear system of importing, using, treating, and discharging water toward a more circular system in which water can be purified and used again.
That transition also raises important questions for Cooperative Extension.
How much does the public know about potable reuse? Would people drink purified recycled water? What makes people trust or distrust a water-reuse system? And perhaps just as importantly, do people understand that what they put into drains and waterways can ultimately affect the quality of the water resources communities must treat?
Those are questions worth exploring.
Tour participants enter the Grace F. Napolitano Pure Water Southern California Innovation Center in Carson. The demonstration facility is being used to test an advanced purification process and support public education about potable reuse. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Key takeaways
Southern California already relies on indirect potable reuse today, most notably through Orange County's Groundwater Replenishment System.
California's direct potable reuse regulations, effective October 1, 2024, require an exceptionally high level of multi-barrier pathogen and chemical treatment.
Pure Water Southern California is a proposed, not yet built, regional program. Its Final Environmental Impact Report was certified in February 2026, and current funding covers only planning and design of a smaller first stage.
Advanced treatment does not replace the need for source control, conservation, or watershed protection. What goes down the drain still matters.
First, what is potable reuse?
The terminology matters.
“Potable” means suitable for drinking. Potable water reuse therefore refers to treating municipal wastewater so that it can become part of a drinking-water supply.
Two general approaches are commonly discussed.
Indirect potable reuse, or IPR, introduces purified recycled water into an environmental buffer, such as a groundwater aquifer, lake, or reservoir, before the water eventually becomes part of a drinking-water supply.
Direct potable reuse, or DPR, introduces highly treated recycled water directly into a public drinking-water system or into a raw-water supply immediately upstream of a drinking-water treatment plant, without first relying on a groundwater basin or reservoir as an environmental buffer.
This distinction is important because potable reuse is not a single technology or treatment configuration. It is a water-management approach involving treatment, monitoring, source control, engineering redundancy, qualified operators, regulatory oversight, and public confidence.
Water reuse is not as new as it may sound
Human societies have always reused water in some fashion.
Water moves continuously through the hydrologic cycle. Rivers receive flows from upstream communities. Groundwater is recharged and withdrawn. Treated wastewater may be discharged into waterways that later serve as water sources for downstream communities.
What is relatively new is our ability to intentionally purify used municipal water through highly controlled treatment trains designed specifically for potable reuse.
One of the best-known international examples is Windhoek, Namibia, which began operating a full-scale direct potable reuse system in 1968. More than five decades later, its experience remains one of the world’s longest-running examples of direct potable reuse.
Singapore provides another influential example. Its NEWater program uses advanced purification to produce high-grade reclaimed water. Singapore introduced NEWater to the public in 2002 and opened its first two NEWater plants in 2003. The country deliberately paired engineering with public education, including a visitor center where people could learn how the water was produced (PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency).
The experience is relevant because public acceptance did not appear automatically after engineers demonstrated that the technology worked. Public education and engagement became part of the water infrastructure.
California already drinks recycled water, indirectly
Southern California has one of the world’s most prominent potable reuse systems.
The Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation District jointly operate the Groundwater Replenishment System, commonly known as GWRS.
The system began operating in January 2008 and initially produced approximately 70 million gallons per day. Following two expansions, it can now produce up to 130 million gallons per day of highly purified water. That water is used to replenish the Orange County Groundwater Basin and maintain a seawater-intrusion barrier along the coast.
GWRS uses a three-stage advanced treatment process consisting of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide. According to the Orange County Water District, the current system can produce enough water to meet the needs of nearly one million residents (Orange County Water District).
This means the debate in California is no longer about whether highly purified recycled water can ever become part of a drinking-water supply.
It already is.
What is changing is how extensively potable reuse may be used and whether California will increasingly move from systems that use groundwater or reservoir buffers toward direct potable reuse.
California has opened the regulatory door to direct potable reuse
A major change occurred in December 2023 when the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations governing direct potable reuse. Following approval by the Office of Administrative Law, the regulations became effective October 1, 2024 (California State Water Resources Control Board).
This was a consequential milestone.
California did not simply declare that advanced recycled water could be placed into drinking-water systems. The regulations establish extensive requirements involving treatment redundancy, pathogen reduction, chemical control, source control, continuous monitoring, operator responsibilities, and responses to treatment failures.
The required overall pathogen reduction targets are:
- 20-log reduction for enteric viruses
- 14-log reduction for Giardia
- 15-log reduction for Cryptosporidium
A log reduction expresses the magnitude by which a treatment system reduces a contaminant. For example, a 1-log reduction represents a 90% reduction, a 2-log reduction represents 99%, and a 3-log reduction represents 99.9%. The much higher cumulative targets in California’s DPR regulations are achieved across multiple treatment processes rather than by relying on one piece of equipment.
The regulations require no fewer than four separate pathogen-treatment processes and at least three different treatment mechanisms, including membrane separation, chemical inactivation, and ultraviolet inactivation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
That is an important point.
Potable reuse is not based on the proposition that wastewater becomes safe after passing through one “magic filter.”
It is based on a multiple-barrier approach.
Why multiple barriers matter
Instead of relying on one treatment process to remove everything, water systems use different processes that address different contaminants and provide redundancy if one process does not perform as expected.
The same concept becomes especially important with potable reuse because municipal wastewater may contain microorganisms, salts, nutrients, household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and other constituents.
Different barriers do different jobs.
That brings us back to Carson.
Inside the Pure Water Southern California demonstration treatment train
The facility we toured is not the proposed full-scale regional project.
It is a demonstration-scale advanced purification facility with a capacity of approximately 500,000 gallons per day. The facility began operating in 2019 and is being used to evaluate treatment performance, refine the purification process, and support public outreach and education.
The demonstration treatment train has three principal stages: membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with advanced oxidation (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California).
The Pure Water Southern California demonstration process combines membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with advanced oxidation. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Stage 1: Membrane bioreactors
The first stage combines biological treatment with membrane filtration.
Microorganisms biologically transform organic material and nitrogen compounds. Membranes then physically separate microorganisms and fine suspended particles from the water.
Stage 1 at the demonstration facility uses membrane bioreactors, combining biological treatment with membrane separation. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Hollow-fiber membranes used to illustrate the physical separation process during the Pure Water Southern California tour. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Stage 2: Reverse osmosis
The next stage is reverse osmosis, commonly called RO.
Water is placed under pressure and forced through a semipermeable membrane. Water molecules pass through the membrane while many dissolved salts, microorganisms, organic contaminants, and other constituents are rejected.
RO is extraordinarily effective, but it should not be described as removing absolutely everything. Some small, uncharged organic compounds can be more difficult for RO membranes to reject. That is one reason potable reuse systems use additional treatment processes and do not depend solely on reverse osmosis (Marron & Mitch, 2019).
A reverse-osmosis membrane element displayed during the Carson tour. The tightly wound membrane provides a large treatment surface within a compact cylindrical element. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Reverse-osmosis pressure vessels at the Pure Water Southern California demonstration facility. RO is one of several treatment barriers in the purification process. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
Stage 3: Ultraviolet light and advanced oxidation
After reverse osmosis comes another barrier: ultraviolet light combined with an advanced oxidation process.
Ultraviolet light can inactivate microorganisms. When it is combined with an oxidant, the system produces highly reactive chemical species that can degrade certain trace organic compounds that may remain after earlier treatment.
Advanced oxidation can be particularly valuable for addressing some pharmaceuticals and other organic contaminants that conventional wastewater treatment was not specifically designed to remove (Kanakaraju et al., 2018; Marron & Mitch, 2019).
Stage 3 uses ultraviolet light and advanced oxidation as an additional microbial and chemical treatment barrier. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
What about pharmaceuticals, PFAS, and emerging contaminants?
This is where a scientifically responsible discussion of potable reuse requires more nuance than simply saying, “The water is clean.”
Municipal wastewater reflects what a community uses and discharges. It can contain pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, industrial chemicals, household chemicals, PFAS, nutrients, pathogens, and many other substances. We will discuss these contaminants in detail in our CEC flagship found under the "Drinking Water Matters" blog.
Advanced treatment removes a broad range of contaminants. At the same time, researchers continue to investigate compounds that may be difficult to treat, byproducts that can form during treatment, and emerging contaminants for which scientific knowledge or regulation continues to evolve.
Conventional wastewater-treatment facilities generally were not designed specifically to remove PFAS. However, advanced technologies used in potable reuse, particularly reverse osmosis, can remove many PFAS compounds from water.
There is another part of this story that sometimes receives less public attention.
Reverse osmosis does not destroy everything it removes. It separates rejected contaminants into a more concentrated waste stream, commonly called concentrate or brine. Common approaches to managing this concentrate include discharge to the ocean or another surface water body, deep well injection, disposal through an existing wastewater treatment plant outfall, and evaporation ponds, each with its own cost, regulatory, and environmental tradeoffs (Voutchkov & Kaiser, 2020). For a coastal facility such as the one proposed for Pure Water Southern California, ocean discharge through existing, already-permitted outfall infrastructure is one option available to project planners, though the specific concentrate management approach for the full-scale program will be detailed as engineering design and permitting proceed.
This does not mean potable reuse is inherently unsafe.
It means safety depends on multiple treatment barriers, source control, continuous monitoring, qualified operators, regulatory oversight, and systems that respond appropriately when treatment performance falls outside acceptable limits.
What we put down the drain still matters
Advanced treatment does not eliminate the importance of pollution prevention.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium identifies source control as a fundamental element of the multiple-barrier approach. Source-control programs seek to prevent problematic industrial, commercial, and household contaminants from entering wastewater systems in the first place.
This creates an important educational connection.
If wastewater is increasingly becoming source water, sewer-shed stewardship begins to resemble watershed stewardship.
The choices made in homes, businesses, hospitals, industries, landscapes, and streets matter.
Residents can help protect water quality by properly disposing of medications, paints, solvents, oils, pesticides, and household chemicals instead of putting them into sinks, toilets, gutters, or storm drains.
There is also an important distinction between sanitary sewers and storm drains.
Water entering a sanitary sewer travels to a wastewater-treatment facility. Urban runoff entering a storm drain may instead flow into rivers, channels, beaches, wetlands, or the ocean, often without conventional wastewater treatment.
Protecting both systems is therefore part of protecting the broader water cycle.
Pure Water Southern California: thinking at a regional scale
The scale envisioned for Pure Water Southern California is enormous.
The proposed source is cleaned wastewater from the A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility in Carson that is currently discharged to the Pacific Ocean after treatment.
That current ocean discharge is not unregulated. The A.K. Warren facility discharges secondary-treated wastewater to the Pacific Ocean under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, through outfalls located off the Palos Verdes Shelf (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2017). Redirecting a portion of that flow toward potable reuse is therefore not simply an engineering decision. It also represents a shift in how an already-permitted discharge is managed, one that will need to be reconciled with the facility's ocean discharge permit as the Pure Water Southern California program moves toward implementation.
Pure Water Southern California proposes to capture a portion of this water and purify it further. A fully developed project could produce up to approximately 150 million gallons per day, enough water for about 500,000 homes.
The water would not necessarily go to one place or be used through one pathway. Current planning includes potential groundwater recharge and augmentation of supplies associated with drinking-water treatment facilities.
The A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility treats wastewater from a large portion of Los Angeles County. Pure Water Southern California proposes to further purify a portion of this cleaned wastewater rather than discharging it to the ocean. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
A tour presentation maps the proposed Pure Water Southern California program across two phases, showing pipelines from the Warren Facility to groundwater basins and drinking-water treatment plants in Los Angeles and Orange counties. Project configurations and phases remain subject to planning, design, funding, and future implementation decisions. Photo: Esther N. Lofton.
It is a proposed project, not yet a 150-million-gallon-per-day water supply
This distinction is essential.
The equipment shown in these photographs is part of a demonstration and research facility. The full regional Pure Water Southern California program has not been constructed.
On February 10, 2026, Metropolitan’s Board of Directors unanimously certified the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report. Certification completed an important stage of the California Environmental Quality Act review process, but it did not authorize or construct the full project. Funding, phasing, final design, implementation, and construction require additional decisions (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California).
Metropolitan’s current capital plan includes funding for planning and final design of a 45-million-gallon-per-day first stage. That is another reason to distinguish the currently contemplated first stage from the potential 150-million-gallon-per-day full buildout. Readers may notice that earlier program materials, including the tour presentation shown above, describe program phases with larger volumes, such as a first phase of 115 million gallons per day. These figures are not necessarily in conflict. A funded increment for planning and design is a different thing from a longer-term program phase target, and project configurations have continued to evolve through environmental review and design. The distinction is worth keeping in mind when comparing documents produced at different points in a project's development.
Pure Water Southern California is therefore a project worth watching as it moves from scientific demonstration and environmental planning toward possible implementation.
Affordability, and energy, belong in the conversation
Large water infrastructure projects require substantial public investment.
Questions about potable reuse therefore cannot end with whether the technology works. Communities and decision-makers must also consider:
- What is the lifecycle cost per acre-foot?
- How will the project be financed?
- How should costs and benefits be distributed among participating agencies?
- How will ratepayer affordability be considered?
- How does potable reuse compare with conservation, stormwater capture, groundwater recovery, imported water, desalination, and other alternatives?
- Which communities receive the benefits, and which communities carry the costs or other impacts?
Energy is part of that comparison. Advanced treatment trains that combine membrane bioreactors, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet advanced oxidation require more electricity than conventional wastewater treatment. Across a national dataset of operating and planned potable reuse facilities, full advanced treatment electricity use has been estimated at roughly 0.2 to 2.5 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter of water produced, depending on the specific treatment processes and source-water quality, not counting the additional energy needed to convey the finished water to where it will be used (Sima & Mauter, 2021).
That figure is easiest to interpret next to the alternative it could offset. Southern California's imported supplies are themselves energy-intensive to deliver. Pumping Colorado River water to the region requires roughly 2,000 kilowatt-hours per acre-foot, most of it used to lift water over mountain ranges along the way (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). Local advanced treatment does not automatically cost more energy than the imported water it could offset; the answer depends on treatment train design, source-water quality, and conveyance distance. That comparison, not just the sticker price of building a purification plant, is what communities and decision-makers need in front of them.
The role of Cooperative Extension is not to choose those answers for communities. It is to help people understand the evidence, alternatives, benefits, limitations, and tradeoffs well enough to participate meaningfully in water decisions.
Why is California interested now?
California’s water supplies are being affected by warming temperatures, greater hydrologic variability, drought, changing snowpack, environmental constraints, and increasing competition among water uses.
Southern California also imports substantial amounts of water from the Colorado River and Northern California. Developing additional local supplies can diversify the region’s water portfolio and reduce its exposure to conditions affecting those imported sources.
Large urban populations generate wastewater every day, including during drought. Although wastewater flows may change, they do not depend on annual rainfall and snowpack in the same way as many traditional supplies.
That makes recycled water potentially valuable as a relatively drought-resilient local resource.
Potable reuse does not replace conservation, stormwater capture, groundwater management, or watershed protection. It adds another option to a diversified water-supply portfolio.
Did you know?
Many people already participate in water reuse more than they may realize.
A drinking-water intake located downstream of a wastewater-treatment discharge may receive water containing some previously treated wastewater. Researchers and regulators sometimes describe this as “de facto reuse.”
That is different from planned potable reuse, which intentionally designs, regulates, monitors, and operates treatment systems for the purpose of producing a water supply.
Understanding that distinction may affect public perceptions. Research suggests that knowledge, trust in water providers, perceived risks and benefits, and confidence in decision-making processes can influence acceptance of potable reuse (Barnes et al., 2023; Ross et al., 2014).
The hardest barrier may not be a membrane
During discussions of potable reuse, people sometimes use the phrase “toilet to tap.”
It is memorable, but it is technically misleading because it collapses an entire treatment and monitoring system into two endpoints. It erases the biological treatment, membrane separation, reverse osmosis, oxidation, disinfection, monitoring, and, where applicable, groundwater recharge or conventional drinking-water treatment that occurs between them.
Yet simply telling people that the phrase is wrong is unlikely to build trust.
Public acceptance of water reuse has been studied for decades. Research repeatedly identifies perceived risk, trust, knowledge, perceived benefits, and public involvement as important factors.
Ross et al. (2014), studying a proposed potable reuse system in Australia, found that greater trust in the water authority was associated with lower perceived risk and greater acceptance. Trust was also related to whether residents believed decision-making procedures were fair and whether the agency was credible.
That tells us something important for Extension:
Public education cannot simply be a campaign to convince people to say yes. Good engagement must also listen.
We want to hear from you
As part of our Cooperative Extension work, we are exploring what Californians know, think, and want to learn about potable water reuse.
How familiar are you with potable reuse? What concerns you most? Which institutions or professionals do you trust to provide information? Would you drink highly purified recycled water? Does learning how the treatment process works affect how you feel about it?
A short anonymous survey on these questions is coming soon. Check back here, or follow the UC ANR Urban Watershed Resilience Program, for the link.
Responses will help identify public questions, knowledge gaps, concerns, and trusted information sources, and will guide future fact sheets, workshops, webinars, facility tours, and other Cooperative Extension programs.
The bigger lesson: there may be no such thing as “waste” water
One of the most striking aspects of seeing the Pure Water system in person was not any individual piece of equipment.
It was the change in perspective that the equipment represents.
For more than a century, urban water infrastructure has largely been designed around separate questions:
How do we bring water into a city?
How do we provide safe drinking water?
How do we remove wastewater?
How do we manage stormwater?
How do we protect rivers and groundwater?
Increasingly, those questions are becoming one larger question:
How do we manage water as one interconnected resource?
Potable reuse does not eliminate the need for conservation. It does not replace stormwater capture. It does not make watershed protection unnecessary. It does not solve every water-supply challenge. And advanced treatment does not mean society can pollute water without consequence.
Instead, potable reuse provides another potential tool in a diversified water-supply portfolio. Decisions about its use must consider technical performance, public health, cost, energy, environmental effects, governance, equity, and public acceptance.
Would you drink it?
Perhaps that is the question most people will ask first.
But after seeing the treatment processes, examining California’s regulatory requirements, and considering the region’s water future, several questions are worth asking alongside it:
How was the water treated?
How is treatment performance verified?
What happens if one treatment barrier fails?
Which chemicals and microorganisms are monitored?
How are emerging contaminants addressed?
Who regulates the system?
How much will the water cost?
Who benefits and who pays?
How can communities participate in decisions?
And what can each of us do before contamination ever reaches a treatment facility?
Those questions transform potable reuse from an emotional yes-or-no proposition into a conversation about science, public health, water security, affordability, environmental stewardship, and trust.
That is a conversation worth having.
Protecting tomorrow’s water starts today
Whether or not purified recycled water ultimately reaches your community’s drinking-water supply, we all live within a connected water system.
You can help protect that system by keeping unused medications, pesticides, paint, solvents, motor oil, cleaning chemicals, and other hazardous materials out of sinks, toilets, gutters, and storm drains; reducing unnecessary pesticide and fertilizer applications; preventing irrigation runoff; picking up pet waste; maintaining vehicles to prevent leaks; and learning where household hazardous waste can be safely disposed of in your community.
The cleaner water is when it enters our treatment and natural systems, the better.
Perhaps that is one of potable reuse’s most powerful educational lessons:
The water leaving our homes is not necessarily at the end of its journey. It may become part of somebody’s water supply again.
Possibly even ours.
We'd Love Your Feedback
Your feedback helps us develop better educational resources, identify community information needs, and improve future blogs, workshops, and outreach programs.
The survey takes about two to five minutes,
References
Barnes, J. L., Krishen, A. S., & Hu, H. F. (2023). Public tap water perceptions and potable reuse acceptance: A cognitive dissonance theoretical understanding. Journal of Cleaner Production, 429, 139587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139587
California State Water Resources Control Board. (2024). Direct potable reuse regulations (SBDDW-23-001). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/dpr-regs.html
Kanakaraju, D., Glass, B. D., & Oelgemöller, M. (2018). Advanced oxidation process-mediated removal of pharmaceuticals from water: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 219, 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.103
Marron, E. L., & Mitch, W. A. (2019). A tale of two treatments: The multiple-barrier approach to removing chemical contaminants during potable water reuse. Accounts of Chemical Research, 52(3), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00612
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (2026). Pure Water Southern California. https://www.mwdh2o.com/building-local-supplies/pure-water-southern-california/
National Research Council. (2012). Water reuse: Potential for expanding the nation’s water supply through reuse of municipal wastewater. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13303
Orange County Water District. (n.d.). Groundwater Replenishment System. https://www.ocwd.com/gwrs/
PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency. (n.d.). NEWater. https://www.pub.gov.sg/Public/WaterLoop/OurWaterStory/NEWater
Ross, V. L., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2014). Social trust, risk perceptions and public acceptance of recycled water: Testing a social-psychological model. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.039
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). 2017 potable reuse compendium. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-01/documents/potablereusecompendium_3.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Summary of California’s water reuse guideline or regulation for direct potable water reuse. https://www.epa.gov/waterreuse/summary-californias-water-reuse-guideline-or-regulation-direct-potable-water-reuse
About the author
Dr. Esther Lofton is the Urban Watershed Resilience Advisor with University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Her research and Extension program focuses on drinking water quality, stormwater, watershed resilience, water conservation, and community engagement, with an emphasis on translating science into practical solutions that support safe, affordable, and resilient water systems.
Dr. Esther Lofton: UC ANR Profile
🌐 Continue Exploring
💧 Drinking Water Week 2026
From Source to System: A Regional Check on Reliability, Risk, and Responsibility
Explore how drinking water systems are managed and the shared responsibility of protecting safe and reliable water supplies.
📊 Understanding Your Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Learn how to find, read, and interpret your annual drinking water quality report.
English
Español
🌊 Explore the SoCal Water Blog Series
Browse science-based articles across:
Urban Watershed Resilience + Partner Blogs
https://ucanr.edu/site/socal-water-resources/socal-water-blog-series
🌿 Learn More About Our Programs
🌊 SoCal Water Resources
The official website of the Urban Watershed Resilience Program featuring educational resources, research, blogs, surveys, publications, and community engagement opportunities.
https://ucanr.edu/site/socal-water-resources
🌿 Watersheds Program
Explore science-based educational resources, projects, and community partnerships focused on watershed health, stormwater management, nature-based solutions, and watershed stewardship across Southern California.
https://ucanr.edu/site/watersheds-los-angeles-and-ventura-counties
📩 Contact / Collaborate
anrsocalwater@gmail.com
📲 Follow & Stay Connected
Instagram | TikTok | X