California's State Government Makes Taxpayers Subsidize Private Water Wells

Last week, Tombstone, a small community near Sanger in California’s Central Valley, hosted a groundbreaking for a $5 million state-funded water project. Governor Gavin Newsom touted it as a step toward clean drinking water, connecting private well owners to the City of Sanger’s system. At first glance, it seems like a win. Safe water is essential. But look closer, and this project exposes a deeper issue: California’s growing habit of using taxpayer money to fix private infrastructure, all while tightening state control.

Newsom’s administration has made water access a priority, reducing the number of Californians without clean drinking water by nearly half since he took office. The Tombstone project, backed by the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, fits into this broader push through the SAFER program. Yet, the celebration hides a critical question. Why are taxpayers funding solutions for private wells? This project isn’t just about water—it’s about who pays and who holds the reins.

In 2019, Newsom signed SB 200 in Tombstone, creating a $130 million annual fund to address water access in underserved areas. The state frames this as a moral necessity, but the approach raises red flags. It often overrides local solutions, imposing state-driven mandates that chip away at property rights and burden taxpayers. Tombstone’s residents may benefit, but what about Californians footing the bill elsewhere?

Should the state be responsible for private wells? For those who prioritize local control and fiscal discipline, the answer is clear. California’s strategy risks turning every private well into a public expense, diverting funds from other pressing needs.

Sanger’s cooperation, while admirable, doesn’t change the dynamic. The city waived fees and adjusted plans to navigate property lines, but the state orchestrated the effort. This project reflects Sacramento’s vision, not a local community’s initiative.

The Tombstone project’s $5 million cost—$4 million from Proposition 68 and $1 million from the state’s General Fund—hits taxpayers directly. This isn’t pocket change, especially given California’s broader spending. The SAFER program has driven over 140 consolidations, benefiting 300,000 people, but each project pulls from public funds that could repair roads, bolster schools, or enhance public safety.

Advocates argue that water is a human right, codified in California’s 2012 AB 685. They highlight the 250 failing water systems brought into compliance since 2019 as evidence of progress. But this perspective ignores the trade-offs. Taxpayers aren’t just funding infrastructure—they’re covering costs for private property owners who chose wells. Why should urban Californians subsidize rural residents’ systems?

Texas offers a contrasting lesson. There, conservative voices have resisted state-funded water projects, arguing they undermine local autonomy. In Hood County, Tea Party activists opposed reservoir plans to protect property rights. California, however, leans on state power, with Sacramento dictating terms to communities like Tombstone.

Proposition 68, a 2018 bond measure, fuels the project but adds debt that future taxpayers will repay with interest. With over $1.6 billion in federal funds available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, California could lean on those resources instead of piling on local debt. Why isn’t the state managing funds more wisely?

Groups like Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability praise the collaboration, but their focus skips the cost to taxpayers and the precedent it sets. If every rural well becomes a state obligation, how will California afford it? Taxpayers deserve a government that respects their money and their rights.

Clean water is non-negotiable. Rural areas like Tombstone face real threats, with wells at risk from nitrates and runoff. A 2024 UC Berkeley survey found that 74 percent of consolidated systems in California improved water quality. But the answer isn’t state handouts—it’s empowering local communities and markets to solve problems.

Consolidation can succeed without Sacramento’s grip. States like Utah and Iowa use regional consortiums and public-private partnerships to prioritize local control. California’s Local Agency Formation Commissions already pinpoint systems for consolidation. Why not let them take the lead, with the state as a backup?

Federal overreach also needs a check. Conservative policymakers have pushed back against EPA expansions, protecting property rights by limiting Clean Water Act scope. California should encourage private water companies or community cooperatives, not state-led projects that balloon budgets.

Some argue only state action ensures fairness, pointing to federal grants for projects like Colusa’s pipe replacements. But those efforts used targeted funds, not state general budgets. California’s approach risks overspending and sidelining local voices, creating dependency on Sacramento.

The Tombstone project highlights a state too quick to spend and control. Californians need policies that value property rights, harness local innovation, and keep taxpayer dollars focused on public needs, not private wells.

Tombstone’s new water system may deliver cleaner water, but it leaves taxpayers with the bill and local communities with less say. This project isn’t about denying water—it’s about fairness and who calls the shots.

California’s leaders must shift course. Let cities like Sanger drive consolidations without state mandates. Use federal funds strategically to ease taxpayer burdens. Above all, uphold the principle that private property isn’t a public responsibility.

For Californians fed up with Sacramento’s heavy hand, Tombstone is a warning. Clean water matters, but so does fiscal responsibility. It’s time to demand policies that deliver both—without sacrificing our rights or our wallets.