David Nahai: Water Contamination, Climate Resilience, and Regional Leadership
Recently reappointed by Governor Gavin Newsom and confirmed by the California Senate, David Nahai is serving for a fifth term as Chair of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. David Nahai brings renewed urgency to one of the state’s most complex climate and water challenges.
In conversation with VX News, Nahai outlines the Board’s top priorities amid recent and converging climate threats, including wastewater recycling, stormwater capture, aquifer remediation, and a more integrated embrace of the One Water framework. A longtime leader in both the public and private sectors, Nahai underscores the importance of local resilience in the face of federal rollbacks on environmental protections, also addressing the climate of fear created by aggressive ICE activity, and calls for principled leadership rooted in equity, accountability, and environmental justice.
Join David Nahai and VX at the 19th Annual LABC Sustainability Summit on October 9th!
“There are many lessons we've learned in terms of wildfire recovery…and the Regional Board has a central role to play…with soil and water contamination issues throughout the region…home to 11 million people.” - David Nahai
To begin, introduce yourself to our readers.
My name is David Nahai—I have several private sector roles, and I’m a lawyer by profession. I own and operate a law firm that specializes primarily in real estate transactional matters. I also have a consulting company that advises firms on sustainability issues—renewable energy, water, environmental matters…and I we do some investing when the opportunity allows.
On the public side, I currently serve as Chair of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board—a role I’ve held under four governors, with four Senate confirmations, and now in my fifth term. I also chair the Los Angeles Business Council and serve as Vice Chair of the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator. In addition, I’m engaged with several nonprofits and advisory boards, including the Luskin Center, Climate Resolve, LAANE, and other allied organizations.
Previously, I held roles with the City of Los Angeles, including as Commission President and then General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. More recently, I served as Vice Chair on a City Commission tasked with recruiting and hiring the head of the Office of Public Accountability, also known as the Ratepayer Advocate, for LADWP. I also served for a time as a Senior Advisor to the Clinton Climate Initiative, so a number of different functions.
Presently, we face converging challenges: climate change, water supply, and aquifer contamination. Recently being reappointed by Governor Newsom to chair the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, what do you see as the board's top priorities?
Well, thank you for the question and for covering this subject. We have, I regret to say, so many challenges here in Southern California to deal with in terms of our water issues generally, which have been exacerbated by the advent of climate change, the impacts of which we see all around us.
In Los Angeles and Southern California, we first have the recovery from the devastating wildfires that occurred in January to tackle. That is quite challenging, and I think our leadership in L.A. is to be commended for the speed with which the response has been mounted in the aftermath of the fires, but we must make sure that we are prepared for the next calamity.
There are many lessons we've learned in terms of wildfire recovery, and the Regional Board has a central role to play because we deal with soil and water contamination issues throughout the region. The region, by the way, includes all of L.A. County, all of Ventura County, and part of Kern County, so we're talking about a vast area, home to 11 million people.
In terms of other priorities, certainly, wastewater recycling is one. We have the technology, we have the capability, and we have so many examples around the world of wastewater being treated successfully. We must do that as part of our push towards self-sufficiency of our water resources.
Next, of course, is stormwater capture. We waste much of the rainfall that we get, and we get precious little of it as it is…so we must be increasingly mindful about capture, conservation, and not allowing it to run off into the ocean, which is really what mostly happens at present. We've made a lot of headway with stormwater capture, as we have with wastewater recycling, but there is still a long way to go.
We also need to clean up our aquifers, which suffer from legacy contamination. This is not new contamination, but pollution that dates back many, many years, some back to the days of the Second World War. But we have an incredible resource, especially in the San Fernando Valley, and cleaning up that groundwater basin must continue to be a priority.
We have to conserve more. We've done a good job so far—our population has grown immensely, and yet our water consumption has not. As a matter of fact, it has declined. But again, compared to the rest of the world, we can still do more on the conservation front.
We must deal with the scourge of PFAS in our water supplies even as the federal government tries to retreat from regulating these “forever chemicals,” because protecting public health demands nothing less.
We also have to be mindful of marine life, and here, I’d reference a phenomenon called algal blooms. These occur when too much—what are called nutrients—enter the water. I mean, “nutrients” may sound like something you would want in your diet, but it is not something you want too much of in the ocean, because it leads to these blooms that smell awful, look awful, and kill a lot of marine life. We must prioritize that challenge going forward.
And, as if that's not enough, I'll finish with this: At the Water Board, we're also in charge of cleaning up contaminated sites. These are properties that can actually be returned to productive use—developed for housing and other uses. As such, a robust yet expedited process for cleaning up these sites is needed to return them to productive use.
In mentioning the January fires, which underscored the vulnerability of water systems, you noted that many lessons were learned. Share about how the region is preparing to manage the post-fire runoff, sedimentation, and water quality threats.
First of all, we have to remember that we were dealing with a climate-driven disaster. I’ve lived in Los Angeles for 45 years, and I do not ever recall 100-mile-an-hour winds. I think that was an unprecedented event, and I don’t think any of us were quite prepared for that kind of super catastrophe, but now we know that this can happen, and we must be forearmed.
This wasn’t strictly a Regional Board issue in terms of jurisdiction, but I think the Regional Board, along with all the other agencies, was part of a family—one that has an obligation to protect people in the aftermath. A lot of the contamination, especially in the Palisades, flowed into the ocean, and there is a possibility that with tidal activity, it could return to the coast. So, we have to be monitoring for that.
While the Army Corps of Engineers did a tremendous job of removing the top six inches of soil from the burn sites—and as part of our work at the Regional Board, we toured the Eaton Fire burn areas and met with the Army Corps—just because the top six inches were removed doesn’t necessarily mean the sites are safe. There are documented cases where contamination has gone deeper.
As people rebuild, the kind of assistance that can be given to them to ensure they reclaim their lives safely and healthily—for themselves and their children—is crucial. That’s a real challenge.
Right now, for the most part, each family rebuilding has a job to do, and my personal view is that it’s not fair to place that burden solely on families. They need assistance to figure out exactly how deep the contamination goes, whether it's just lead or other fire-related chemicals. We also want to ensure they’re treated fairly by the vendors they use, protected from unscrupulous players.
In lessons learned, I’d say the entire state apparatus from the Governor’s Office to the Regional Board came together in a remarkable coalition to respond to the disaster in its aftermath. There was a great deal of admirable cooperation and effective collaboration among agencies, led by Sacramento and the Governor’s Office. From my vantage point, it was very heartening to see all of these agencies with different jurisdictions and priorities come together in such a collaborative way.
A recent UCLA study on water systems, drought, and climate resiliency found that small water systems remain fragmented as rates are rising. Could you speak to how regulators, utilities, policy makers, and even communities can move forward in addressing issues such as consolidation?
I'm very proud to serve on an advisory board to the Luskin Center, so I know this work and have a lot of admiration for what the Luskin Center does. This is a real issue—the fragmentation of the industry—and it's not just here in California.
I once conducted research and discovered that, throughout the United States, there are approximately 56,000 water agencies nationwide, and over 150,000 public drinking water systems. Here in California, water systems range from tiny community operations, like a mobile home park with its own supply, to massive utilities serving millions, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which I had the privilege of leading for a long time.
Many of the smaller water agencies are at a disadvantage. I’m not saying they’re to blame, but it’s extremely difficult for them to raise rates, make the necessary investments, and provide the level of service and quality their constituents need. We also saw several examples of this during the wildfires, as some small systems were simply unable to keep up with emergency needs or immediate recovery costs.
One answer is consolidation: merging smaller agencies with more well-resourced entities so they can better serve their communities. A couple of agencies in the Altadena area are contemplating a merger, which would be tremendously beneficial for the constituents they serve. In other places, that strategy hasn’t proven as successful as we all would have liked to see.
But really, at the state level, it comes down to this: either prioritize the resources, funding, and governance reforms these agencies need to succeed, or promote a robustly meaningful consolidation strategy. That said, the fragmentation you point to is an issue that absolutely has to be addressed; there’s no doubt.
Moving on to the “One Water” approach, which integrates drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and groundwater. How do you view the Board advancing this integrated approach, which has been around for decades?
The approach emphasizes participation, promotion, and collaboration among all actors across the entire water spectrum—from sourcing and storage to recycling and reuse. With this integrated effort, we can establish a truly continuous cycle of water use and application. In turn, the Regional Board’s scope of work has evolved and expanded to address not only water quality but also water supply and long-term resiliency.
Because really, when you think about it, there’s no clear distinction between water quantity, water supply on one side, and water quality on the other. It's all part of this “One Water” concept. I’d support the Regional Board playing an even larger role in advancing this framework, and I believe staff are already moving strongly in that direction.
The point isn’t just to list different areas of water management. It’s to view water as a single, interconnected resource. Wastewater recycling shouldn’t sit in a silo, nor should stormwater capture, conservation, or aquifer remediation. None of these efforts should be isolated, as they’re integrated into a single system.
Securing our water future means ensuring that future generations in Los Angeles, a city that has never been blessed with abundant water supplies, can still thrive. That requires full commitment to the One Water approach, and the Regional Board plays a central role in making it a reality.
Great answer. On that note, where do you see the opportunities for innovation in water management—such as performance-based contracting or region-wide water system planning—that could better link these communities to their infrastructure?
I think that traditionally, on the water side, public-private partnerships, or “P3s” as they’re called, and other mechanisms such as performance-based contracting have not received the kind of support they deserve. We have room for improvement because we need to focus more on ways to involve the private sector as we grapple with our water issues, especially in the face of climate change.
We very much have that model on the energy side. Each time you hear about the purchase of energy from a solar farm, wind farm, or geothermal facility, that is a public-private partnership at work. The private entity builds the facility, owns it, and sells the energy to the public sector.
Now, at LADWP, we had a model where we were buying that energy, but we also had the option to purchase the facility itself and own it. That kind of concept has made some inroads on the water side, but not yet sufficiently. Part of the reason is that the public likes to own its water. Water is different from energy—it’s life.
That’s why, in the United States, the vast majority of water resources remain in public hands. People want that arrangement preserved, and we should be careful not to dilute or weaken it. Public ownership is more than a legal framework; it’s a reflection of how communities value and trust this essential resource.
That said, there is a role for the private sector when it brings expertise, funding, and resources under an agreement in which the government ultimately purchases the product. That model can work, but it must be pursued with great care. The desalination plant in Carlsbad is a good example: it shows both the potential and the complexity of such arrangements. Success requires contracts that ensure affordability, reliability, and, most importantly, that the government retains accountability to the public through oversight and enforcement of contractual provisions.
There are also other examples. For instance, in Northern California, there's an entity that completely resurrected a wetland using its own capital and resources, in service to a government entity it had contracted with. There's more to explore there and abroad.
By the way, there are cautionary tales too, which must be kept in mind. But we learn and we move forward. The real issue is, how do we be efficient, productive, and work in the best interest of the people?
Given your several public service commitments, may you address how recent ICE activity and reports have affected your work or the work of organizations you support?
Let me start this way: I’m an immigrant. I was born in Tehran. I speak Farsi, although I can’t read or write it anymore because I left when I was a little kid, but I still speak it. The thought that I could be speaking Farsi to my grandchild on a street and be pulled over by a masked gunman and thrown into an unmarked van just because I’m speaking a foreign language on the streets of Los Angeles—that’s terrifying.
We should all be petrified that this is even possible in this country. One of the workers in my office told me she looks over her shoulder every time she comes to work because she’s Brown, and I know this is a cloud that hangs over businesses in our region.
We see it when it affects people close to us or people we work with, and these people are fearful to come to work, go to court, or attend public gatherings. It’s just terrible. I believe there will be lawsuits. I can only hope that our Congress and Supreme Court will, at some point, want to do their jobs as patriots, as Americans, and not allow this kind of abuse to continue.
Despite federal rollbacks on climate policy, what gives you optimism that Los Angeles can still innovate and adapt?
I have quite a lot of optimism for a number of reasons.
First, take PFAS. At the federal level, we’ve seen the EPA step back; that said, in California, I’d say we are fortunate. We have the Porter-Cologne Act, which is our own water quality legislation. While federal changes to the Clean Water Act, by the Supreme Court and others, do affect us by causing delay and requiring a shift in how we regulate, we still have our own laws. That gives me hope.
When you have a president talking about reducing support for renewable energy, cutting greenhouse gas reductions, and instead promoting fossil fuels, and even denying climate change altogether by calling it “the greatest con ever perpetrated,” it’s a real challenge. Anyone who’s lived through a climate calamity knows the climate has changed, and that things are getting worse.
Here in Los Angeles, I think we’re seeing an enormous amount of resilience. We’re seeing unity. We’re seeing generosity—just look at the response to the wildfires and their aftermath. There is so much we can do—for ourselves, for our kids, for our grandkids, and for the future. I’m very much looking forward to the LABC Sustainability Summit, but I also want to thank you, David, and VerdeXchange for all the work you do towards the betterment of society.
When I reflect on this question, in many ways, I think the hostility of the federal administration toward Los Angeles has actually unified us. It has fortified us. It has given us an even stronger sense of resolute determination to protect ourselves, our children, and our environment. All of this gives me hope, and we shall march onward.
On October 9th, you’ll be leading a panel on wildfire, water, and extreme heat at LABC’s Sustainability Summit. To conclude, could you speak to the work of LABC and preview your priorities for that discussion?
The Los Angeles Business Council (LABC) is a business organization, but it’s a progressive business organization, and I believe it’s the only business group in the region that actually hosts a Sustainability Summit, one devoted to the juncture where the economy and environment intersect.
This particular panel, which I’ll be chairing and which features truly leading experts in their fields, will be focused on resiliency on the water side, but not exclusively. Of course, we’ll be talking about wildfire recovery, but also how our region is confronting the broader impacts of climate change, like extreme heat to other increasingly severe weather events.
On the flip side, we’ll examine strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the role Los Angeles can play without shying away from the reality of federal hostility toward environmental protections, particularly as they affect California. In doing so, I look towards solutions and strategies on how we, as a region, continue to fight on and respond.
I’m very much looking forward to it, and I think the discussion will be invigorating. It will remind and empower us that we are, indeed, resilient, resourceful, and strong. Working together is itself a source of optimism, proving how our collective resilience and resourcefulness can turn even daunting challenges into progress.
