Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Who implemented the project of putting 96 Million black balls into the water?
Executive Summary
Los Angeles officials implemented a large-scale deployment of shade balls — roughly 96 million black polyethylene spheres — starting in August 2015 to protect reservoir water quality and reduce evaporation during California’s drought. Multiple post-2015 analyses confirm the deployment’s intent and scale while leaving open debates about its long-term effectiveness and ecological trade-offs [1].
1. Who ordered the 96 million black balls — the quick, dramatic fix that made headlines
City and regional water managers in Los Angeles launched the mass release of shade balls in August 2015 as an emergency response to severe drought conditions and concerns about chemical reactions that could form bromate, a regulated byproduct, in open reservoirs. Reporting and retrospective analyses identify Los Angeles officials as the implementers of the program and place the figure at approximately 96 million spheres deployed to cover the surface of the reservoir to reduce sunlight exposure and evaporation [1]. The program was framed publicly as a rapid, large-scale mitigation measure tied directly to drought-era water-management priorities [1].
2. What the primary sources claim — intent, timing, and scale
Contemporary and later technical summaries reiterate the program’s dual objectives: limiting sunlight-driven chemical formation and reducing evaporative loss. The most cited post-deployment analysis dates to 2018 and explicitly documents Los Angeles’ decision to place roughly 96 million shade balls on reservoir surfaces in mid-2015 [1]. That source provides the clearest attribution and timeline; it also situates the deployment within California’s wider drought-response portfolio. Independent academic work on floating covers confirms the phenomena the balls intended to alter but does not add a new attribution of responsibility beyond municipal authorities [2].
3. What critics and independent studies say — effectiveness and unintended consequences
Researchers and critics have questioned whether the balls achieved all promised benefits and raised concerns about secondary effects. Some technical analyses argue that evaporation reduction may be smaller than surface coverage suggests, because energy balance and wind-driven losses complicate simple coverage metrics [2]. Other observers warned that shading and altered surface conditions could change microbial dynamics, potentially promoting bacterial growth or affecting water quality in unanticipated ways. The 2018 analysis that documents implementation acknowledges these uncertainties and frames performance as an open technical question [1].
4. Alternative uses and broader policy context — where the idea came from and why it scaled
Shade balls were not an isolated invention but part of broader water-conservation and water-quality engineering practices. Municipal engineers adapted the tactic in 2015 based on familiar principles of surface covers and light-blocking materials to mitigate bromate formation and evaporation under drought pressure. The emergency scale — tens of millions of units — reflects both the urgency of California’s drought at the time and the limited, available mitigation options for open-air drinking-water reservoirs. This policy context shaped the decision to deploy quickly at scale, not a single scientist’s experiment [1].
5. What sources do not prove — gaps and missing evidence worth noting
Existing documentation attributes the deployment to Los Angeles officials and quantifies the balls, but it does not fully resolve longer-term performance metrics or ecosystem impacts. Technical field studies on floating covers provide mixed evidence about evaporation inhibition rates versus nominal coverage, and peer-reviewed ecological assessments specifically tied to the 2015 Los Angeles deployment remain limited in the public record [2]. Also, some provided documents and unrelated sources in the dataset mention other “black ball” topics (e.g., nanotechnology or artwork) that are not relevant to the Los Angeles reservoir project [3] [4] [5].
6. Multiple viewpoints and possible agendas — why reporting varies
Municipal agencies emphasized immediate public-health and supply benefits, presenting the deployment as a pragmatic, cost-effective emergency measure. Independent researchers highlighted measurement nuances and long-term unknowns, reflecting scientific caution about efficacy claims [1] [2]. Media accounts and advocacy groups sometimes framed the story as either innovative conservation or as a symbolic, expensive spectacle; those framings reflect policy or environmental agendas rather than new empirical evidence. Analysts should weigh municipal operational records and technical studies more heavily than attention-grabbing headlines [1].
7. Bottom line for readers — attribution and the evidence balance
The preponderance of available post-2015 documentation attributes the mass deployment of roughly 96 million black shade balls to Los Angeles water officials in August 2015, undertaken to reduce sunlight-driven water-chemistry risks and limit evaporation during the drought. Independent technical literature affirms the rationale but underscores uncertainties around actual evaporation savings and ecological consequences, meaning the program’s long-term cost-effectiveness and full environmental impact remain subjects for continued study [1] [2].