The Environmental Protection Agency’s final report on the impact of fracking on water supplies finds more danger than previously acknowledged — but there’s no way a Donald Trump administration is going to toughen the minimal federal regulations now in place.

Related Articles Manjoo: Clean air was once an achievable political goal

Walters: Newsom’s battle against climate change vs. reality

Editorial: Wei, Fruen would help chart a new course for Cupertino

Opinion: Prop. 19 would provide needed funding for fighting fires

Letters: No on Prop. 22 | Saratoga Council race | Questionable timing | Climate actions | Votes for planet | Brunton for Assembly The president-elect already promised the industry last fall that he would try to end regulation of fracking, which involves injecting water and chemicals into the ground at high pressure to force oil and gas from rock formations.

Trump’s choice to direct the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has a long record of opposing regulations on all drilling.

That means California has to act to protect its water supplies. Valuable as fracking is to the U.S. economy, it’s not as important as safe water. Nothing is, at least in this state.

Fracking now accounts for 40 percent of the oil and 67 percent of the natural gas produced in this country. It has substantially reduced consumer prices and has transformed the nation into the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas.

It isn’t going away. Nor should it: The EPA found that most operations are well run and pose no risk to water supplies. But where risks exist, protecting water has to come first.

California already has the toughest fracking regulations in the nation thanks to Sen. Fran Pavley, who just termed out of office. When her legislation passed in 2013, she said further research might call for tighter restrictions.

Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature need to study the EPA report and update the state’s regulations.

The scientists’ conclusions back away from a previous finding of “no evidence that fracking systematically contaminates water supplies.” They now say there is the potential for contaminating drinking water under certain conditions.

Specifically, the report warns of using groundwater for hydraulic fracturing when and where supplies are low or declining. That sure sounds like California, where fracking takes place in particularly dry regions.

The EPA warned against injecting hydraulic fracturing chemicals into inadequately reinforced wells that allow gases or liquids to move into the groundwater. It also cautioned against disposal or storage of fracking wastewater in unlined pits, which can contaminate groundwater.

California discovered in 2015 that it had hundreds of these pits — many of them unlined — that threatened the purity of water supplies. Pavley tried to ban the practice, but the Legislature stalled, and regulation of the storage facilities has remained weak. Unlined pits now clearly have to go.

Fracking can be done in ways and places that do not threaten water supplies. Renewable energy has to be the nation’s ultimate goal, but in the interim, domestic supplies are better than reliance on dangerous parts of the world — if they can be accessed safely.

California should be a model for states that protect their water supplies when the federal government won’t.