Council hears competing views on chromium-6 in tap water; public hearing continued to Sept. 19

Los Angeles City Council members heard a wide-ranging discussion on chromium-6 in the city's drinking water on Friday, Sept. 15, 2000, with the Department of Water and Power and state health officials describing monitoring results and members of the public pressing for stricter limits or immediate action.

The Department of Water and Power told the council it had not found chromium-6 in customers' drinking water above 10 parts per billion and had shut two wells that occasionally showed higher readings. "Under current approved testing, we've not detected any chromium in our customers drinking water above 10 parts per billion," said a Department of Water and Power representative. The utility said it can detect down to about 5 parts per billion in its own labs and is voluntarily testing and sharing data with state health authorities.

At the same time, State Department of Health Services chief Dave Spath told the council that "there is no current drinking water standard for chromium 6" and explained the distinction between legally enforceable drinking-water standards and public-health goals. Spath said the existing maximum contaminant level for total chromium is 50 parts per billion and that the state's public-health goal for total chromium is 2.5 parts per billion; public-health goals, he said, are set on health considerations while standards must balance health, cost and technical feasibility.

Outside advocates and experts pressed for more aggressive action. Attorney Edward Masry, who said he has litigated chromium-6 cases for about nine years, called the problem "not a city problem, but a nationwide problem." Environmental investigator Erin Brockovich said chromium-6 "shouldn't be there at all" and warned of inhalation as well as ingestion routes of exposure based on past cases. Brockovich corrected a factual point from earlier remarks about contamination levels in Hinkley, saying for the record those levels were "well in excess of that, 20 to 24 parts per million."

Several neighborhood and civic groups spoke during public comment, asking the council to require fuller testing, public disclosure of results, and stronger limits before potable reuse or recycled water projects proceed. Speakers included residents, neighborhood association representatives and environmental groups; comments stressed that monitoring, sampling protocols and long-term health studies should be public and readily available.

Council members and staff clarified process and timing: the council separated related agenda items so it could act promptly on a single recommendation urging the governor to sign a pending state bill, and kept the larger public hearing open. The council adopted the single governor-focused recommendation forthwith and continued the remainder of the agenda items and the public hearing on potable reuse and chromium-6 to Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2000, with the public hearing left open for anyone who had not yet spoken.

The council also signaled plans for additional briefings and committee review. Staff said a December or January call-for-projects process would be reported through committee before submittal to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and council members suggested the environmental committee should hold further hearings on broader reuse and water-quality questions.

The discussion underscored several technical and policy tensions: differences between detection limits and health-based goals, how low-level detections should be interpreted, the trade-offs of replacing groundwater sources with surface supplies, and whether emergency or precautionary well closures are warranted when detections are near or below current standards. City and state officials repeatedly said they would continue monitoring and share results with one another and with the council.