Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges unsafe drinking water and police inaction; city officials publicly refute contamination claims
Summary
At the May 13 Ames City Council meeting a resident delivered detailed allegations that Ames drinking water contained contaminants including chromium‑6 and that a suspected drug lab had been ignored by police. City water and wastewater leadership publicly responded, saying the utility is in full compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
A resident used the public forum at the May 13 Ames City Council meeting to allege broad problems with drinking‑water testing and police responsiveness; city officials responded publicly, saying the allegations were incorrect and that the utility meets federal standards.
In public comment, the speaker delivered a multi‑point 20‑page complaint alleging the city did not test for many contaminants, claimed several violations of federal safety guidelines including for lead and “forever chemicals,” and alleged private testing found chromium‑6 and other contaminants. The resident also alleged law‑enforcement failures in investigating suspected drug‑lab activity at a local address and urged resignations.
City management gave the council a written memo from the city’s head of water and wastewater treatment and asked him to brief the council. The utility director, identified in the meeting as John (head of Water and Wastewater), told the council he reviewed the resident's report and provided a public assurance that Ames’ water utility is “in 100% complete and utter compliance with every requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and our operating permit... issued by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.” He characterized the resident’s letter as containing “misstatements” and “wrong interpretations of state and federal law” and said parts of it were “flat out defamatory.”
Mayor John A. Hayla also addressed the accusations about law enforcement, saying the city would receive a brief update from the police chief on the resident’s allegations when the chief returns to the office. The mayor said that “just because something hasn't been taken care of to the satisfaction of someone doesn't mean that it's not being taken care of,” and that the city takes reports seriously and is following up.
The exchange in public comment underscores community concerns about water and public safety and the city’s obligation to be transparent. City staff made a memo from the water utility manager available to the public in response; the council did not take additional formal action at the meeting beyond asking staff for a law‑enforcement update when the chief returns.
What’s next: the city will make the water‑utility memo public and provide a police‑department update to council members when the chief is available; residents asked the city to post the resident’s 20‑page letter and the city memo to the public record.
