Lawrence Utilities says trihalomethane test slightly exceeded state limit; customers notified
Loading...
Summary
The Utility Service Board was told that a June test for total trihalomethanes returned 88.5 micrograms per liter, above the 80 micrograms-per-liter maximum contaminant level; the utility sent customer notifications by mail, e-bill and its Lawrence Lift service.
Lawrence Utilities reported at its August 2025 Utility Service Board meeting that a routine water-quality test for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) exceeded the regulatory limit and that customers were notified.
The utility’s superintendent told the board that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management notified the utility that “during the monitoring period between April 1 to 06/30/2025 for total trihalomethanes … our system currently exceeds the standards or the maximum contaminant levels. The MCL for total trihalomethanes is 80. Our test came back at 88.5, so we were slightly above that.”
Board members were told that the exceedance covers the April 1–June 30 monitoring period and that the exceedance was slightly above the 80 micrograms-per-liter maximum contaminant level (MCL) used by regulators. The superintendent said the utility sent required notifications to customers “via Lawrence lift on a on Thursday, Lawrence utilities billy, paper billing, as well as e billy.” The written notification language was included in the superintendent’s report to the board.
Board discussion did not include a change to customer service policy or a health advisory from staff. The superintendent described the notification steps and referred board members to the written report for the exact text that was mailed and posted. The minutes do not record any formal motion or vote related to the exceedance; the board received the superintendent’s report and moved on to other agenda items.
Background: total trihalomethanes are regulated by state and federal drinking-water rules and are typically reported against an MCL. The board was not presented with additional testing results, a corrective-action schedule, or a public-health advisory at the meeting; the superintendent’s report stated only the monitoring period, the MCL, the test result and that customers were notified.
The board did not set a public follow-up date at the meeting; staff told the board the full notification text and monitoring details are available in the written report distributed to members.
