Flagstaff officials present 2024 Consumer Confidence Report; one PFAS detection flagged during EPA monitoring

City of Flagstaff staff presented the 2024 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) to the Water Commission on May 15, detailing routine water-quality testing and one detection of a PFAS compound during federal UCMR5 monitoring.

Jolene Montoya, regulatory compliance section director for the City of Flagstaff, said the city submitted the CCR to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review before printing. "We have taken the stance of getting their approval before we do any printing," Montoya said, explaining the city’s choice to avoid reprinting if ADEQ requests edits.

Why it matters: The CCR is the annual public summary of water-quality monitoring for consumers. A detection of a Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) compound can raise public concern; commission members asked staff how to put the result in context so readers understand the scale of testing and the rarity of detections.

Montoya told commissioners the city conducted UCMR5 monitoring required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that "we had 1 detection" among the many samples collected across sources. She said the single detection occurred at a Lake Mary entry point in August and that the lab reported a concentration above the UCMR5 reporting limit. "We are not overly concerned," Montoya said, "but we are doing our due diligence and testing for that." Krista Snow, the city’s drinking water laboratory supervisor, attended the meeting and supported Montoya’s technical answers.

Commissioners pressed staff for context and suggested adding explanatory language to the public outreach for the CCR. One commissioner noted that a single reported value (6.1 parts per trillion) versus the reporting limit (5 parts per trillion) can alarm readers unless framed by the total number of tests and by showing that the finding was isolated. Montoya said the UCMR5 suite tests many analytes; when the sample exceeded the lab reporting limit, regulations require the city to list it in the CCR. She told the commission the city will incorporate context into the public communications accompanying the CCR and can add links or explanatory material on the city website.

Commissioners also asked about the sampling frequency and sources. Montoya said testing frequency varies by analyte and source; groundwater sources were tested at least twice during the UCMR5 cycle and surface-water sources four times. In response to a question about the detected sample, Montoya said the sample represented a mix of Lake Mary well water and surface water and that the positive result appeared in the fourth of four consecutive samples at that entry point.

On other CCR items, staff discussed a Level 1 assessment conducted under the Total Coliform Rule. Montoya said staff completed the assessment with ADEQ and performed corrective actions; she said the city had not identified a definitive on‑system cause during internal review and that the utility will consider posting a summary or a link to the ADEQ assessment on its website to give readers more context.

Next steps: Staff said they will finalize ADEQ’s edits, distribute the CCR to the public, and include additional explanatory material in public communications to clarify the UCMR5 finding and the corrective actions for coliforms.

Ending: Commission members thanked staff for the report and suggested staff return with any public‑facing clarifications before broad distribution.