Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Irondale councilors and residents press for answers after ADEM data shows lead and PFAS detections
Summary
Residents and the council’s water committee raised questions about lead and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Irondale’s drinking water after publicly posted ADEM test results; the city’s water staff asked residents to await a March 4 update.
Councilwoman Cuellar urged the council on Feb. 18 to give residents clearer, quicker answers after she and several speakers flagged lead and PFAS detections in water samples posted on the Alabama Department of Environmental Management website.
The issue drew multiple public commenters and sustained discussion during the public-comment and committee-report portions of the Irondale City Council meeting because residents said the city’s usual public updates were missing or delayed.
Why it matters: Residents said small-sample results on ADEM’s site include readings above guidance levels and that older homes in the city’s interior were not being sampled systematically. Council members said they want clearer documentation from staff and legal counsel before making public health assertions.
Councilwoman Cuellar, who chairs the council’s water committee, said she has tried repeatedly to schedule a committee meeting with the water superintendent and the mayor since April 2024 to get updated testing and that those meetings were repeatedly postponed. “Does our water system have lead in it?” she asked directly during her report, pressing for a yes-or-no answer for constituents.
Retired engineer John Bavona, who said he reviewed the city’s ADEM postings, told the council that a single home sample from Round Forest Drive showed 7 parts per billion of lead and said the ADEM post was difficult to navigate. “Test results show there is lead in the drinking water, and the revised EPA safe level for lead is 0,” Bavona said during public comment.
Resident Mary Sherr cited ADEM data for PFAS family chemicals and converted the agency values for the council: she read October 2024 readings for wells 5, 6 and 7 showing PFOA at 5.1 parts per billion (above a referenced benchmark of 4) and said January 2025 values included PFHxS at 7.8, PFOS at 5.2 and PFOA at 4.3.
City staff and council members said the ADEM postings are not the city’s official public-facing summaries. Jared Morris, identified in the meeting as the water superintendent, told the council: “Come to the March 4 meeting, and you will get the correct information that you all need.” Morris also said there has been “a significant amount of misinformation” circulating and asked residents to await staff’s formal update.
Council members and commenters debated process: several speakers said the council should proactively post the same test results on the city website rather than directing residents to ADEM; others cautioned that the council must not release technical conclusions without staff and legal review. Council members agreed to continue seeking the requested materials from legal counsel and to pursue a water committee meeting to review data.
The council did not adopt any ordinance, regulation, or emergency order at the Feb. 18 meeting concerning water quality. Councilwoman Cuellar told residents she would continue to press for the documents and answers promised by staff and the mayor’s office and said the committee would reconvene in early March.
Next steps: City officials said the water department intends to present updated test results and context at a March 4 meeting; the council’s water committee will pursue a formal review and the city clerk was asked to confirm public notice for that meeting so residents can attend.
