Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PFAS Water Treatment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Loveland officials report PFAS in finished water, say full treatment will cost millions
Summary
City staff told the Loveland City Council that recent tests show PFAS (PFOS) around 17 parts per trillion in finished water; staff outlined pilot testing, granular activated carbon options, $850,000 in settlement receipts so far and an estimated capital need of roughly $17 million to treat the city’s water supply.
City officials gave a detailed update on PFAS testing and treatment options during the Loveland City Council meeting.
Assistant City Manager Chris Wyenich told the council the city’s most recent finished-water tests, taken from three wells and averaged for reporting, showed PFOS concentrations “in the 17 parts per trillion range.” Wyenich said staff completed rapid small-scale pilot testing and visited a comparable granular activated carbon (GAC) installation at Whiteman Air Force Base to guide the city’s system design choices.
Wyenich said the city has collected about $850,000 in settlement funds related to the contamination and is estimating a full-treatment capital need in the neighborhood of $17 million. He said an alternate approach — tapping treated water from the Cincinnati Water Works — would require about $1.3 million in connection and infrastructure improvements plus the city’s own treatment costs, bringing the comparative number to roughly $18.3 million. Wyenich said the city is pursuing grant and low-interest funding and is aiming to be “shovel-ready” to access competitive funds.
Council members pressed staff on cost assumptions and alternatives. Council member Hart asked whether the grant application for $1.3 million required the city to show that keeping its own water supply was more cost-effective than regionalizing; Wyenich confirmed that the funding process required a comparative analysis. Council member Bateman summarized the council’s multi-year work on the issue, emphasizing the city’s investments in monitoring, staffing and infrastructure upgrades dating back to 2020.
Several council members highlighted outreach and transparency. Bateman and others noted the city had added PFAS information to water bills and the city website and said they wanted more public engagement, while resident Jim Dahlmeyer had asked for a town hall to address immediate short-term questions.
Council also discussed likely funding sources; staff said the city expects some state revolving loan program support and other competitive grants but indicated the total amount of external funding was uncertain. Wyenich said the city has included design and planning funds in the proposed 2026 budget to position itself for grant rounds.
The council did not take a formal vote on a specific treatment contract at the meeting. Wyenich and Kennedy said the next steps are to finish pilot testing, refine treatment design and pursue identified funding opportunities so the city can move toward construction.
