Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Turlock accepts public health goals report for drinking water; remains in compliance with enforceable standards
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented the triennial Public Health Goals report for 2022–2024, noting several contaminants exceed non‑enforceable PHGs but remain below legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs); staff described testing, treatment options and high estimated costs to meet PHGs.
Turlock city staff presented the city’s 2022–2024 Public Health Goal (PHG) report on drinking water, outlined contaminants that exceed non‑enforceable PHGs, and told the council the water system remains in compliance with enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
Juan Tejeda, regulatory affairs manager, and staff analyst Lupin Madrigal explained the distinction between PHGs — health‑based goals developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that do not consider cost or feasibility — and MCLs, which are legally enforceable standards set by state and federal regulators. Tejeda listed constituents that exceeded PHGs during the reporting period including 1,2,3‑TCP, arsenic, chromium‑6, gross alpha particles, PCE and uranium, and emphasized that PHGs are often many times more stringent than current MCLs.
"We're still in compliance," Tejeda said, underscoring that the city’s measured concentrations remain below enforceable limits. Staff also summarized the city’s testing regimen (thousands of tests), existing treatment trains at wells and chlorination practices. Using available treatment technologies, staff presented a rough per‑customer estimate of the cost to reach PHG levels of roughly $361.96 per customer, and noted full treatment cost estimates could be higher after a detailed rate or engineering study.
Members of the public asked about health risks and the magnitude of potential treatment costs; staff explained PHGs are set at very low detection levels and that actual MCL‑based risk assessments use population‑based metrics. After questions and public comment, council voted to accept the report (4–0). Staff said the report will remain available online and that the city will continue monitoring and reporting as required by state law.
What happens next: the report will be posted to the city website; any major treatment proposals would require engineering analysis, public review and potential rate studies before procurement or construction.
