HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-10; Municipal Water District; 774; Approve CMWD Public Drinking Water ReportCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL 13
AB# 774 APPROVE CMWD PUBLIC DRINKING WATER
GOALS REPORT
DEPT. DIRECTOR
MTG. 9/10/13
APPROVE CMWD PUBLIC DRINKING WATER
GOALS REPORT CITY ATTORNEY
DEPT. UTIL CITY MANAGER 7^
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Hold a Public Hearing to receive comments on the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 1479 approving the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is required to prepare a tri-annual report comparing
the District's drinking water quality and source water quality with Public Health Goals (PHGs) adopted
by California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and with maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) adopted by the USEPA. PHGs and MCLGs are not enforceable
standards and no action to meet them is mandated.
CMWD's drinking water is supplied from the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) Skinner Treatment
Plant and from the San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) Twin Oaks Valley Treatment Plant
via the SDCWA aqueduct system. California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) mandates
that a Public Health Goal Report be prepared and a public hearing be held to review the report every
three years by public water system providers with more than 10,000 service connections. The
purpose of the legislative requirement Is to give water system customers access to information on
levels of components, Including those that are below the mandatory thresholds. The attached report is
intended to provide information to the public In addition to the required Annual Water Quality Report
mailed to each customer in June.
The CMWD's water system complies with all health-based drinking water standards and maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) required by the California Department of Health Services and the USEPA.
The Department of Health Services will not require the District to take any action to reduce or
eliminate any exceedance of a Public Health Goal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, the recommended actions do not constitute a
"project" within the meaning of CEQA In that they have no potential to cause either a direct physical
change In the environment or a reasonably foreseeable Indirect physical change In the environment
and therefore do not require environmental review.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Wendy Chambers, 760-438-2722, Wendv.Chambers@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY
BOARD ACTION: APPROVED CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
DENIED • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
CONTINUED • RETURNED TO STAFF •
WITHDRAWN • OTHER - SEE MINUTES •
AMENDED •
Page Two
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 1479 approving the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Public
Drinking Water Goals Report.
2. Copy of the "Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health
Goals."
3. References 1 8c 2
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is required to prepare a report
comparing the District's drinking water quality and source water quality with Public Health Goals
(PHGs) adopted by California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and
with maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) adopted by the USEPA. PHGs and MCLGs are
not enforceable standards and no action to meet them is mandated; and
WHEREAS, CMWD's drinking water is supplied from the Metropolitan Water District's
(MWD) Skinner Treatment Plant and the San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) Twin
Oaks Valley Treatment Plant via the SDCWA aqueduct system; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) mandates that a Public
Health Goal Report be prepared and a public hearing to review the report be held every three
years by public water system providers with more than 10,000 service connections.
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on this day to receive public comment regarding
the Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Board
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Public Drinking Water Goals Report is
hereby approved.
///
///
///
///
///
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting ofthe Board of Directors ofthe
Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the lO*'' day of September, 2013, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES: Board Members Hall, Packard, Wood, Blackburn and Douglas.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, President
ATTEST:
BARBARA ENGLES0l4; Secretary
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2013 TRIANNUAL
(2010-2012)
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Califomia Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
Background:
The California Health and Safety Code specifies that water utilities with more than 10,000 service
connections prepare a special report by July 1, 2013 if their water quality measurements have
exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs) in the previous three years from 2010-2012.
PHGs are non-enforceable goals established by the Cal-EPA's Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The law also requires that where OEHHA has not adopted a PHG
for a constituent, the water suppliers are to use the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs).
MCLGs are non-enforceable goals adopted by USEPA. Only constituents which have a California
primary drinking water standard (health based maximum contaminant level [MCL]) and for which
either a PHG or MCLG has been set are to be addressed.
There are a few constituents that are routinely detected in water systems at levels usually well
below the drinking water standards for which no PHG nor MCLG has yet been adopted by OEHHA
or USEPA. These will be addressed in a future required report after a PHG has been adopted.
If a constituent was detected in the District's water supply between 2010 and 2012 at a level
exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG, this report provides the information required. Included is
the numerical public health risk associated with the MCL and the PHG or MCLG(]), the category or
type of health risk(i), the best treatment technology available that could be used to reduce the
constituent level(2), and an estimate of the cost to install that treatment(2) if it is appropriate and
feasible.
The drinking water quality of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) meets all
State of California, Department of Public Health and USEPA drinking water health-based
maximum contaminant level (MCL) regulatory standards set to protect public health.
What Are PHGs?
PHGs are set by the Califomia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
which is part of Cal-EPA and are based solely on public health risk considerations.
None of the practical risk-management factors that are considered by the USEPA or the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) in setting drinking water standards (MCLs) are considered in
setting the PHGs. These factors include analytical detection capability, treatment technology
available, benefits and costs.
The PHGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system.
MCLGs are not enforceable and are the federal equivalent to PHGs.
Water Quality Data Considered:
All of the water quality data collected between 2010 and 2012 for purposes of determining
compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This data was summarized in the 2010,
2011, and 2012 Annual Water Quality Reports mailed to all CMWD customers each year.
CMWD receives its drinking water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Lake Skinner
water treatment plant in Southem Riverside and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
Twin Oaks Valley water treatment plant in San Marcos. Where applicable, data from both
treatment plants are included in this report.
Guidelines Followed:
The Association of Califomia Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup which prepared
guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing these required reports. The ACWA guidelines were
used in the preparation of our report. No guidance was available from state regulatory agencies.
Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates:
Both the USEPA and CDPH adopt what are known as BAT's or Best Available Technologies
which are the best known methods of reducing contaminant levels to the MCL. Costs can be
estimated for such technologies. However, since many PHGs and all MCLGs are set much lower
than the MCL, it is not always possible, nor feasible to determine what treatment is needed to
further reduce a constituent downward to or near the PHG or MCLG, many of which are set at zero.
Estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to zero is difficult, if not impossible because it is not
possible to verify by analytical means that the level has been lowered to zero. In some cases,
installing treatment to try and further reduce very low levels of one constituent may have adverse
effects on other aspects of water quality.
(o
Constituents Detected That Exceed a PHG or a MCLG:
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected at a level above the associated
PHG, or if there is no PHG, above the MCLG. The levels for theses constituents were well below
their respective MCLs (regulatory standards), so this does not constitute a violation of drinking
water regulations and is for advisory purposes only. These results are typical of water agencies who
receive their water from the same MWD and SDCWA water treatment plants.
Radiologicals: Gross Alpha, Gross Beta and Uranium:
The level of radionuclide constituents detected in CMWD's source water supplied by MWD and
SDCWA for 2010 - 2012 are listed below.
SOURCE: MWD
CONSTITUENT UNITS MCL PHG
(MCLG) 2010 2011 2012
Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 (0) Average 3.6 ND ND
Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 Average 2.5 1 1.3
pCi/L = picoCuries per Liter of water (approximately parts per billion)
ND = None Detected
2010 Data collected (triennially) from four consecutive quarters of monitoring in 2008
2012 Data collected (triennially) from four consecutive quarters of monitoring in 2011
SOURCE: SDCWA
CONSTITUENT UNITS MCL PHG
(MCLG) 2010 2011 2012
Gross Beta pCi/L 50 (0) Average 1.7 ND 3.4
Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 Average 3.3 1.5 1.3
1
Radiological constituents come from decay and erosion of natural deposits of certain minerals that
are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation, photons and beta
radiation. Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is ubiquitous in the earth's
crust. Uranium is found in ground and surface waters due to its natural occurrence in geological
formations. The uranium intake from water is about equal to the total from other dietary
components. An additional source of radiological contamination is from mine tailings in Moab
Utah. These radiological constituents are categorized as carcinogens, (i)
Inorganic Chemicals:
SOURCE: SDCWA
CONSTITUENT UNITS MCL PHG 2010 2011 2012
Arsenic ppb 10 0.004 Single
Sample 1.9 2.4 3.0
The contamination of a drinking water source by arsenic can result from either natural or human
activities. Arsenic is an element that occurs naturally in rocks and soil, water, air, plants, and
animals. Volcanic activity, the erosion of rocks and minerals, and forest fires are natural sources
that can release arsenic into the environment. About 90 percent of the arsenic used by industry in
the United States is currently used for wood preservative purposes; arsenic is also used in paints,
dmgs, dyes, soaps, metals and semiconductors. Agricultural applications, mining, and smelting also
contribute to arsenic releases. Arsenic is categorized as a carcinogen, (i)
Cost Estimate:
The best available technology (BAT) to lower the level of these contaminants is reverse osmosis
(RO). The cost of implementing RO treatment would start at approximately $500 per acre foot and
increase substantially based on actual conditions and requirements. (2)
As previously stated, it is unclear whether treatment to lower a constituent below the PHG or
MCLG would be feasible, as BAT's are designated for treatment to achieve compliance with the
corresponding MCL only, and not the PHG or MCLG.
Recommendations:
The drinking water quality of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District meets all State of California,
Department of Public Health and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health.
To further reduce the levels of the constituents identified in this report that are already significantly
below the health-based MCLs established, additional costly treatment processes would be required.
The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in constituent
levels at these already low values is uncertain.
The health protection benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may
not be quantifiable. Therefore, no action is proposed.
REFERENCES:
No. 1 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports (OEHHA)
No.2 Cost Estimates for Treatment Technologies (ACWA)
Reference No.1
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
Prepared by
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
February 2013
Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), water utilities are
required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed public
health goals (PHGs) (Health and Safety Code Section 116470 (2)[b]). The numerical
health risk for a contaminant is to be presented with the category of health risk, along
with a plainly worded description of these terms. The cancer health risk is to be
calculated at the PHG and at the California maximum contaminant level (MCL). This
report is prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
to assist the water utilities in meeting their requirements.
PHGs are concentrations of contaminants in drinking water that pose no significant
health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by OEHHA
(Health and Safety Code Section 116365) using current risk assessment principles,
practices and methods.
Numerical health risks. Table 1 presents health risk categories and cancer risk values
for chemical contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs.
The Act requires that OEHHA publish PHGs based on health risk assessments using
the most current scientific methods. As defined in statute, PHGs for non-carcinogenic
chemicals In drinking water are set at a concentration "at which no known or anticipated
adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety." For carcinogens,
PHGs are set.at a concentration that "does not pose any significant risk to health."
PHGs provide one basis'for revising MCLs, along with cost and technological feasibitity.
OEHHA has been publishing PHGs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is
shown in Table 1.
Table 2 presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have PHGs but
have state or federal regulatory standards. The. Act requires that, for chemical
contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet have PHGs, water utilities use the
19
Reference No.1 (Continued)
federal maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complying with the
requirement of public notification. MCLGs, like PHGs, are strictly health based and
include a margin of safety. One difference, however, is that the MCLGs for carcinogens
are set at zero because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
assumes there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to them. PHGs, on the other
hand, are set at a level considered to pose no significant risk,of cancer; this is usually a
no more than one-in'-a-miilion excess cancer risk (1 x10'®) level for a lifetime of
exposure. In Table 2, the cancer risks shown are based on the U.S. EPA's evaluations.
For more information ori health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemical
with a PHG are summarized In each PHG technical support document. These
documents are available on the OEHHA Web site (http://www.oehha.ca.qov). Also,
U.S. EPA has consumer and technical fact sheets on most of the chemicals having
MCLs. For copies ofthe fact sheets, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
1-800-426-4791, or explore the U.S. EPA Ground Water and Drinking Water web page
at http://water.epa.aov/drink/.
Reference No.l (Continued)
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chennicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical Health Risk Category''
California
PHG
[mglLf
Cancer
Risk^
atthe
PHG
California
MCL*
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Arsenic carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000004
(4x10-^)
1x10-^
(one per
million)
0.01 2.5x10-^
(2.5 per
thousand)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000004
(4x10-^)
1x10-^
(one per
million)
0.01 2.5x10-^
(2.5 per
thousand)
Uranium carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.43 pCi/L 20 pCi/L 5x10'^
(five per
hundred
thousand)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.43 pCi/L 20 pCi/L 5x10'^
(five per
hundred
thousand)
^ Based on the OEHHA PHG technical support document unless otherwise specified. The categories are
the hazard traits defined by OEHHA for California's Toxics Information Clearinghouse (online at:
httD://oehha.ca.aov/multimedia/areen/Ddf/GC Reatextd 1912.pdfl.
^ mail = milligrams per liter of water or parts per million (ppm)
^ Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be
lower or zero. 1 xlO"® means one excess cancer case per million people exposed.
^ MCL = maximum contaminant level.
Reference No.l (Continued)
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
without California Public Health Goals
Chemical Health Risk Category''
U.S. EPA
MCLG^
(mg/L)
Gahcer
Risk^
: m
MCLG
California
MCL*
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk @
California
MCL
Radionuclides
Gross alpha
particles
carcinogenicity
(causes, cancer)
0 e'^po
included)
0 15pCi/L^
(includes
22^Ra but
not radon
and
uranium)
up to 1x10'^
(for^^'^Po,
the most
potent
alpha
emitter
Beta particles and
photon emitters'^
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (2^°Pb
included)
0 50 pCi/L
(judged
equiv. to 4
mrem/yr)
up to 2x10"^
(for2^°Pb.
the most
potent
beta-
emitter)
^ Health risk category based on the U.S. EPA MCLG document or California MCL document
unless otherwise specified.
^ MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by U.S. EPA.
^ Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk
may be lower or zero. 1x10'® means one excess cancer case per million people exposed.
^ California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California.
^ Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG
® Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.
^ MCLs for gross alpha and beta particles are screening standards for a group ot radionuciiaes.
Corresponding PHGs were not developed for gross alpha and beta particles. See the OEHHA
memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/index.html.
® pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water.
li
Reference Mo.2
Reference: 2010 ACWA Cost of Treatment Table, Costs Revised for 2012
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012*
Unit Cost
($/1,000 gallons
treated)
1 Granular
Activated Carbon
Reference: Malcolm Pimie estimate for Califomia Urban Water
Agencies, large surface water treatment plants treating water from the
State Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and brortiate regulation,
1998
0.53-1.00
2 Granular
Activated Carbon
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE),
95% removal of PCE, Oct. 1994,1900 gpm ciesign capacity 0.24
3 Granular
Activated Caiton
Reference: Carollo Engineers, est. for a large No. Calif, surf, water
treatment plant (90 mgd capacity) treating water from the State
Water Project, to reduce THM precursors, ENR construction cost
index = 6262 (San Francisco area) -1992
1.16
4 Granular
Activated Carbon
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility for VOC and SOC removal by GAC, 1990 0.45-0.66
5 Granular
Activated Carbon
Reference: Southem Califomia Water Co. - actual data for "rented"
GAC to remove VOCs (1,1-DCE), 1.5 mgd capacity facility, 1998 2.08
6 Granular
Activated Carbon
Reference: Southem Califomia Water Co. - actual data for
permanent GAC to remove VOCs (TCE), 2.16 mgd plant capacity,
1998
1.35
7 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for California Urban Water
Agencies, large surface water treatment plants treating water from the
State Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate regulation,
1998
1.56-2.99
8 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS in
brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of
design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
3.69
9 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS in
brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of
design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
2.27
10 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS in
brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated at 40%
of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
2.46
11 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS in
brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated afl 00%
of design flow, hiqh brine line cost, May 1991
1.90
12 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of design capacity. Oct.
1991
6.17
Page 1 of 2
If
Reference No.2 (Continued)
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No. Treatment
Technology Source of Information
Estimated 2012*
Unit Cost
($/1,000 gallons
treated)
13 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity. Oct.
1991
3.64
14 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of design qapacity, Oct.
1991
2.73
15 Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, /\Z - CH2M
Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct.
1991
1.69
16 Reverse Osmosis Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility with RO to remove nitrate, 1990 1.70-2.99
17 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal... (AWWARF
publication), Kennedy/Jenks, for a 1.4 mgd facility operating at 40% of
design capacity. Oct 1991
0.98
18 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal... (AWWARF
publication). Kennedy/Jenks, for a 14.0 mgd facility operating at 40%
of design capacity. Oct. 1991
0.52
19 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE) by
packed tower aeration, without off-gas treatment, O&M costs based
on operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 16 hr/day air
stripping operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994
0.26
20 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, for PCE treatment by Ecolo-Flo Enviro
Tower air stripping, without off-gas treatment, O&M costs based on
operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 16 hr/day air
stripping operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994
0.27
21 Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility - packed tower aeration for VOC and radon
removal, 1990
0.42-0.69
22
Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE) by
UV Light, Ozone, Hydrogen Pero)dde, O&M costs based on operation
during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 24 hr/day AOP operation,
1900 gpm capacity, Oct 1994
0.51
23 Ozonation
Reference: Malcolm Pimie estimate for CUWA, large surface water
treatment plants using ozone to treat water from the State Water
Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate regulation,
Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements, 1998
0.12-0.24
24 lon Exchange Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility - ion exchange to remove nitrate, 1990
0.57-0.74
Note: *Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using Engineering
News Record (ENR) building costs index (20-city average) from Dec 2012.
Page 2 of 2
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the Unlteid States and a resi(dent
of the County aforesai(d: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
UT - North County
Formerly known as the North County Times and
which newspaper has been adjudicated as a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller
than nonpariel), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the following dates,
to-wit:
Proof of Publication of
CITY OF CARLSBAD NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
FNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your in-terest may be affected, that the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District Board of Directors will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 10, 2013, at the Council Cham-
bers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. to receive comments on and consider approving the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (PHGs). The required
PHG report is intended to provide information to the public in addition to the required Annual Water Quality Report mailed to
each customer in June.
Interested parties are invited to attend this meeting and present their views and comments to the CMWD Board.
Copies of the report are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive.
Written and telephone inquiries may b6 directed to Wendy Chambers, Assistant Utilities Director, Public Works Utilities
Division, 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, 92008; 760-483-2722.
CMWD PUB: 8/31/13
August 31'*, 2013
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside, California
On This OS'^ day-September, 2013
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Public Drinking Water Goals Report
Wendy Chambers
September 10, 2013
Public Hearing
•Summarize the 2013 tri-annual (2010 – 2012)
Public Drinking Water Goals Report
•Respond to public comment
•Request approval of the Report
Annual
Water Quality
Report
Intent of Tri-annual Report
•Provide information to the public in addition
to the Annual Water Quality Report
Goals not Regulations
Regulations
•Federal and State mandates
•Maximum level of a contaminant allowed in
drinking water (MCLs)
Regulatory definition of what is “safe”
Goals – Not Mandates
•Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)
The level of a contaminant where there is no
known or expected risk to health.
•Public Health Goal (PHG)
Concentration of contaminants that pose no
significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime.
Components that exceeded a “Goal”
SOURCE WATERS - MWD & SDCWA
COMPONENT MCL* (MCLG)
PHG
HIGHEST AVERAGE
2010 2011 2012
Gross Alpha 15 (0) 3.6 ND ND
Gross Beta 50 (0) 1.7 ND 3.4
Uranium 20 0.43 3.3 1.5 1.3
*Units: picoCuries per Liter of water (pCi/L) approximately parts per billion
ND = None detected
Components that exceeded a “Goal”
SOURCE WATER - SDCWA
COMPONENT MCL* (MCLG)
PHG
SAMPLE YEAR
2010 2011 2012
Arsenic 10 0.004 1.9 2.4 3.0
*Units: parts per billion (ppb)
ND = None detected
Drinking water provided by CMWD
meets all Federal & State
regulations & mandates and is safe
Conclusion
•Questions from the Board
•Public comment
•Approve the 2013 Public Drinking Water Goals
Report