30 (01)
Susana Barrios
From:Stephanie Mercadante <burglin.stephanie@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 5:05 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] On Behalf of Tom Felder, District 1, Councilmember Ryan Balius
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
For public comment on April 21, 2026:
Good evening, Mayor and Council Members,
We recognize the City has repeatedly stated that Anaheim’s water is safe, and residents certainly
want that to be true. But public confidence is built on transparency and trust, not on social media
videos or assurances alone.
Tonight’s presentation is an opportunity for transparency. I expect it will emphasize that Anaheim’s
water is safe and regularly tested. Residents rely on City, State, and Federal experts to provide
accurate information about our drinking water, and that information must be complete and consistent.
We are here to ensure this discussion is substantive, not promotional. What residents need to
understand is when decisions were made, why they were made, and whether they were made in a
timely manner.
Public statements show that the State notified the City on December 22, 2025, that Well 51, serving
West Anaheim, had PFOS levels of 6.2 parts per trillion, exceeding the 4.0 ppt Notification Level.
PFAS may sound minimal at parts per trillion, but it is measured at that scale because it is toxic even
at extremely low concentrations. PFAS exposure is associated with immune suppression, thyroid
disruption, liver damage, reproductive issues, and increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer.
Under California law, including Health & Safety Code Section 116455 and State Water Board
Division of Drinking Water guidance, the City is required to notify its governing body when a well
exceeds the Notification Level.
According to public records, Anaheim Public Utilities notified the City Council on February 17, 2026
that Well 51 was shut down. That raises a critical question: why did it take 58 days after the State’s
notification to inform the Council and initiate shutdown?
Records also indicate the well was not actually shut down until March 6, 2026 — 17 days after the
Council was told it was closed, and 74 days after the State’s initial notification.
These dates matter. They speak directly to whether required actions were taken promptly and
whether the public received accurate, timely information about “forever chemicals” in their drinking
water.
If the public cannot rely on consistency in the information provided, then every future assurance
becomes harder to trust. And at that point, the issue is no longer just about water quality; it is about
credibility.
1