30 (02)
Susana Barrios
From:Stephanie Mercadante <burglin.stephanie@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 5:06 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] On Behalf of Georgia Price, District 6, Councilmember Natalie Meeks
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,
This issue comes down to three dates:
1.
2.
3. When PFOS contamination was detected,
4.
5.
6.
7. When the State was notified,
8.
9.
10.
11. When Well 51 was actually taken offline.
12.
These dates are critical to determining whether the public received timely and accurate information.
Based on available records, the State was notified in late December that PFOS levels at Well 51
exceeded the notification threshold. Yet the well appears to have remained in service until early
March, approximately 74 days later. Residents were also told the well was taken offline on or about
February 17, while other records indicate it continued operating beyond that date.
This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of dates. And dates do not change. If both February
and March appear in the record, the public deserves to know which one reflects reality—and why they
were told something different.
Beyond the timeline, there is a larger question. The City has previously taken other wells offline due
to PFAS concerns. This is not a new situation, and there is already an established approach for
responding to exceedances. So what was different here?
What factors led to the decision to continue operating Well 51 for more than two months after the
exceedance was identified, when more immediate action has been taken in other cases?
If there were operational constraints, blending strategies, or system limitations, those should be
clearly explained. But if this was a discretionary decision, then the public deserves to understand the
reasoning behind it, especially given the known risks associated with PFAS exposure over time.
So tonight, I am asking for something straightforward:
1
Please provide a clear, documented timeline for Well 51, and explain the decision-making process
that led to the delay in taking the well offline.
When timelines don’t align and decisions aren’t explained, the issue is no longer just water quality. It
becomes a question of whether the public can trust the information they’re being given. And
confidence in our water system depends not only on safety, but on transparency and consistency.
2