Loading...
General (41) Susana Barrios From:Stephanie Mercadante <burglin.stephanie@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 6:47 PM To:Public Comment Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] On Behalf of Dave Duran, 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 May 05, 2026: Over the course of tonight, you’ve heard a series of issues that remain unanswered. You’ve heard concerns about:  Missing lab data at a critical time  Flushing practices occurring without clear explanation  Valve operations that coincided with changes in water conditions  A 74-day delay in shutting down Well 51 after PFAS detection  Discrepancies between what was reported and what actually occurred  Firework-related contaminants that the City continues to avoid addressing, despite actions taken by other agencies  Excavation safety concerns that place both employees and residents at risk  And a lack of independent verification to ensure leadership is receiving accurate information These are not isolated issues. They point to a pattern. A pattern where: ● Questions are raised ● Answers are unclear or incomplete ● And the response is reassurance—without documentation At some point, this stops being about individual issues and becomes a question of governance. Because when: ● Data is missing, ● Timelines don’t align, ● Safety concerns are raised but not meaningfully addressed, ● And potential environmental impacts are not fully evaluated That is not transparency. That is inaction. And inaction has consequences. The public is not asking for perfection. We are asking for clarity, accountability, and documented answers to very specific questions already outlined tonight. So I will close with this: What is this Council going to do—specifically—to investigate 1 these issues, verify the facts, and provide the public with clear, documented answers? At this point, the Council’s silence—or repeated assurances that ‘everything is fine’—suggest either a failure to fully investigate or a failure to be transparent. And neither is acceptable. 2