Loading...
General (11) Susana Barrios From:Stephanie Mercadante <burglin.stephanie@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 9, 2026 6:45 PM To:Public Comment Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] On Behalf of Stephanie Mercadante, District 4, Councilmember Norma Campos Kurtz Attachments:finalPublic Utilities Board May 27, 2026 - Comment submitted by_ Stephanie Mercadantefinal.pdf; Public Utilities Board May 27, 2026 - Comment submitted by_ Marc Herbert finalfinal.pdf 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 June 09, 2026: Residents have been asking very specific questions about our drinking water for months. These are not new concerns. These questions have been repeatedly presented before the City Council and the Public Utilities Board. Instead of direct answers, residents have often been met with interruptions, inappropriate name- calling, dismissive comments, and efforts to characterize legitimate questions as misinformation. I would like to address what occurred following the May 27th Public Utilities Board meeting. At that meeting, residents submitted detailed questions regarding Anaheim’s drinking water system, PFAS contamination, water quality issues, operational decisions, public disclosure, and transparency. These were specific questions seeking answers. Chairperson John Seymour agreed the questions deserved answers and directed General Manager Dukku Lee and Water Production Manager Craig Parker to respond. What happened next was concerning. After receiving that directive, Craig Parker did not appear willing to simply answer the questions. Based on his comments and demeanor, he appeared irritated and argumentative. Rather than answering, he challenged the premise of the questions and demanded additional “context.” He said any meeting with residents would not be to answer the submitted questions, but to understand why residents were asking them. The context was already provided during the meeting. It has also been provided repeatedly at City Council meetings for months. When residents ask why Well 51 reportedly remained online for approximately 74 days after PFAS levels requiring action were identified, that question contains its own context. Residents have also asked why different shutdown dates were presented to the public, why drinking 1 water turned brown, and why staff reportedly conducted extensive flushing before compliance testing. What additional context could the City, Dukku Lee, or Craig Parker possibly need? Residents are now questioning whether the City is choosing to release only the information it wants the public to hear while remaining silent about what residents are actually asking. I would respectfully remind the City Council and City management that you are public servants. That includes accountability and transparency to the residents you serve. When residents spend months asking direct questions about their drinking water, they deserve direct answers. Not delays. Not deflections. Not interruptions. Not name-calling. Not demands for additional context. The specific questions directed by Chairman Seymour to Craig Parker and Dukku Lee will again be submitted as part of tonight’s public comments. We look forward to those questions finally being answered. Residents have provided plenty of context. What has been missing are the answers. 2 Public Utilities Board May 27, 2026 - Comment submitted by: Stephanie Mercadante Anaheim residents have been asking the City Council to provide an explanation for the past four meetings regarding our drinking water. Residents still do not have answers so we are seeking answers here. 1. The City was notified in December 2025 that Well 51 had high levels of PFAS that required action. How come no action was taken for 74 days? 2. Why did the City publicly state on February 17, 2026 that Well 51 had been shut down due to the high PFAS concerns, while records reportedly provided to the State indicate the well remained online until approximately March 6, 2026? Please explain the two different shutdown dates and inform the public which one is accurate. 3. Was cost a factor in the delay to shut down Well 51? 4. Was the Public Utilities Board informed of the discrepancy between the February and March shutdown dates? 5. On September 17, 2025, why was the Walnut Canyon Reservoir valve opened to approximately 22% after an extended closure and further opened to 50% on September 23rd? Who authorized this reopening? 6. Were supervisory personnel warned by staff about concerns involving turbidity, chlorine demand, and downstream treatment impacts before the valve was opened further? 7. Did management understand these operational changes could contribute to elevated THM and bromate formation risk in the distribution system? THM and Bromate can turn the water brown, and it was definitely brown on September 23, just 6 days after initially opening the valve on September 17. 8. Did the City’s Operational Evaluation Report submitted to the Department of Drinking Water conclude that these operational changes contributed to the water quality conditions later observed at Lenain Treatment Plant? 9. Following the valve opening, why did extensive flushing reportedly begin occurring throughout the distribution system, including flushing near elevated THM compliance sampling locations prior to sample collection? 10. Did management personnel direct supervisory staff to alter distribution-system conditions through targeted flushing immediately prior to compliance sampling? 11. If not, which supervisory personnel specifically authorized and coordinated those flushing activities? 12. Can the City explain how aggressively flushing elevated THM locations immediately before compliance sampling resulted in what staff described as a “representative sample of the water in the system”? 13. And finally, if management was warned about these deteriorating water quality conditions beforehand, why were those operational concerns not disclosed publicly at the time they occurred? Why were they not mentioned in the Annual Water Quality Report, and why were they not mentioned in the presentation provided on April 21? Public Utilities Board May 27, 2026 - Comment submitted by: Marc Herbert Anaheim residents would like direct answers to the following questions: 1. Why did the City’s April 21, 2026 “Water Sustainability and Affordability” presentation slide stop at the year 2024 regarding water consumption data even though 2025 water data was already available and referenced within the City’s own Water Quality Report? 2. Employees have reported approximately 10 million gallons of flushing activity occurred during 2025. Was the 2025 water consumption excluded from the presentation because it would have contradicted the City’s “30% reduction in annual water consumption” narrative? 3. Why does the City ’s 2026 Water Quality Report state “each source is tested to make sure we continue to supply the highest quality water,” while later stating in the same report “we cannot be sure of the quality of the drinking water during that time”? 4. If the City could not verify water quality during part of 2025, why were residents repeatedly told the water was safe? 5. If the water is safe, why was our drinking water brown on September 23? Just 6 days after opening the valve to 50%? 6. Why were those conditions not disclosed to the public, or mentioned during the City’s April 21, 2026 water presentation, or included in City ’s Water Quality Report? 7. The City hired a consulting firm to provide auditors, Brown and Caldwell, to conduct a Water Production Optimization Study intended to ensure the “highest level of water quality.” These auditors have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars since December to conduct this study and audit the operations at the Lenain Water Treatment Plant. The auditors are at the Lenain Water Treatment Plant every single day. 8. Did these auditors observe, document, or report the brown drinking water? Did they report the elevated THM concerns? Did they report the treatment impacts occurring during their onsite involvement? 9. Did the auditors identify operational decisions regarding the valve opening as contributing factors to the THM and bromate issues? 10. Did the auditors review the extensive flushing activity occurring throughout the distribution system during 2025 up until today? 11. If outside auditors embedded within the system failed to identify or disclose these operational concerns while being paid by Anaheim ratepayers, what exactly were residents paying them to audit? 12. Are Anaheim residents now paying for excessive flushing in 2025 because management made poor operational decisions that contributed to these brown drinking water conditions? 13. Will residents continue to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for outside auditors who continue to fail to identify, disclose, or report these issues while being present at the Lenain Water Treatment Plant every single day, all day, and even all night? Where are the audit reports? What is the real purpose for these auditors and why are our taxpayer dollars being wasted?