City of Redding Podcast

Is Redding’s Water Safe? The Truth About PFAS

• City of Redding • Season 5 • Episode 30

Share episode

A recent USA Today article raised concerns about PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in drinking water across the country—and even suggested that Redding’s water was “well over the limit.” However, that information is outdated and no longer reflects our current water supply. 

In this episode, Katie and Steve sit down with Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager with the City of Redding, to set the record straight. Josh will explain what PFAS are, where Redding’s drinking water really comes from, why your water is safe, and how the City monitors and protects this critical resource every day. Don’t let the clickbait fool you—get the facts about PFAS and your drinking water. 

Read the transcript >>

View the 2024 Consumer Confidence Report >>

Learn more about the Water Utility >>

Contact the City of Redding Podcast Team

Love the podcast? The best way to spread the word is to rate and review!

Katie:

I'm Katie.

Steve:

And I'm Stephen. This is the City of Redding

Katie:

Today we're talking about a recent USA today PFAS, or so-called forever chemicals in drinking water. Unfortunately, the article linked to a chart that mistakenly listed Redding as having PFAS levels well over the limit. That's not the case, and we want to set the record straight.

Steve:

Exactly. Redding's water is safe to drink. The data used in that chart is outdated and doesn't reflect our current water supply. On this episode, we'll talk with Josh Watkins, water utility manager, about what PFAS is. What was actually found here in Redding, and most importantly, what the city does to make sure your tap water is safe every single day. Hello.

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

My name is Josh Watkins, city of Redding.

Katie:

Thank you, Josh, for being with us. We are here to talk about PFAS, otherwise known as Forever Chemicals, and a recent USA today article suggested that Redding's water was potentially unsafe due to high levels of PFAS. That article is misleading and displays some outdated information. Can you explain what happened with that report and why it's misleading?

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

Yeah, so far there poor and poorly It's I know there's probably about 16 syllables in there. They're man made chemicals. There's thousands of different of these chemicals. Just because you change one little molecular compound or connection. And they're in the news quite a bit. We're hearing about them more and more. What the USA today article did is they gather testing that is that's required by the US EPA from water systems all throughout the country. They gathered all that data and then they put out a report and they pick anybody who's really ever had any amount of PFAS detected in that study, which was in 2023. And they're reporting that today as if it just happened and come from our perspective, we had one well, that was above the response level for PFAS at that time. And so as soon as we realized that and got the test results back, we immediately shut that well off. And we haven't been using it since 2023 yet. It's in a news article that just came out last week. And it says that, you know, Redding's water is highly contaminated with this compound.

Steve:

Josh said the well you're referring to as the Well, how significant was that? Well, to the overall water supply before it was shut down, was this a large portion of the water supply or kind of a one off?

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

It's one of our lowest producing groundwater So just generally about 70% of the readings water supply comes from surface water from the Sacramento River or Whiskeytown. And then the remaining 30% comes from groundwater wells. And then this one, well, in particular, provided 1 to 1.5% of our water at that time. And like I said, as soon as we found out, we shut that off immediately. Since it's such a small producer, we don't even hardly notice it operationally. We have other wells. We run our surface water plants a little bit longer to make up that lack of demand, but it's a little discouraging or frustrating. While I understand, and we are testing for all sorts of different constituents in our drinking water to make sure that we're providing safe drinking water, but the frustration that we had here is really the data is so old. It's over two years ago that this happened, and it's something that we've already identified and we took offline.

Katie:

Josh, in my preliminary research on PFAS, kinds of things. Even though PFAS are in literally everything, they're in clothing, they're in personal products, they're in carpet and furniture, nonstick cookware, I mean, you name it. And there's chemicals in all of the things that we use all of the time in all of our homes. I guess as a water professional, what's your opinion on why water gets the focus of PFAS? And do you think that focus is warranted.

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

To a certain degree? It is. A lot of people in the water profession say we're not just water providers, we're really public health officials because there is such a high level of responsibility that we have to provide clean, safe drinking water. And you can look back in history and and you can tell when your life expectancy really grew. And that's when we started treating water. And we figured out how to take out bugs and germs and pathogens and all of that. And so as the water world developed, we do have a very structured, regimented testing and water quality sampling program and processes. So because of that, I can see why there's a focus on the on water utilities and then also on wastewater utilities, because they're taking all these chemicals and everything that we flush or goes down the drain, and they're having to deal with it at the other end. While I can understand it from that perspective, it seems like some of the attention misses the point that these chemicals are in. Like you said, everything they're in makeup, they're in lipstick or chapstick, they're in your clothing. So you're absorbing it into the biggest organ in your body, which is your skin. It's in fabric softener, nonstick cookware or carpeting. Right. So it completely surrounds us. And I guess probably there's just really no good way to test all of those other places. So it seems like a lot of the attention comes back to what we can test and where we can get results, and that's from water quality testing.

Steve:

That makes sense. And I know you said this immediately once it came to the attention of you and your team in general. For those residents who are concerned, wondered what else.

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

Is out there?

Steve:

How does the city of Redding ensure public informed about the water quality.

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

So we have a report that we put out every It's on the city's website. Under the water utility, it's called our Consumer Confidence Report. And in that report we're reporting all of the different parameters that we're testing for. And we're testing on a daily, weekly, monthly, annual basis, depending on what the chemical is or the constituent or what we're looking for. So we're constantly testing and ensuring that our water is safe, that we are exceeding any of the the column maximum contaminant levels. There's really just a large variety of rules and regulations that we have to ensure that we're meeting. And so we do that throughout the year. And then we put these reports together that tells you really everything that we've found that we've reported. And we also have contact information on the website. If anyone has any questions, feel free to to give us a call and we can help explain some of this, because in some cases you almost have to be a chemist or to figure out what we're talking about.

Katie:

And one of the things that I wanted to bring parts per trillion, which, when I was looking it up, is just such an incredibly small amount and it doesn't discount it. I would say no amount is a good amount, but when we're talking about parts per trillion, can you help us visualize just what a small amount that is?

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

Sure. One part per trillion is one grain of So think of the Redding Aquatic Center. And that's one grain of sand as one part per trillion. So typically a lot of the constituents that we do test for their parts per million or parts per billion for these manmade chemicals forever chemicals. We're talking about parts per trillion. And even the test methods and the reliability of the testing is barely below the level that we're supposed to be staying below. So it's just so incredibly minute. And because these chemicals are all over, there's some pretty stringent requirements for the person doing the testing. They can't have used certain fabric softeners when they did their laundry for the clothes that they're wearing. It's not recommended that they pump gas that day or maybe the day before, or eat fast food, because they could artificially contaminate that sample just based on some of the activities that they've been going about and doing on their day to day basis before they do the testing. The joke I always say is, if you ever see a naked guy riding a bicycle down the street, he may be the one performing the PFAS testing.

Steve:

What long term steps is the city taking to from PFAS and other contaminants?

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

You know, it's our job to make sure that we safe drinking water. So we're continually to test for these chemicals, for the PFAS or the forever chemicals, just the same way that we're testing for E coli bacteria or chlorine residual, to make sure that there's not the possibility for some bugs or organisms to be growing in our water system. This is something that we do on a continual basis. Things are changing. There's different rules that are coming out either through the state or the US EPA. And so we're keeping an eye on what the requirements are. The maximum contaminant level for PFAS has been established by the US EPA. But because this is so new and so fresh, they're also giving water agencies until 2031 to meet that level. And so that allows more sampling and testing to be done. It allows for treatment plans to to be designed and engineered and just allows water utilities to come up with a plan to meet those requirements. And so we're doing all of those things. If we ever have an area or a well, at maybe exceeding or close to exceeding some of these levels, we're going to figure out an action to make sure that we don't. I want to say it's a moving target, but it's an ongoing operation to make sure that we are continually meeting the water quality requirements that are established by the state and the federal government.

Katie:

Thank you so much. Is there anything else

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

We're doing our best to stay above and if we need to make a change, we'll do that. If we need to take a well off line, we will. If we need to put in some sort of treatment system, we will. A lot of it is to be determined.

Katie:

But overall, Reading's drinking water is

Josh Watkins, Water Utility Manager:

Reading's drinking water is safe.