📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

personnel providing such services be made available whenever patients are

Published: May 13, 2025 728 pages Consolidated Report
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 39 findings

F1
When developing new communities and housing projects, little consideration is paid to the healthcare needs of the increasing local population. Water, sewer, roads, electrical, and other utilities are mandated to be part of the development plan that is submitted to the city and/or County.
F1A
State Mandated Service Reimbursement Rates make it difficult for Regional Centers and their contracted service providers to hire and retain qualified staff.
F1B
The difficulty outlined in Finding #1A is compounded by the large numbers of multi-lingual Regional Center consumers which necessitates the hiring of multi- lingual case workers. In Los Angeles County, according to the US Census, non- English and bilingual speakers make up 56% of the population.40
F2
There is no organized exchange of best practices among the major medical centers, even though they all face similar problems with crowding and APOT.84 84 In-person meeting with ED Medical, ED Nursing, and ED Public Health staff of LA General, November 13, 2024. 24
F3
The length of the contract made between the County and EMT Companies is negotiated for a period of ten years. It is difficult to project increased costs for such a long period of time.
F4
The City and County have Advanced Responder Transports, which include a Nurse Practitioner in the Paramedic Ambulances. The County and City Fire Departments initiated these programs on a trial basis, and reported that they were effective and life-saving. Unfortunately no statistics were available to determine the true efficacy of these programs.
F5
The discharge process is lengthy and complicated, particularly for individuals with special needs. The ED operates on a 24/7 basis, but many other departments and supporting services do not. The discharge process includes assisting individuals with special needs, e.g. elderly patients, mental illness, and those who are unhoused.
F6
A discharge lounge for patients without special needs helps to accelerate the discharge process for such patients. Such patients can be fast-tracked for a more speedy discharge.
F7
Harbor-UCLA Medical Center ED has adopted the practice of having a nurse accompany an ER patient through a course of diagnostic procedures to expedite the collection of patient data for the eventual attending physician. This keeps the patient engaged in their own well-being and lessens the number of patients who leave without being seen. Studies have shown that patients who leave without being seen by a physician contribute to ER Crowding, and thus to extended APOT. 25
F8
Ambulance emergency medical technicians are precluded from working within a hospital. However, County EMS indicated that Emergency Medical Technicians can be hired to work in the ER.
F9
When an ED adds an additional triage station during peak hours, it helps to alleviate ER crowding later in the day and evening.85
F10
Physician or Surgeon assisted triage helps to optimize walk-in and trauma patients’ visits to the ER. Low severity walk-in patients can often be referred to an urgent care center after appropriate stabilization, and Physician assisted triage helps to optimize patient throughput. 85 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755599X24000946, Accessed January 2, 2025 26
F11
Based on the 2023 and 2024 water analyses 30 data reported by 25 California Water Service 20 Company - Leona Valley 15 (PWSID: CA1910243), 10 5 the waters from their 0 several sources were being blended and treated. However, the treated water still had Finding Figure 11.1. Bromodichloromethane contamination of several organic the water source of California Water Service Company - Leona compounds including Valley. bromodichloromethane (see Finding Figure 11.1). Note that the recommended MCLG set by the EPA for this compound is zero. Other volatile organic compounds were also detected at levels below the recommended MCL (data not shown). The Jury inquired as to the possible source of bromodichloromethane and what treatment California Water Service is doing for its removal or reduction. Representative from the district returned the call and informed the Jury that somebody would call to answer the question.76 The Jury did not receive a call back. Calls on November 19 and 20, 2024 34 )L/gn( tnuomA Bromodichloromethane, Treated Water Sampling Date
F12
The well source of Amarillo Mutual Water 70 Company (PWSID: 60 CA1910002; located in 50 Rosemead) is 40 contaminated with a 30 20 number of volatile organic 10 compounds including 0 tetrachloroethylene (see Finding Figure 12.1). Amarillo Mutual has acknowledged that there Finding Figure 12.1. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of have been problems with water source in Amarillo Mutual Water Company. the water quality from its source for several years now. They draw their water from Well #1 which is pulled from the aquifer that is shared by several users. Well #1 is located near where the contaminants are concentrated. Since the water is contaminated, Amarillo Mutual purchases water from the San Gabriel water district for distribution to its customers.77 A superfund called the El Monte superfund was established to clean up the site of the contamination several years ago. It is called the El Monte superfund and is managed by San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA).78 The aquifer is swept by WQA periodically and the contaminants get moved to the North East end of the aquifer.77 Amarillo Mutual has installed an activated carbon filter to absorb the problematic chemicals from the water and it is working to bring down the numbers to an undetectable level.79 This costs the water district more than $1 million. Amarillo Mutual has applied for reimbursement from the California State Water Board but their application was denied.80 77 Interviewee from Amarillo Mutual Water Company, October 24, 2024 78 Source: https://wqa.com/about/, Accessed: December 16, 2024 79 Based on the water analysis data provided by Interviewee from Amarillo Mutual Water Co., November 4, 2024 80 Interviewee from Amarillo Mutual Water Co., October 24, 2024 35 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 01 Sampling Date
F13
In 2023, the treated water from California State Polytechnic 40 University – Pomona (PWSID: 35 30 CA1910022) water district was 25 20 contaminated with 15 bromodichloromethane (see 10 5 Finding Figure 13.1), whose 0 MCLG is set to zero by the EPA. In addition, the total trihalomethanes (TTHM) content in Finding Figure 13.1. Bromodichloromethane the treated water was above the contamination of treated water in California State 80 ug/L MCL (see Finding Figure Polytechnic University – Pomona. 13.2). Other organic compounds were also detected but were below the MCL. The Jury reached out to CSU- Pomona but the call was not returned.81 Finding Figure 13.2. Total trihalomethane detected in the treated water in California State Polytechnic University – Pomona.
F14
Results from water analysis submitted by Crescenta Valley Water District (CWD; PWSID: CA1910028) in 2023 and 2024 indicate that some of the water wells being used by CWD were contaminated with a number of chemicals including PFOS, PFOA, and nitrate. These are highlighted in Finding Figures 14.1 to 14.3. The MCL for both PFOS and PFOA is 4 ng/L, and for nitrate is 10 mg/L. Call placed on November 15, 2024 36 )L/gu( tnuomA Bromodichloromethane Content, DBPR Sample Sampling Date 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Trihalomethane Content, DBPR Sample Sampling Date 25 20 15 10 5 0 Finding Figure 14.1. PFOS contamination of wells #8 and #9 of Crescenta Valley Water District. Finding Figure 14.2. PFOA contamination of wells #1 and #8 of Crescenta Valley Water District. Finding Figure 14.3. Nitrate contamination of wells #2 and #5 of Crescenta Valley Water District. CWD mentioned that the possible source of the volatile organic compounds is a superfund site.82 However, while the source of contamination for nitrates is unknown CWD suspects that it is coming from either failing septic tanks or from accumulated fire retardants used in fighting fires or both.83 In addition, CWD mentioned the area was an agricultural area which may have too many nitrates. Interviewee from Crescenta Valley CWD, December 2, 2024 83 Ibid 37 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 08 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 09 Sampling Date 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 01 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 08 Sampling Date 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Well 02 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Well 05 Sampling Date For immediate remediation, CWD is purchasing water from Metropolitan Water District and blending it with water from their well to dilute the contaminants. Results of the analysis indicate that the levels of contaminants contained in the blended water are below the specified MCL. They are also testing a pilot plan to treat water using granulated activated carbon or ion exchange to remove the contaminants permanently.84
F15
El Monte City Water District (PWSID: CA1910038) has six wells as sources of water for distribution; five are contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, also known as PCE. In Finding Figure 15.1, four of the wells are highlighted. The levels of PCE were above MCL as indicated in the 2023 and early 2024 analyses. In the case of well #12, the PCE level was about 6.5X of the MCL. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Finding Figure 15.1. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of some of the water wells of El Monte City Water District. (Note: The y-axes for all graphs are adjusted to be of the same scale.) Other organic compounds, including trichloroethylene, were also detected above the MCL level (see Finding Figure 15.2). Ibid 38 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 03 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 12 Sampling Date 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 15 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylele Content, Well 16 Sampling Date The source of contamination appears to be the superfund site that is being managed by the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA).85 El Monte City Water District installed a granular activated carbon treatment system to filter the water before it enters the supply lines. The treated water has reduced levels of contaminants.86 This is evident in Finding Figure 15.3. El Monte City Water District applied for reimbursement from the EPA funds through WQA. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Finding Figure 15.2. Trichloroethylene contamination of some of the water wells of El Monte City Water District. Finding Figure 15.3. Reduction of trichloroethylene contamination after water treatment in El Monte City Water District. Interviewee from El Monte City Water District, December 2, 2024 86 Ibid 39 )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well 02 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well 14 Sampling Date 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well 15 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well 16 Sampling Date 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Effluent (Treated Water) Sampling Date
F16
Nitrate, perchlorate, carbon tetrachloride, and volatile organic compounds are found to be present in the water sources used by Lincoln Avenue Water Co. (PWSID: CA1910063; located in Altadena). In 2023 and 2024 analyses, the levels of these contaminants were below MCL (data not shown). Lincoln Avenue Water is using appropriate steps to resolve the problem. Treatment facilities were installed (ionic exchanger and granular activated carbon) to remove the VOCs.87 Hence, water being distributed by Lincoln Avenue Water to its consumers is up to the EPA and California standards. A possible source of the volatile organic compounds that are present in the district’s water wells is NASA JPL site.88 This has been considered a superfund site since the 1980s.89
F17
There are three wells currently 1 2 8 0 16 being used by 14 12 10 Lynwood Park 8 6 4 Mutual Water 2 0 Co. (PWSID: CA1910081; located in Compton) as Finding Figure 17.1. PFOS contamination of water wells of sources of Lynwood Park Mutual Water Co. water for their customers. Based on 2023 and 2024 analyses, the wells contained PFOS (see Finding Figure 17.1) and PFOA (see Finding Figure 17.2) that were above the MCL (4 ng/L for both PFOS and PFOA). In the case of PFOS, it was about 4X the MCL standard. Other volatile organic compounds 87 Interviewee from Lincoln Avenue Water Co., November 13, 2024 88 Ibid 89 Ibid 40 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 01 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 02 Sampling Date 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 03 Sampling Date (e.g., tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene) were also detectable but below MCL (data not shown). Lynwood Park Mutual does not know the 8 7 source of the contamination. As far as 6 5 they know, no superfund site is 4 involved.90 They are developing a plan to 3 2 assess the source of the contamination. 1 0 As of this report writing, Lynwood Park is still in the process of drafting a plan and finding a suitable solution to install a treatment system that will remove the contaminants. Accordingly, the cost is quite prohibitive.91 There was no effluent or treated water analysis data submitted by Lynwood Park Mutual to California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB). Finding Figure 17.2. PFOA contamination of water wells of Lynwood Park Mutual Water Co.
F18
PFOA and PFOS are two of the major contaminants found in the source wells being used by Pico Water District (PWSID: CA1910125; located in Pico Rivera) at a level way above their MCL (4 ng/L) set by the EPA. These are highlighted in Finding Figures 18.1 and 18.2. At some point in 2023 and 2024, the PFOA and PFOS levels were about 3X and 6X the MCL, respectively. Interviewee from Lynwood Park Mutual Water Co., November 19, 2024 91 Ibid, January 14, 2025 41 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 01 Sampling Date 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 02 Sampling Date 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 03 Sampling Date 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Finding Figure 18.1. PFOA contamination of some of the water wells of Pico Water District. Finding Figure 18.1. PFOS contamination of some of the water wells of Pico Water District. The amount of PFOA is above the Response Level (10 ng/L) set by California State Water Board, which triggered the Pico Water District to issue a notification to its customers about PFOA and its health effects (see Finding Figure 18.2). 42 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 05 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 08 Sampling Date 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 10 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 11 Sampling Date 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 05 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 08 Sampling Date 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 10 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 11 Sampling Date A possible source of the contaminants is not clear. Their wells are presumably near the location that used to be occupied by Northrop Corp.92 Pico Water District purchased three new treatment plants (ion exchangers) and these have been installed since 2023. These cost them millions of dollars. They applied for a permit to begin using the treatment plants. The district had been waiting for at least a year now for the Division of Drinking Water of the California State Resource Control Board to issue the permit.93 Finding Figure 18.2. Copy of the notification letter issued on June 22, 2024 by the Pico Water District (PWSID: CA1910125) to its customers as a result of PFOA reaching above the Response Level of 10 ng/L. Interviewee from Pico Water District, November 5, 2024 93 Ibid 43
F19
Nitrates appear to be ubiquitous in wells being used Cal/Am Water 12 Company - San Marino (PWSID: 10 CA1910139). In 2023 and 2024, 8 the nitrate content of one of its 6 4 wells was approaching the MCL 2 (Finding Figure 19.1). Based on 0 the water analysis they submitted to California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), the district appears Finding Figure 19.1. Nitrate content in one of the to be blending water from wells being used by Cal/Am Water Company - San Marino different wells to significantly reduce the amount of nitrates in water for distribution. The water analysis also indicates that bromodichloromethane was significantly higher than the recommended MCL for this chemical which is zero. Finding Figure 19.2. Bromodichloromethane content in water treatment in Cal/Am Water Company - San Marino. 44 )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Winston Well Sampling Date 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/42/2 3202/42/2 3202/42/2 3202/42/2 3202/62/5 3202/62/5 3202/62/5 3202/62/5 3202/22/8 3202/22/8 3202/22/8 3202/22/9 3202/12/11 3202/12/11 3202/12/11 3202/12/11 4202/32/2 4202/32/2 4202/32/2 4202/32/2 4202/42/5 4202/42/5 4202/42/5 LCM Bromodichloromethane Content, DBPR Sampling Date
F20
South Montebello Irrigation District (PWSID: CA1910153) has three wells as water 35 30 sources. Based on the results 25 of water analysis in 2023-2024, 20 15 all of the three wells were 10 contaminated with PFOS and 5 0 PFOA at about 5X and 3X the recommended MCL, respectively (see Finding Figures 20.1 and 20.2). Finding Figure 20.1. PFOS contamination in water wells of South Montebello Irrigation District. South Montebello Irrigation District (SMID) is aware of the presence of these chemicals.94 According to SMID, the aquifer associated with their wells are contaminated. They do not know the source of these contaminants but they suspect that the sources are the run-off from fire-fighting foam retardants Finding Figure 20.2. PFOA contamination in water used in the hills above wells of South Montebello Irrigation District. Montebello that washed into the Rio Hondo River and then into the aquifer. They have been told by the Fire Department that the current water retardants no longer have these chemicals. SMID has issued notification warning to their customers about these contaminants.95 They are drawing up plans to remediate the problem including installation of water treatment and creation of new wells and a new emergency generator. They believe that these plans will be implemented starting in 2026.96 94 Interviewee from South Montebello Irrigation District, February 5, 2025 95 Source: https://smid.specialdistrict.org/files/f11e9aa63/SMID+PFA+Notification+9-5-24.pdf. Accessed: February 5, 2025 96 Interviewee from South Montebello Irrigation District, February 5, 2025 45 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Wells 03 (black), 05 (white), 07 (striped bars) Sampling Date 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Wells 03 (black), 05 (white), 07 (striped bars) Sampling Date
F21
Based on their submitted water analysis report in 2023-2024, results indicate that one (Well #2) of the wells being used by the City of South Pasadena Water Department (PWSID: CA1910154) was contaminated with tetrachloroethylene (or PCE) at a level 3X the MCL (see Finding Figure 21.1, upper panel). In the previous years (2015 to 2022), this chemical was also detected above MCL in Well #2 (see lower panel of Finding Figure 21.1). The other wells also contained tetrachloroethylene that was below MCL (data not shown). There was no data 20 18 submitted to the California 16 14 State Water Resources 12 10 Control Board (CSWRCB) 8 6 4 regarding 2 0 tetrachloroethylene content in treated (effluent) water. According to the City of South Pasadena Water Department, water from this well is just being monitored but not being used for distribution to consumers. Hence, there is no treated water sample available from this well. The source of PCE in their Finding Figure 21.1. Tetrachloroethylene contamination water system is the San of Well #2 of City of South Pasadena Water Dept. from 2015 to 2024. Gabriel Water Basin, where a number of superfund sites are located. The Basin serves as the water source for some of the wells of City of South Pasadena Water Dept.98 Aside from PCE, the City has to monitor other organic compounds (e.g., trichloroethylene and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane).99 For this reason, the City had to install treatment facilities (e.g., granulated activated charcoal and ion-exchanger) in 2022 at a cost of about $11.2 million. Interviewee from City of South Pasadena Water Department, February 28, 2025 98 Ibid 99 Ibid 46 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 02 (2023 -2024) Sampling Date 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 5102/6/1 5102/3/2 5102/62/2 5102/3/3 5102/7/4 5102/5/5 5102/02/5 5102/2/6 5102/7/7 5102/4/8 5102/02/8 5102/1/9 5102/1/01 6102/2/2 6102/22/2 6102/1/3 6102/5/4 6102/2/5 6102/9/5 6102/5/7 6102/2/8 6102/21/8 6102/4/01 6102/1/11 6102/12/11 2202/52/5 2202/5/01 2202/1/11 2202/5/21 2202/5/21 LCM Tetrachloroethylene, Well 02 (2015-16 and 2022) Sampling Date
F22
In the 2023-2024 the analysis indicated that nitrates and some volatile organic compounds were detected at some of the wells being used by Sunny Slope Water Company (PWSID: CA1910157) but they were below the corresponding MCL (data not shown). Analyses done in 2019 to 2022 indicated similar results. In addition, data regarding analysis of effluent samples indicates that Sunny Slope is performing treatment of water coming from these wells.
F23
There are two wells being used by Tract 349 Mutual Water Company (PWSID: CA1910160; located in Cudahy). One of them (Well #3) was contaminated with manganese (see Finding Figure 23.1) at 2X the MCL. In addition, the well had has high levels of PFOA (at 2X) and PFOS (at 11X) that are above MCL (see Finding Figure 23.2). Other VOCs were also present in the well but they were below the corresponding MCL (data not shown). Tract 349 was already notified by the State Water Regulatory Board about the high level of manganese in their water.100 However, they have not been notified about the presence of high levels of some VOCs.101 According to Tract 349, Well 120 #4 serves as the 100 water supply 80 source and Well 60 40 #3 is pumped for 20 sampling and for 0 monitoring purposes only and is not part of water supply.102 Finding Figure 23.1. Manganese contamination of one of the The levels of wells of Tract 349 Mutual Water Company manganese and VOCs in Well #4 are below their corresponding MCLs (data not shown). Interviewee from Tract 349 Mutual Water Co., November 18 and 21, 2024 101 Ibid 102 Based on the document submitted by Tract 349 Mutual Water Co., December 14, 2024 47 )L/gu( tnuomA Manganese Content, Well 03 Sampling Date The source of water for the two wells is the groundwater from the Central Basin.103 Manganese is prevalent throughout this basin and it has been present from the time of the formation of Tract 349 in 1912. PFOS and PFOA have been detected in the Central Basin beginning in the late 2010s and were detected in Tract 349’s wells in or about April 2024.104 Tract 349 is drafting a plan to remedy the manganese problem. As part of this plan, they wrote a grant to seek funding from the state of California for the water treatment to remove manganese in Well #4.105
F24
The level of nitrates in some of the wells being used by Valley Water Co. (PWSID: CA1910166; located in La Canada Flintridge) is approaching the MCL (see Finding Figure 24.1). The same can be said about the overall treated water coming from the four wells. 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Finding Figure 24.1. Nitrate contamination of wells in Valley Water Company. Ibid 104 Ibid 105 Interviewee from Tract 349 Mutual Water Co., November 18 and 21, 2024 48 )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Well 04 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gm( tnuomA 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 4/30/20246/21/2024 4/30/20246/21/2024 MCL Finding Figure 23.2. PFOS and PFOA contamination of one of the wells of Tract 349 Mutual Water Company. Nitrate Content, Wells 1, 2, 3, 4 Effluent Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS (in solid black) and PFOA (in white) Contents, Well 03 Sampling Date Bromodichloromethane, one of the volatile organic compounds, is also found in the water of Valley Water (see Finding Figure 24.2). The MCL set goal by the EPA for this chemical is zero (see Table 4). 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Finding Figure 24.2. Bromodichloromethane contamination of wells in Valley Water Company. According to Valley Water, the possible source of the contamination is a site that Jet Propulsion Laboratory used to utilize; no superfund site is involved.106 They have been dealing with the contamination issue for more than 20 years. The water district has installed a filtration system to remove the contaminants before water distribution.107
F25
At some point of in 2023 and 2024, some of the wells being used by GSWC - South San Gabriel (PWSID: CA1910223) were contaminated by nitrates and some volatile organic compounds (including PFOS, PFOA, and tetrachloroethylene) at levels above the MCL. Based on the effluent data available, GSWC is treating the water to reduce the contaminants and the treatment procedure appears to be working (see Finding Figures 25.1 and 25.2). Interviewee from Valley Water Co., November 13, 2024 107 Ibid 49 )L/gu( tnuomA Bromodichloromethane Content, Well 02 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Bromodichloromethane Content, Well 03 Sampling Date 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Finding Figure 25.1. Nitrate content of contaminated well (upper panel) and treated water (lower panel) in GSWC - South San Gabriel. Finding Figure 25.2. PFOS and PFOA contents of contaminated wells and treated water in GSWC - South San Gabriel. 50 )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Well 02 Sampling Date 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gm( tnuomA 3202/3/1 3202/32/1 3202/7/2 3202/12/2 3202/6/3 3202/3/4 3202/42/4 3202/8/5 3202/03/5 3202/31/6 3202/5/7 3202/71/7 3202/13/7 3202/41/8 3202/5/9 3202/81/9 3202/2/01 3202/6/11 3202/72/21 4202/8/1 4202/42/1 4202/7/2 4202/22/2 4202/4/3 4202/81/3 4202/1/4 4202/51/4 4202/92/4 4202/41/5 4202/82/5 4202/11/6 4202/42/6 4202/8/7 4202/22/7 Nitrate Content, Treated (Effluent) Sampling Date 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content in Well 01 (black bars), Well 02 (white bars), and treated water (bar w/ diagonal) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content in Well 01 (black bars),Well 02 (white bars), and treated water (bar w/ diagonal) Sampling Date
F26
Three wells in Land Projects Mutual Water Company (PWSID: CA1910246; 25 located in Lancaster) contains arsenic 20 15 levels that are above the maximum 10 contaminant level. This is highlighted in 5 Finding Figure 26.1. The wells also 0 contain nitrates but at a level below MCL (data not shown). Land Projects is using the three wells in rotation as a source of water. To remedy the arsenic problem, Land Projects also installed a 4th well with water treatment capability (i.e., absorption treatment).108 This will serve as the primary source of treated water. The water from the other wells will be blended in with the primary source to dilute the amount of arsenic. This way the blended water will meet the EPA standard of having arsenic level below the MCL threshold. The installation is almost done and will be operational by March or April 2025 Finding Figure 26.1. Arsenic contamination after inspection by the State Water of the water wells in Land Projects Mutual Board.109 Water Co. Interviewee from Land Projects Mutual Water Co., November 20, 2024 109 Ibid, February 3, 2025 51 )L/gu( tnuomA Arsenic Content, Well 01 Sampling Date 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Arsenic Content, Well 03 Sampling Date 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Arsenic Content, Well 08 Sampling Date
F27
Some of the wells being used by GSWC – 160 Florence/Graham Water 140 120 District (PWSID: 100 80 CA1910077; located in 60 40 Santa Fe Springs) are 20 contaminated with volatile 0 organic compounds including trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene. Based on the 2023-2024 analyses, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene were detected at about 10X- 25X and 1.2X-2.4X their MCL (5 ug/L), respectively (see Finding Figures 27.1 and 27.2). The same reports also indicate that GSWC – Florence/Graham is treating the waters. However, such treatment was only effective in reducing the trichloroethylene for Finding Figure 27.1. Trichloroethylene contamination of wells and treated water in GSWC-Florence/Graham Water several months in 2023 or District. in early 2024. There was no reported data about the tetrachloroethylene content in treated water. Finding Figure 27.2. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of well #1 in GSWC- Florence/Graham Water District. 52 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/4/1 3202/6/2 3202/4/4 3202/6/6 3202/01/7 3202/01/7 3202/6/9 3202/6/11 3202/4/21 4202/2/1 4202/8/2 4202/1/4 4202/7/5 4202/3/6 4202/1/7 LCM Trichloroethylene Content, Converse Well 01 Sampling Date 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/4/1 3202/11/1 3202/71/1 3202/32/1 4202/8/2 4202/72/2 4202/8/3 4202/21/3 4202/91/3 4202/52/3 4202/1/4 4202/9/4 4202/51/4 4202/22/4 4202/2/5 4202/7/5 4202/41/5 4202/02/5 4202/82/5 4202/3/6 4202/11/6 4202/71/6 4202/42/6 4202/1/7 LCM Trichloroethylene Content, Treated (Effluent, Converse Well 1) Sampling Date 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/1/2 3202/31/2 3202/31/3 3202/72/3 3202/11/4 3202/42/4 3202/6/6 3202/91/6 3202/5/7 3202/81/7 3202/2/8 3202/41/8 3202/82/8 3202/21/9 3202/81/9 3202/9/01 3202/6/11 3202/72/11 3202/11/21 3202/82/21 4202/8/1 4202/32/1 4202/7/2 4202/72/2 4202/11/3 4202/52/3 4202/9/4 4202/22/4 4202/7/5 4202/02/5 LCM Trichloroethylene Content, Treated (Effluent, Nadeau Plant) Sampling Date 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/4/1 3202/6/2 3202/4/4 3202/6/6 3202/01/7 3202/01/7 3202/6/9 3202/6/11 3202/4/21 4202/2/1 4202/8/2 4202/1/4 4202/7/5 4202/3/6 4202/1/7 LCM Tetrachloroethylene Content, Converse Well 01 Sampling Date
F28
Some of the water wells being used by the City of Alhambra Water District (PWSID: CA1910001) are contaminated with nitrates and some volatile organic compounds (e.g., trichloroethylene). Results of water analysis conducted in 2023- 2024 indicate that they were present above the respective contaminant MCL. Based on the available effluent data, the City of Alhambra appears to be treating the water from these wells. The level of the contaminants is significantly reduced (see Finding Figure 28.1 for nitrate and Finding Figure 28.2 for trichloroethylene). 25 20 15 10 5 0 Finding Figure 28.2. Trichloroethylene content of contaminated well (upper panel) and treated water (lower panel) in City of Alhambra Water District. 53 )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well 09 Sampling Date 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 )L/gu( tnuomA 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Finding Figure 28.1. Nitrate content of contaminated well (upper panel) and treated water (lower panel) in City of Alhambra Water District. Trichloroethylene Content, Effluent (Treated) Sampling Date eltiT sixA 3202/41/11 4202/7/2 4202/4/6 4202/2/7 3202/4/1 3202/7/2 3202/9/3 3202/9/3 3202/4/4 3202/2/5 3202/6/6 3202/6/7 3202/2/8 3202/6/9 3202/3/01 3202/7/11 3202/6/21 4202/71/1 4202/7/2 4202/2/4 4202/7/5 4202/4/6 4202/2/7 LCM Nitrate Content, Well 07 (bars in solid black)& Well 09 (bars in white) Axis Title 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 )L/gm( tnuomA Nitrate Content, Treated (Effluent) Sampling Date
F29
The water wells of Valley County Water District (PWSID: CA1910009; located in Baldwin Park) are contaminated with a number of organic compounds including tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene, the levels of which were detected either at 10X or 5X, respectively, based on the district’s 2023 analysis (see Finding Figures 29.1 and 29.2). 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Finding Figure 29.1. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of water sources of Valley County Water District. Finding Figure 29.2. Trichloroethylene contamination of water sources of Valley County Water District. Aside from the above organic chemicals, the wells contain PFOS and PFOA (data not shown). Valley County Water Mutual is also monitoring the following VOCs: perchlorate, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, and 1,4-dioxane. They also found nitrates which are usually produced by nearby dairy farms.111 110 Interviewee from Valley County Water District, October 25, 2024 111 Ibid 54 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetracholoethylene Content, Well SA1-4 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 07 Sampling Date 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethylene Content, Well SA1-4 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Trichloroethyle Content, Well 07 Sampling Date According to Valley County Water Mutual, the water from their wells is 6 pumped into a single line which then 5 is blended prior to treatment.112 The 4 results of the treatment of blended 3 water showed that the level of 2 contaminants is significantly reduced 1 as highlighted in Finding Figure 29.3 0 4/25/2023 4/13/2023 4/13/2023 4/25/2023 MCL for tetrachloroethylene. Finding Figure 29.3. Reduction of tetrachloroethylene after treatment of blended The source of the contamination is a water in Valley County Water District. superfund site affecting the aquifer and the district’s water wells.113 The original contaminators were sued by the EPA and have been paying to clean up the site for years. The clean-up is being done through WQA who installed an activated carbon filter to flush the aquifer. They also sell their treated water to other water districts.114 They claim to test the water before and after pumping and the water is 100% according to EPA standards. In addition, they file an annual report with the state water board that lists all complaints they receive from consumers.
F30
The water wells being used by Monterey Park City Water Dept. (PWSID: CA1910092) are contaminated with a number of volatile organic compounds, including PFOS and PFOA, arsenic, and nitrates. In 2024, Wells #3, #5, #10, and #12 had levels of PFOS about 10X and about 2.5X the MCL, respectively (see upper panel of Finding Figure 30.1; data for #3 and #10 are not shown). The same wells had levels of PFOA at about 3.5X and about 2.5X the MCL (see upper panel of Finding Figure 30.2). Ibid 113 Ibid 114 Ibid 55 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethyle Content, After Treatment Sampling Date 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Finding Figure 30.1. PFOS contamination of water wells and treated water in Monterey Park City Water Dept. Finding Figure 30.2. PFOA contamination of water wells and treated water in Monterey Park City Water Dept. 56 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 05 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Well 12 Sampling Date 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOS Content, Treated Water (Effluent) Sampling Date 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 05 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Sampling Date )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Well 12 Sampling Date 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 )L/gn( tnuomA PFOA Content, Treated Water (Effluent) Sampling Date Monterey Park City Water Dept. is treating the water from the contaminated wells. However, based on the 2023-24 analysis, the treated water still contains PFOS and PFOA at levels about 4X and 2.5X the MCL (see lower panels in Finding Figure 30.1 and 30.2). Some of the wells were also contaminated with tetrachloroethylene at about 8X to 10X the set MCL (see Finding Figure 30.3). 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Finding Figure 30.3. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of water wells in Monterey Park City Water Dept. The treatment of water appears to be working in reducing tetrachloroethylene, arsenic, and nitrate contaminants. For example, some wells had originally contained arsenic that is 1.7X – 2X the MCL (see upper panels in Finding Figure 30.3). After treatment, the arsenic level was significantly reduced below the MCL (see lower panel of Finding Figure 30.3). The level of tetrachloroethylene was significantly reduced as well (see Finding Figure 30.4). However, in the case of tetrachloroethylene, data for treated water was only available for 2023 but not for 2024. According to Monterey Park City Water Dept., this omission was due to delays in laboratory processing. The updated effluent analysis data for 2024 has been uploaded to CLIP since the matter was brought to their attention by the Jury.115 115 Based on the response letter provided to the Jury by interviewee from Monterey Park City Water Dept., February 13, 2025 57 )L/gu( tnuomA Tertrachloroethylene Content, Well 12 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Well 15 sampling Date 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Finding Figure 30.3. Arsenic contamination of water wells and treated water in Monterey Park City Water Dept. Finding Figure 30.4. Reduction of tetrachloroethylene after treatment in Monterey Park City Water Dept. Monterey Park City Water Dept. attributed the presence of arsenic in the wells primarily due to the natural occurrence of this element in the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin.116 They have been monitoring arsenic since the 2000s. On the other hand, the presence of tetrachloroethylene, PFOS and PFOA are attributed to the contaminated aquifers (superfund sites) in the San Gabriel Water Basin that is managed by Water Quality Authority.117 116 Ibid 117 Ibid 58 )L/gu( tnuomA Arsenic Content, Fern Well 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 7/25/202311/7/202312/7/20232/5/2024 4/1/2024 7/1/2024 MCL Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Arsenic Content, Well 09 Sampling Date 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 )L/gu( tnuomA 3202/3/1 3202/71/1 3202/13/1 3202/41/2 3202/82/2 3202/41/3 3202/72/3 3202/11/4 3202/52/4 3202/9/5 3202/22/5 3202/6/6 3202/6/7 3202/8/8 3202/32/8 3202/6/9 3202/91/9 3202/3/01 3202/32/01 3202/41/11 3202/4/21 3202/91/21 4202/9/1 4202/32/1 4202/21/2 4202/72/2 4202/21/3 4202/62/3 4202/9/4 4202/03/4 4202/31/5 4202/92/5 4202/11/6 4202/52/6 4202/9/7 4202/32/7 LCM Arsenic Content, Combined Water -Treated Sampling Date 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Influent (Before Treatment) 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Sampling Date )L/gu( tnuomA Tetrachloroethylene Content, Effluent (Treated) Sampling Date The City of Monterey Park Water Dept. is evaluating and implementing advanced treatment technologies (e.g., granular activated carbon and ion exchange systems) to mitigate the contamination due to PFOS and PFOA.118
F31
1 ...................................................................................................... 59
F32
In 2019, a resolution was passed by the Los Angeles County Board Supervisors supporting clean and safe water within the Sativa Water District and across California.127 The first provision in the resolution is the establishment of a Sativa Water System Special Fund in the electronic Countywide Accounting and Purchasing System to account for the former district’s accounting and budgetary activities as the Successor Agency for the dissolved water district. The Special Fund provides for the operation and maintenance of a reliable and high-quality water distribution system. The Jury looked at the financial records related to the Special Fund and the details are shown in Finding Table 32.1. Since its creation until the end of 2024, the Special Fund has received $29.609 million (highlighted in green), which include the following sources:128, 129 • “Transfers In” from Los Angeles Department of Public Works General Fund - $10.27 million • Proceeds from the sale of water rights - $10.68 million • Water Sales and Other Service Charges - $4.709 million • Interest earnings - $1.06 million • Grants from the State of California - $1.73 million • Other Water Revenues - $398,734 • Federal government - $17,034 Since the creation of the Special Fund in 2019 until 2024, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works used the Fund for the following:130 127 Source: https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/135510.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2024 128 Based on the documents provided by interviewee from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW), December 5, 2024 129 Interviewee from DPW, January 29, 2025 130 Based on the documents provided by interviewee from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW), December 5, 2024 62 • Services and Supplies - $15.279 million • Other charges - $2.557 million (representing payments of County Loan and Bank bond) • “Transfers Out” to Los Angeles Department of Public Works General Fund - $3.0 million Among the items included in the “Services and Supplies” category are various expenses related to: (1) General and Administrative ($3.824 million); (2) Water System Operations ($5.414 million); and (3) Infrastructures and Capital ($6.041 million, which includes, among others, $0.706 million for Repair Pipeline Break, $1.129 million for Well Rehab/Hydropneumatics Tank Reconditioning, and $4.027 million for Manganese Treatment System).131 Hence, the total amount spent so far is about $17.836 million ($20.836 million, amount highlighted in red in Finding Table 32.1, minus the $3 million transferred out to DPW General Fund). This amount does not include the $8.925 million allotted for 2024-25, of which $8.335 million is meant for additional expense for manganese treatment system.132 131 Ibid 132 Ibid 63 .dnuF laicepS avitaS fo stroper laicnanif fo yrammuS .1.23 elbaT gnidniF 52-4202 -buS yrogetaC 42-3202 )lautcA( 32-2202 22-1202 12-0202 02-9102 91-8102 snoitcejorP( eht ot pU( latoT ****** )lautcA( ***** **** )lautcA( *** )lautcA( ** )lautcA( * )lautcA( detpodA morf )4202 fo dne )tegduB secnaniF fo secruoS yrogetaC 00.000,277,8 $ $ 00.000,109,3 $ 00.000,843,2 $ 00.000,751,1 $ 00.000,131,1 $ ta ecnalaB dnuF elbaliavA 00.000,232,41 raey fo gninnigeb eht 00.688,758 $ 00.066,091 $ 00.212,67 $ 00.404,512 $ 00.590,561 $ 00.515,012 $ dnuF detagilbO lecnaC ecnalaB 00.000,351 $ 04.405,419 $ 97.171,865 $ 95.037,772 $ 62.749,71 $ 99.794,21 $ 32.928,73 $ 45.723 $ tseretnI 00.0 $ 00.818,037,1 $ 27.440,032 $ 82.377,005,1 $ tnarG etatS 02.430,71 $ 02.430,71 $ 91-divoC - tnarG laredeF 00.0 $ 95.716,337,4 $ 95.123,261 $ 06.276,605 $ 25.554,612,1 $ 64.738,072,1 $ 25.576,442,1 $ 09.456,233 $ rehtO dna selaS retaW segrahC ecivreS 17.903,486,01 $ 17.903,486,01 $ sthgiR retaW fo elaS 00.000,272,01 $ 00.000,463,2 $ 00.000,773,1 $ 00.000,992,2 $ 00.000,230,3 $ 00.000,002,1 $ )FGWP morf( nI srefsnarT 00.0 $ 21.437,893 $ 40.407,893 $ 00.31 $ 80.61 $ 00.1 $ euneveR retaW rehtO 00.000,529,8 $ mus( M 906.92 $ $ 26.289,930,81 $ 43.036,296,6 $ 54.134,409,4 $ 57.910,656,5 $ 44.289,235,1 $ ylraeY secruoS ecnaniF )evoba eht fo 24.758,155,51 latoT yrogetaC serutidnepxE 00.000,529,8 $ 84.604,972,51 $ 13.749,977,3 $ 70.582,577,1 $ 05.832,626,2 $ 66.605,383,2 $ 10.457,213,4 $ 39.476,104 $ seilppuS dna secivreS 43.578,655,2 $ 30.948,230,2 $ 66.332,561 $ 94.082,271 $ 61.215,681 $ segrahC rehtO 00.525 $ 00.525 $ - stessA latipaC erutcurtsarfnI 00.000,000,3 $ 00.000,000,3 $ )FGWP ot( tuO srefsnarT 00.000,529,8 $ mus( M 638.02 $ 13.749,977,6 $ 01.431,808,3 $ 61.274,197,2 $ 51.213,655,2 $ 71.662,994,4 $ 39.476,104 $ ylraeY serutidnepxE evoba eht fo latoT )pxE 00.0 $ 11.019,177,8 $ 25.848,132,41 $ 81.851,109,3 $ 03.911,843,2 $ 85.357,651,1 $ 15.703,131,1 $ ecnalaB teN ylraeY dnuF 46 :)5202 ,13 yraunaJ :desseccA – woleb detic secruos lla( 1.23 elbaT gnidniF ot setontooF )/tegdub-0202-9102/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA ytnuoC selegnA soL 02-9102 fo 623 egap :ecruoS - * )/tegdub-1202-0202/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA ytnuoC selegnA soL 12-0202 fo 923 egap :ecruoS - ** )/tegdub-2202-1202/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA ytnuoC selegnA soL 22-1202 fo 533 egap :ecruoS - *** )/tegdub-3202-2202/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA ytnuoC selegnA soL 32-2202 fo 633 egap :ecruoS - **** )/tegdub-4202-3202/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA ytnuoC selegnA soL 42-3202 fo 243 egap :ecruoS - ***** -AL/21/4202/sdaolpu/tnetnoc-pw/vog.ytnuocal.oec//:sptth( tegduB detpodA laniF ytnuoC selegnA soL 52-4202 fo 143 egap :ecruoS - ****** )fdp.kooB-tegduB-laniF-52-4202-ytnuoC 56
F33
Between 1978 and 2006, Department of Water and Power (DWP; PWSID: CA1910067) cleaned and cement-lined approximately 2,600 miles of pipes in the City of Los Angeles.133 In addition, starting in 1998, DWP replaced low-lead water meters with lead-free water meters.134 These measures were taken to control corrosion and minimize lead exposures. In addition, DWP regularly took water samples for analysis of lead contamination, from different sites along the water distribution pipeline within the City of Los Angeles (see Finding Figure 33.1). To determine if lead is present in these pipelines, the Jury examined water analysis data provided by DWP to the Jury. Results of the analysis in 2024 are shown in Finding Table 33.1. The approximate location of the sampling sites are overlaid in Finding Figure 33.1. Overall, there was no detectable lead in the water samples taken from the distribution pipelines within Los Angeles city in 2024. Similar analyses performed in 2020 to 2023 had indicated no detectable levels of lead as well (data no shown). Finding Table 33.1. Results of Lead analysis from different sampling points in Los Angeles City water pipeline conducted by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in 2024. Note: ND in the Result column means Not Detectable. Code in Finding Location Code Sampling Date Analyte Result Figure 33.1 BROOKMOT 2/19/2024 Lead ND A BROOKMOT 5/20/2024 Lead ND BROOKMOT 8/19/2024 Lead ND ROCKGLEN 2/19/2024 Lead ND B ROCKGLEN 5/24/2024 Lead ND ROCKGLEN 8/23/2024 Lead ND 055ST 1/15/2024 Lead ND C 055ST 4/17/2024 Lead ND ALMAR 2/20/2024 Lead ND D ALMAR 5/22/2024 Lead ND ALMAR 8/21/2024 Lead ND E ALMETZ 3/22/2024 Lead ND BEVGLEN 1/21/2024 Lead ND F BEVGLEN 4/21/2024 Lead ND DS074 2/25/2024 Lead ND 133 Source: of the 2023 Drinking Water Quality Report available at https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/water-system/las-drinking-water-quality-report. Accessed: December 16, 2024) 134 Ibid 66 Code in Finding Location Code Sampling Date Analyte Result Figure 33.1 G DS074 5/24/2024 Lead ND DS074 8/25/2024 Lead ND H DS049 3/23/2024 Lead ND I CUMBRE 3/18/2024 Lead ND DENNI 1/18/2024 Lead ND J DENNI 4/15/2024 Lead ND K FRAMPTON 3/23/2024 Lead ND BYPIN 1/15/2024 Lead ND L BYPIN 4/15/2024 Lead ND M HERSHEY 3/21/2024 Lead ND HOBART 1/18/2024 Lead ND N HOBART 4/18/2024 Lead ND KIRKCOLM 2/22/2024 Lead ND O KIRKCOLM 5/21/2024 Lead ND KIRKCOLM 8/21/2024 Lead ND VENICE 1/17/2024 Lead ND P VENICE 4/19/2024 Lead ND Q DS131 3/23/2024 Lead ND PDLMR985 2/21/2024 Lead ND PDLMR985 5/20/2024 Lead ND R PDLMR985 8/22/2024 Lead ND PAXTON 2/19/2024 Lead 0.62 PAXTON 5/25/2024 Lead ND S PAXTON 8/20/2024 Lead ND DS077 2/25/2024 Lead ND T DS077 5/24/2024 Lead ND DS077 8/25/2024 Lead ND RSCBCL 1/15/2024 Lead ND U RSCBCL 4/15/2024 Lead ND V SANRAFL 3/18/2024 Lead ND DS066 1/18/2024 Lead ND W DS066 4/17/2024 Lead ND X HARPER 3/24/2024 Lead ND Y DS111 3/22/2024 Lead ND DS048 1/15/2024 Lead ND Z DS048 4/17/2024 Lead 0.51 DS078 2/19/2024 Lead ND DS078 5/20/2024 Lead ND Z2 DS078 8/19/2024 Lead ND ZEPHYR 2/21/2024 Lead ND ZEPHYR 5/20/2024 Lead ND Z3 ZEPHYR 8/19/2024 Lead ND 67 Finding Figure 33.1. Map of the City of Los Angeles showing the overlay of the sampling sites within the water distribution system of DWP. Illustration map was provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). Overlaying of the location letter codes was done by the Jury using the Canva software available online (https://www.canva.com/). 68
F34
In 2023, DWP implemented a lead and copper survey in the City of Los Angeles as part of its compliance with the Federal Lead and Copper Rule.135,136 DWP looked for volunteer customers who were residing in single family homes that were built between 1982 and 1987. Tap water from these homes was collected and analyzed for lead and copper. The result for lead is summarized in Finding Figure 34.1.137 The survey revealed that three out of 105 (90%) had lead content exceeding the actionable level (AL) of 15 ppb set by EPA. One sample contained lead at 5X the AL. According to DWP, these customers were advised by DWP to take the proper action to remediate lead contamination in their plumbing system.138 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Finding Figure 34.1. Lead contamination in some households surveyed and analyzed by Department of Water and Power. Note: The actual locations indicated in the sampling locations are not included in the graph for privacy reason. The Actionable Level (AL) is represented by the bar on the right. Source: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/revised-lead-and-copper-rule. Accessed: December 16, 2024 136 See: Footnote “e” in Table 1 (Cont’d), of the 2023 Drinking Water Quality Report available at https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/water-system/las-drinking-water-quality-report. Accessed: December 16, 2024 137 Based on data downloaded from CSWBRB; also consistent with the data provided to the Jury by the LA Department of Water and Power, September 20, 2024 138 Interviewee from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, November 6, 2024 69 )L/gu( tnuomA Lead Analysis of Tap Water in Some Old Houses in Los Angeles City, 2023 Residential Sample Location
F35
The Better Watts Initiative produced a report resulting from a study by Hoague et al. (2024)139 showing that tap waters are contaminated with lead in some of the residential houses in the Watts neighborhood. The results were provided to the Jury140 and these are shown in Finding Table 35.1. The source locations of tap waters samples are approximately mapped out in Finding Figure 35.1. Finding Table 35.1. Number of samples with lead contamination taken from residential homes in the Watts area of Los Angeles. (See also corresponding map in Finding Figure 34.1). Neighborhood Block Highlighted Number of Lead Under Lead Above Area in Samples * 15 ppb 15 ppb Figure 34.1 Between E 97th St (s) & E 92nd St (n) A 22 0 0 S Alameda St (e) and Grape St (w) Jordan Downs: E 97th St (n) and E B 30 2 0 103rd St (s) S Alameda St (e) and Grape St (w) E 92nd St (n) and E 103rd St (s) C 98 3 1 Grape St (e) and Graham Ave (w) Nickerson Gardens: E 111th St (n) and D 122 3 2 Imperial Hwy (s) S Central Ave (w) and Compton Ave (e) E 103rd St (n) and E 108th St (s) E 76 4 0 Graham Ave (w) and Croesus Ave (e) Imperial Courts: Santa Ana Blvd (n) and F 42 1 0 E 117th St (s) Croesus Ave(w) and Mona Blvd (e) E 92nd St (n) and E 102nd St (s), G 78 2 0 Success Ave (w) and Grandee Ave (e) E 108th St (n) and E 111th St (s) H 41 1 2 Avalon Blvd (w) and McKinley Ave (e) * - Total number of samples analyzed with known addresses = 530 139 Hoague et al., 2024 (Unpublished). Dark Waters Project: The Assessment of the Presence of Heavy Metal Contaminants in the Tap Water of Watts Residences, and Public Perceptions of Water Infrastructure in Los Angeles. Interviewee from Better Watts Initiative, August 23, 2024 70 In the news article published by the Guardian and the Los Angeles Times regarding the above study, it was reported that the Watts area residents were “… blaming a nearby metal recycling plant, Atlas Iron and Metal, that regularly sends shards of metals zooming over its fence ...” 141, 142 The recycling plant facility is located adjacent to Jordan High School and Jordan Downs Housing Development (see map in Figure 35.1). A G C B E H D F Finding Figure 35.1. Approximate map locations of residential areas as sampling sites mentioned in Table 34.1 and their proximity to potential source of lead contamination (highlighted in red circle). Note: The indicated locations in the map are not exact and for illustration purposes only. Source of map: Google Maps. As of the writing of this report, the Los Angeles District Attorney is prosecuting the company (S&W Atlas Iron and Metal Corp.) and its two owners.143,144 “The indictment includes charges with 21 felony counts of knowingly disposing of hazardous waste with no permit and one felony count of deposit of hazardous waste.” The wastes contain hazardous substances like lead, zinc, chromium, nickel, selenium, antimony, copper, and/or cadmium.145 The Los Angeles District Attorney’s press release on September 26, 2024 says that soil samples taken from an area of Jordan High School showed excessive concentrations of lead 141 Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/21/los-angeles-watts-tap- water-lead-contamination. Accessed: December 16, 2024 142 Source: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-08-29/mayor-bass-calls-for- investigation-of-lead-in-watts-drinking-water. Accessed December 16, 2024 143 Source: https://lacounty.gov/2024/09/26/district-attorney-gascon-announces-new-25-count- grand-jury-indictment-against-atlas-metal-owners/. Accessed: December 16, 2024 144 Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-26/metal-recycling-plant-accused-of- exposing-watts-high-school-students-to-explosions-toxic-waste. Accessed: December 16, 2024 145 Source: Case No. 24CJCF05804, September 18, 2024 71 and zinc. Additional samples taken at the recycling plant contained excessive concentrations of some the aforementioned metals.
F36
In September 2024, the Los Angeles City of Department of Water and Power (DWP), in collaboration with the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), has initiated an extended analysis of tap water samples from HACLA- owned four housing developments (i.e., Jordan Downs, Imperial Courts, Nickerson Gardens, and Gonzague Village) and non-HACLA residential units located in the Watts neighborhood.146 Finding Table 36.1. Analysis of tap water samples taken from four HACLA-owned and non- HACLA residential units located in Los Angeles Watts neighborhood. HACLA Housing Units Non-HACLA Units Total No. of Samples 1,952 117 Analyzed No. of samples with no 1,133 (58.13%) 100 (85.47%) detectable lead No. of samples with lead content below State 786 (40.33%) 16 (13.68%) Reporting Limit (0.5 to 5 ppb) No. of samples with lead content above State 19 (0.97%) 1 (0.85%) Reporting Limit but under Federal Action level (5 to 15 ppb) No. of samples with lead 11 (0.56%) 0 (0.00%) content above the Federal Action Level (> 15 ppb) As of January 18, 2025, DWP has analyzed a total of 2,069 samples -- 1,952 samples from about 1,600 units of HACLA housing complexes and 117 samples from about 58 non-HACLA units. The results are summarized in Finding Table 36.1.147 About 11 samples collected from HACLA housing units have levels of lead detected above the Action Level (15 ppb). As of the end of January 2025, 146 Interviewees from HACLA (October 21, 2024) and DWP (October 31, 2024) 147 Data provided to the Jury by Interviewee from DWP, January 21, 2025 72 the project is still ongoing as DWP recruits more volunteers from non-HACLA units.148
F37
Most of the action items outlined by SCO and DWP (see Discussion section of this Report) concerning water quality issues, including possible financing mechanisms for small-scale water systems, have not been implemented.149 148 Interviewee from DWP, January 24, 2025 149 Interviewees from Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office (January 27, 2025) and Department of Public Works (January 29, 2025) 73

Recommendations 15