Agenda packet — Woodland City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Attachments:

1. Attachment A - FY 2023-2024 Draft Annual Action Plan

2. Attachment B - City Council Resolution

3. Attachment C - CDBG FY 2023-24 - AP Funding Recommendations

Page 169 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
1 Executive Summary
AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction

The Fiscal Year 2023/24 Annual Action Plan is a one-year plan to address the community development and low and moderate income housing needs in the City of Woodland. It is a portion of the implementation of the five-year Consolidated Plan and provides a detailed summary of how the City’s annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement and other funds will be spent in the third year of the City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Both the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan are implemented by staff from the Community Services Department. The City will receive $452,510 during the program year.

2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan

This could be a restatement of items or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs assessment, the housing market analysis or the strategic plan.

The following information details the proposed activities for the 2023/24 Action Plan and their consistency with the high priority needs from the City's Consolidated Plan.

Proposed 2023/24 Action Plan Activities

Public Infrastructure: City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Project (curb ramps) Public Services: Meals on Wheels, Operation Accelerate: Home Delivered Meals Program (meals for low-income senior citizens and wellness checks), Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services:

Emergency Shelter Services (100-bed shelter for homeless women and men), and Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland: food for food-insecure individuals and families address the high priority need of Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter). Northern California Children’s Therapy Center, Project HOPE (health care access for special needs children through early intervention, socialization and an array of comprehensive multiple therapy programs) and Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services address the high priority needs of Health Services and Fair Housing Activities, respectively.

Planning and Administration: City of Woodland, Administration of the City's CDBG program.

3. Evaluation of past performance

This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or projects.

Under HUD recommendations, the City will fund less infrastructure projects and less public service programs for program year 2023/24 in order to provide greater oversight and improved management of subrecipients. The City’s goal is to have a greater impact on funded programs by providing an increased award amount than typically awarded.

Page 170 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
2 During the prior program year, the City's CDBG program supported the following activities.

Construction:
• City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Project - $200,000 • New Hope Community Development Corporation, Cottonwood Meadows Phase S-3 - $47,552.13 • Yolo Community Care Continuum, Haven House Interim Care Program - $20,000 • CommuniCare Health Centers, Garden & Outdoor Classroom - $9,850 • Empower Yolo, Safe Space Project - $19,160

Public Services:
• Yolo Community Care Continuum, New Dimensions Supported Housing - $6,186 • Short Term Emergency Aid Committee, Woodland Homeless Prevention Program - $6,000 • Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate - $8,750 • Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services - $8,750 • Northern California Children’s Therapy Center, Project Hope for Children - $6,000 • Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services - $10,000 • Yolo County Children’s Alliance, MediCal & CalFresh Enrollment & Retention - $6,000 • Empower Yolo, Shelter Services - $6,185
• Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland - $8,750

Status of Construction Activities:
• ADA Accessibility Project – The project has been designed and construction will begin May 2023. • Cottonwood Meadows Phase S-3 – New Hope Community Development Corporation hired an architect to design the improvements and construction will begin in summer 2023. • Garden & Outdoor Classroom – CommuniCare will begin construction of an outdoor classroom located at its Family Wellness Center in summer 2023.
• Affordable Housing Security Gates – The installation will be completed during calendar year 2023. • Haven House Interim Care Program Upgrades – The construction of the replacement of the deck surrounding the building and the front entry deck will begin summer 2023.

4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process

Summary from citizen participation section of plan.

Page 171 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
3 the NOFA and application materials at City Hall (300 First Street - Community Development Department counter) and Woodland Community and Senior Center (2001 East Street – Community Services Department counter); (6) holding a virtual public meeting/applicant workshop on February 13, 2023 via Zoom; (7) holding a publicly noticed public meeting for citizens to review the proposed funding recommendations for FY 2023/24; (8) noticing the availability of the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan and the City Council's June 20, 2023 public hearing on the Action Plan in the May 19, 2023 edition of the Daily Democrat in Spanish and English; (9) posting the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan to the City's website (https://www.cityofwoodland.org/597/Community-Development-Block-Grant); (10) emailing members of the local continuum of care (HPAC) on the availability of the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan and the City Council's June 20, 2023 public hearing on the Action Plan; (11) making copies of the Draft Action Plan available at the public counters at the Woodland City Hall (300 First Street, Community Development Department, first floor of City Hall) and Woodland Community and Senior Center (2001 East Street, Community Services Department); and (11) holding a public hearing at the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting to receive public comments and take final action on the Action Plan.

5. Summary of public comments

This could be a brief narrative summary or reference an attached document from the Citizen Participation section of the Con Plan.

Update after the June 20, 2023 City Council public hearing and the comment period closes for the Action Plan.

6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them

Update after the June 20, 2023 City Council public hearing and the comment period closes for the Action Plan.

7. Summary

While public comments were not submitted, the City provided multiple opportunities for the community to provide public comments on the 2023/24 Action Plan and the CDBG program in general. Update after the June 20, 2023 City Council public hearing and the comment period closes for the Action Plan.

Page 172 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
4 PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)

1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan

Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency

CDBG Administrator Community Services Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies

Narrative (optional)
The lead agency that prepared the 2023/24 Action Plan was the City of Woodland's Community Services Department.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Dago Fierros, Housing Analyst II
Community Services Department
City of Woodland
2001 East Street
Woodland, CA 95776
530-661-2019
[email protected]

Page 173 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
5 AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)

1. Introduction

The City of Woodland consults and partners with a number of nonprofit services providers, private sector entities, and government agencies on programs/projects that address the needs of low and moderate income individuals and families. This covers CDBG-funded activities as well as activities supported through other funding streams including the City’s general fund, American Rescue Plan, affordable housing resources, and other sources.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))

The City is a member of the local continuum of care, Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC). HPAC is a nonprofit organization and serves as a local planning body that provides leadership and coordination on the issues of homelessness and poverty in Yolo County. In the last couple of years, HPAC has increasingly become involved in affordable housing issues as it has been responsible for allocating a number of federal and state grant funds in addition to Federal CoC Program funds. A City representative serves on HPAC's 15-member board of directors and the same individual administers the City's CDBG and affordable housing program and works on homeless-related issues. HPAC's board of directors includes representatives from service provider entities and government agencies. The City representative attends monthly meeting of HPAC's Governance Committee and Technical Subcommittee. Participation in HPAC provides ongoing opportunities to improve the coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies. Current members of HPAC include an individual with homeless lived experience, Yolo County Children's Alliance, Davis Opportunity Village, CommuniCare (nonprofit federally qualified health center), Legal Services of Northern California, Empower Yolo (shelter program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking), Yolo Community Care Continuum (permanent support housing for mentally ill adults and respite program for homeless), Davis Community Meals and Housing, Yolo Wayfarer Center (shelter, permanent supportive housing, and treatment programs), Grace in Action (services for homeless and low income individuals), City of Davis, City of Woodland, City of West Sacramento, Yolo County, and Yolo County Housing (PHA for Yolo County).

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness.

The City is a member of the local continuum of care, Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC). HPAC transitioned is a nonprofit organization serves as a local planning body that provides leadership and coordination on the issues of homelessness and poverty in Yolo County. In the last several years, HPAC has become increasingly involved in affordable housing issues as it has been responsible for allocating a number of federal and state grant funds in addition to Federal CoC Program funds. A City representative serves on HPAC's 15-member board of directors and the same individual administers the City's CDBG and affordable housing programs and works on homeless-related issues. HPAC's

Page 174 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
6 board of directors includes representatives from service provider entities and government agencies. The City representative attends monthly meeting of HPAC's Governance Committee and Technical Subcommittee. Participation in HPAC provides ongoing opportunities to improve the coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies. Current members of HPAC include an individual with homeless lived experience, Yolo County Children's Alliance, Davis Opportunity Village, CommuniCare (nonprofit federally qualified health center), Legal Services of Northern California, Empower Yolo (shelter program for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking), Yolo Community Care Continuum (permanent support housing for mentally ill adults and respite program for homeless), Davis Community Meals and Housing, Yolo Wayfarer Center (shelter, permanent supportive housing, and treatment programs), Grace in Action (services for homeless and low income individuals), City of Davis, City of Woodland, City of West Sacramento, Yolo County, and Yolo County Housing (PHA for Yolo County).

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS

The City is a board member of the local continuum of care, the nonprofit Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC). HPAC serves as a local planning body that provides leadership and coordination on the issues of homelessness and poverty in Yolo County. HPAC is responsible for holding a local competition for the allocation of ESG funds. For performance standards, they are driven by the type of project undertaken by an ESG applicant. For a shelter project, for example, the grantee will be asked to report on the number of bed nights provided. Other reporting standards may include the number of individuals exited to permanent housing and whether individuals were provided with case management services and the results (obtain ID, increased income, etc.). Results based accountability will typically be used to assess outcomes: 1) how much did we do, 2) how well did we do it, and 3) is anyone better off.

For HMIS, HPAC has established a Data Subcommittee that oversees the development and implementation of data collection in the Homeless Management Information System in compliance with the most current HMIS data standards published by HUD. Tasks assigned to the Data Subcommittee include, but are not limited to the following. • Designate a single HMIS for Yolo County and designate an HMIS lead agency. • Review the HPAC HMIS Policies and Procedures and HMIS Training Handbook document at least once annually and revise, if appropriate. As needed throughout the year, the subcommittee will draft new policies and/or revisions to address policy and training needs encountered outside the annual review process.
• Develop, implement, and monitor compliance with HPAC's Data Security and Data Quality plans to ensure compliance with HUD requirements.
• Develop procedures and data collection and quality review plans related to the annual Housing Inventory Count (HIC) and Point-in-Time (PIT) count of sheltered individuals, the biannual Point-in-Time (PIT) count of unsheltered individuals. • Review and approve submission of HUD mandated data reports, such as: 1) Point-in-Time, 2) Housing Inventory Count, 3) System Performance Measures (SPM), and 4) Longitudinal Systems Analysis (LSA).

Page 175 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
7 • Monitor training needs of HMIS end-users in Yolo County and work with HMIS lead and HMIS Administrators to meet those needs. • The HMIS Lead and HMIS Administrator may present HMIS updates that affect system utilization by end-users at Data Subcommittee meetings.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities

Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated 1 Agency/Group/Organization Yolo Wayfarer Center
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Homelessness Strategy
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What
are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation
or areas for improved coordination?
The City works extensively with the Yolo Wayfarer Center on the operation of their shelter, through the Federal Continuum of Care Program, and on other initiatives to improve the outcomes for vulnerable members of the community. For the program year, the City will be supporting operation of YWC's 100-bed shelter for women and men. The City homeless coordinator who is licensed mental health professional with 20 years of experience working in the mental health field has worked with the shelter’s staff with the overall goals of improving outcomes for clients and ensuring whenever possible that clients transition from the shelter into supportive environments. The homeless coordinator assists with the operations of the shelter by filling in gaps for transportation and case management of clients and providing encouragement/motivation to clients to improve their living situation. On occasion, the homeless coordinator will cover the cost of hard to obtain birth certificates, transport clients so they can obtain their California identification cards, and provide other support.
2 Agency/Group/Organization Yolo County Health and Human Services Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
Services-Health
Services-Employment
Other government - County

Page 176 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
8 What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homeless Needs - Chronically homeless
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was consulted. What
are the anticipated outcomes of the consultation
or areas for improved coordination?
Yolo County has been one of the key partners for development of the East Beamer Way Campus on City-owned land. Yolo County provided financial support for the construction of the 100-bed homeless shelter that was completed in December 2020 and opened in early January 2021 and has committed resources for the 61- unit permanent supportive housing project that was fully constructed and occupied in November 2022. Yolo County has assigned a case manager to work at the shelter for approximately several days each week with clients who have medical and mental health issues and assigned case managers for half of the permanent supportive housing tenants with the intent of providing case management services to all tenants in the future.

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting

Page 177 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
9 Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the goals of each plan? Continuum of Care
Homeless and
Poverty Action
Coalition (HPAC)
The City is a member of the local continuum of care, Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC). HPAC transitioned to a nonprofit organization in early 2021 and serves as a local planning body that provides leadership and coordination on the issues of homelessness and poverty in Yolo County. In the last couple of years, HPAC has increasingly become involved in affordable housing issues as it has been responsible for allocating a number of federal and state grant funds separate in addition to Federal CoC Program funds. A City representative serves on HPAC's 15-member board of directors and this individual also administers the City's CDBG program and works on affordable housing issues, programs, and projects. HPAC's board of directors includes representatives from service provider entities and government agencies. The City representative attends monthly meeting of HPAC's Governance Committee and Technical Subcommittee. Participation in HPAC provides ongoing opportunities to improve the coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies. While not funded with CDBG funds, the 61-unit permanent supportive housing project being developed by staff by the non-profit Friends of the Mission with assistance from the City and constructed on City-owned land with grant assistance from the City is consistent with HPAC goals that include providing the homeless with permanent housing and the services to support them in housing. The PSH project was completed and occupied in November 2022.

City of Woodland
Housing Element
for 2021-2029
City of Woodland
The following Strategic Plan goals overlap with goals of the City's Housing Element: Fair Housing Services - The City will fund the Fair Housing Hotline Project operated by Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC). The project provides free information and advice on fair housing issues, case intake and compliant processing, and investigation of alleged fair housing violations. The project also includes an annual fair housing conference in April that is open to landlords and tenants. Affordable Housing Monitoring - City staff will conduct annual affordable housing monitoring for affordable rental units and owner-occupied affordable units. At least 700 housing units will be monitored each year. Rehabilitation, Multi-Unit Residential - The City shall support the rehabilitation of at least 60 residential units during the Consolidated Plan period. Multi/Single Family Affordable Units Construction - The City will provide funding to support the construction of 136 affordable rental units during the period of the Consolidated Plan including units for special needs populations.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Page 178 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
10 Narrative (optional)

The City provided multiple opportunities for nonprofit service providers, the private sector, and government agencies to provide input on the City's 2023/24 Action Plan and the CDBG program in general. These efforts included the City's monthly participation as a board member of the local continuum of care (Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition or HPAC) and taking part in monthly meetings of HPAC’s Technical Subcommittee.

Page 179 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
11 AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting

Outreach efforts for the Action Plan included (1) emailing a notice of funding availability (NOFA)/notice of public meeting-applicant workshop, applications for public service and construction activities, Woodland's rating and ranking system for CDBG applications, Community Development Needs Table for Woodland's 2020 - 2024 Consolidated Plan, and a copy of the CDBG funded activities for FY 2022/23 to current and previous CDBG subrecipients and other interested parties (approximately 25 nonprofits and public agencies that provide programs in Woodland and/or Yolo County); (2) emailing the information contained in #1 to the local continuum of care, nonprofit Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition who shared with 175 individuals who provide programs in Woodland and/or Yolo County; (3) publishing the notice of funding availability in the February 3, 2023 edition of the Daily Democrat; (4) posting the NOFA and other attachments from the NOFA email on the City's website (https://www.cityofwoodland.org/597/Community-Development-Block-Grant); (5) providing copies of the NOFA and application materials at City Hall (300 First Street - Community Development Department counter) and Woodland Community and Senior Center (2001 East Street – Community Services Department counter); (6) holding a virtual public meeting/applicant workshop on February 13, 2023 via Zoom; (7) holding a publicly noticed public meeting for citizens to review the proposed funding recommendations for FY 2023/24; (8) noticing the availability of the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan and the City Council's June 20, 2023 public hearing on the Action Plan in the May 19, 2023 edition of the Daily Democrat in Spanish and English; (9) posting the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan to the City's website (https://www.cityofwoodland.org/597/Community-Development-Block-Grant); (10) emailing members of the local continuum of care (HPAC) on the availability of the draft FY 2023/24 Action Plan and the City Council's June 20, 2023 public hearing on the Action Plan; (11) making copies of the Draft Action Plan available at the public counters at the Woodland City Hall (300 First Street, Community Development Department, first floor of City Hall) and Woodland Community and Senior Center (2001 East Street, Community Services Department); and (11) holding a public hearing at the June 20, 2023 City Council meeting to receive public comments and take final action on the Action Plan.

Page 180 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
12 Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
1 Internet
Outreach
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
Emailing a
notice of
funding
availability
(NOFA)/notice
of public
meeting-
applicant
workshop was
emailed to
current CDBG
subrecipients
and other
interested
parties. The
same
information was
also emailed to
the local
continuum of
care's email list.

Prospective
applicants
asked
questions
about the
funding
available and
provided
general
comments on
the City's
CDBG
program.

The City did not
decline
comments.

Page 181 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
13 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
2 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
The notice of
funding
availability
(NOFA)/notice
public meeting-
applicant
workshop was
published in the
February 3,
2023 edition of
the Woodland
Daily Democrat.

Comments
were not
submitted in
response to
the newspaper
advertisement.

The City did not
decline
comments.

Page 182 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
14 3
Posting on
City's website
February 3,
2023.

Non-
targeted/broa
d community
The notice of
funding
availability
(NOFA)/notice
of public
meeting-
applicant
workshop,
applications for
public service
and
construction
activities,
Woodland's
rating and
ranking system
for CDBG
applications, the
Community
Development
Needs Table for
Woodland's
2020-2024
Consolidated
Plan, and a copy
of a table with
the CBDG-
funded activities
for 2022/23
were posted to
the City's
website.

Comments
were not
submitted in
response to
the website
posting.

The City did not
decline
comments.
https://www.cityofwoodland.org/597/
Community-Development-Block-Grant

Page 183 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
15 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
4 NOFA &
application
materials
available at
City Hall on
February 6,
2023.

Non-
targeted/broa
d community
Copies of the
notice of
funding
availability
(NOFA)/notice
of public
meeting-
applicant
workshop and
application
materials were
made available
at the
Woodland City
Hall (300 First
Street -
Community
Development
Department
public counter)
and Woodland
Community &
Senior Center
(2001 East
Street –
Community
Services
Department).

Comments
were not
submitted in
response to
the availability
of the NOFA
and
application
materials.

The City did not
decline
comments.

Page 184 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
16 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
5 Newspaper
Ad
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
The notice of
public meeting
on May 19, 2023
was published in
the May 17,
2023 edition of
the Woodland
Daily Democrat.

Comments
were not
submitted in
response to
the newspaper
advertisement
or at the
meeting.

The City did not
decline
comments.

Page 185 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
17 6
Public
Meetings on
February 13,
2023 and May
19, 2023
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
City staff
convened a
meeting at the
Woodland
Community and
Senior Center
on February 13,
2023 to brief
CDBG applicants
on the
application
process and
receive
community
input on the
City's CDBG
program.

Representatives
from six service
providers
participated in
the meeting.

City staff also
held a meeting
at the same
location on May
19, 2023 to
receive input
from citizens on
the proposed
funding
recommendatio
ns.

While the
meeting
attendees
asked a
number of
questions
about the
eligibility of
their projects,
comments
were not
provided on
the overall
CDBG
program. No
comments
were received
at the May 19,
2023 meeting.

The City did not
decline
comments.

Page 186 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
18 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
7 Newspaper
Ad
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish

Non-
targeted/broa
d community
A notice of
availability of
the draft
2023/24 Action
Plan/notice of
June 20, 2023
City Council
public hearing
for the Action
was published in
the May 19,
2023 edition of
the Woodland
Daily Democrat.

The notice was
published in
English and
Spanish.

Update after
City Council
public hearing
and public
comment
period closes
for Action Plan.

Update after City
Council public
hearing and
public comment
period closes for
Action Plan.

Page 187 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
19 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
8 Notice of
draft Action
Plan and City
Council public
hearing
posted to City
website
Non-English
Speaking -
Specify other
language:

Spanish

Non-
targeted/broa
d community
A notice of
availability of
the draft
2023/24 Action
Plan/notice of
June 20, 2023
City Council
public hearing
for the Action
was posted to
the City's
website in
English and
Spanish. In
addition, a copy
of the draft
Action Plan was
posted to the
website as well.

Update after
City Council
public hearing
and public
comment
period closes
for Action
Plan..

Update after City
Council public
hearing and
public comment
period closes for
Action Plan.
https://www.cityofwoodland.org/597/
Community-Development-Block-Grant

Page 188 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
20 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
9 Internet
Outreach
Local
Continuum of
Care
(Homeless
and Poverty
Action
Coalition)
A notice of
availability of
the draft
2023/24 Action
Plan/notice of
June 20, 2023
City Council
public hearing
for the Action
Plan was
emailed to the
local of
continuum of
care's email list.

Update after
City Council
public hearing
and public
comment
period closes
for Action Plan.

Update after City
Council public
hearing and
public comment
period closes for
Action Plan.

Page 189 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
21 Sort Or
der
Mode of Outr
each
Target of Outr
each
Summary of
response/atten
dance
Summary of
comments rec
eived
Summary of com
ments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
10 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broa
d community
The Woodland
City Council held
a public hearing
at its June 20,
2023 meeting to
receive public
comments on
the proposed
2023/24 CDBG
Action Plan. The
public was
provided with
opportunities to
comment on the
Action Plan for a
30-day period
before the
meeting and
during the
meeting.

Update after
City Council
public hearing
and public
comment
period closes
for Action Plan.

Update after City
Council public
hearing and
public comment
period closes for
Action Plan.

Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach

Page 190 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
22 Expected Resources
AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c)(1,2)

Introduction

For the fourth year of the City’s Consolidated Plan, a total of $452,510 in CDBG funds will be available for infrastructure and public service activities. These funds will leveraged with approximately $220,000 in non-federal and non-state resources from subrecipients that includes in- kind contributions, subrecipient funds, fundraising, client portion of rents, donations, support from foundations, and corporate support. The discussion at the end of this section highlights non-CDBG funds that be available during the Consolidated Plan period.

Anticipated Resources
Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder of
ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public Services 452,510 0.00 0.00 452,510 450,000
Annual allocation of
$452,510 will be
available for projects in
FY 2023/24.

Page 191 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
23 Program Source of
Funds
Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected Amount
Available
Remainder of
ConPlan
$
Narrative Description
Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
Competitive
McKinney-
Vento
Homeless
Assistance
Act
Public-
federal
Housing
348,174 348,174 348,174
In March 2023, the U.S.

Department of Housing
and Urban Development
notified the City the it
had been awarded three
renewal grants through
HUD's 2022 (payment
year 2023/24)
Continuum of Care
Program Competition.

The City and the
nonprofit organization
Fourth and Hope
partnered to submit the
grant applications:

Reallocation from
Transitional Housing to
Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH) for
Chronically Homeless. All
the grant projects will
provided permanent
supportive housing for
homeless families and
individuals.

Page 192 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
24 Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table

Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied

The CDBG Program does not require matching funds. However, the City Of Woodland strives to leverage federal funding with State, local, and private resources. For Program Year 2023, federal funds will be leveraged with approximately $220,000 in non-federal and non-state funds for the following CDBG-funded public service activities. In addition, this list includes non-CDBG funded activities that align and support the goals of the City’s CDBG Consolidated Plan and are funded through the City at an estimated amount of $600,000.

Northern California Children’s Therapy Center, Project HOPE Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate
Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services
Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland
City of Woodland, Homeless Coordinator, SB2 PLHA
City of Woodland, Affordable Housing Funds, CA HOME program City of Woodland, Campership Program (Summer Recreation Scholarships) City of Woodland, After School Teen Pack

Page 193 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
25 If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan

The City, Yolo County, key nonprofit agencies, and local health care providers have partnered to support the East Beamer Way Campus on City-owned land. East Beamer Way will include three components: a 100-bed shelter for single men and women (constructed in late 2020 and operational in early January 2021), 61 units of permanent supportive housing, and a 60-bed substance use disorder treatment facility. The East Beamer Way campus represents a paradigm shift in how to address the homeless challenges in Woodland. The East Beamer Way property is located directly north of the City limits within the City's General Plan area. The City deeded the shelter site to a local nonprofit, Friends of Mission, at no cost. The phase two infrastructure work for the PSH and treatment facility sites was completed and the State awarded the City and co-applicant Friends of the Mission a $15,770,467 Homekey grant in March 2022 for the PSH project. Homekey funds allowed Friends of the Mission to complete the purchase/installation of the housing units; will allow the purchase/install a 2,500 square foot community center with offices, conference space, gather area, and a medical examination room; and receive a three-year operating subsidy. The housing units were installed and occupied by November 2022. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was notified that it had been awarded conditionally a $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. The construction of the treatment facility will begin in May 2023.

Discussion

In 2018, the City established a homeless coordinator position to address citywide needs for individuals and families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The position is funded through the City's general fund and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation grant received by the City. The homeless coordinator who is a licensed mental health professional with 20 years of experience working in the mental health field engages homeless residents, provides referrals for services, and collaborates closely with social service agencies and Yolo County to coordinate services and housing options whenever possible. The individual in this position works with the staff of the Yolo Wayfarer Center’s 100-bed homeless shelter and the 61-unit permanent supporting housing project with the overall goals of improving outcomes for clients and ensuring whenever possible that clients transition from the shelter into supportive, longer-term housing environments. Other activities include assisting with the operations of the shelter by filling in gaps for transportation and case management of clients and providing encouragement/motivation to clients to improve their living situation. On occasion, the homeless coordinator will cover the cost of hard to obtain birth certificates, transport clients so they can obtain their California identification cards, and provide other support. In February 2022, the homeless coordinator served as one of the two organizers for the point-in-time count of homeless individuals in Woodland.

Page 194 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
26 Annual Goals and Objectives

AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic
Area
Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome Indicator
1 Public Facilities &
Improvements
(includes ADA)
2023 2024 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Public Facilities &
Improvements
(includes ADA)
CDBG:
$294,131.50
ADA compliant curb ramps will be
constructed at up to 6 locations
within the City’s ADA priority route.

Disabled individuals will benefit
from the ADA curb ramp
improvements.
2 Public Services
(Other:

Emergency Food
& Shelter)
2023 2024 Homeless
Individuals At-
Risk
Public Services
(Other:

Emergency Food
& Shelter)
CDBG: $45,000
City General
Fund: $100,000
(estimate)
Projects will provide meals and
shelter to qualified seniors, low-
income households, and individuals
experiencing homelessness.
3 Fair Housing
Services (Subject
to PS Cap)
2023 2024 Fair Housing
Services
Fair Housing
Activities
(Subject to PS
Cap)
CDBG: $10,000 Project will provide fair housing
assistance to lower income qualified
residents who have housing issues
or complaints.
4 Health Services 2023 2024 Health
Services
Health Services CDBG:
$12,867.50
Projects will provide health care
access for low-income qualified
special needs children through early
intervention, socialization and an
array of comprehensive multiple
therapy programs aimed at helping
disabled children achieve their
greatest level of independence.
5 Affordable
Housing
Monitoring
2023 2024 Affordable
Housing
Monitoring
Other CDBG: $0
City General
Fund: $10,000
(estimate)
Other: 700 Other

Page 195 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
27 Table 6 – Goals Summary
Goal Descriptions

1 Goal Name Public Facilities & Improvements (includes ADA) Goal
Description
City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Project – The City will design and construct curb ramp improvements at up to 6 locations. The locations are on the City's ADA Priority Route which was identified in conjunction with the City's ad hoc committee of community members with disabilities and is coordinated with Yolobus routes throughout the City. 2 Goal Name Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Goal
Description
Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate - Meals on Wheels will provide hot, noontime meals and weekday safety checks for homebound, low-income senior citizens.

Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services - YWC offers dormitory-style shelter for up to 100 homeless individuals and a day services program on a daily basis. The shelter program provides three nutritious meals a day, case management, mailbox services, showers, laundry facilities, and access to substance use treatment upon referral and availability. Assistance accessing mainstream benefit programs as well as job and housing search assistance are provided.

Participants in the day services program which is staged in large courtyard adjacent to the shelter do not need to reside at the shelter and services include meals, resource/referral information, showers/restrooms, and laundry.

Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland – YFB will collect, sort, store, and distribute food to food insecure low-income individuals.

City of Woodland, Homeless Coordinator - The Homeless Coordinator addresses citywide needs for individuals and families that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. This position consults, refers cases, and works actively with government agencies and private partners/community groups. 3 Goal Name Fair Housing Services (Subject to PS Cap)
Goal
Description
Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services - Legal Services will provide fair housing services through phone and in-person consultations with Woodland residents who contact Legal Services with housing complaints. Attorneys from Legal Services will advise clients with fair housing issues of their right under fair housing laws. Attorneys will also pursue reasonable accommodations, where appropriate, and assist clients in filing complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the California State Department of Fair Employment and Housing when the issue cannot be resolved informally. Legal Services also holds an annual fair housing workshop in collaboration with the City of Woodland and Yolo County Housing.

Page 196 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
28 4 Goal Name Health Services
Goal
Description
Northern California Children's Therapy Center, Project Hope - NCCTC will provide health care access for special needs children through early intervention, socialization and an array of comprehensive multiple therapy programs aimed at helping disabled children achieve their greatest level of independence. 5 Goal Name Affordable Housing Monitoring
Goal
Description
The City will monitor more than 700 affordable housing units during the program year.

Page 197 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
29 Projects
AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
Construction activities include ADA Accessibility Program (City of Woodland)

While not supported with CDBG funds, the City expects to make progress on providing permanent supportive housing for the homeless and supporting homeless outreach and related services during the program year through the following two activities.

The City, Yolo County, key nonprofit agencies, and local health care providers have partnered to support the East Beamer Way Campus on City- owned land. East Beamer Way will include three components: a 100-bed shelter for single men and women (constructed in late 2020 and operational in early January 2021), 61 units of permanent supportive housing, and a 60-bed substance use disorder treatment facility. The East Beamer Way campus represents a paradigm shift in how to address the homeless challenges in Woodland. The East Beamer Way property is located directly north of the City limits within the City's General Plan area. The City deeded the shelter site to a local nonprofit, Friends of Mission, at no cost. The phase two infrastructure work for the PSH and treatment facility sites was completed and the State awarded the City and co-applicant Friends of the Mission a $15,770,467 Homekey grant in March 2022 for the PSH project. Homekey funds allowed Friends of the Mission to complete the purchase/installation of the housing units; will allow the purchase/install a 2,500 square foot community center with offices, conference space, gather area, and a medical examination room; and receive a three-year operating subsidy. The housing units were installed and occupied by November 2022. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was notified that it had been awarded conditionally a $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. The construction of the treatment facility will begin in May 2023.

Page 198 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
30 served as one of the two organizers for the point-in-time count of homeless individuals in Woodland.

Projects
# Project Name
1 City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Project
2 Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate
3 Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services
4 Northern California Children's Therapy Center, Project HOPE 5 Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services 6 Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland
7 City of Woodland, CDBG Administration

Table 7 - Project Information

Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs

The allocation priorities address high priority needs established in 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and are being implemented by the 2023-2024 Action Plan. While not supported with CDBG funds, other efforts consistent with the Consolidated Plan that will occur during the program year include completion of the 61-unit permanent supportive housing project at the East Beamer Way Campus and employing a full-time homeless coordinator to address citywide needs for individual and families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness. While funding streams for addressing homeless-related issues and affordable housing in general have increased in the last couple of years and particularly to address impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic, additional resources are needed. One particular challenge is addressing the case management needs of homeless individuals on the street, in shelter, and in permanent housing. While the City had been using CDBG CV3 funds to support behavioral health services provided by the Yolo Wayfarer Center for its emergency shelter and permanent supportive housing programs, these are one-time funds. Although sheltering and housing the homeless is important, the success of homeless individuals progressing in these programs, establishing stability for physical and mental health, and maintaining their housing can be undermined without regular case management services.

AP-38 Project Summary
Project Summary Information

Page 199 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
31 1 Project Name City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Project Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Public Facilities & Improvements (includes ADA) Needs Addressed Public Facilities & Improvements (includes ADA) Funding CDBG: $294,131.50
Description ADA compliant curb ramps will be constructed at up to 6 locations.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
It is estimated that 250 persons who are disabled will benefit from the ADA curb ramp improvements.

Location Description Locations of the proposed ADA improvements are Second Street/Hays Street, Marshall Avenue/First Street, Ashley Avenue/Porter Street, Monte Vista Drive/ Delta Drive.

Planned Activities ADA compliant curb ramps will be constructed at up to 6 locations. 2 Project Name Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Needs Addressed Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description Meals on Wheels will provide five hot meals per week and weekday safety checks for homebound, low-income senior citizens.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
An estimated 75 low-income senior citizens will benefit from the Operation Accelerate Meals on Wheels program.

Location Description The Meals on Wheels program will be available citywide for income- eligible senior citizens.

Planned Activities Meals on Wheels will provide five hot meals per week and weekday safety checks for homebound, low-income senior citizens. 3 Project Name Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Needs Addressed Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description The Yolo Wayfarer Center will offer dormitory-style shelter for up to 100 homeless individuals daily at its emergency shelter. The shelter program provides three nutritious meals a day, case management, mailbox services, showers, laundry facilities, and access to substance use treatment upon referral and availability. Assistance accessing mainstream benefit programs as well as job and housing search assistance are provided.

Target Date 6/30/2024

Page 200 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
32 Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
An estimated 300 very low-income individuals who are homeless will benefit from the emergency shelter services provided by the Yolo Wayfarer Center.

Location Description The Yolo Wayfarer Center's emergency shelter is located at 1901 East Beamer Street, Woodland, CA 95776
Planned Activities The Yolo Wayfarer Center will offer dormitory-style shelter for up to 100 homeless individuals daily at its emergency shelter. The shelter program provides three nutritious meals a day, case management, mailbox services, showers, laundry facilities, and access to substance use treatment upon referral and availability. Assistance accessing mainstream benefit programs as well as job and housing search assistance are provided.
4 Project Name Northern California Children's Therapy Center, Project HOPE Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Health Services
Needs Addressed Health Services
Funding CDBG: $12,876.50
Description Project HOPE will provide health care access for special needs children through early intervention, socialization and an array of comprehensive multiple therapy programs aimed at helping disabled children achieve their greatest level of independence.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
An estimated 250 special needs children from lower-income households will benefit from the health care services provided through Project HOPE.

Location Description Project HOPE will provide therapy services citywide to income-eligible families.

Planned Activities Project HOPE will provide health care access for special needs children through early intervention, socialization and an array of comprehensive multiple therapy programs aimed at helping disabled children achieve their greatest level of independence.
5 Project Name Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Fair Housing Services (Subject to PS Cap) Needs Addressed Fair Housing Activities (Subject to PS Cap) Funding CDBG: $10,000

Page 201 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
33 Description Legal Services of Northern California (Woodland office) will provide fair housing services through phone and in-person consultations with Woodland residents who contact Legal Services with housing complaints. Attorneys from Legal Services will advise clients with fair housing issues of their right under fair housing laws. Attorneys will also pursue reasonable accommodations, where appropriate, and assist clients in filing complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the California State Department of Fair Employment and Housing when the issue cannot be resolved informally.

Legal Services also holds an annual fair housing workshop in collaboration with the City of Woodland and Yolo County Housing.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
An estimated 102 lower-income individuals will benefit from the Fair Housing services provided by Legal Services of Northern California.

Location Description Fair Housing Services will be provided citywide to income-eligible individuals.

Planned Activities Legal Services of Northern California (Woodland office) will provide fair housing services through phone and in-person consultations with Woodland residents who contact Legal Services with housing complaints. Attorneys from Legal Services will advise clients with fair housing issues of their right under fair housing laws. Attorneys will also pursue reasonable accommodations, where appropriate, and assist clients in filing complaints with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the California State Department of Fair Employment and Housing when the issue cannot be resolved informally. Legal Services also holds an annual fair housing workshop in collaboration with the City of Woodland and Yolo County Housing. 6 Project Name Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland
Target Area Not applicable
Goals Supported Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Needs Addressed Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter) Funding CDBG: $15,000
Description The Yolo Food Bank will collect, sort, store, and distribute food to food insecure individuals.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
An estimated 150 individuals will benefit from the Yolo Food Bank's Nurture Woodland program.

Location Description The Food Bank's Nurture Woodland program will be available citywide.

Planned Activities The Yolo Food Bank will collect, sort, store, and distribute food to food insecure individuals.
7 Project Name City of Woodland, CDBG Administration
Target Area Not applicable

Page 202 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
34 Goals Supported Public Facilities & Improvements (includes ADA) Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter)
Fair Housing Services (Subject to PS Cap)
Health Services
Affordable Housing Monitoring
Needs Addressed Public Facilities & Improvements (includes ADA) Public Services (Other: Emergency Food & Shelter)
Fair Housing Activities (Subject to PS Cap)
Health Services
Funding CDBG: $90,502
Description CDBG funds will be used for the administration of the City of Woodland's CDBG program.

Target Date 6/30/2024
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Not applicable as the funding will be used for the administration of the City's CDBG program.

Location Description Not applicable as the funding will be used for the administration of the City's CDBG program.

Planned Activities CDBG funds will be used for the administration of the City of Woodland's CDBG program.

Page 203 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
35 AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed
The following construction activities are located in low-moderate income Census Block Groups.

City of Woodland, ADA Accessibility Program (at least eleven of the accessible ramp locations)

For public service activities, the following activities are located in low-moderate income Census Block Groups; however, these activities as well as the other activities proposed for funding are available on a citywide basis to income-eligible individuals.

Meals on Wheel Yolo County, Operation Accelerate Program Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland
Northern California Children's Therapy Center, Project HOPE Legal Services of Northern California, Fair Housing Services Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services

According to the most recent American Community Survey five-year estimates (2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates), the distribution of minority persons based on race at the Census block group level does not include any concentrations. A concentration is defined as 51 percent or more. For Asians, the greatest concentration occurs in Block Group 2, Census Tract 111.02 at 21.2 percent. For Black or African American, the greatest concentration occurs in Block Group 1, Census Tract 109.02 at 11.8 percent. While there are no race concentrations at the Census block group level, there are ethnic concentrations. The 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates shows 48.3 percent of Woodland is Hispanic or Latino. For the Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, there are concentrations in fourteen Census block groups and eleven of the block groups (marked in bold) are located in low-moderate income Census block groups: Block Groups 1 and 3, Census Tract 108; Block Group 1, Census Tract 109.01; Block Groups 2 and 3, Census Tract 109.01; Block Groups 1 and 2, Census Tract 109.02; Block Group 2, Census Tract 110.01; Block Group 1, Census Tract 111.01; Block Group 2, Census Tract 111.01; Block Groups 1 and 2, Census Tract 111.02; Block Group 1, Census Tract 111.03; and Block Group 3, Census Tract 112.05.

Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds

Table 8 - Geographic Distribution

Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically

As noted in the above item (Description of the areas of the entitlement...), a number of the CDBG projects and programs that will be funded are located in low-moderate income Census Block Gropes. However, the programs offered by the organizations are available citywide to income-eligible households.

Discussion

Target Areas are not designated for Woodland's Consolidated Plan. Proposed public service activities are available to residents throughout the City.

Page 204 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
36 Affordable Housing
AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
For the program year, the City will use CDBG and other funds to provide affordable housing assistance through the following activities.

1. Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services (Food and Shelter support services for approximately 300 individuals experiencing homelessness)

The City will use non-CDBG funds to provide affordable housing for the homeless through the following project.

Directly north of the shelter facility is the site where 61 units of permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals was constructed. The City and grant co-applicant Friends of the Mission were awarded a $15,770,467 State Homekey grant in March 2022; the grant was used to purchase/install the housing units, provided funding for a community center, and establish a three-year operating subsidy for the PSH project. The final component of the East Beamer Way campus is a new 60-bed substance use disorder treatment facility (Walter's House) that will replace an existing facility with 44 beds. Infrastructure work for the treatment facility site has been completed. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was awarded $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. The existing treatment facility may be converted into a family shelter once the new facility is operational. The City's commitment for East Beamer Way has been significant as the City served as the developer, donated the land, and has provided approximately $1,400,000 with a majority of the funds being derived from affordable housing revenues received by the City.

One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 300
Non-Homeless 225
Special-Needs 250
Total 775
Table 9 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement

One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance
The Production of New Units
Rehab of Existing Units
Acquisition of Existing Units
Total

Page 205 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
37 Table 10 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type

Discussion
The number of households supported in table 6 and 7 are actually individuals planned to be supported by CDBG funds.

The City continues to partner with local nonprofits Friends of the Mission, Yolo Wayfarer Center, and Woodland Opportunity Village; Yolo County; and regional health care providers including Dignity Health to develop the East Beamer Way campus on City-owned property.

Page 206 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
38 AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)

Introduction

Yolo County Housing (YCH) serves as the public housing authority for Yolo County, administers the countywide Housing Choice Voucher program (individual vouchers, project-based vouchers, and special purpose vouchers); operates public housing facilities, agricultural housing, and other affordable housing projects throughout Yolo County; and offers other programs. In Woodland, YCH operates two public housing developments: Yolano Village (60 family units) and Donnelly Circle (72 family units) which are generally fully occupied. A total of 6,711 families were on the wait list for the two developments in 2021.

Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing

For the program year, the City plans to fund the following public service activities which are available to public housing residents and other eligible Woodland residents: Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland (food); Northern California Children's Therapy Center, Project HOPE (health care access for special needs children), Meals on Wheels Yolo County, Operation Accelerate (home-delivered meals to low income senior citizens).

While not funded through the CDBG program, the City provides other programs that may benefit public housing residents. The City through funding from its Measure J sales tax measure provides scholarships for youth day camps, swim lessons, lifeguard training, and tennis classes. Scholarships result in a substantial fee reduction (except tennis, which is free) and are available to families that earn no more than 60% of the countywide median household income, adjusted for household size. Generally, families that meet the requirements for the school lunch program are eligible for the scholarships. In addition, the City operates a Summer at City Hall program. This program is a partnership between the City and Woodland Joint Unified School District. The program exposes high school students to how local government works, positive approaches to influence decision making, and democracy. Students tour City and County departments, received lessons on civics, participate in job shadowing City personnel, and participate in an advocacy project. Upon completion of the program, students receive a stipend from the City and school credit from the School District.

Another initiative not funded with CDBG funds and available to residents of public housing includes the Woodland Promise Program to support local higher education access and equity. This initiative, a partnership between the City and Woodland Community College, started in fall 2021 and provided financial resources to help 20 Woodland students who might not otherwise be able to afford a college education and supports the Consolidated Plan high priority need of employment training. Measure J sales tax revenues were used to support the two-year Woodland Promise Program initiative.

Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership

Yolo County Housing (YCH) is governed by a board of commissioners separate from the City of Woodland's jurisdiction. Two of the commissioners are residents of YCH developments which includes public housing facilities and other low-income developments. A public housing residents group meets on a quarterly basis to discuss issues affecting public housing residents and provide YCH management

Page 207 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
39 with input. While the City of Woodland is not involved in the governance or oversight of YCH and its public housing program, City programs including recreation scholarships, first time homebuyer loan assistance, Rec2Go (mobile recreation van), part-time employment opportunities for high school students through the City's recreational programs, and Summer at City Hall are available to public housing residents. Summer at City Hall is a partnership between the City and Woodland Joint Unified School District that exposes youth to how local government works, positive approaches to influence decision-making, and democracy. Participants receive a stipend and school credit after completion of the program.

If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance

Yolo County Housing which serves as the PHA for Yolo County is not designated as troubled.

Discussion

Public housing is funded through Congressional appropriations. According to the National Housing Law Project (NHLP), Congress has not adequately funded public housing for decades and it is estimated that public housing units nationwide need at least $45 billion in repairs. While NHLP notes that HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program creates some opportunities to preserve and rehabilitate existing public housing units, it cautions that these efforts must be balanced to lessen the impacts on existing tenants. While the public housing units in Woodland (Yolano Village and Donnelly Circle) are in good condition; funds will be needed to preserve and modernize them. Yolo County Housing is engaged in discussions with HUD on converting the public housing provided at Yolano Village (60 family units) and Donnelly Circle (72 family units) into a housing choice voucher supported program. Potentially, moving to a voucher supported program and exiting public housing could result in construction of new units for public housing residents. However, this is a long process predicated on HUD's approval of the conversation to a voucher supported program and the ability to finance new construction. If successful, YCH would construct approximately 400 rental units in a multi-story mixed income development to accommodate the existing 132 public housing units and other housing units for low to moderate income households. The development would also include first floor retail uses. To support YCH’s efforts, the City in 2022 included $500,000 in its American Rescue Plan funding plan toward the project.

Page 208 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
40 AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction

The Yolo County Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition conducted the 2022 Yolo County Homeless Count on February 22, 2022. The Homeless Count is a survey of individuals and families identified as experiencing sheltered or unsheltered homelessness within the boundaries of Yolo County on a single night in January. It is important to recognize that the count reflects only those persons identified as homeless within the county on a single day. Many individuals and families move in and out of homelessness during the course of a year, meaning that the actual number of people experiencing homelessness in 2022 may be higher than the numbers included in the count. A total of 783 homeless individuals (368 sheltered and 415 unsheltered) were counted countywide. The previous homeless count occurred took place on January 22, 2019. A total of 655 individuals were identified as homeless in 2019: 258 sheltered and 397 unsheltered.

Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs

Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services - The shelter program offers dormitory style shelter for up to 100 adult women and men and includes three nutritious meals a day, mailbox services, showers, laundry facilities, and resources/referral services - including assistance accessing mainstream benefits. Shelter participants are required to make progress on their personal development/housing plans after ten days at the shelter. This includes activities in the areas of physical and mental health, income/employment, and housing goals.

Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons

Homeless persons will be assisted through the following CDBG-funded public service activities. Please see the above narrative for a description of the activities.

Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services

Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.

Continuum of Care Program - HUD in 2023 awarded the City one 2022 Continuum of Care Competition grant renewal for the permanent supporting housing project: Reallocation from Transitional Housing to Permanent Supportive Housing. The City's subrecipient, the Yolo Wayfarer Center, will use the grant funds to provide permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals and families. The Action Plan includes funding for Yolo Wayfarer Center to provide services at the emergency homeless shelter.

Yolo Wayfarer Center, Emergency Shelter Services - The shelter program offers dormitory style shelter for up to 100 adult women and men and includes three nutritious meals a day, mailbox services,

Page 209 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
41 showers, laundry facilities, and resources/referral services - including assistance accessing mainstream benefits. Shelter participants are required to make progress on their personal development/housing plans after ten days at the shelter. This includes activities in the areas of physical and mental health, income/employment, and housing goals.

Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low- income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs.

City of Woodland, Homeless Coordinator - This activity which is not funded through the City's CDBG program addresses citywide needs for individuals and families that are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Yolo Food Bank, Nurture Woodland - This activity distributes food to food insecure people in Woodland.

Discussion

The final component of the East Beamer Way campus is a new 60-bed treatment facility (Walter's House) that will replace an existing facility with 44 beds. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was notified that it had been awarded conditionally a $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. Construction will begin in May 2023. The existing treatment facility may be converted into a family shelter. The City's commitment for East Beamer Way has been significant as the City served as the developer, donated the land, and will end up providing funds in excess of $1,400,000 with a majority of the funds being derived from affordable housing revenues received by the City.

Page 210 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
42 AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)

Introduction:

Addressing barriers to affordable housing often involves actions at the federal and state government levels as well as market conditions that the City has little or no control over. However, the City began a concerted planning effort in 2018 to affect significant changes in the resources available and delivery system for homeless services with the ultimate goal of transitioning individuals into permanent supportive housing. This effort is known as the East Beamer Way Campus and the City has partnered with local nonprofits Friends of the Mission, Yolo Wayfarer Center, and Woodland Opportunity Village; Yolo County; and regional health care providers including Dignity Health to develop the East Beamer Way campus on City-owned property at the northwest corner of East Beamer Street and County Road 102 for a new expanded homeless shelter, permanent supportive housing units, and a new expanded treatment facility. Construction of the homeless shelter was completed in December 2020 and operations began in January 2021. The shelter provides 100 beds for adult women and men while the previous shelter had capacity for 65 beds which included using the dining hall for sleeping quarters.

Directly north of the shelter facility is the 61 unit permanent supportive housing project for homeless individuals. The final infrastructure work for the PSH site was completed and the housing units were constructed and installed in November 2022. The final component of the East Beamer Way campus is a new 60-bed treatment facility (Walter's House) that will replace an existing facility with 44 beds. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was notified that it had been awarded conditionally a $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. Construction will begin in May 2023. The existing treatment facility may be converted into a family shelter. The City's commitment for East Beamer Way has been significant as the City served as the developer, donated the land, and will end up providing funds in excess of $1,400,000 with a majority of the funds being derived from affordable housing revenues received by the City.

Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment

The City is working on a comprehensive update to its Zoning Ordinance in order to bring it in alignment with the 2017 comprehensive update to the City's General Plan. A number of the changes will be focused on easing development requirements for residential development. The City has already taken a number of steps encourage residential development including allowing staff level design and site plan review for multi-family rental projects that are consistent with development standards and significantly increasing residential development densities in older sections of the City to promote infill development.

Discussion:

Perhaps the most significant barrier to affordable housing in California, the region, and the city (Woodland) is the shortage of housing units. There are a number of reasons for this, but efforts must be focused on increasing the supply of rental and for sale units. Woodland has taken a number of steps to increase housing particularly in the older, central areas of the City by increasing densities and working with developers on objective development standards and other aspects to lessen the barriers for

Page 211 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
43 residential projects. For example, in December 2020, City staff completed a staff level site plan and design review for a multi-family rental project at 310 W. Main Street. A second developer was able to use City staff’s approval of the site plan and design review to move forward with an affordable housing project at the site and construction of the first phase (72 units) began in April 2022. These efforts will continue and hopefully result in a significant number of new units. Construction is anticipated to be complete in Summer of 2023 and tenant move-ins in Fall of 2023.

Page 212 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
44 AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)

Introduction:

The City of Woodland will continue efforts addressing obstacles to meet underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, reduce lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty-level families, develop institutional structure, and enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies.

Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs

The City is a member of the board of directors for the new nonprofit Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC) which serves as the Continuum of Care for Yolo County. As a result of California's increased focus on homelessness and affordable housing and resources made available by the federal government because of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant financial resources are administered through HPAC for award to social services agencies and local governments to provide services for the homeless, shelter for the homeless, and funding for affordable housing projects. The City continues to work with other HPAC board members to award funds as strategically as possible to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs.

Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing

The City continues to explore opportunities to develop affordable housing through collaborative efforts with affordable housing developers. The City will use available resources to ensure that affordable housing projects remain viable and do not convert to market rate. The City will also continue creating affordable housing through its Inclusionary Housing Program. Specific actions that the City will take during the Action Plan period include the following.

1. The City has an active first time homebuyers loan assistance program funded through HOME, BEGIN, and CalHome Program Income (repaid housing loans) and the existing funding is sufficient to assist at least eight and potentially additional households purchase new or resale homes.

2. City staff will monitor the current inventory of affordable units to ensure that the affordability restrictions are being met. Activities will include on-site monitoring visits to multi-family projects, desk reviews of multi-family projects, and mailings to owner-occupied affordable units to verify continued residency.

3. The City will continue its service as a member of the board of directors for the nonprofit Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC) which serves as the Continuum of Care for Yolo County.

4. The program year CDBG-funded public service activities include support of the Yolo Wayfarer Center's emergency shelter, Yolo Community Care Continuum's New Dimensions Supported Housing (housing and supportive services for mentally ill adults at-risk of homelessness), and Empower Yolo's emergency shelter for survivors of domestics violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking.

5. The City will continue its partnership with nonprofit Friends of the Mission to ensure that the 60-bed substance use disorder treatment facility is being constructed on City-owned land is completed during the program year.

Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards

The City of Woodland will continue to take action to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards,

Page 213 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
45 including disseminating information through the service-provider agencies, securing funding to assess lead hazard risk in CDBG-funded facilities, remediating lead hazards in CDBG-funded facilities, and cooperating with the County Health Department in promoting comprehensive health programs, risk screening, public education and prevention. The City will take the following actions during the program year to reduce lead-based paint hazards.
• Require all CDBG-funded construction projects to comply with HUD lead-based paint hazard reduction requirements;
• Provide technical assistance to people undertaking home improvement projects to avoid exposure to lead-based paint hazards.
• Update current Lead-Based Paint Polices and Procedures. • The City will continue providing technical assistance and support to programs and projects that require lead-based paint testing and abatement.

Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families

While the East Beamer Way Campus (100 bed shelter for adult men and women, 61 permanent supportive housing units, and a 60-bed treatment facility) is focused on homeless individuals, completion of the overall development will benefit homeless families. The existing treatment facility in Woodland which is an eleven-room facility with a commercial kitchen and meeting spaces will be repurposed for homeless families. Yolo County's Health and Human Services Agency has expressed interest in master leasing the facility for homeless families under the County's CalWorks Housing Allocation program. While Yolo County has been successful in reducing the number of homeless families in the County to virtually zero, there is a need to have alternatives to sheltering homeless families in local motels. The use of the existing treatment facility would provide a more holistic setting for families and their children than motel rooms and enable a programming component to be included as these families seek job training, employment, permanent housing, and other resources in order to exit poverty and develop fiscal stability.

Actions planned to develop institutional structure

The City will continue to improve coordination and eliminate gaps in the institutional structure. The City works regularly with Yolo County Housing (Housing Authority) on affordable housing and related areas and is also a member of the board of directors for the nonprofit Homeless and Poverty Action Coalition (HPAC) which serves as the Continuum of Care for Yolo County and allocates resources (Continuum of Care Grants, ESG funding, and other programs) countywide.

Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies

The City will continue to support affordable housing projects with loans and other assistance when the projects include resident service programs. In March 2022, the City closed on a $500,000 gap loan for the 72-unit Vista del Robles affordable housing development at 310 W. Main Street. Vista del Robles will serve households earning between 30 and 60% of median household income and offer a resident

Page 214 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
46 services program.

Discussion:

East Beamer Way Campus - The City has partnered with local nonprofits Friends of the Mission, Yolo Wayfarer Center, and Woodland Opportunity Village; Yolo County; and regional health care providers including Dignity Health to develop the East Beamer Way campus on City-owned property at the northwest corner of East Beamer Street and County Road 102 for a new expanded homeless shelter, permanent supportive housing units, and a new expanded treatment facility. Construction of the homeless shelter was completed in December 2020 and operations began in January 2021. The shelter provides 100 beds for adult women and men while the previous shelter had capacity for 65 beds which included using the dining hall for sleeping quarters. Adjacent to the shelter is a courtyard that is used for a day services program on a daily basis. Directly north of the shelter facility is the 61 unit permanent supportive housing project for homeless individuals. The final infrastructure work for the PSH site was completed and the housing units were constructed and installed in November 2022. The final component of the East Beamer Way campus is a new 60-bed treatment facility (Walter's House) that will replace an existing facility with 44 beds. In June 2022, Friends of the Mission was notified that it had been awarded conditionally a $12,500,000 state grant (Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program) for construction of the new treatment facility. Construction will begin in May 2023. The existing treatment facility may be converted into a family shelter. The City's commitment for East Beamer Way has been significant as the City served as the developer, donated the land, and will end up providing funds in excess of $1,400,000 with a majority of the funds being derived from affordable housing revenues received by the City.

Page 215 ends

Annual Action Plan
2023-2024
47 Program Specific Requirements
AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction:

The City expects to achieve a 95% overall benefit for the Program Year.

Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)

As a recipient of CDBG funds from HUD, the City of Woodland is required to present information regarding funds to be available during program year 2023/24. Any program income available for program year 2023/24 will be awarded during the program year. Woodland does not have any Section 108 loan guarantees, float funded activities or urban renewal settlements. The City has $5,648.58 in CDBG funds that were returned to the CDBG line of credit for an overage that exceeded the 2015 Planning and Administration Cap.

Page 216 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODLAND

TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMUNITY INPUT
ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG) ACTION PLAN AND APPROVE THE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Woodland (“City”) annually receives an allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
WHEREAS, the City’s CDBG allocation for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 is $452,510; WHEREAS, as part of the program requirements, the City must submit the Annual Action Plan that describes how the funding will be spent for the following program year; and WHEREAS, the Annual Action Plan is required to be approved after receiving public input.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:

Section 1: This City Council hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct;
Section 2: This City Council hereby approves the FY 2023/24 CDBG Annual Action Plan with the following funding allocations as recommended by the CDBG Review Panel and City staff; Applicant Project Title Funding
Public Infrastructure Activities
City of Woodland ADA Accessibility Project $294,131.50
Public Service Activities
Northern California Children’s Therapy Center Project HOPE $12,876.50 Legal Services of Northern California Fair Housing Services $10,000 Meals on Wheels Yolo County Operation Accelerate $15,000 Yolo Wayfarer Center Emergency Shelter Services $15,000 Yolo Food Bank Nurture Woodland $15,000
Administration
City of Woodland CDBG program administration $90,502
Section 3: This City Council hereby directs staff:
(a) To complete the FY 2023/24 Action Plan, as well as any other items required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), incorporating the adopted funding allocations along with any public input received during the public comment period and incorporating changes to past projects as proposed by staff; (b) To forward the completed FY 2023/24 Action Plan to HUD once completed;

Page 217 ends

Section 4: This City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute any agreements, contracts or other documents with the appropriate entities to carry out the CDBG Funded activities and authorizes the Finance Officer to make the budget allocations as specified; and Section 5: This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Woodland at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Vicky Fernandez, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ana B. Gonzalez, City Clerk

Page 218 ends

Estimated Funding (Note 1)
TOTAL CDBG FUNDS FY 2023/24 $440,000.00
Public Services (15% cap per CDBG) $66,000.00
Food/Shelter (at least 40% of Public Services) $26,400.00 Fair Housing (required funding) $10,000.00
Other Public Services $29,600.00
Construction (65% cap per CDBG) $286,000.00
Administration (20% cap per CDBG) $88,000.00
Funding Panel Staff Council FY 2022/23
Request Recommendation Recommendation Action Funding
City of Woodland ADA Accessibility Project $307,728.00 $286,000.00 $294,131.50 ADA Accessibility $200,000 New Hope Community Dev Corporation Cottonwood Meadows Phase S-4 $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Housing Rehabilitation $47,552 Yolo Employment Services YES Roof Repair $45,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Public Facilities Did Not Apply Friends of the Mission East Beamer Community Garden and Greenhouse $83,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Public Facilities Did Not Apply TOTAL 535,728.00 286,000.00 294,131.50 0.00
Funding Panel Staff Council FY 2022/23
Request Recommendation Recommendation Action Funding
Northern California Children's Therapy Center Project Hope $15,000.00 $11,000.00 $12,876.50 Health Services $6,000 Legal Services of Northern California (Note 3) Fair Housing Services $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Fair Housing $10,000 Short Term Emergency Aid Committee Woodland Homelss Prevention Program $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Food & Shelter $6,000 Empower Yolo Shelter Services $11,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Food & Shelter $6,185 Yolo County Children's Alliance MediCal/CalFresh Enrollment/Retention $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Health Services/Food & Shelter $6,000
Meals on Wheels Yolo County Operation Accelerate $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Food & Shelter $8,750 Yolo Community Care Continuum New Dimensions Supported Housing $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Food & Shelter $6,186 Yolo Wayfarer Center Emergency Shelter Services $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Food & Shelter $8,750 Yolo Food Bank Nurture Woodland $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Food & Shelter $8,750 TOTAL $116,000.00 $66,000.00 $67,876.50 $0.00
City of Woodland, CDBG Funding Recommendations for FY 2023/24 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (65%)
PUBLIC SERVICES (15%)
Applicant Project Title
Actual Funding (Note 2)
$452,510.00
$67,876.50
$27,150.60
$10,000.00
$30,725.90
$294,131.50
$90,502.00
NOTE 3 - Per 2005 Voluntary Compliance and Conciliation Agreement, the City is required to fund Legal Services annually with at least $10,000 for Fair Housing Services as long as the City receives CDBG funding.

Category
Applicant Project Title Category
NOTE 1 - City's estimated allocation for FY 2023/24 is $440,000. Pursuant to CDBG regulations, no more than 15% and 20% of the City's allocation can be spent on public services and administration, respectively.

NOTE 2 - City's actual allocation for FY 2023/24 is $452,510. Pursuant to CDBG regulations, no more than 15% and 20% of the City's allocation can be spent on public services and administration, respectively.

Page 219 ends

TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA: City Council Regular Meeting
DATE: June 20, 2023
ITEM #: I.22
SUBJECT: 2023 Triennial Public Health Goals Report

Recommendation for Action: Staff recommends that the City Council (1) hold a public hearing, and (2) adopt Resolution No. _____, accepting the 2023 Triennial Public Health Goals Report.

Staff Contact:

Celia Taylor, Water Quality Specialist, (530) 661-5915, [email protected]

Fiscal Impact:

There is no impact on the General Fund.

Background:

The California Health and Safety Code—Section 116470 requires the City of Woodland, a public water system serving more than 10,000 service connections, to prepare a brief report every 3 years on any contaminants detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal. The report must provide information on the contaminant(s) detected, the level and category of risk to public health, the best available technology to remove the contaminant, cost estimates for removal and any proposed recommendations for action. Public water systems required to prepare a report must hold a public hearing for the purpose of responding to public comment and accepting the report.

The purpose of the legislation requiring the reports is to make consumers aware of contaminants detected in drinking water which might pose a risk to health over the lifetime of exposure.

Contaminants detected that have a California-established Public Health Goal (PHG) and/or a federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) are presented and discussed in this report. These are non-regulatory and non-enforceable goals, and set at levels even lower than the regulatory Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water. For example, some contaminants categorized as carcinogenic have an MCLG set at zero, because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) states there is no acceptable level of safe consumption. This report includes a cost analysis for the reduction in contaminants according to the best available technologies, if the technology is available, and recommendations for future action. It is important to note that the U.S.

EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) establish MCLs at very conservative levels to provide protection to consumers of the water supply. MCLs are still the regulatory measure for determining compliance.

Discussion:

The contaminants exceeding the PHG or MCLG included arsenic, hexavalent chromium, copper, and several byproducts of drinking water disinfection listed below.

Arsenic was detected just above the Public Health Goal at approximately 1/10th of the regulatory MCL. There would be little impact on public health in comparison to the cost of treating for arsenic as well as the risk of introducing new contaminants in the process. To add, arsenic was detected in native groundwater wells, which are the third level of back up supply for potable water. In 2020 and 2022, groundwater wells made up less than one percent (<1%) of the potable water supply. In 2021, groundwater made up approximately 9 percent of the water supply, but it was diluted with treated

Page 220 ends

surface water upon distribution.

Hexavalent chromium was found in groundwater wells. Most water sampled had test results very close to or below the detection level for the purpose of reporting (DLR). The highest result came from Well #24, which is a city blending well. Water from this well provided roughly 300 million gallons to customers in 2021 out of the approximate total of 3,250 million gallons sent to the distribution system, approximately 9 percent of the water supply in 2021. Customers who were supplied with water from this well received water in diluted amounts at a ratio of 1:4 or less.

Copper was sampled throughout homes within the City of Woodland and the 90th percentile of samples was measured to be 320 ppm; it is sampled across the community once every 3 years. Since these samples were collected from various residential homes, the water quality reflects the home’s internal network of pipes and plumbing structures, copper service lines (the pipes connecting water mains to homes) or a combination of both. Standard regulatory copper sampling occurs once every three years. A few samples had a level detected while most samples were non- detected.

Bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, and bromate, were identified in the City of Woodland water system and are common byproducts of disinfection processes including chlorination, chloramination, and ozonation. The U.S. EPA studies concluded that while high doses of disinfection byproducts can increase the risk of toxicity or carcinogenicity when exposed over a lifetime, the benefits of disinfection and microbial control critically outweigh the costs. These contaminants are tightly regulated under the U.S. EPA’s “Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.” In addition, select treatment processes lead to a reduced number or low concentration of chemical byproducts, including the use of chloramines, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and ultraviolet light. The City of Woodland’s main source of treated water from the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, the regional water treatment facility, utilizes ozone as a major technology for disinfection. Chlorination is also part of the process; it prevents microorganisms and pathogens from forming in the distribution system. Thus, the above-mentioned byproducts have been detected, but are far below the regulatory limits set by the state. Disinfection byproducts are sampled for testing quarterly with regular reporting to the state.

The City of Woodland water system is in compliance with all state and federal regulations. While some constituents were detected above the state Public Health Goals or federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, it may not be beneficial or cost effective to remove these contaminants to such levels. It is also nearly impossible to accurately detect certain chemicals to the level of zero. From 2020 through 2022, measured levels fell far below the respective regulatory Maximum Contaminant Levels. The City of Woodland does not recommend any procedural changes at this time. Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the 2023 Triennial Public Health Goals Report.

Conclusion:

Staff recommends that the City Council (1) hold a public hearing, and (2) adopt Resolution No. _____, accepting the 2023 Triennial Public Health Goals Report.

Prepared by: Celia Taylor, Water Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Tim Busch, Principal Utilities Civil Engineer Brent Meyer, Community Development Director / City Engineer

Page 221 ends

Attachments:

1. PHG Report 2023 Final

2. 2023 PHG Report Resolution

Page 222 ends

City of Woodland – Utilities Department
Public Water System CA5710006
Reporting Years 2020, 2021, 2022

2023 Triennial Public Health Goals Report

Page 223 ends

1 Table of Contents
Acronyms and Glossary .................................................................................................................... 2 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 3 What are PHGs and MCLGs? ............................................................................................................ 4 Guidelines followed ......................................................................................................................... 6 BATs, Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................ 6 Constituents Detected Summary ..................................................................................................... 7 Table of Public Health Exceedances ................................................................................................ 8 Sources of Water .............................................................................................................................. 9 Arsenic ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Hexavalent chromium ............................................................................................................................... 10 Copper ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Disinfection Byproducts ............................................................................................................................ 12 Bromodichloromethane ................................................................................................................... 12 Bromoform ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Chloroform ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Dibromotrichloromethane ............................................................................................................... 13 Dichloroacetic acid ........................................................................................................................... 13 Trichloroacetic acid .......................................................................................................................... 14 Dibromoacetic acid .......................................................................................................................... 14 Bromate ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Recommendations, Further Action ............................................................................................... 15 References ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix 1: CA Health and Safety Code 11470 ............................................................................ 17 Appendix 2: CA Health and Safety Code 11365 ............................................................................ 19 Appendix 3: Water Quality Report 2022 ....................................................................................... 23 Appendix 4: Water Quality Report 2021 ....................................................................................... 29 Appendix 5: Water Quality Report 2020 ....................................................................................... 34 Appendix 6: ACWA Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 39 ACWA Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix 7: CalEPA MCLs, DLRs, PHGs, for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants .............. 85

Page 224 ends

2 Acronyms Used
AL Action Level
BAT Best Available Technology
HAA Haloacetic acid
HAA5 Total Haloacetic acids 5
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NDPR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PHG Public Health Goal
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SWRCB DDW State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water THM Trihalomethanes
TTHM Total Trihalomethanes
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Glossary of Water Quality Terms
Best Available Technologies
(BATs)
The best available treatment techniques or other means available for achieving compliance with MCL.

Health Risks
Health risks with respect to Public Health Goals are based on long term exposures to low levels of contaminants as would occur with drinking water, rather than high doses from a single or short-term exposure. The health risk category describes the type of health risk. Types of health risks include chronic toxicity (shortened life span thyroid effects, liver effects, or kidney effects), acute toxicity (gastrointestinal effects), carcinogenicity (cancer), and reproductive toxicity.

Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL)
The maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water distributed to any user of a public water system. MCLs are enforceable standards.

Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal (MCLG)
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there are no observable adverse effects to human health. MCLGs are similar to California PHGs, but not exactly the same. MCLGs are non-enforceable goals established by the U.S. EPA based on health considerations for non-carcinogenic constituents. For all carcinogenic constituents (i.e., those chemicals known or suspected of causing cancer), U.S. EPA’s policy is to set the MCLG at zero.

National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWR)
Legally enforceable primary standards and treatment techniques set by the U.S.

EPA for public water systems. NPDWRs limit the levels of contaminants in drinking water and are set to protect public health.

Numeric Health Risk
Describes the cancer risk. At the California MCL no cancer risk is calculated from chemicals considered “noncarcinogens.” For carcinogens, PHGs are set at a concentration that does not pose any significant risk of cancer; this is usually a one-in-one-million excess cancer risk (1x10-6).

One-in-one-million Risk Level
At the “one-in-one-million” risk level, not more than one person in a population of one million people drinking the water daily for 70 years would be expected to develop cancer as a result of exposure to that chemical in the water.

Page 225 ends

3 Parts per billion (ppb) Parts per billion is the number of units of mass of a contaminant per 1000 million units of total mass, equivalent to microgram per liter (µg/L).

Parts per million (ppm) Parts per million is the number of units of mass of a contaminant per 1 million units of total mass, equivalent to milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Public Health Goal (PHG)
The concentration of a contaminant in drinking water below which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur with an adequate margin of safety.

This level is based on estimates that would pose a significant risk to individuals, including the most sensitive subpopulations, consuming water every day over an entire lifetime. PHGs are unique to California and are established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Reproductive Toxicity Adverse effects on an adult’s reproductive capability RfD (Reference Dose) An estimate of the daily exposure to a human population that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was passed by Congress to protect the public water supply and sources of water including lakes, rivers, springs, reservoirs and groundwater wells. SDWA Allows the U.S. EPA to set standard regulations for drinking water.

Water Quality The chemical, biological, and physical integrity of a body of water.

Background Information:

According to the California Health and Safety Code section 11470 (Appendix 1), water systems with more than 10,000 service connections must prepare a report every three years to identify contaminants which exceeded their public health goals (PHGs). The report must identify contaminants which exceed the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) if a public health goal is yet to exist. The code was established under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 and is regulated by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)—a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).

OEHHA uses current risk assessment methods and principles to establish each public health goal.

In reporting, water systems must identify all contaminants that exceed the PHG or MCLG for that contaminant. The numerical public health risk, determined by OEHHA, associated with either the PHG or the MCLG must be reported for each contaminant. The category of risk associated with drinking water must be identified, such as if the contaminant is potentially carcinogenic or acutely toxic. The report must describe the best available technologies available to reduce concentrations of the contaminant, as well as the cost estimates to provide this technology. Finally, the report must include recommended actions in addition to the basis for the recommendation. This report is a summary of the all the contaminants exceeding the respective PHGs or MCLGs identified in the three years including 2020, 2021, and 2022.
“The purpose of the legislation requiring these reports is to provide consumers with information on levels of contaminants even below the enforceable mandatory Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) so that they would be aware of whatever risks might be posed by the presence of these contaminants at levels below MCLs” (ACWA, 2022). This report includes a cost analysis for the reduction in contaminants

Page 226 ends

4 according to best available technologies, if the technology is available, and recommendations for future action. It is key to note, the U.S. EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) establish MCLs at very conservative levels to provide protection to consumers of the water supply. MCLs are still the regulatory measure for determining compliance.

What are PHGs and MCLGs?

Public Health Goals:

“The [Public Health Goal (PHG)] is a level of drinking water contamination at which adverse health effects are not expected to occur from a lifetime of exposure.” (CalEPA, 2022)

To elaborate, a PHG for a chemical or contaminant is established with the condition that a lifetime of exposure does not significantly create the risk to health. PHGs are not regulated or enforced; they attempt to measure risk to public health and are only recognized in California. Per State law, the SWRCB is required to set standards for drinking water at a level very close to the respective PHG, but with consideration for detection technology, economic feasibility, and the ability for most public water systems implement a program. The SWRCB recognizes the challenges to implementation when developing a drinking water standard.

In order to establish a PHG, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) scientists first collect data and research available for the contaminant, including studies on animals and/or humans with known exposure. The gathered data becomes part of a health risk assessment whereby scientists aim to determine the levels of exposure which may lead to adverse health effects.

Research is conducted to also identify effects at increasing concentrations of exposure. The level used to guide establishment of the PHG is the level OEHHA scientists believe would not pose a significant risk to health after 70 years of drinking the contaminant in water on a daily basis. Both long-term and immediate or short-term effects of exposure are considered. “For cancer-causing chemicals, OEHHA typically establishes the PHG at the “one-in-one million” risk level.

At that level, not more than one person in a population of one million people drinking the water daily for 70 years would be expected to develop cancer as a result of exposure to that chemical.” (CalEPA, 2022) The SWRCB tries to set the regulatory drinking water as close to the PHG as possible, however, this is not always feasible. It can be a challenge to implement regulations considering the cost of treatment technology, the ability for laboratories to detect contaminants, and the economic impact the regulations could have on a water system. In some cases, the technology to treat is not yet available or not efficient for use in a large water system. The SWRCB must also consider that removal of one substance could lead to byproducts or introduction of new contaminants. It is also nearly impossible to accurately measure a substance to a level of zero, depending on the contaminant.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals:

The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) is set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) at the federal level. The MCLGs are not enforceable; MCLs are the overarching enforceable guideline for drinking water quality. MCLGs only take into account health effects and risk to exposure; they attempt to measure the maximum contamination of a substance in drinking water which

Page 227 ends

5 would provide no known adverse effects on the health of a person. In establishing these goals, the U.S.

EPA considers vulnerable populations such as infants, children, the elderly, and people with a compromised immune system. They do not consider limits of detection nor the feasibility or effectiveness of treatment technologies (U.S. EPA, 2022).

Below are excerpts from the U.S. EPA methods for regulation determination of MCLGs:
“The way EPA determines MCLGs depends on the type of contaminant targeted for regulation:

For microbial contaminants that may present public health risk, EPA sets the MCLG at zero. This is because ingesting one protozoan, virus, or bacterium may cause adverse health effects.

For chemical contaminants that are carcinogens, EPA sets the MCLG at zero if both of these are the case:
 there is evidence that a chemical may cause cancer
 there is no dose below which the chemical is considered safe.

If a chemical is carcinogenic and a safe dose can be determined, EPA sets the MCLG at a level above zero that is safe.

For chemical contaminants that are non-carcinogens but can cause adverse non-cancer health effects (for example, reproductive effects), the MCLG is based on the reference dose. A reference dose (RfD) is an estimate of the amount of a chemical that a person can be exposed to on a daily basis that is not anticipated to cause adverse health effects over a lifetime.  To determine the RfD, the concentration for the non-carcinogenic effects from an epidemiology or toxicology study is divided by uncertainty factors (for example, for sensitive subpopulations). This provides a margin of safety for consumers of drinking water.  The RfD is multiplied by body weight and divided by daily water consumption to provide a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL).
 The DWEL is multiplied by the relative source contribution. The relative source contribution is the percentage of total drinking water exposure for the general population, after considering other exposure routes (for example, food, inhalation).

Once the MCLG is determined, EPA sets an enforceable standard. In most cases, the standard is a maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL is the maximum level allowed of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system.

When there is no reliable method that is economically and technically feasible to measure a contaminant at concentrations to indicate there is not a public health concern, EPA sets a “treatment technique” rather than an MCL. A treatment technique is an enforceable procedure or level of technological performance which public water systems must follow to ensure control of a contaminant.

Treatment technique rules also list:
 The best available technology for meeting the standard  Compliance technologies available and affordable for small systems Examples of treatment technique rules are the:
 Surface Water Treatment Rule (disinfection and filtration)  Lead and Copper Rule (optimized corrosion control)
 Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin Rules (purity of treatment chemicals)

Page 228 ends

6 The MCL is set as close to the MCLG as feasible. Taking cost into consideration, EPA must determine the feasible MCL or treatment technique. This is defined by SDWA [the Safe Drinking Water Act] as the level that may be achieved with:
 use of the best available technology or treatment approaches  other means which EPA finds are available (after examination for efficiency under field conditions, not solely under laboratory conditions)
As a part of the rule analysis, SDWA also requires EPA to prepare a health risk reduction and cost analysis (HRRCA) in support of any [National Primary Drinking Water Regulations]. EPA must analyze the quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits that are likely to occur as the result of compliance with the proposed standard. EPA must also analyze certain increased costs that will result from the proposed drinking water standard.

In addition, EPA must consider:
 Incremental costs and benefits associated with the proposed and alternative MCL values  The contaminant’s adverse health effects on the general population and sensitive subpopulations  Any increased health risk to the general population that may occur as a result of the new MCL  Other relevant factors such as data quality and the nature of the risks Where the benefits of a new MCL do not justify the costs, EPA may adjust the MCL for a particular class or group of systems to a level that "maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits."

(U.S. EPA, 2022)

Guidelines followed:

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) provides a guidance document titled “Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports.” The document released February, 2022 served as a guide. The City of Woodland also referenced the April, 2022 guidance document provided by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) titled “Suggested Guidelines for Preparation of Required Reports on PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS (PHGs) to satisfy the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b).” Both documents are attached as Appendix 6. The City of Woodland used the cost estimates per ACWA guidelines as a basis for treatment technology recommendation (refer to Appendix 6, page 74 for cost estimates).

Best Available Treatment Technologies and Cost Estimates:

Drinking water can be treated by several methods to reduce contaminant levels to below the MCL, or to potentially lower the contaminant levels to near the PHG or MCLG. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB DDW) have classified certain techniques as “Best Available Technologies” or BATs, which they found to be the best-known methods for treatment. In addition, the U.S. EPA and the SWRCB DDW have attempted to provide a cost estimate for using each of these technologies. However, since some PHGs or MCLGs are set at zero or close to zero, it is almost impossible to accurately determine if a substance was

Page 229 ends

7 completely removed. It may be feasible to reduce a contaminant, but in some cases, it may not be cost effective, or it may lead to alternative water quality changes, such as byproducts of drinking water disinfection. Further, testing methods available are limited by the ability to detect a substance. Each testing method has an established DLR or Detection Limit for the Purpose of Reporting, which is the minimum amount detected required to be reported to the state, established based on the lowest analyte concentration that can be reported with confidence for a specific testing method (U.S. EPA, 2023).

Appendix 7 of this report contains a table of Cost Estimates for Treatment Technologies obtained from the guidance document titled “Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports – February 2022” (CalEPA, 2022). Costs for various techniques were updated in 2012 and indexed to 2021 estimates.

Constituents Detected That Exceed a PHG or an MCLG:

Table 1 on the following page identifies all the constituents that were detected by City of Woodland above a Public Health Goal or a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal during the years 2020-2022. Not all contaminants with a designated California PHG have a federal MCLG. In addition to the PHG and MCLG, the regulatory MCL is presented for comparison. Over the last three years, the City of Woodland’s drinking water met all MCLs and safe drinking water standards adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board, Division on Drinking Water.

The contaminants exceeding the PHG or MCLG included arsenic, hexavalent chromium, copper, and several byproducts of drinking water disinfection. Bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, and bromate, are commonly produced as a byproduct of disinfection including chlorination, chloramination, and ozonation.

U.S. EPA studies of disinfection byproducts concluded that while high doses of these chemicals can increase the risk of toxicity or carcinogenicity when exposed over a lifetime, the benefits of disinfection and microbial control critically outweigh the costs. As a protective measure, disinfection byproducts, including all listed in this report, are tightly regulated under the U.S. EPA’s “Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.” The U.S. EPA recognizes that select treatment processes can form a reduced number or low concentration of chemical byproducts, including the use of chloramines, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and ultraviolet light (U.S. EPA, 2005). The City of Woodland’s main source of treated water from the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, the regional water treatment facility, utilizes one of these technologies—ozonolysis, in addition to chlorination. Ozonolysis is highly effective for disinfecting drinking water, produces a relatively low amount of disinfection byproducts, and, in turn, allows the City of Woodland to meet increasingly stringent regulatory standards. Each detected substance is discussed further below.

Page 230 ends

8 Table 1: Substances detected above the Public Health Goal (PHG) or Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), 2020-2022
Substance State
PHG
Federal
MCLG)
(µg/L
MCL
(µg/L)

Average
Detected
Level (µg/L)
Year Source Health Risk
Category
Arsenic 0.004 zero 10 1.19 2022 GW Wells carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 1.33 2021 GW Wells
Chromium, Hexavalent

0.01-mg/L MCL &

0.001-mg/L DLR
repealed
September 2017

0.02 None

None

1.56 2022 ASR Wells
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

0.16 2022 WDCWA

17.67 2021 GW Wells

0.18 2021 WDCWA

0.14 2020 GW Wells
Copper (*Action Level
for 90th percentile of
samples)
300

1300

1300 *320 2022 City Homes
digestive system
toxicity (causes
nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea)
Bromodichloromethane 0.06 zero

None

5.13 2022 ASR Wells
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

4.3 2022 WDCWA

3.5 2020 Distribution Sites

3.94 2020 WDCWA
Bromoform 0.5 zero None 0.3 2022 ASR Wells carcinogenicity (causes cancer)
Chloroform 0.4 70

None

13.43 2022 ASR Wells
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

12.05 2022 WDCWA

5.27 2020 Distribution Sites

7.28 2020 WDCWA
Dibromochloromethane

0.1 60

None

2.04 2022 ASR Wells
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

2.09 2022 WDCWA

2.39 2020 Distribution Sites

2.58 2020 WDCWA
Dichloroacetic Acid

0.2 None

0.51 2022 ASR Wells
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

5.46 2022 WDCWA
zero 3.86 2021 WDCWA

1.88 2020 Distribution Sites

3.12 2020 WDCWA
Trichloroacetic Acid 0.1

None
1 2022 ASR Wells hepatoxicity
(harms the liver) 20 3.15 2022 WDCWA

1.16 2020 Distribution Sites
Dibromoacetic Acid 0.03 None None 1 2022 WDCWA NA 0.74 2020 WDCWA Bromate 0.1 zero 10 1.15

0.4 2022
2021
WDCWA
WDCWA
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)

Page 231 ends

9 Sources of Water for Detected Contaminants:

The sources of water listed in Table 1 include water from WDCWA (the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency), ASR wells (Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells), GW Wells (Groundwater Wells—mainly City Well #24), Distribution Sites (Sample stations across the city within the distribution system), and City Sites (samples were taken from homes throughout the community).

Water from WDCWA consists of treated surface water from the Sacramento River and accounts for the vast majority of Woodland’s potable water. The secondary water source consists of Woodland’s 3 ASR Wells, which are wells capable of storage and recovery of the surface water from WDCWA; they can provide surface water quality as long as stored surface water is available. If the ASR wells are pumped beyond the stored surface water quality, it is possible for the wells to pump water that reflects a mixture of stored surface water and native ground water. The city of Woodland injects water into these wells seasonally (generally in the winter) and recovers the water as needed (generally in the summer) to meet city demands. The third source of water includes GW Wells (native groundwater wells). The city maintains 6 groundwater wells, 3 of which blend native water with surface water to provide higher water quality. The city prioritizes the use of water sources based on demand, water use restrictions, and the goal to provide the highest quality water to Woodland residents. In 2020, City of Woodland used mainly surface water from WDCWA; groundwater wells made up approximately 0.4% of the supply of potable water. In 2021, the city supplied over 90% surface water from WDCWA and ASR wells and approximately 9% water from native groundwater wells. The year 2022 saw a reduction in well use and supplied over 99% surface water from WDCWA. Less than one percent of potable water came from groundwater in 2022.

Arsenic:

Arsenic is a natural substance found in the earth’s crust and can be found in high levels in groundwater in several countries, including the United States, Argentina, Mexico, and in several countries throughout Asia. It can take on organic or inorganic forms, and contaminate air, water, and soil. Inorganic arsenic shows greater toxicity than organic forms (commonly found in seafood and poultry in trace amounts).

Exposure can also occur through industry practices such as in the “processing of glass, pigments, textiles, paper, metal adhesives, wood preservatives and ammunition” (WHO, 2022). Tobacco plants can take up inorganic arsenic from the soil and create a secondary hazard for cigarette smokers. According to the World Health Organization, long-term exposure to arsenic, especially the inorganic type, can lead to chronic arsenic poisoning, skin lesions, and cancer. Exposure can also occur from drinking water or crops irrigated with contaminated water (WHO, 2022).

California established the PHG for arsenic at 0.004 ppb (µg/L) in April of 2004. The federal MCLG is set at zero, which is set at zero for all labeled toxins based on the consideration that no allowable limit is deemed acceptable for toxic substances. However, it is not feasible to completely remove some substances which are naturally occurring in the environment. Effective January 2006, the federal arsenic MCL was reduced from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. The PHG for arsenic at 0.004 ppb is much lower than the Detection Limit for Reporting (DLR) of 2 ppb and far below the level of accuracy that can be measured through commercial testing technologies.

From 2020 through 2022, City of Woodland’s main water supply came from WDCWA, the Woodland- Davis Clean Water Agency—a raw water treatment facility which provides surface water from the Sacramento River. The City of Woodland detected arsenic in groundwater wells in both 2021 and 2022.

The amount detected was found at 1.33 ppb and 1.19 ppb in 2021 and 2022 respectively. In 2021,

Page 232 ends

10 pumped groundwater made up approximately 9% of the overall system supply. When water was distributed, it was diluted at a ratio of 1:4 or less; all the water supplied from wells came from a ‘blending well.’ In 2022, groundwater made up approximately 0.7% of the water supply. While this amount is not presumed to be significant, the result is listed for informational purposes. The City of Woodland prioritizes surface water from WDCWA as the primary supply. However, as demands fluctuate and water restrictions change, some years can see higher groundwater usage than others. If necessary to use groundwater, this second potable supply will come from groundwater wells blended with surface water, as occurred in 2021. It is key to note that the average amount of arsenic detected was far below the regulatory MCL of 10 ppb and arsenic was only detected in groundwater wells.

Current available technologies to remove arsenic include:
 Ion Exchange
 Activated Alumina
 Reverse Osmosis
 Modified Coagulation and Filtration
According to the U.S. EPA, these methods remove 90 to 95 percent of arsenic from drinking water. Thus, even with the best available technologies, if arsenic is present, it is nearly impossible to completely remove it from the drink water supply (CalEPA, 2022). Routine regulatory monitoring allows us to trend data and ensures potable water supplies never reach the maximum contaminant level.

More information on the topic of arsenic in drinking water can be found at the State’s website:
www.oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goal-arsenic-drinking-water.

Hexavalent Chromium:

Hexavalent chromium was first regulated in 1987. “… it was one of the first substances identified as a carcinogen under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, more commonly known as Proposition 65” (Brown, 2011). Hexavalent chromium is the soluble form of the heavy metal chromium, also known as trivalent chromium. The trivalent form is a required nutrient and presents low toxicity. In the environment, it is interchangeable with hexavalent chromium, where it can become highly toxic. Hexavalent chromium is considered a carcinogen with routes of exposure through inhalation and ingestion. As an inhalant, water droplets have higher potency than the oral route, however, ingestion is the dominant route for cancer risk. Studies on hexavalent chromium in mice showed the substance can convert to the less toxic form of trivalent chromium in the acidic environment of the stomach, but does not completely interchange and can also be found in the bloodstream after absorption. Further studies in mice found support for increased carcinomas and adenomas, including stomach tumors and oral cancers. A study of humans with increased exposure in drinking water showed an increase in primary liver cancer (Brown, 2011).

The current PHG for hexavalent chromium is 0.02 ppb and was established in 2014. There is no current federal MCLG and the federal MCL (previously 10 ppb) and the DLR (1 ppb) was removed from use in September 2017. At this time, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is in the process of re-establishing a new DLR and MCL.

In the previous three years, hexavalent chromium was detected in both groundwater and surface water in trace amounts. In groundwater wells in 2020, 2021, and 2022, it was detected at an average of 0.14,

17.67, and 1.56 ppb respectively. In water from the regional surface water treatment facility (WDCWA), hexavalent chromium was detected at an average of 0.18 ppb in 2021 and 0.16 ppb in 2022.

Page 233 ends

11 To discuss the results above, most water sampled had test results very close to or below the detection level for the purpose of reporting (DLR). The result of 17.67 ppb came from Well #24, which is a city blending well. Water from this well provided roughly 300 million gallons to customers in 2021 out of the total 3249.4 million gallons sent to the distribution system. Well 24 contributed to approximately 9 percent of the water supply in 2021. To add, Well 24 is a blending well, which mixes native ground water pumped to the distribution system with purchased surface water at a ratio of roughly 1:4 or less.

Customers using the potable water supply always receive water from this well in diluted amounts.

The Best Available Technologies to reduce hexavalent chromium to below the MCL are:
 Coagulation and Filtration—hexavalent chromium must be reduced to trivalent chromium prior to using this technique
 Ion Exchange
 Reverse osmosis
(U.S. EPA, 2023)
While there is currently no enforceable MCL (removed in September, 2017), the City of Woodland anticipates a new regulation for hexavalent chromium to be implemented in the coming months. The previous MCL of 10 ppb set a guide for reference. City of Woodland continues to proactively monitor for this analyte in preparation of an MCL reinstatement. The City’s transition to WDCWA-supplied treated surface water in 2016 was planned to reduce hexavalent chromium concentrations delivered to customers, amongst other reasons including general water quality improvements, reliability, and sustainability.

Copper:

Copper is found in proteins and is needed for “hemoglobin synthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, catecholamine biosynthesis and cross-linking of collagen, elastin, and hair keratin” (ATSDR, 2004).

Copper is a necessary nutrient in humans and not known to have carcinogenic effects in either humans or animals. However, various studies of copper have concluded that excess amounts of copper have been linked to effects in small children, especially infants. Copper poisoning is fairly uncommon, but has been reported to cause “Indian Childhood Cirrhosis” (Sethi et al., 1993). In these cases, it is believed that increased dietary exposure occurred from water or milk stored in copper containers and given to children 5 years old and younger.

Copper can be found in home plumbing, fixtures, and potable water lines connecting city water mains to homes. Excess copper can lead to nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and weight loss. The Public Health Goal for copper takes into account infants are a sensitive group and was created with consideration of exposure via breastmilk and formula in addition to drinking water (Fan, 2008).

The State PHG for copper is set at 300 ppb and the federal MCLG is set at 1300 ppb. Copper is currently regulated under the federal MCL of 1300 ppb. The MCL is based on the Action Level at the 90th percentile of samples.

The City of Woodland’s 90th percentile value measured below the Action Level. Copper was sampled throughout homes within the City of Woodland in 2022 and the 90th percentile of samples measured was 320 ppm. It is important to note that 320 ppm is not a typical value. The vast majority of homes sampled resulted in levels that were “non-detect.” Homes selected for sample testing are prioritized with respect to the time period they were built, which make them more likely to have copper service lines. Since

Page 234 ends

12 these samples were collected from within the homes, the water quality measured could be reflective of the home’s internal network of pipes and plumbing structures, copper piping in city water service lines (the pipes connecting water mains to homes) or a combination of both. Standard regulatory copper sampling occurs once every three years.

Bromodichloromethane (THM):

Bromodichloromethane is a Trihalomethane (THM) and a byproduct of drinking water disinfection.

Drinking water disinfection is necessary to prevent infectious diseases in the potable water supply.

Disinfection reactions can create byproduct formation; THMs are the most common substance found due to chlorination or chloramination. The City of Woodland uses a 12.5% sodium hypochlorite solution for disinfection, also known as chlorination.

Bromodichloromethane is a colorless liquid which can be created by algae. The formations can dissolve in water, but also readily evaporate into air. Small amounts can be found naturally. In drinking water, it becomes a contaminant and is regulated under the MCL for “Total Trihalomethanes” as 0.080 ppm (mg/L) or 80 ppb (µg/L). The state PHG is set at 0.06 parts per billion and the federal MCLG is set at zero because it is considered to be a carcinogen. According to OEHHA, the risks to health of these by products in comparison are below the risks to health with inadequate disinfection. Microorganisms which are mitigated by disinfection, i.e., chlorination, can be pathogenic and are known to cause a myriad of illnesses and diseases (NCBI, 2023).

Bromodichloromethane was detected in 2020 in surface water from the Regional Water Treatment Facility (WDCWA) at a range of 1-5 ppb and in sites throughout the distribution system with an average of

3.5 ppb. In 2022, it was detected with an average of 4.3 ppb in WDCWA water and 5.13 ppb average in ASR wells. Since ASR wells are used to store treated surface water and recover when needed, the data from ASR wells is often reflective of the surface water injected into the wells. The range of detection for bromodichloromethane falls far below the regulatory MCL of 80 ppb for all Trihalomethanes; it is not regulated as an individual contaminant.

Bromoform (THM):

Bromoform is also a Trihalomethane (THM) and a byproduct of drinking water disinfection. It is nearly colorless and the pale-yellow liquid has a semi-sweet odor. It can be found in swimming pools where bromine compounds have been used for disinfection. It has been used for various industrial purposes such as solvents for waxes and oils, fire-resistant chemicals, and as a fluid for mineral ore separation to name a few. The most common form of exposure to bromoform is through drinking water, but evaporated liquid can also be inhaled. (U.S. EPA, 2000) Studies on humans conclude exposure to large amounts of bromoform can cause acute effects on the central nervous system, liver injury, kidney damage, a reduced speed of brain activities, sedation, narcosis, and even unconsciousness. Chronic effects observed in long-term studies of animals have indicated bromoform exposure can cause liver, kidney and central nervous system effects. The U.S. EPA considers bromoform to be a probably carcinogen due to the correlation of bromoform in drinking water and several cancer types, however, the studies were found to be incomplete and did not account for personal habits or other exposures (U.S. EPA, 2000) (Brown, 2020). Nonetheless, as a ‘probable carcinogen,’ the U.S. EPA set the maximum contaminant level goal at zero.

The PHG for Bromoform is 0.5 ppb or 0.5 µg/L and the MCLG is set at zero. In drinking water, it becomes a contaminant and is regulated under the MCL for “Total Trihalomethanes” as 0.080 mg/L or 80 parts per

Page 235 ends

13 billion, but not regulated as an individual chemical. It was detected in 2022 in ASR Wells at a level of 0.3 ppb or µg/L. To summarize, bromoform was detected above the federal MCLG of zero, below the PHG and far below the regulatory limit of 80 ppb for Total Trihalomethanes.

Chloroform (THM):

Chloroform is also a Trihalomethane (THM) and a byproduct of drinking water disinfection. Studies in rodents have linked chloroform to increases in tumors in the kidneys or liver. Studies have concluded this substance can create reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity and adverse non-cancerous effects (Brown, 2020).

The PHG for Chloroform is 0.4 ppb or 0.4 µg/L and the MCLG is set at 70 ppb. In drinking water, it becomes a contaminant and is regulated under the MCL for “Total Trihalomethanes” as 0.080 mg/L or 80 parts per billion. It is not regulated as an individual contaminant.

In the City of Woodland water system, chloroform was found in the range of 5.27-13.43 ppb in 2020 and 2022. In 2020 it was found in surface water from WCDWA and in sample stations throughout the City of Woodland’s distribution system. In 2022, it was detected again in surface water from WDCWA and in ASR wells, which share characteristics of surface water. This is not uncommon as surface water is treated via chlorination to prevent microbial contamination and pathogens from spreading in the water system.

The levels detected were far below the regulatory federal MCL.

Dibromochloromethane (THM):

The PHG for Dibromochloromethane is 0.1 ppb or 0.1 µg/L and the MCLG is set at 60 ppb. In drinking water, it becomes a contaminant and is regulated under the MCL for “Total Trihalomethanes” as 0.08 mg/L or 80 parts per billion.

Dibromochloromethane is a byproduct of drinking water disinfection with limited data on adverse effects. It is classified as a carcinogen based on animal studies. Studies in mice demonstrated increased risk of cancer directed at the kidneys and liver. It is considered mutagenic and has a similar structure to other THMs.

While this substance is considered carcinogenic, the risk assessed over the lifetime of exposure is minimal compared to the potential risk of inadequate drinking water disinfection. It is evident that OEHHA and the SWRCB considers drinking water disinfection to be a priority in managing potable water supplies (Brown, 2020).

Regarding all Haloacetic acids (HAAs): The following three chemicals underlined below are part of the group of regulated Haloacetic acids. California has found up to 13 types of Haloacetic acids in drinking water of which 5 types are regulated. According to OEHHA, the range of concentrations for HAAs in drinking water in California is approximately 0.6-4.2 ppb. Both the SWRCB, the federal EPA and the World Health Organization consider microbial disinfection of drinking water to be of “unquestionable importance.” It is imperative that adequate disinfection not be compromised in trying to control for disinfection byproducts (Soshilov, 2022).

Dichloroacetic Acid (HAA5):

Dichloroacetic acid (DCA) is associated with liver cancer, reproductive toxicity and hepatic (liver) toxicity.

It was first listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, California’s safe Drinking Water and Toxic

Page 236 ends

14 Enforcement Act of 1986. It was classified as a carcinogen based on assays on mice, but not based on significant evidence from human exposure. (Soshilov, 2022) Dichloroacetic acid recently received a PHG issuance of 0.2 ppb in December, 2022. The federal MCLG is set at zero and DCA is regulated with the MCL of 60 ppb as part of 5 Total Haloacetic acids (HAA5). It is not regulated as an individual analyte.

In the City of Woodland’s water system, DCA was identified in surface water from WCDWA in 2020-2022 in the range of 3.12-5.46 ppb. Testing of the distribution sites within the city detected DCA at an average of 1.88 ppb in 2020. In ASR wells, which are injected with treated surface water, the level of detection was 0.51 ppb. Overall, DCA detection was above the PHG of 0.1, but far below the MCLG of 60 ppb.

Trichloroacetic Acid (HAA5):

Trichloroacetic acid is also associated with liver cancer and classified as a carcinogen based on increased liver tumors in studies of mice. In 2013, it was added to the list of chemicals listed in Proposition 65.

Similar to DCA, studies of TCA were not performed on humans. (Soshilov, 2022) Trichloroacetic acid received a PHG of 0.1 ppb in December, 2022. It is regulated at the federal level with the MCL of 60 ppb as part of 5 Total Trihaloacetic acids (HAA5). It is not regulated individually (Soshilov, 2022). TCA was detected in sites throughout the city’s distribution system in 2020 with an average of 1.16 ppb. In 2022, it was detected in treated water from WDCWA and in ASR wells, which are injected with treated water from WDCWA, with a range of 1-3.15 ppb. The ranges detected were above the PHG, but far below the MCLG of 20 ppb.

Dibromoacetic Acid (HAA5):

Dibromoacetic acid (DBA) is a byproduct of drinking water disinfection, commonly formed when chloramines or chlorines are added to the drinking water supply. Dibromoacetic acid is associated with lung and liver cancer and alveolar and bronchial tumors. The noncancerous effects of exposure include changes in male reproductive toxicity and changes in organ weights (Soshilov, 2022). Dibromoacetic acid received a PHG of 0.03 ppb in December, 2022. It is regulated by the U.S. EPA with the MCL of 60 ppb as part of 5 Total Trihaloacetic acids (HAA5). It is not regulated individually.

In the City of Woodland, DBA was detected in treated surface water from WDCWA in both years 2020 and 2022. The level of detected averaged 0.74 ppb and 1 ppb in those years respectively. The level detected was slightly above the public health goal of just above zero. There is no current MCLG for DBA and the amount detected was far below the MCL for Haloacetic acids as a group.

Bromate:

Bromate is a negatively charged ion with the chemical formula BrO3-. It can react with hydrogen to form bromic acid, which is only stable in water. Bromate can react with other substances to form salts, such as potassium bromate and sodium bromate. Bromate salts are often used in food products including cheese and beer and also used as food additives in products such as bread dough. Bromate salts can also be found in permanent hair waving styling products where it is used to neutralize the wave. Studies of long- term exposure to bromate indicated increased risk to kidney and thyroid health. Exposure in rodents led to diminished body weight gain. It is considered to be a probable carcinogen based on studies on animals. (Fan, 2009)

Page 237 ends

15 Bromate can get into drinking water as a byproduct of disinfection. It can form when water is treated with ozonation, which is a highly effective tool to control for Cryptosporidium parvum—a zoonotic parasitic protozoan (OEHHA, 2009). The Regional Water Treatment Facility (WDCWA) utilizes ozonation as part of the regular treatment process for disinfection. Although uncommon, bromate can form as a byproduct of chlorination when chlorinated water containing bromide sits under sunlight (Fan, 2009).

The state PHG for Bromate is 0.1 ppb with a federal MCLG of zero µg/L (ppb). The current regulatory MCL is 10 µg/L. Within the last three calendar years, bromate was detected with an average of 0.4 ppb (µg/L) in 2021 and an average of 1.15 ppb (µg/L) in 2022. In both years, the values detected were in treated surface water from WDCWA. The PHG for bromate is 0.1 ppb and the MCLG is zero since it is classified as a carcinogen. The detected levels were far below the regulatory MCL of 10 ppb. The sources where detection occurred included WDCWA in 2021 and 2022, and groundwater wells in 2020.

Groundwater well detection occurred in the ASR wells—wells injected with treated surface water from WDCWA.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTHER ACTIONS

The drinking water quality of the City of Woodland meets or exceeds all state and federal drinking water MCL standards set to protect public health. The City of Woodland utilizes surface water from the Sacramento River as a primary source for drinking water, which provides better water quality than native groundwater wells. When supplemental water is needed to meet demand, such as for peak hourly usage or during surface water right curtailments during periods of drought, the City of Woodland first utilizes Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (ASR wells), which can provide surface water quality for months at a time. ASR wells are injected with treated water from the Sacramento River and the water is recovered as needed.

The next source of water includes three ‘blending’ groundwater wells. These provide native groundwater, but mix them at approximately a 1:4 ratio or less of native groundwater to surface water; this can dilute any naturally occurring minerals or analytes existing underground. Finally, the City of Woodland maintains one other groundwater well and two emergency standby wells (also groundwater), which are available as a last resort. All wells are functional and maintained to provide water which meets all federal MCL standards.

The regulatory standard for hexavalent chromium was established and removed from regulation in September, 2017. The City of Woodland is following current discussions which will reestablish a new regulatory MCL. Water quality concerns associated with hexavalent chromium are largely mitigated by the 2016 construction of a surface water treatment plant which provides water quality with near-zero concentrations of hexavalent chromium. The City of Woodland staff is vigilant and proactive in following current trends in groundwater monitoring and will consider treatment technologies as may fit the current water system. The City of Woodland recommends continuing to follow discussions which may lead to further regulation, however, there is no recommendation for treatment techniques at this time.

Page 238 ends

16 References:

1. ATSDR (2004). Toxicological profile for copper (update). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Atlanta, Georgia.

2. Brown, E.G. et al. (2011, July). Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/cr6phg072911.pdf.

3. Brown, J. Ph.D. et al. (2020, Feb.) Public Health Goals – Trihalomethanes in Drinking Water: Chloroform, Bromoform, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/thmsphg020720.pdf.

4. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) (2022, Feb.). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment: Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports.

5. Fan, A. Ph.D. et. al (2009, Dec.). Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water—Bromate. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/bromatephg010110.pdf.

6. Fan, A. Ph.D. et. al. (2008, Feb.) Public Health Goal for COPPER in Drinking Water. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/copperphg020808.pdf.

7. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (2023). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6359, Bromodichloromethane. Retrieved June 5, 2023
from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Bromodichloromethane.

8. Sethi S, Grover S, Khodaskar MB (1993). Role of copper in Indian childhood cirrhosis. Ann Trop Paediat 13:3-5.

9. Soshilov, A., Ph.D. et al. (2022, Dec.) Public Health Goals – Haloacetic Acids in Drinking Water. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/haaphg123022.pdf.

10. U.S. EPA (2000). Bromoform. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016- 09/documents/bromoform.pdf on 6/9/2023.

11. U.S. EPA (2005). Technologies and Costs Document for the Fina Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100LZ09.txt.

12. U.S. EPA (2022, Nov. 2). How EPA Regulates Drinking Water Contaminants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/how-epa-regulates-drinking-water-contaminants.

13. U.S. EPA (2023, April 13). Overview of Drinking Water Treatment Technologies. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/overview-drinking-water-treatment-technologies.

14. World Health Organization (WHO) (2022, Dec. 7). Arsenic. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/arsenic on 6/6/2023.

Page 239 ends

17 APPENDIX 1

Excerpt from California Health & Safety Code: Section 116470

(a) As a condition of its operating permit, every public water system shall annually prepare a consumer confidence report and mail or deliver a copy of that report to each customer, other than an occupant, as defined in Section 799.28 of the Civil Code, of a recreational vehicle park. A public water system in a recreational vehicle park with occupants as defined in Section 799.28 of the Civil Code shall prominently display on a bulletin board at the entrance to or in the office of the park, and make available upon request, a copy of the report. The report shall include all of the following information:

(1) The source of the water purveyed by the public water system.

(2) A brief and plainly worded definition of the terms "maximum contaminant level," "primary drinking water standard," and "public health goal."

(3) If any regulated contaminant is detected in public drinking water supplied by the system during the past year, the report shall include all of the following information:
(A) The level of the contaminant found in the drinking water, and the corresponding public health goal and primary drinking water standard for that contaminant. (B) Any violations of the primary drinking water standard that have occurred as a result of the presence of the contaminant in the drinking water and a brief and plainly worded statement of health concerns that resulted in the regulation of that contaminant. (C) The public water system's address and phone number to enable customers to obtain further information concerning contaminants and potential health effects.

(4) Information on the levels of unregulated contaminants, if any, for which monitoring is required pursuant to state or federal law or regulation.

(5) Disclosure of any variances or exemptions from primary drinking water standards granted to the system and the basis therefor.

(b) On or before July 1, 1998, and every three years thereafter, public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal, shall prepare a brief written report in plain language that does all of the
following:

(1) Identifies each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal.

(2) Discloses the numerical public health risk, determined by the office, associated with the maximum contaminant level for each contaminant identified in paragraph (1) and the numerical public health risk determined by the office associated with the public health goal for that contaminant.

Page 240 ends

18 (3) Identifies the category of risk to public health, including, but not limited to, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and acute toxicity, associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, and includes a brief plainly worded description of these terms.

(4) Describes the best available technology, if any is then available on a commercial basis, to remove the contaminant or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. The public water system may, solely at its own discretion, briefly describe actions that have been taken on its own, or by other entities, to prevent the introduction of the contaminant into drinking water supplies.

(5) Estimates the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology described in paragraph (4), if any, to reduce the concentration of that contaminant in drinking water to a level at or below the public health goal.

(6) Briefly describes what action, if any, the local water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant in public drinking water supplies and the basis for that decision.

(c) Public water systems required to prepare a report pursuant to subdivision (b) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. Public water systems may hold the public hearing as part of any regularly scheduled meeting.

(d) The department shall not require a public water system to take any action to reduce or eliminate any exceedance of a public health goal.

(e) Enforcement of this section does not require the department to amend a public water system’s operating permit.

(f) Pending adoption of a public health goal by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 116365, and in lieu thereof, public water systems shall use the national maximum contaminant level goal adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the corresponding contaminant for purposes of complying with the notice and hearing requirements of this section.

(g) This section is intended to provide an alternative form for the federally required consumer confidence report as authorized by 42 U.S.C. Section 300g-3(c).

(Repealed and added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 755, Sec. 12. Effective January 1, 1997.)

Page 241 ends

19 APPENDIX 2

Excerpt from California Health & Safety Code: Section §116365

(a)The state board shall adopt primary drinking water standards for contaminants in drinking water that are based upon the criteria set forth in subdivision (b) and shall not be less stringent than the national primary drinking water standards adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. A primary drinking water standard adopted by the state board shall be set at a level that is as close as feasible to the corresponding public health goal placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health, and that, to the extent technologically and economically feasible, meets all of the following:
(1) With respect to acutely toxic substances, avoids any known or anticipated adverse effects on public health with an adequate margin of safety. (2) With respect to carcinogens, or any substances that may cause chronic disease, avoids any significant risk to public health.

(b) The state board shall consider all of the following criteria when it adopts a primary drinking water standard:
(1) The public health goal for the contaminant published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c).
(2) The national primary drinking water standard for the contaminant, if any, adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
(3) The technological and economic feasibility of compliance with the proposed primary drinking water standard. For the purposes of determining economic feasibility pursuant to this paragraph, the state board shall consider the costs of compliance to public water systems, customers, and other affected parties with the proposed primary drinking water standard, including the cost per customer and aggregate cost of compliance, using best available technology.

(c)(1) The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shall prepare and publish an assessment of the risks to public health posed by each contaminant for which the state board proposes a primary drinking water standard. The risk assessment shall be prepared using the most current principles, practices, and methods used by public health professionals who are experienced practitioners in the fields of epidemiology, risk assessment, and toxicology. The risk assessment shall contain an estimate of the level of the contaminant in drinking water that is not anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse health effects, or that does not pose any significant risk to health. This level shall be known as the public health goal for the contaminant. The public health goal shall be based exclusively on public health considerations and shall be set in accordance with all of the following:
(A) If the contaminant is an acutely toxic substance, the public health goal shall be set at the level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on health occur, with an adequate margin of safety.
(B) If the contaminant is a carcinogen or other substance that may cause chronic disease, the public health goal shall be set at the level that, based upon currently available data, does not pose any significant risk to health.
(C) To the extent information is available, the public health goal shall take into account each of the following factors:

Page 242 ends

20 (i) Synergistic effects resulting from exposure to, or interaction between, the contaminant and one or more other substances or contaminants. (ii) Adverse health effects the contaminant has on members of subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general population, including, but not limited to, infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or other subgroups that are identifiable as being at greater risk of adverse health effects than the general population when exposed to the contaminant in drinking water.
(iii) The relationship between exposure to the contaminant and increased body burden and the degree to which increased body burden levels alter physiological function or structure in a manner that may significantly increase the risk of illness. (iv) The additive effect of exposure to the contaminant in media other than drinking water, including, but not limited to, exposures to the contaminant in food, and in ambient and indoor air, and the degree to which these exposures may contribute to the overall body burden of the contaminant.
(D) If the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment finds that currently available scientific data are insufficient to determine the level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on health will occur, with an adequate margin of safety, or the level that poses no significant risk to public health, the public health goal shall be set at a level that is protective of public health, with an adequate margin of safety. This level shall be based exclusively on health considerations and shall, to the extent scientific data is available, take into account the factors set forth in clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, of subparagraph (C), and shall be based on the most current principles, practices, and methods used by public health professionals who are experienced practitioners in the fields of epidemiology, risk assessment, and toxicology. However, if adequate scientific evidence demonstrates that a safe dose response threshold for a contaminant exists, then the public health goal should be set at that threshold. The state board may set the public health goal at zero if necessary to satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph.

(2) The determination of the toxicological endpoints of a contaminant and the publication of its public health goal in a risk assessment prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the state board shall not impose any mandate on a public water system that requires the public water system to comply with a public health goal. The Legislature finds and declares that the addition of this paragraph by Chapter 777 of the Statutes of 1999 is declaratory of existing law.

(3)(A) The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shall, at the time it commences preparation of a risk assessment for a contaminant as required by this subdivision, electronically post on its Internet Web site a notice that informs interested persons that it has initiated work on the risk assessment. The notice shall also include a brief description, or a bibliography, of the technical documents or other information the office has identified to date as relevant to the preparation of the risk assessment and inform persons who wish to submit information concerning the contaminant that is the subject of the risk assessment of the name and address of the person in the office to whom the

Page 243 ends

21 information may be sent, the date by which the information shall be received in order for the office to consider it in the preparation of the risk assessment, and that all information submitted will be made available to any member of the public who requests it. (B) A draft risk assessment prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to this subdivision shall be made available to the public at least 45 calendar days before the date that public comment and discussion on the risk assessment are solicited at the public workshop required by Section 57003.

(C) At the time the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment publishes the final risk assessment for a contaminant, the office shall respond in writing to significant comments, data, studies, or other written information submitted by interested persons to the office in connection with the preparation of the risk assessment. These comments, data, studies, or other written information submitted to the office shall be made available to any member of the public who requests it.

(D) After the public workshop on the draft risk assessment, as required by Section 57003, is completed, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shall submit the draft risk assessment for external scientific peer review using the process set forth in Section 57004 and shall comply with paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 57004 before publication of the final public health goal.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any maximum contaminant level in effect on August 22, 1995, may be amended by the state board to make the level more stringent pursuant to this section. However, the state board may only amend a maximum contaminant level to make it less stringent if the state board shows clear and convincing evidence that the maximum contaminant level should be made less stringent and the amendment is made consistent with this section.

(e) (1) All public health goals published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shall be established in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (c) and shall be reviewed at least once every five years and revised, pursuant to subdivision (c), as necessary based upon the availability of new scientific data. (2) On or before January 1, 1998, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment shall publish a public health goal for at least 25 drinking water contaminants for which a primary drinking water standard has been adopted by the state board. The office shall publish a public health goal for 25 additional drinking water contaminants by January 1, 1999, and for all remaining drinking water contaminants for which a primary drinking water standard has been adopted by the state board by no later than December 31, 2001. A public health goal shall be published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment at the same time the state board proposes the adoption of a primary drinking water standard for any newly regulated contaminant.

(f) The state board or Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment may review, and adopt by reference, any information prepared by, or on behalf of, the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of adopting a national primary drinking water standard or maximum

Page 244 ends

22 contaminant level goal when it establishes a California maximum contaminant level or publishes a public health goal.

(g) At least once every five years after adoption of a primary drinking water standard, the state board shall review the primary drinking water standard and shall, consistent with the criteria set forth in subdivisions (a) and (b), amend any standard if any of the following occur:
(1) Changes in technology or treatment techniques that permit a materially greater protection of public health or attainment of the public health goal. (2) New scientific evidence that indicates that the substance may present a materially different risk to public health than was previously determined.

(h) No later than March 1 of every year, the state board shall provide public notice of each primary drinking water standard it proposes to review in that year pursuant to this section. Thereafter, the state board shall solicit and consider public comment and hold one or more public hearings regarding its proposal to either amend or maintain an existing standard. With adequate public notice, the state board may review additional contaminants not covered by the March 1 notice.

(i) This section shall operate prospectively to govern the adoption of new or revised primary drinking water standards and does not require the repeal or readoption of primary drinking water standards in effect immediately preceding January 1, 1997.

(j) The state board may, by regulation, require the use of a specified treatment technique in lieu of establishing a maximum contaminant level for a contaminant if the state board determines that it is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant.

(Added by Stats.1996, c. 755 (S.B.1307), § 9. Amended by Stats.1999, c. 777 (S.B.635), § 1; Stats.2015, c. 24 (S.B.83), § 18, eff. June 24, 2015.) Current as of January 18, 2019

Page 245 ends

Reporting Y ear 2022
Presented By
PWS ID#: 5710006
Este informe contiene información muy
importante sobre su agua potable. T radúzcalo
o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien.

APPENDIX 3

Page 246 ends

Dear Woodland Neighbor,
W
e are pleased to present the annual water quality report covering all water quality testing performed from January 1 through December 31, 2022. Our city tested over 1000 samples for regulated contaminants plus over one hundred samples for general quality and aesthetics.

We are proud of the water supply portfolio we have built. Within the last decade, the City of Woodland has invested in Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology to capture surface water and store it underground where it is less susceptible to evaporation compared to above ground storage. Both stored water and surface water tested met all Federal and State regulations in 2022. During the severe drought last year, the city managed to provide an ample quantity of water while maintaining high quality for all customers. Although 2022 ended with heavy rainfall, we anticipate cyclical wet and dry years. Ongoing investments in expanding ASR operations will increase the sustainability of our underground aquifers and, additionally, mitigate the environmental impacts of groundwater extraction.

Moving forward, we continue to focus on quality, scope, and scale of this precious commodity. In 2022, we served roughly 61,000 residents and supplied an average of over 7 million gallons per day. As stewards of water management, we strive to combine quality control with utmost consideration of health effects, environmental impacts and production for a sustainable future. This report demonstrates Woodland’s continued commitment to excellence through 2022 and beyond.

Sincerely,
Tim Busch
Principal Utilities Engineer
Where Does Your Water Come From?
T
he City of Woodland has two sources of drinking water—
surface water and groundwater. Our surface water comes
from the Sacramento River. The Woodland-Davis Clean
Water Agency (WDCWA) Regional Water T reatment Facility (RWTF) collects water from the Sacramento River east of Woodland and treats it by clarification, ozonation, and filtra - tion. It is then chlorinated to maintain disinfection dur - ing distribution.

Roughly 99 percent of Woodland’s potable water
came from WDCWA in 2022. The city also
maintains nine groundwater wells, three
of which can store water (ASR) for peak
demand or drought. Groundwater wells serve
as backup supply, and water is chlorinated
for disinfection prior to distribution.

Approximately 10 percent of the water used
last year came from the ASR wells, which
provide surface-water quality. T raditional
groundwater wells produced less than 1
percent of Woodland’s water supply.

Important Health Information
S
ome people may be more vulnerable to contami -
nants in drinking water than the general population.

Immunocompromised persons such as persons with cancer
undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants may be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drink- ing water from their health care providers. The U.S. EPA/CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the
risk of infection by Cryptosporidium
and other microbial contaminants
are available from the Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 or
http://water.epa.gov/drink/hotline.

Lead in Home Plumbing
I
f present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious
health problems, especially for pregnant women
and young children. Lead in drinking water is primar-
ily from materials and components associated with
service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible
for providing high-quality drinking water, but we
cannot control the variety of materials used in plumb-
ing components. When your water has been sitting
for several hours, you can minimize the potential for
lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to
two minutes before using water for drinking or cook-
ing. (If you do so, you may wish to collect the flushed water and reuse it for another beneficial purpose, such as watering plants.) If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested.

Information on lead in drinking water, testing meth -
ods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is
available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
(800) 426-4791 or www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

Questions?
For more information about this report, or for any questions relating to your drinking water, please phone Celia T aylor at (530) 661-5915 or email [email protected].

Property owners, please share this information with your tenants!
Para más información acerca del reporte o si tiene preguntas acerca del agua potable por favor llame a Celia T aylor al (530) 661-5915 o envíe un correo electrónico a celia.taylor@ cityofwoodland.org.
¡Propietarios, compartan esta información con sus ocupantes!

Page 247 ends

Substances That Could Be in Water
T
he sources of drinking water (both tap water and
bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds,
reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radio - active material and can pick up substances resulting
from the presence of animals or from human activity.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
and the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of
certain contaminants in water provided by public water
systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regulations and California law also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same
protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain
at least small amounts of some contaminants. The
presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate
that water poses a health risk.

Contaminants that may be present in source water
include:

Microbial Contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria,
that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic
systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife; Inorganic Contaminants, such as salts and metals, that
can be naturally occurring or can result from urban
stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater
discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming; Pesticides and Herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses;
Organic Chemical Contaminants, including synthetic
and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products
of industrial processes and petroleum production
and which can also come from gas stations, urban
stormwater runoff, agricultural applications, and septic systems;
Radioactive Contaminants, that can be naturally
occurring or can be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

More information about contaminants and potential
health effects can be obtained by calling the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

Source Water Assessment
T
he State Board, Division of Drinking Water,
requires water providers to conduct a source water
assessment (SWA) to help protect the quality of future
water supplies. The SWA describes where a water sys -
tem’s drinking water comes from, the type of polluting
activities that may threaten source water quality, and an evaluation of the water’s vulnerability to those threats.

The SWA for the Sacramento River was conducted by
several agencies and identified eight potential watershed contaminant sources: agricultural drainage, livestock,
forest activities, river corridor and river recreation, stormwater and urban runoff, industrial NPDES
dischargers, wastewater facilities, and watershed spills.

The report states that “Overall, the Sacramento River
continued to provide good quality raw water. The raw
water can currently be treated to meet all drinking
water standards using conventional water treatment
processes.” The Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary
Survey 2020 Update Report can be found at https://
cityofwoodland.org/SacramentoRiverSanitarySurvey.

Get Involved
T
he City of Woodland periodically conducts public
meetings and workshops concerning water issues.

Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third T uesday of each month. For more information,
please call (530) 661-5800 or visit www.cityofwood-
land.org/608/City-Council.

Page 248 ends

T est Results
O
ur water is monitored for many different kinds of substances on a very strict sampling schedule, and the water we deliver must meet specific health standards. Here, we only show those substances that were detected in our water (a complete list of all our analytical results is available upon request). Remember that detecting a substance does not mean the water is unsafe to drink; our goal is to keep all detects below their respective maximum allowed levels.

The state recommends monitoring for certain substances less than once per year because the concentrations of these substances do not change frequently. In these cases, the most recent sample data are included, along with the year in which the sample was taken.

REGULATED SUBSTANCES

WDCWA RWTF
Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
MCL
[MRDL]
PHG
(MCLG)
[MRDLG]
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (ppb) 2022 600 600 52.5 45–61 56.6 49–71 No Discharge from industrial chemical factories Aluminum (ppm) 2022 1 0.6 0.08 ND–0.11 0.04 ND–0.12 No Erosion of natural deposits; residue from some surface water treatment processes
Arsenic (ppb) 2022 10 0.004 ND NA 1.19 ND–2.5 No Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards; glass and electronics production wastes
Bromate (ppb) 2022 10 0.1 1.15 ND–2.5 NA NA No By-product of drinking water disinfection Chlorine (ppm) 2022 [4.0 (as
Cl2)]
[4 (as Cl2)] 0.9 0.8–0.9 0.71 0.1–1.41 No Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Control of DBP Precursors
[TOC] (ppm)
2022 TT NA 0.73 0.44–1.20 0.37 ND–0.79 No Various natural and human-made sources HAA5 [sum of 5 haloacetic
acids]–Stage 2 (ppb)
2022 60 NA 19.8 11–24 6.7 ND–15 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Hexavalent Chromium (ppb) 2022 NS2 0.02 0.16 NA 1.56 0.22–4.70 No Discharge from electroplating factories, leather tanneries, wood preservation, chemical synthesis, refractory production, and textile manufacturing facilities; erosion of natural deposits
Nitrate [as nitrogen] (ppm) 2022 10 10 ND NA 0.45 ND–1.9 No Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks and sewage; erosion of natural deposits
TTHMs [total
trihalomethanes]–Stage 2 (ppb)
2022 80 NA 9.3 4.3–15 21.3 7.3–27 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Tap water samples were collected for lead and copper analyses from sample sites throughout the community

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF

MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED AL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
(90TH %ILE)

SITES ABOVE

AL/TOTAL

SITES VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Copper (ppm) 2022 1.3 0.3 0.32 1/35 No Internal corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives Lead (ppb) 2022 15 0.2 ND 1/35 No Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; discharges from industrial manufacturers; erosion of natural deposits

SECONDARY SUBSTANCES

WDCWA RWTF
Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED SMCL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Chloride (ppm) 2022 500 NS 7.9 NA 11.6 5–31 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; seawater influence Color (units) 2022 15 NS 5 NA NA NA No Naturally occurring organic materials Iron (ppb) 2022 300 NS ND NA 20.5 ND–76 No Leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes

Page 249 ends

UNREGULATED SUBSTANCES 3
WDCWA RWTF Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH TYPICAL SOURCE
Boron (ppb) 2022 290 220–360 134 ND–440 NA
Bromodichloromethane (ppb) 2022 4.3 3.0–5.0 5.1 3.8–7.5 By-product of drinking water disinfection Bromoform (ppb) 2022 ND NA 0.3 ND–2.5 By-product of drinking water disinfection Chloroform (ppb) 2022 12.1 5.3–19.0 13.4 7.8–34.0 By-product of drinking water disinfection Dibromochloromethane (ppb) 2022 2.1 1.3–3.1 2.0 1.2–4.3 By-product of drinking water disinfection Hardness, T otal [as CaCO3] (ppm) 2022 63 NA 84 57–160 Erosion of natural deposits Hardness [as CaCO3] (grains per
gallon),
2022 3.7 NA 4.9 3.3–9.4 Erosion of natural deposits
Sodium (ppm) 2022 16 NA 19 14–30 Naturally occurring; road salt; water softeners; animal waste OTHER UNREGULATED SUBSTANCES 3
WDCWA RWTF Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH TYPICAL SOURCE
1,3-Dimethyl-2-nitrobenzene (ppb) 2022 0.88 0.81–0.94 NA NA NA 1-Br-2-Nitrobenzene (ppb) 2022 0.45 0.43–0.46 NA NA NA
2-Bromobutanoic Acid (ppb) 2022 9.8 9.3–10.0 9.8 8.5–11.0 NA 2-Fluorobiphenyl (ppb) 2022 2.8 1.8–4.7 NA NA NA
Alkalinity [as CaCO3] (ppm) 2022 71 NA 92 40–170 NA
Aminomethylphosphonic Acid [AMPA] (ppb) 2022 200 200–200 NA NA NA Bromofluorobenzene (ppb) 2022 51.2 45–59 50.5 43–60 NA
Calcium (ppm) 2022 13.2 11–16 17.9 13–32 NA
Chlorate (ppb) 2022 153 42–630 NA NA NA
Dibromoacetic Acid (ppb) 2022 1 0.99–1.1 ND NA By-product of drinking water disinfection Dichloroacetic Acid (ppb) 2022 5.5 2.6–7.5 0.5 ND–2.2 By-product of drinking water disinfection Dimethyl T etrachloroterephthalate [DCPAA] (ppb) 2022 37 NA NA NA NA Magnesium (ppm) 2022 7.1 NA 9.4 6.2–19.0 Erosion of natural deposits Nitrobenzene-d5 (ppb) 2022 3.0 1.9–5.1 NA NA NA
p-T erphenyl-d14 (ppb) 2022 3.1 1.9–5.1 NA NA NA

SECONDARY SUBSTANCES

WDCWA RWTF
Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED SMCL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Specific Conductance (µmho/cm) 2022 1,600 NS 190 NA 272 189–431 No Substances that form ions when in water; seawater influence Sulfate (ppm) 2022 500 NS 15 NA 17 12–25 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes T otal Dissolved Solids (ppm) 2022 1,000 NS 126 100–180 158 110–280 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits T urbidity (NTU) 2022 5 NS 0.21 NA 0.27 ND–0.88 No Soil runoff

Page 250 ends

OTHER UNREGULATED SUBSTANCES 3
WDCWA RWTF Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH TYPICAL SOURCE
pH (units) 2022 7.9 7.9–7.9 8.0 7.6–8.2 NA
Phosphate (ppm) 2022 1.7 1.5–2.0 1.4 0.9–1.7 Water additive for corrosion control Potassium (ppb) 2022 ND NA 1.0 ND–2.2 Erosion of natural deposits Triphenyl Phosphate (ppb) 2022 1.2 1.0–1.3 NA NA NA
1 Sampled from distribution system sites across the city. 2 There is currently no MCL for hexavalent chromium. The previous MCL of 10 ppb was withdrawn on September 11, 2017. 3 Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps U.S. EPA and the State Board determine where certain contaminants occur and whether the contaminants need to be regulated. 90th %ile: The levels reported for lead and copper represent the 90th percentile of the total number of sites tested. The 90th percentile is equal to or greater than 90% of our lead and copper detections.

AL (Regulatory Action Level): The concentration of a
contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow.

MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal): The level of a
contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. EPA.

MRDL (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

MRDLG (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal):

The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

NA: Not applicable.

ND (Not detected): Indicates that the substance was not found by laboratory analysis.

NS: No standard.

NTU (Nephelometric T urbidity Units): Measurement of the clarity, or turbidity, of water. T urbidity in excess of 5 NTU is just noticeable to the average person.

PDWS (Primary Drinking Water Standard): MCLs and MRDLs
for contaminants that affect health, along with their monitoring and reporting requirements and water treatment requirements.

PHG (Public Health Goal): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California EPA.
ppb (parts per billion): One part substance per billion parts water (or micrograms per liter).
ppm (parts per million): One part substance per million parts water (or milligrams per liter).

TT (Treatment T echnique): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water.
µmho/cm (micromhos per centimeter): A unit expressing the amount of electrical conductivity of a solution.

Definitions

Page 251 ends

Presented By
City of Woodland
PWS ID#: 5710006
For more information about this report, or
for any questions relating to your drinking
water, please call the Woodland Public Works
Department at (530) 661-5962 or email
[email protected]
.

Para más información acerca del reporte o si
tiene preguntas acerca del agua potable por
favor llame al Departamento de Obras Públicas
de la Ciudad de Woodland al (530) 661-5962
o envió un correo electrónico a
pubworks@
cityofwoodland.org
.

Property owners, please share this information
with your tenants!
APPENDIX 4

Page 252 ends

Important Health Information
N
itrate in drinking water at levels above 10 parts per million (ppm) is a health risk for infants of less than six months of age.

Such nitrate levels in drinking water can interfere with the capacity of the infant’s blood to carry oxygen, resulting in a serious illness; symptoms include shortness of breath and blueness of the skin.

Nitrate levels above 10 ppm may also affect the ability of the blood to carry oxygen in other individuals, such as pregnant women and those with certain specific enzyme deficiencies. If you are caring for an infant, or you are pregnant, you should ask advice from your health care provider.

Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immunocompromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants may
be particularly at risk from infections. These people
should seek advice about drinking water from their
health care providers. The U.S. EPA/CDC (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines on
appropriate means to lessen the risk of
infection by Cryptosporidium and other
microbial contaminants are available
from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline
at (800) 426-4791 or water.epa.gov/
drink/hotline.

Dear Woodland Water Customer,
T
he City of Woodland is proud to provide this 2021
water quality report and inform you that your tap
water met all state and federal drinking water standards.

Over 1,000 water quality samples were taken in 2021 to
ensure you’re receiving the highest-quality drinking water. 2021 was one of the driest years ever recorded in California.

The American West’s megadrought deepened so much last
year that it’s now the driest in at least 1,200 years, according to a study in the journal Nature Climate Change. The dry conditions and lack of precipitation present numerous
challenges for water supply but also accentuate the benefits of the city’s water supply planning efforts. The past 10 years of investment in water infrastructure are paying dividends now.

The city’s primary water source was and will continue to be treated Sacramento River surface water - 75 percent of the total water supply in 2021. T o prepare for droughts, the city constructed three aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells to store high-quality treated Sacramento River water in the underground aquifer. Stored ASR water is the secondary
water source and made up 15 percent of the total water
supply in 2021. The city also tapped its tertiary water source in 2021, local groundwater, which is blended with treated Sacramento River water prior to delivery to customers.

This ensures that all customers receive high-quality water throughout the year. Water from these wells made up 10
percent of Woodland’s water portfolio in 2021.

Since converting the water system to surface water in 2016, 2021 is the first year that Woodland provided a mixture of surface water and groundwater. Water quality results are displayed for both sources, but it’s important to understand that no Woodland water customers received water reflective of the groundwater testing results since groundwater was always blended with surface water. Groundwater never
exceeded 19 percent of the water supply blend for any given month.

With the drought continuing into 2022, Woodland faces
even more significant water right curtailments, but the water quality is likely to be very similar to that of 2021 thanks to advanced planning by the city and the Woodland-Davis
Clean Water Agency (WDCWA). Our staff is available if
you have questions or concerns about your water.

Sincerely,
Tim Busch, Principal Utilities Civil Engineer
Source Water Assessment
T
he State Board, Division of Drinking Water, requires water providers to conduct a source water assessment (SWA) to help protect the quality of future water supplies. The SWA describes where a water system’s drinking water comes from, the type of polluting activities that may threaten source water quality, and an evaluation of the water’s vulnerability to those threats.

The source water assessment for the Sacramento River was conducted by several agencies and identified eight potential watershed contaminant sources: agricultural drainage, livestock, forest activities, river corridor and river recreation, stormwater and urban runoff, industrial NPDES dischargers, wastewater facilities, and watershed spills. The report states: “Overall, the Sacramento River continued to provide good-quality raw water. The raw water can currently be treated to meet all drinking water standards using conventional water treatment processes.” The Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2020 Update Report can be found here: cityofwoodland.org/SacramentoRiverSanitarySurvey.

Lead in Home Plumbing
I
f present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but we cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to two minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. (If you do so, you may wish to collect the flushed water and reuse it for another beneficial purpose, such as watering plants.) If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 or epa.gov/safewater/lead.

Page 253 ends

Where Does Your Water Come From?
T
he City of Woodland has two sources of drinking water: surface water (primary supply) and groundwater (backup supply).

Surface water is pumped from the Sacramento River to the WDCWA’s regional water treatment facility (RWTF) for various treatment processes (see diagram) and the addition of chlorine (for disinfection) prior to distribution. For more information about the RWTF , visit wdcwa.com. Surface water is also stored below ground in the city’s three ASR wells for use in summer months to supplement WDCWA water. The city intends to meet demand primarily through the use of treated surface water and stored ASR water but also maintains four active groundwater wells and two standby wells as backup water sources. Groundwater is treated with liquid chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) at the wells for disinfection.

When groundwater sources are needed, the city prioritizes the use of wells that blend groundwater with the primary surface water supply prior to distribution to maintain high-quality drinking water for all customers.

Surface Water Treatment Process
Substances That Could Be in Water
T
he sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells.

As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and California law also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk.

Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

Microbial Contaminants , such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife;
Inorganic Contaminants , such as salts and metals, that can be naturally occurring or can result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming; Pesticides and Herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses; Organic Chemical Contaminants , including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and which can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural applications, and septic systems;
Radioactive Contaminants that can be naturally occurring or can be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

Page 254 ends

T est Results
O
ur water is monitored for many different kinds of substances on a very strict sampling schedule. The water we deliver must meet specific health standards. Here, we only show those substances that were detected in our water (a complete list of all our analytical results is available upon request). Remember that detecting a substance does not mean the water is unsafe to drink; our goal is to keep all detects below their respective maximum allowed levels.

Though results are shown for surface water from the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency’s Regional Water T reatment Facility (WDCWA RWTF) and groundwater (City of Woodland Wells) as distinct sources, it’s important to understand that no Woodland customers received water reflective of the groundwater testing results since groundwater was always blended with surface water and never exceeded 19 percent of the water supply blend in 2021.

REGULATED SUBSTANCES
WDCWA RWTF City of Woodland Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
MCL
[MRDL]
PHG
(MCLG)
[MRDLG]
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Barium (ppm) 2019 1 2 NA NA 0.25 NA No Discharges of oil drilling wastes and from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits
Bromate (ppb) 2021 10 0.1 0.4 ND–1.3 NA NA No By-product of drinking water disinfection Chlorine (ppm) 2021 [4.0 (as
Cl2)]
[4 (as Cl2)] 0.89 0.8–0.9 NA NA No Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Chromium, T otal (ppb) 2019 50 (100) NA NA 17 NA No Discharge from steel and pulp mills and chrome plating; erosion of natural deposits
Control of DBP Precursors
[TOC] (ppm)
2021 TT NA 0.945 0.36–2.3 NA NA No Various natural and human-made sources HAA5 [sum of 5 haloacetic
acids]–Stage 2 (ppb)
2021 60 NA 3.8 ND–7.6 NA NA No By-product of drinking water disinfection Hexavalent Chromium (ppb) 2021 NS1 0.02 0.18 NA 17.67 15–20 No Discharge from electroplating factories, leather tanneries, wood preservation, chemical synthesis, refractory production, and textile manufacturing facilities; erosion of natural deposits
Nitrate [as nitrogen] (ppm) 2021 10 10 ND NA 5.7 5.2–6.9 No Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks and sewage; erosion of natural deposits
Selenium (ppb) 2019 50 30 NA NA 13 NA No Discharge from petroleum, glass, and metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from mines and chemical manufacturers; runoff from livestock lots (feed additive)
TTHMs [total
trihalomethanes]–Stage 2 (ppb)
2021 80 NA 15.3 5.7–21 NA NA No By-product of drinking water disinfection Uranium (pCi/L) 2016 20 0.43 NA NA 1.6 NA No Erosion of natural deposits Tap water samples were collected for lead and copper analyses from sample sites throughout the community

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED AL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
(90TH %ILE)

SITES ABOVE

AL/TOTAL

SITES VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Copper (ppm) 2019 1.3 0.3 0.0715 0/35 No Internal corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives Lead (ppb) 2019 15 0.2 ND 0/35 No Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; discharges from industrial manufacturers; erosion of natural deposits

Page 255 ends

SECONDARY SUBSTANCES
WDCWA RWTF City of Woodland Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED SMCL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Chloride (ppm) 2021 500 NS 30 NA NA NA No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; seawater influence Odor, Threshold (TON) 2020 3 NS 1.6 1.2–2 NA NA No Naturally occurring organic materials Specific Conductance (µmho/cm) 2021 1,600 NS 240 NA 1,0002 NA No Substances that form ions when in water; seawater influence Sulfate (ppm) 2021 500 NS 6.4 NA NA NA No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; industrial wastes T otal Dissolved Solids (ppm) 2021 1,000 NS 143 110–180 NA NA No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits T urbidity (NTU) 2021 5 NS 0.03 0.03–0.04 NA NA No Soil runoff UNREGULATED SUBSTANCES 3
WDCWA RWTF City of Woodland Wells

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
Boron (ppm) 2021 NA NA 2.2 NA
Calcium (ppm) 2021 14 11–21 712 NA
Chlorate (ppb) 2021 157 79–290 NA NA
Hardness, T otal
[as CaCO3]
(ppm)
2021 78 62–100 4002 NA
Magnesium
(ppm)
2021 7.5 NA 542 NA
pH (units) 2021 7.9 7.9–7.9 82 NA
Phosphate (ppm) 2021 2 1.9–2.1 NA NA
Sodium (ppm) 2021 25 NA 662 NA
1 There is currently no MCL for hexavalent chromium. The previous MCL of 10 ppb was withdrawn on September 11, 2017.
2 Sampled in 2019.
3 Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps U.S. EPA and the State Board determine where certain contaminants occur and whether the contaminants need to be regulated.

Definitions
90th %ile: The levels reported for lead
and copper represent the 90th percentile of
the total number of sites tested. The 90th
percentile is equal to or greater than 90% of
our lead and copper detections.

AL (Regulatory Action Level): The
concentration of a contaminant which,
if exceeded, triggers treatment or other
requirements that a water system must
follow.

MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level):

The highest level of a contaminant that is
allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs
are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs)
as is economically and technologically
feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set
to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of
drinking water.

MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal): The level of a contaminant in
drinking water below which there is no
known or expected risk to health. MCLGs
are set by the U.S. EPA.

MRDL (Maximum Residual Disinfectant
Level): The highest level of a disinfectant
allowed in drinking water. There is
convincing evidence that addition of a
disinfectant is necessary for control of
microbial contaminants.

MRDLG (Maximum Residual
Disinfectant Level Goal): The level of a
drinking water disinfectant below which
there is no known or expected risk to
health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits
of the use of disinfectants to control
microbial contaminants.

NA: Not applicable.

ND (Not detected): Indicates that the
substance was not found by laboratory
analysis.

NS: No standard.

NTU (Nephelometric T urbidity Units):

Measurement of the clarity, or turbidity, of
water. T urbidity in excess of 5 NTU is just
noticeable to the average person.
pCi/L (picocuries per liter): A measure of
radioactivity.

PDWS (Primary Drinking Water
Standard): MCLs and MRDLs for
contaminants that affect health, along
with their monitoring and reporting
requirements and water treatment
requirements.

PHG (Public Health Goal): The level of
a contaminant in drinking water below
which there is no known or expected risk to
health. PHGs are set by the California EPA.
ppb (parts per billion): One part
substance per billion parts water (or
micrograms per liter).
ppm (parts per million): One part
substance per million parts water (or
milligrams per liter).

TON (Threshold Odor Number): A
measure of odor in water.

TT (Treatment T echnique): A required
process intended to reduce the level of a
contaminant in drinking water.
µmho/cm (micromhos per centimeter):

A unit expressing the amount of electrical
conductivity of a solution.

Page 256 ends

Presented By
City of Woodland
PWS ID#: 5710006
Este informe contiene información muy importante sobre su agua potable. T radúzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien.

APPENDIX 5

Page 257 ends

ContaCt Us
For more information about this report, or for any questions related to your drinking water, please phone the Woodland Public Works Department at (530) 661-5962 or email at [email protected].

Para más información acerca del reporte o si tiene preguntas acerca del agua potable por favor llame al Departamento de Obras Públicas de la Ciudad de Woodland al (530) 661-5962 o envié un correo electrónico a [email protected].

Property owners, please share this information with your tenants! Dear Woodland Water Customer,
T
he City of Woodland is proud to provide the 2020 Water
Quality Report and inform you that your tap water met
all state and federal drinking water standards. Over 1,000 water quality samples were taken in 2020 to ensure you’re receiving the highest-quality drinking water.

The past couple of water years have been some of the driest on record in California. Though the lack of precipitation presents numerous challenges for water utilities, the outlook for 2021 water supply demonstrates the benefits of the city’s recent investments in water infrastructure.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
has placed renewed emphasis on managing groundwater
basin sustainably in California. The City’s 2016 conversion to surface water has improved water quality while decreasing the reliance on groundwater. T reated Sacramento River water remains the primary source for Woodland in 2021. T o deal with drought conditions, the City of Woodland is prepared with its recently constructed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells to pump high-quality, treated surface water that the city has stored in the underground aquifer. In addition to the stored surface water, the city maintains groundwater wells that can be blended with surface water to ensure adequate supply while maintaining high-quality water throughout.

Our staff is available if you have questions or concerns about your water.

Sincerely,
Tim Busch,
Principal Utilities Civil Engineer
Benefits of Chlorination
D
isinfection, a chemical process used to control disease- causing microorganisms by killing or inactivating them, is unquestionably the most important step in drinking water treatment. By far, the most common method of disinfection in North America is chlorination.

Before communities began routinely treating drinking water with chlorine (starting with Chicago and Jersey City in 1908), cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery, and hepatitis A killed thousands of U.S. residents annually. Drinking water chlorination and filtration have helped to virtually eliminate these diseases in the U.S. Significant strides in public health are directly linked to the adoption of drinking water chlorination.

In fact, the filtration of drinking water plus the use of chlorine is probably the most significant public health advancement in human history.

How chlorination works:

Potent Germicide Reduction in the level of many disease- causing microorganisms in drinking water to almost
immeasurable levels.

Taste and Odor Reduction of many disagreeable tastes and odors like foul-smelling algae secretions, sulfides, and odors from decaying vegetation.

Biological Growth Elimination of slime bacteria, molds, and algae that commonly grow in water supply reservoirs, on the walls of water mains, and in storage tanks.

Chemical Removal of hydrogen sulfide (which has a rotten egg odor), ammonia, and other nitrogenous compounds that have unpleasant tastes and hinder disinfection. It also helps to remove iron and manganese from raw water.

Important Health Information
S
ome people may be more vulnerable to contami -
nants in drinking water than the general population.

Immunocompromised persons such as persons with cancer
undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone
organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants may be particu - larly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their
health care providers. The U.S. EPA/
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) guidelines on appropriate
means to lessen the risk of infection by
Cryptosporidium and other microbial
contaminants are available from the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
(800) 426-4791 or http://water.
epa.gov/drink/hotline .

Lead in Home Plumbing
I
f present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health prob- lems, especially for pregnant women and young children.

Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and compo- nents associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but we cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing com- ponents. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. (If you do so, you may wish to collect the flushed water and reuse it for another beneficial purpose, such as watering plants.) If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791 or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

Page 258 ends

Substances That Could Be in Water
T
he sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and California law also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk.

Contaminants that may be present in source water include:

Microbial Contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife;
Inorganic Contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally occurring or can result from urban storm-water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming; Pesticides and Herbicides, that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban storm-water runoff, and residential uses; Organic Chemical Contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and which can also come from gas stations, urban storm-water runoff, agricultural applications, and septic systems;
Radioactive Contaminants, that can be naturally occurring or can be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

Where Does Your Water Come From?
T
he City of Woodland has two sources of drinking water: surface water (primary supply) and groundwater (backup supply).

Surface water is pumped from the Sacramento River to the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency’s (WDCWA) Regional Water T reatment Facility (RWTF) for various treatment processes (see diagram) and the addition of chlorine (for disinfection) prior to distribution. For more information about the RWTF , visit www.wdcwa.com/. Surface water is also stored below ground in the city’s three Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) wells for use in summer months to supplement WDCWA-supplied water. The city intends to meet demand primarily through the use of treated surface water and stored ASR water but also maintains five active groundwater wells and six standby wells as additional backup water sources. Groundwater is treated with liquid chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) at the wells for disinfection. When groundwater sources are needed, the city prioritizes the use of groundwater wells that blend groundwater with the primary surface water supply prior to distribution to maintain high-quality drinking water for all customers.

Surface Water Treatment Process

Page 259 ends

The state recommends monitoring for certain substances less often than once per year because the concentration of these substances do not change frequently. In these cases, the most recent sample data are included, along with the year in which the sample was taken.

We participated in the 4th stage of the U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR4) program by performing additional tests on our drinking water. UCMR4 sampling benefits the environment and public health by providing the U.S. EPA with data on the occurrence of contaminants suspected to be in drinking water, in order to determine if U.S. EPA needs to introduce new regulatory standards to improve drinking water quality. Unregulated contaminant monitoring data are available to the public, so please feel free to contact us if you are interested in obtaining that information. If you would like more information on the U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule, please call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.

REGULATED SUBSTANCES

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
MCL
[MRDL]

PHG (MCLG)
[MRDLG]
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Bromate (ppb) 2020 10 0.1 0.08 ND–1 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Chlorine (ppm) 2020 [4.0 (as Cl2)] [4 (as Cl2)] 0.9 0.8–0.9 No Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment Control of DBP precursors
[TOC] (ppm)
2020 TT NA 0.87 0.32–1.2 No Various natural and man-made sources Haloacetic Acids (ppb) 2020 60 NA 11.2 ND–39 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Hexavalent Chromium (ppb) 2020 NS1 0.02 0.14 0.12–0.15 No Discharge from electroplating factories, leather tanneries, wood preservation, chemical synthesis, refractory production, and textile manufacturing facilities; Erosion of natural deposits Nitrate [as nitrogen] (ppm) 2020 10 10 ND NA No Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic tanks and sewage; Erosion of natural deposits
TTHMs [T otal
Trihalomethanes] (ppb)
2020 80 NA 19.5 4.6–34 No By-product of drinking water disinfection Tap Water Samples Collected for Copper and Lead Analyses from Sample Sites throughout the Community

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF

MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED AL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
(90TH %ILE)
SITES

ABOVE AL/

TOTAL SITES VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Copper (ppm) 2019 1.3 0.3 0.0715 0/35 No Internal corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits; Leaching from wood preservatives Lead (ppb) 2019 15 0.2 ND 0/35 No Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; Discharge from industrial manufacturers; Erosion of natural deposits

SECONDARY SUBSTANCES

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED SMCL
PHG
(MCLG)
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH VIOLATION TYPICAL SOURCE
Chloride (ppm) 2020 500 NS 24.5 20–29 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; Seawater influence Odor–Threshold (TON) 2020 3 NS 1.6 1.2–2 No Naturally occurring organic materials Specific Conductance (µmho/cm) 2020 1,600 NS 255 220–290 No Substances that form ions when in water; Seawater influence Sulfate (ppm) 2020 500 NS 10.2 7.4–13 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; Industrial wastes T otal Dissolved Solids (ppm) 2020 1,000 NS 137 87–170 No Runoff/leaching from natural deposits T urbidity (NTU) 2020 5 NS 0.03 0.03–0.04 No Soil runoff

Page 260 ends

UNREGULATED AND OTHER SUBSTANCES 2

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
Calcium (ppm) 2020 14.1 11–18
Chlorate (ppb) 2020 125.5 75–210
Hardness, T otal [as CaCO3] (ppm) 2020 74 43–111
Magnesium (ppm) 2020 8.7 7.6–9.8
Phosphate (ppm) 2020 2 1.9–2.1
pH (Units) 2020 7.9 7.9–7.9
Sodium (ppm) 2020 22.5 19–26
1 There is currently no MCL for hexavalent chromium. The previous MCL of 10 ppb was withdrawn on September 11, 2017.
2 Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps U.S. EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board to determine where certain contaminants occur and whether the contaminants need to be regulated.

UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING RULE – PART 4 (UCMR4)

SUBSTANCE
(UNIT OF MEASURE)
YEAR

SAMPLED
AMOUNT

DETECTED
RANGE

LOW-HIGH
Manganese (ppb) 2020 4.79 0.43–13
Definitions
90th %ile: The levels reported for lead and copper
represent the 90th percentile of the total number of sites tested. The 90th percentile is equal to or greater than 90% of our lead and copper detections.

AL (Regulatory Action Level): The concentration of a
contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or
other requirements that a water system must follow.

MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level): The highest
level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.

Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs)
as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set to protect the odor, taste and
appearance of drinking water.

MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal): The level
of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by
the U.S. EPA.

MRDL (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level):

The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of
a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial
contaminants.

MRDLG (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
Goal): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health.

MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of
disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

NA: Not applicable.

ND (Not detected): Indicates that the substance was not found by laboratory analysis.

NS: No standard
NTU (Nephelometric T urbidity Units): Measurement of
the clarity, or turbidity, of water. T urbidity in excess of 5 NTU is just noticeable to the average person.

PDWS (Primary Drinking Water Standard): MCLs and
MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with
their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water
treatment requirements.

PHG (Public Health Goal): The level of a contaminant
in drinking water below which there is no known or
expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California EPA.
ppb (parts per billion): One part substance per billion parts water (or micrograms per liter).
ppm (parts per million): One part substance per million parts water (or milligrams per liter).

TON (Threshold Odor Number): A measure of odor in
water.

TT (Treatment T echnique): A required process intended
to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. µmho/cm (micromhos per centimeter): A unit
expressing the amount of electrical conductivity of a
solution.

Source Water Assessment
T
he State Water Resources Control Board -- Division of Drinking Water, requires water providers to conduct a source water assessment (SWA) to help protect the quality of future water supplies. The SWA describes where a water system’s drinking water comes from, the type of polluting activities that may threaten source water quality, and an evalua- tion of the water’s vulnerability to those threats.

The source water assessment for the Sacramento River was conducted by several agencies and identified eight potential watershed contaminant sources: agricultural drainage, livestock, forest activities, river corridor and river recreation, storm water and urban runoff, industrial NPDES dischargers, wastewater facilities, and watershed spills. The report states that “overall, the Sacramento River continued to provide good quality raw water. The raw water can currently be treated to meet all drinking water standards using conventional water treatment processes.” The Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2020 Update Report can be found here:
https://cityofwoodland.org/SacramentoRiverSanitarySurvey.

How Long Can I Store Drinking Water?
T
he disinfectant in drinking water will eventually dissipate, even in a closed container. If that con - tainer housed bacteria prior to filling up with the tap water, the bacteria may continue to grow once the disinfectant has dissipated. Some experts believe that water can be stored up to six months before needing to be replaced. Refrigeration will help slow the bacterial growth.

Information on the Internet
T
he U.S. EPA ( https://goo.gl/TFAMKc) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov) Web sites provide a substantial amount of information on many issues relating to water resources, water conservation, and public health. Also, the Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management has a Web site (https://goo.gl/kGepu4) that provides complete and current information on water issues in California, including valuable information about our watershed.

Page 261 ends

April

20 22

Suggested Guidelines for Preparation of

Required

Reports

PUBLIC

HEALTH

GOALS

(PHGs)

to satisfy requirements of California Health and Safety Code

Section

116470(b)

Background

Public water systems serving more than
10,000 service connections must prepare a

brief,
written report in plain language by July 1, 20
22 that gives information on the

“detection” of
any contaminants above the Public Health Goals (PHGs) published by

the

state’s Office of
Environmental Health Haz
ard Assessment (OEHHA).

The report must

also list the
“detection” of any contaminant above the Maximum Contaminant Level

Goals (MCLGs) set
by United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for all

other contaminants
until such time as OEHHA has p
ublished PHGs for those

contaminants.

It is emphasized that the report only needs to provide information on the number of

contaminants

that

a water system

has

found

level exceeding

PHG

a MCLG.

The purpose of the legislation requiring these repo
rts was to provide consumers with

information

levels

contaminants

even below the

enforceable

mandatory

Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) so they would be aware of whatever risks might

be posed by
the presence of these contaminants at levels
below the MCLs.

Additionall
y,

each

water

system

must provide

estimate

the

cost

reduce

the

contaminant(s)

the

PHG (or

MCLG if

there

PHG)

regardless of

how

minimal

the

risk

might

be.

The

following

should

considered

when

preparing

the

mandated

reports:

1. The U.S. EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)

Division of Drinking Water (DDW) establish MCLs at very conservative levels to

provide protection to consumers against all but very low to negligib le risk.

other words, MCLs are the regulatory definition of what is “safe.” Adopted MCLs

are still the criteria for being in compliance, not those proposed or possible in

the

future,

and

certainly

not

MCLGs or

PHGs.

APPENDIX 6

Page 262 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 2

2. MCLGs and PHGs are often set at very low levels depending on the established health risk, and in the case of U.S. EPA, MCLGs are also set at zero for some contaminants. Determination of health risk at these low levels is theoretical based on risk assessments with multiple assumptions and mathematical extrapolations. Many contaminants are considered to be carcinogenic and U.S. EPA’s policy is to set the applicable MCLGs at zero because they consider no amount of these contaminants to be without risk. It is understood by all that zero is an unattainable goal and cannot be measured by the practically available analytical methods. Note that by regulation, OEHHA cannot set a PHG at zero and must calculate a numerical level to address risk, even though it may be unattainable or impossible to measure. 3. PHGs and MCLGs are not enforceable. The Best Available Technology (BAT) to reach such low levels has not been defined and may not realistically be available. Accurate cost estimates are difficult, if not impossible, and are highly speculative and theoretical. Therefore, they have limited value and may not warrant significant investment of agency time and money. These reports are unique to California. They are required in addition to the extensive public reporting of water quality information that California water utilities have been doing for many years and in addition to the federally mandated Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). Hence, it should be kept in mind that in addition to this required report, each utility will continue reporting annually in great depth on the quality of the water it serves. The guidance herein is intended to assist water suppliers in completing the required reports. The DDW is the primary enforcing agency of all provisions of the Health and Safety (H&S) Code relative to drinking water systems. It has the authority to ensure that public water systems comply with the report requirement. DDW requests that utilities report in writing as to how they have complied with the fundamental requirements of this section, which are: 1) Prepare a brief written report, 2) Hold a public hearing (meeting), and 3) Notify DDW that the meeting was held and the report is available. Detailed Guidelines: I. Who must prepare a PHG report? California H&S Code, Section 116470(b) is clear that a system ONLY needs to do a report IF it has at least 10,000 service connections AND IF it exceeds one or more PHG or MCLG. Also, a public hearing is NOT required if a report does not have to be prepared. Utilities that do NOT have to do the report may choose to submit an information item to their governing board advising them that no report is required.

Page 263 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 3 This report is required every three years. II. Wholesalers (<10,000 service connections) are NOT required to do a PHG report. Wholesalers who do not directly serve more than 10,000 service connections are not required to meet the PHG report requirements of California H&S Code, Section 116470(b). III. Timing, Notification, Meetings A. Timing and Meeting: The report must be prepared by July 1, 2022. A public hearing, which can be held as part of any regularly scheduled meeting, should be held sometime after July 1 and prior to reporting to DDW. The public hearing “should be held within a reasonable time after the report’s completion” so the information is current. The purpose of the hearing is to “accept and respond to” public comment. The governing board or council of public water agencies would also likely approve the staff report at that time. This would represent endorsement by the board of the part of the report where any action (or no action) would be proposed regarding reduction of contaminants to levels lower than required for compliance with MCLs. Notification: There is no requirement to send a copy of the report to the public. Public agencies must “notice” public hearings so this hearing would be subject to the normal notice requirements (i.e., number of days advance, publishing in appropriate newspaper, etc.) The notice would appropriately indicate the report is the subject of the hearing and indicate it is available for the public to review or to get a copy upon request. (NOTE: Investor-owned utilities will likely have to schedule a special “meeting” since they are not subject to the same meeting notice requirements and may not have any authority to hold a “public hearing” per se. Their notification of the public could however be similar to public agencies (e.g., publication of legal notice in newspaper of general circulation.) B. Submission of Reports: DDW does not specifically require that a copy of the report be submitted to them. IV. Interpretations A. What contaminants must be covered? A table of relevant current PHGs, MCLGs, MCLs, and Detection Limits for purposes of Reporting (DLRs) is attached to this guidance as Attachment No. 1.

Page 264 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 4

1. Only contaminants that have an existing MCL AND were “detected” at a level that “exceeds” the PHG or, where there is no PHG, the Federal MCLG, need to be included in the report. (See guidance below on “detected” and “exceed”) 2. All contaminants that, as of December 31, 2021, have Primary Drinking Water Standards (PDWS) set by California AND have an equivalent PHG or a MCLG. This includes chemical, microbiological and radiological constituents. PDWS may be either MCLs or Treatment Techniques (TT). For example, the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) is a TT for the following contaminants: Giardia lamblia, viruses, Cryptosporidium, Legionella and heterotrophic bacteria (HPC). A TT is set when it is not possible to reliably analyze for the contaminant of concern (the SWTR) or when it is not feasible or appropriate to set a numerical standard (e.g., the Lead & Copper Rule). 3. It does NOT include contaminants, such as radon, for which U.S. EPA has considered adopting an MCL, nor does it include any contaminants DDW plans to regulate in the future. It does NOT include contaminants for which there is no final PHG or MCLG as of December 31, 2021, nor does it include any secondary MCLs (e.g., TDS, SO4, Na, etc). B. What data are to be used for the report due by July 1, 2022? 1. It is recommended that the data used should be from the 3 consecutive calendar years prior to the year the report is prepared. For example, the 2022 report would be based on the analytical data from samples taken in 2019, 2020, and 2021. The data should be the same as that used by the drinking water system in determining compliance with DDW requirements. In most cases, this would be after blending or treatment. Individual well data would only be used if the well feeds directly to the distribution system. 2. For utilities that purchase water from another agency or from a wholesaler, it is suggested that the same guidance or ground rules be followed as for the CCRs. If the only source for a retail system is treated water from a wholesaler and that water contains a constituent above a PHG or MCLG, the retailer should use its own distribution system monitoring data. For systems with both its own sources of water and purchased water, the retailer should evaluate its own distribution system compliance monitoring and compare the annual average value with the PHG or MCLG.

Page 265 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 5 C. What do the terms “detect” and “exceed” mean in the context of the required report? 1. Keep in mind that there are no regulations that relate to “meeting” or “complying with” PHGs. The logical approach would be to use the same procedures and requirements that Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations specify for determining compliance with MCLs. For example, if Title 22 or DDW guidance specifies that the average of a group of samples be compared to the MCL for compliance purposes, the same averaging should be used to compare to the PHG or MCLG. For most constituents (coliform is an exception), compliance with MCLs is measured at the “point of entry” to the distribution system. This means that, for the most part, the analytical results for each well must be evaluated separately and compared to the MCLG or PHG. If wells are blended or treated before delivery to the system, the judgment as to whether there was a “detection exceeding the MCLG or PHG” should be based on the “point of entry” data just as for compliance with MCLs. 2. Be sure to report the PHG (or MCLG) as a number equal to or greater than 1.0 as specified in the State Consumer Confidence Report Guidance for Water Suppliers. It is recommended that all data be converted to match CCR data. Attachment No. 1 concentration numbers are given as mg/L, unless otherwise noted. 3. Keep in mind that if a utility determines that a constituent has been found at a level exceeding the PHG or MCLG, a cost estimate is mandated. A utility would ordinarily be required to perform a cost estimate only if it is clear that the MCL has been clearly exceeded, not just momentarily, or on one sample. In the same way, only when the PHG/MCLG level is clearly exceeded should a cost estimate be calculated and reported. 4. Significant figures, analytical detection limits, reporting limits, and different methods of determining compliance, all affect the assessment of which constituents were “detected” above the PHG or the MCLG. 5. Results that are reported below the state regulatory Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting (DLR - See California Code of Regulations Title 22, Sections 64432 & 64445.1 and other DDW guidance on compliance reporting) should be treated as 0 (zero) which is accepted DDW practice. U.S. EPA also recommends treating non-detection (ND) as zero.

Page 266 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 6

6. As in all cases of reporting results to the state, the results of analyses should be rounded to reflect the appropriate number of significant figures. (EXAMPLE: For E. coli bacteria, the MCLG is 0% samples positive per month which indicates one significant figure. So, if during 2021, a system had a positive sample but the percentage of samples positive for the month was <0.49%, this could be rounded to one significant figure, as the MCLG is expressed, so it would be rounded to 0%.) (SECOND EXAMPLE: For a constituent like PCBs where the MCL is 0.5 ppb and the DLR is 0.5 ppb, how do you determine if you exceeded the MCLG of “zero”? Webster defines “zero” as “having no measurable or otherwise determinable value,” which, in effect, is the DLR. So for PCBs, if the average of results for a given well is less than the DLR, the value would be reported as “zero.” Note that by regulation, OEHHA cannot set a PHG at zero and must calculate a numerical level to address risk.) 7. In averaging the results for a constituent over a specified period during which some of the data is less than the DLR, the average value obtained should be rounded to the appropriate significant figure before comparing to the PHG or MCLG. (EXAMPLE: If a well were sampled for PCE and 0.6 ppb was found and the resample showed 0.6 ppb, it would constitute a confirmed positive detection. But if 3 additional compliance samples were taken from the well and all had less than 0.5 ppb, which is the DLR, then averaging the 5 samples would give an average of 0.24 ppb, which would be rounded to zero. The average from the well does not exceed the PHG of 0.06 ppb, and no cost estimate would be needed for this well.) D. What does the term “best available technology” (BAT) mean as used in this portion of the law? 1. While a specific definition of the term is not in the California H&S Code, the accepted meaning in all other sections is that it refers to a technology to achieve compliance with MCLs. In fact, where “best available technology” is listed or explained (Sections 64447, 64447.2 & 64447.4), the usage is “for achieving compliance with the MCLs.” This is also true for BAT specified in federal regulations. 2. However, in Section 116470(b)(4), the term refers to “BAT,” if any is available on a commercial basis, to remove or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. Specifically, subdivision (b)(5) requires cost estimates of using the technology described in subdivision (b)(4) to “reduce the contaminant...to a level at or below the” PHG (or MCLG).

Page 267 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 7

3. Obviously, where MCLGs are set at zero, there may not be commercially available technology to reach a non-detectable level. This should be clearly stated in the report. Since there is little data readily available to “estimate” cost of treatment to achieve absolute zero levels, rough estimates of “BAT” as defined in law might be used with a clearly written caveat that use of this “BAT” may still not achieve the PHG or MCLG and the costs may be significantly higher to do so. E. Must the report deal with total coliforms? No. No PHG or MCLG for total coliforms existed during the period covered by the 2022 report. For reports on PHGs prepared in 2019 and prior years, results for total coliforms needed to be evaluated because the U.S. EPA established a MCLG of zero (0) for total coliforms that remained applicable until March 31, 2016. In 2013, U.S. EPA revised the 1989 Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and one of the provisions of the revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) eliminated the MCLG for total coliforms effective April 1, 2016. F. How should the report deal with E. coli? The federal RTCR included a MCL and MCLG for E. coli effective April 1, 2016. The MCLG for E. coli is zero (0). DDW adopted a MCL for E. coli which became effective July 1, 2021. Even though there is no PHG, E. coli. is subject to PHG report requirements because there is a MCLG and a MCL. 1. The E. coli MCL is based on either an E. coli positive repeat sample following a total coliform (TC) positive routine sample, a TC-positive repeat sample following an E. coli -positive routine sample, failure to collect all required repeat samples following a E. coli positive routine sample, or failure to test for E. coli when any repeat sample is TC-positive. The PWS should report the number of E. coli detections that occurred during the three-year period (2019, 2020, and 2021 for this report). The MCLG of zero is therefore appropriately interpreted as zero samples positive. 2. If it is determined that the system has exceeded the MCLG of zero for E. coli, the following factors are pertinent for deciding what action, if any, is appropriate to consider and for estimating costs: a. Exceeding zero E. coli bacteria at any one time, in and of itself, would not normally constitute the need for any treatment or action. b. There is no action that could be taken with absolute certainty that could ensure that the system would always have zero-percent E. coli every single time.

Page 268 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 8 c. The “best available technology” (to meet the MCL, not the MCLG) that is specified for total coliform by DDW in California Code of Regulations Title 22, Section 64447 would also apply to E. coli and for the most part is already followed by many systems. d. The one single action that would most likely decrease the possibility of positive E. coli detection would be to significantly increase the disinfectant residual. This would likely result in increased disinfection byproducts (DBPs). While disinfection protects against acute health risks, such as E. coli and Giardia, DBPs can have potentially adverse chronic health risks. The limits to the amount of disinfectant residual allowed in the distribution system are the maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) as established by the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR). e. Utilities should point out the positive, proactive steps they take to prevent E. coli contamination in the distribution system, including preventive maintenance, main flushing, special monitoring, residual maintenance and testing, cross-connection control, etc. G. How should the report handle the MCLGs of zero for Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium, Legionella and viruses? 1. The MCL for pathogenic micro-organisms is a TT (i.e., the SWTR). No monitoring is mandated for the organisms because there are no standardized methods for testing or the analyses are not timely (like virus testing – 30 days) to provide public health protection. 2. For these reasons, since the intent of the TT (SWTR) is to protect against these pathogens, it can properly be assumed that if the SWTR is met, that the utility has met the MCLG because there is no uniform way to assess possible pathogen levels. 3. For utilities doing voluntary monitoring of pathogens (such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium), the results are appropriately considered research or for operational purposes and not for compliance purposes. H. How should the report deal with Lead and Copper? 1. Any lead or copper values below the respective DLR should be reported as zero. 2. For monitoring lead at the tap, if the 90 percentile lead value is ND, or <0.005 mg/l, then you should assume you do not exceed the lead PHG of 0.2 ppb.

Page 269 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 9

3. For monitoring copper at the tap, if the 90 percentile copper value is not above 300 ppb, then you have not exceeded the copper PHG. 4. While not precisely stated in the regulations, best available technology for Lead and Copper compliance is a TT (in lieu of MCLs) of “optimized corrosion control.” For larger systems with >10,000 service connections, this depends on a series of steps involving sampling, reports, studies, etc. If a system meets the requirements of having optimized corrosion control but still has a 90 percentile lead or copper value above the PHGs, it is not clear what additional steps could be considered, particularly without causing other potential water quality problems. It may be appropriate to explain this in a straight-forward manner rather than putting in “hypothetical” cost figures. I. Must the report deal with Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) or Haloacetic Acids (HAAS)? No. MCLG/PHG exceedances must be reported only for those contaminants that have a primary drinking water standard in place and an associated MCLG/PHG. Although U.S. EPA has adopted MCLGs for some individual THMs and HAAs (such as dibromochloromethane or dichloroacetic acid), there are no MCLs in effect for these individual constituents. Likewise, U.S. EPA has adopted standards for the cumulative byproduct groups, but there are no MCLGs or PHGs established for the groups. In California, DDW has adopted an MCL for both cumulative byproduct groups, but there are no associated PHGs. (Note: OEHHA published a draft PHG of 0.8 ppb for total trihalomethanes in September 2010, but it had not been finalized as of December 31, 2021). On February 7, 2020, OEHHA published PHGs of 0.4 ppb for chloroform, 0.5 ppb for bromoform, 0.06 ppb for bromodichoromethane, and 0.1 ppb for dibromochloromethane but there are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes so these constituents do not need to be included in the report. However, individual MCLs and MCLGs for bromate and chlorite exist, so they must be included in the report if detected. J. How should water utilities handle gross alpha and uranium? When looking at the results of any radionuclide monitoring done in the 3-year period to be covered by the report, there are several things to keep in mind: As indicated in C.1 of this Guidance, where averaging is done to determine compliance with MCLs, it should also be done in considering PHGs. This is important for radionuclides because compliance is often based on averaging.

Page 270 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 10 Unlike most other constituents, laboratories doing radionuclides report some results that are LOWER than the state DLR. Title 22, 64442 (h)(3)(c) states: “If a sample result is LESS than the DLR in Table 64442, ZERO shall be used to calculate the annual average.......” Also, it says for Gross Alpha: “ ...... 1/2 of the DLR shall be used to calculate the annual average.” Where Gross Alpha analyses are used in lieu of analyzing for uranium, Radium 226 or 228, the procedure outlined in Title 22, 64442(f) should be followed. (Note: The 95% confidence limit is often reported by labs as MDA95.) K. Do utilities have to report detections of hexavalent chromium? Water systems do NOT have to report anything on hexavalent chromium because there is no MCL. While there is an MCL and an MCLG for TOTAL chromium, systems will not have to report on it either since the MCLG (100 ppb) is much higher than the California MCL (50 ppb). V. Disclosure of Numerical Public Health Risk Associated with PHGs/MCLs and Identification of Category of Risk H&S Code, Section 116470(b)(2) requires the report to disclose the numerical public health risk associated with both the maximum contaminant level and public health goal for each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the public health goal, and Section 116470(b)(3) requires an identification of the category of risk to public health associated with exposure to the contaminant. In February 2022, OEHHA prepared and published an updated “Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports” document. It is included as Attachment No. 2, and can be accessed at https://oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goal-report/health-risk-information-public-health-goal-exceedance-reports-2022. V. Cost Estimates The most difficult aspect of the required report is estimating the cost of treatment. Agencies are urged to keep in mind that because of the advisory nature of the report, the non-enforceable aspect of PHGs and MCLGs, and the highly speculative applicability of technology to achieve “zero” levels, only very preliminary cost estimating is appropriate and necessary. Remember that a cost estimate is only required for a constituent if you determine that it was “detected” above the PHG or MCLG. If the MCLG is zero and the result (after approximation, averaging, rounding) is less than the DLR, no cost estimate is needed. (Remember that many DLRs are LOWER than the PHG, so “detection” above the DLR does not necessarily mean that it is above the PHG.)

Page 271 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 11 The cost estimates should not be low estimates because that would give a mistaken impression that achieving “zero” levels would have a lower price tag when the amount of uncertainty and unknowns would be very high. Given the uncertainties, it might be appropriate to consider reporting a range of costs. For the 2022 guidance, ACWA is providing a revision of its previous treatment cost information. Attachment No. 3 to this guidance includes several tables which provide "ranges" of costs for installing and operating several treatment technologies. These data have been gathered from a variety of sources and represent estimates for different size systems, different sources, and different constituents targeted for reduction by the treatment. Table 1 represents the results of a 2012 ACWA Survey of its member agencies. This has been revised using the average 2021 ENR Cost Index. Table 2 includes data from several agencies that was gathered separately from the 2012 ACWA survey. This has been revised using the average 2021 ENR Cost Index. Table 3 is treatment cost data from previous ACWA Guidance documents with the costs updated to 2021. This has been revised using the average 2021 ENR Cost Index. The law specifies that the report should only “estimate the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology” to reduce the level down to the PHG. There is no specification of what is to be estimated: initial construction cost, annualized costs of construction and O&M, or another way of expressing cost. It is suggested that each utility may do it the way they report other costs. (EXAMPLES: 1. Initial Cost of Construction, including % increases for each of design, planning, CEQA, permitting, contingency, etc. =$10 million, or $1000 per customer, plus an ongoing O&M cost of $1 million, or $100 per customer, forever; 2. Annualized Cost of Construction plus O&M = $2 million, or $200 per customer.) All possible technologies do not have to be evaluated for each constituent to compare costs. For example, if granular activated carbon (GAC) and reverse osmosis (RO) are both possible treatment technologies to try to lower the level of a particular contaminant to the “zero” PHG/MCLG level, it is appropriate to specify and estimate costs for the technology that would likely be used, keeping in mind there are significant uncertainties based on a variety of factors. If the utility has multiple contaminants to address in the report, one technology (i.e., RO) may address them all, so a cost estimate for RO only could suffice. General “order of magnitude” estimates are adequate. It is assumed that ALL costs including capital, land, construction, engineering, planning, environmental, contingency and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs should be included but general assumptions can be made for most of these items.

Page 272 ends

2022 PHG Report Guidance for Water Systems April 2022 • Page 12 If a system chooses to do its own cost estimating rather than use the costs in Attachment No. 3, it is recommended that generally available cost estimating guides be used such as from U.S. EPA, WRF, AWWA, ASCE, or textbooks, manuals, journals. The following is a list of references that might be used: (1) Implementation of Arsenic Treatment Systems, Part 1. Process Selection; AWWA Research Foundation and U.S.E.P.A, Published by AWWA RF and AWWA, 2002, (2) Implementation of Arsenic Treatment Systems, Part 2: Design Considerations, Operation and Maintenance, AWWA Research Foundation, Published by AWWA RF and AWWA, 2002, (3) State-of-Science on Perchlorate Treatment Technologies, Final Report for Water Research Foundation project #4359, 2011, (4) An Assessment of the State of Nitrate Treatment Alternatives, AWWA, June 2011, Chad Siedel and Craig Gorman, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., (5) Performance and Cost Analysis of Arsenic Treatment in California, October, 2009, JAWRA, UC Davis, Hilkert, Young, Green and Darby. U.S. EPA includes cost data in the Federal Register for each regulation when it is proposed or adopted. (NOTE: U.S. EPA estimates generally do not consider state- specific concerns and some costs have been known to be underestimated in the past so costs should be increased appropriately and based on utility experience.) The experience of other utilities in your area that have installed treatment to meet MCLs or data reported in journals is valuable as well. Utilities may also choose to have their engineering consultants prepare these very general cost estimates. VI. Sample Hypothetical Report Attachment No. 4 is a comparable attempt to show what a PHG-required report might look like for a "hypothetical" water system that serves more than 10,000 service connections and had one or more PHG/MCLG exceedances in the three-year period ending December 31, 2015, as an example. It is NOT the only way the report might be done. The sample is based on these guidelines. If there appears to be a conflict between the sample and the guidelines, the guidelines should be followed. If you have any questions about these guidelines or any of the attachments, contact Nick Blair of ACWA at [email protected] or 916-669-2377.

Page 273 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 1 MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants (Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise noted.) Last Update: September 14, 2021 This table includes: California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs) Public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Also, the PHG for NDMA (which is not yet regulated) is included at the bottom of this table. Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431—Inorganic Chemicals Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001 Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016 Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004 Asbestos (MFL = million fibers per liter; for fibers >10 microns long) 7 MFL 0.2 MFL 7 MFL 2003 Barium 1 0.1 2 2003 Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003 Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006 Chromium, Total - OEHHA withdrew the 0.0025-mg/L PHG 0.05 0.01 withdrawn Nov. 2001 1999 Chromium, Hexavalent - 0.01-mg/L MCL & 0.001-mg/L DLR repealed September 2017 -- -- 0.00002 2011 Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997 Fluoride 2 0.1 1 1997 Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999 (rev2005)* Nickel 0.1 0.01 0.012 2001 Nitrate (as nitrogen, N) 10 as N 0.4 45 as NO3 (=10 as N) 2018 Nitrite (as N) 1 as N 0.4 1 as N 2018 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 as N -- 10 as N 2018 Perchlorate 0.006 0.004 0.001 2015 Selenium 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010 Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999 (rev2004) Copper and Lead, 22 CCR §64672.3 Values referred to as MCLs for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they are called "Action Levels" under the lead and copper rule Copper 1.3 0.05 0.3 2008

Page 274 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 2 Lead 0.015 0.005 0.0002 2009 Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443—Radioactivity [units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise stated; n/a = not applicable] Gross alpha particle activity - OEHHA concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not practical 15 3 none n/a Gross beta particle activity - OEHHA concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not practical 4 mrem/yr 4 none n/a Radium-226 -- 1 0.05 2006 Radium-228 -- 1 0.019 2006 Radium-226 + Radium-228 5 -- -- -- Strontium-90 8 2 0.35 2006 Tritium 20,000 1,000 400 2006 Uranium 20 1 0.43 2001 Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444—Organic Chemicals (a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001 Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997 (rev2009) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.003 2003 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 1999 (rev2005) 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) 0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018 Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999 (rev2006) Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997 Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 Monochlorobenzene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014 Styrene 0.1 0.0005 0.0005 2010 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001 Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) 0.2 0.0005 1 2006 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) 0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 0.15 0.005 1.3 2014

Page 275 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021 3 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) 1.2 0.01 4 1997 (rev2011) Vinyl chloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.00005 2000 Xylenes 1.75 0.0005 1.8 1997 (b) Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) Alachlor 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997 Atrazine 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999 Bentazon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999 (rev2009) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010 Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016 Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997 (rev2006) Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997 (rev2009) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 0.00001 0.000003 2020 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 0.005 0.2 2003 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 0.004 0.003 0.012 1997 Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997 (rev2010) Diquat 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016 Endothal 0.1 0.045 0.094 2014 Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016 Ethylene dibromide (EDB) 0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003 Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007 Heptachlor 0.00001 0.00001 0.000008 1999 Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001 0.00001 0.000006 1999 Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.001 0.002 2014 Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999 (rev2005) Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010 Molinate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008 Oxamyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009 Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009 Picloram 0.5 0.001 0.166 2016 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007 Simazine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001 Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016 Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.00003 2003 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.000005 0.000005 0.0000007 2009 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 3x10-8 5x10-9 5x10-11 2010 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 0.001 0.003 2014 Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533—Disinfection Byproducts Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 -- -- -- Bromodichloromethane -- 0.0010 0.00006 2020

Page 276 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021

Bromoform -- 0.0010 0.0005 2020 Chloroform -- 0.0010 0.0004 2020 Dibromochloromethane -- 0.0010 0.0001 2020 Haloacetic Acids (five) (HAA5) 0.060 -- -- -- Monochloroacetic Acid -- 0.0020 -- -- Dichloroacetic Adic -- 0.0010 -- -- Trichloroacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- -- Monobromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- -- Dibromoacetic Acid -- 0.0010 -- -- Bromate 0.010 0.0050** 0.0001 2009 Chlorite 1.0 0.020 0.05 2009 Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants. N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) -- -- 0.000003 2006 *OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX) resulted in no change in the PHG. **The DLR for Bromate is 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using EPA Method 317.0 Revision 2.0, 321.8, or 326.0.

Page 277 ends

ATTACHMENT NO. 1 2019 PHG Triennial Report: Calendar Years 2019-2020-2021

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Public Health Goals Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports February 2022 Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency

Page 278 ends

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2022 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2022 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports

Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports Prepared by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency February 2022 NEW for the 2022 Report: New in this document are an updated Public Health Goal (PHG) for 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) and newly established PHGs for the trihalomethanes bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane. Background: Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections are required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed their respective PHGs.1 This document contains health risk information on regulated drinking water contaminants to assist public water systems in preparing these reports. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using current risk assessment principles, practices and methods.2 The water system’s report is required to identify the health risk category (e.g., carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity) associated with exposure to each regulated contaminant in drinking water and to include a brief, plainly worded description of these risks. The report is also required to disclose the numerical public health risk, if available, associated with the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and with the PHG for each contaminant. This health risk information document is prepared by OEHHA every three years to assist the water systems in providing the required information in their reports. 1 Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) 2 Health and Safety Code Section 116365

Page 279 ends

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2022 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 2022 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports

Numerical health risks: Table 1 presents health risk categories and cancer risk values for chemical contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs. The Act requires that OEHHA publish PHGs based on health risk assessments using the most current scientific methods. As defined in statute, PHGs for non-carcinogenic chemicals in drinking water are set at a concentration “at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety.” For carcinogens, PHGs are set at a concentration that “does not pose any significant risk to health.” PHGs provide one basis for revising MCLs, along with cost and technological feasibility. OEHHA has been publishing PHGs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is shown in Table 1. Table 2 presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have PHGs but have state or federal regulatory standards. The Act requires that, for chemical contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet have PHGs, water utilities use the federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complying with the requirement of public notification. MCLGs, like PHGs, are strictly health based and include a margin of safety. One difference, however, is that the MCLGs for carcinogens are set at zero because the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) assumes there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to such chemicals. PHGs, on the other hand, are set at a level considered to pose no significant risk of cancer; this is usually no more than a one-in-one-million excess cancer risk (1´10-6) level for a lifetime of exposure. In Table 2, the cancer risks shown are based on the US EPA’s evaluations. For more information on health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemical with a PHG are summarized in a PHG technical support document. These documents are available on the OEHHA website (https://oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goals- phgs).

Page 280 ends

Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2022 3

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Alachlor carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.004 NA5,6 0.002 NA Aluminum neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity (harms the nervous and immune systems)

0.6 NA 1 NA
Antimony hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.001 NA 0.006 NA Arsenic carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000004 (4×10-6) 1´10-6 (one per million) 0.01 2.5´10-3 (2.5 per thousand) Asbestos carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 7 MFL7 (fibers >10 microns in length) 1´10-6 7 MFL (fibers >10 microns in length) 1´10-6 (one per million) Atrazine carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00015 1´10-6 0.001 7´10-6 (seven per million) 1 Based on the OEHHA PHG technical support document unless otherwise specified. The categories are the hazard traits defined by OEHHA for California’s Toxics Information Clearinghouse (online at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk-assessment//gcregtext011912.pdf). 2 mg/L = milligrams per liter of water or parts per million (ppm) 3 Cancer Risk = Upper bound estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1´10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 MCL = maximum contaminant level. 5 NA = not applicable. Cancer risk cannot be calculated. 6 The PHG for alachlor is based on a threshold model of carcinogenesis and is set at a level that is believed to be without any significant cancer risk to individuals exposed to the chemical over a lifetime. 7 MFL = million fibers per liter of water.

Page 281 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Barium cardiovascular toxicity (causes high blood pressure) 2 NA 1 NA Bentazon hepatotoxicity and digestive system toxicity (harms the liver, intestine, and causes body weight effects8)

0.2 NA 0.018 NA
Benzene carcinogenicity (causes leukemia) 0.00015 1´10-6 0.001 7´10-6 (seven per million) Benzo[a]pyrene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000007 (7´10-6) 1´10-6 0.0002 3´10-5 (three per hundred thousand) Beryllium digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach or intestine) 0.001 NA 0.004 NA Bromate carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1´10-6 0.01 1´10-4 (one per ten thousand) Cadmium nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.00004 NA 0.005 NA Carbofuran reproductive toxicity (harms the testis) 0.0007 NA 0.018 NA 8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.

Page 282 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Carbon tetrachloride carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1´10-6 0.0005 5´10-6 (five per million) Chlordane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1´10-6 0.0001 3´10-6 (three per million) Chlorite hematotoxicity (causes anemia) neurotoxicity (causes neurobehavioral effects)

0.05 NA 1 NA
Chromium, hexavalent carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00002 1´10-6 none NA Copper digestive system toxicity (causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) 0.3 NA 1.3 (AL9) NA Cyanide neurotoxicity (damages nerves) endocrine toxicity (affects the thyroid)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Dalapon nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.79 NA 0.2 NA Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) developmental toxicity (disrupts development) 0.2 NA 0.4 NA 9 AL = action level. The action levels for copper and lead refer to a concentration measured at the tap. Much of the copper and lead in drinking water is derived from household plumbing (The Lead and Copper Rule, Title 22, California Code of Regulations [CCR] section 64672.3).

Page 283 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.012 1´10-6 0.004 3´10-7 (three per ten million) 1,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000003 (3x10-6) 1´10-6 0.0002 7´10-5 (seven per hundred thousand) 1,2-Dichloro- benzene (o-DCB) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.6 NA 0.6 NA 1,4-Dichloro- benzene (p-DCB) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.006 1´10-6 0.005 8´10-7 (eight per ten million) 1,1-Dichloro- ethane (1,1-DCA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.003 1´10-6 0.005 2´10-6 (two per million) 1,2-Dichloro- ethane (1,2-DCA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0004 1´10-6 0.0005 1´10-6 (one per million) 1,1-Dichloro- ethylene (1,1-DCE) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.01 NA 0.006 NA 1,2-Dichloro- ethylene, cis nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.013 NA 0.006 NA 1,2-Dichloro- ethylene, trans immunotoxicity (harms the immune system) 0.05 NA 0.01 NA

Page 284 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.004 1´10-6 0.005 1´10-6 (one per million) 2,4-Dichloro- phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity (harms the liver and kidney)

0.02 NA 0.07 NA
1,2-Dichloro- propane (propylene dichloride)
carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0005 1´10-6 0.005 1´10-5 (one per hundred thousand) 1,3-Dichloro- propene (Telone IIâ) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0002 1´10-6 0.0005 2´10-6 (two per million) Dinoseb reproductive toxicity (harms the uterus and testis) 0.014 NA 0.007 NA Diquat ocular toxicity (harms the eye) developmental toxicity (causes malformation)

0.006 NA 0.02 NA
Endothall digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach or intestine) 0.094 NA 0.1 NA Endrin neurotoxicity (causes convulsions) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver)

0.0003 NA 0.002 NA
Ethylbenzene (phenylethane) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.3 NA 0.3 NA

Page 285 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Ethylene dibromide (1,2- Dibromoethane) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00001 1´10-6 0.00005 5´10-6 (five per million) Fluoride musculoskeletal toxicity (causes tooth mottling) 1 NA 2 NA Glyphosate nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.9 NA 0.7 NA Heptachlor carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000008 (8×10-6) 1´10-6 0.00001 1´10-6 (one per million) Heptachlor epoxide carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000006 (6×10-6) 1´10-6 0.00001 2´10-6 (two per million) Hexachloroben- zene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1´10-6 0.001 3´10-5 (three per hundred thousand) Hexachloro- cyclopentadiene (HCCPD) digestive system toxicity (causes stomach lesions) 0.002 NA 0.05 NA Lead developmental neurotoxicity (causes neurobehavioral effects in children) cardiovascular toxicity (causes high blood pressure) carcinogenicity (causes cancer)

0.0002 <1´10-6 (PHG is not based on this effect)

0.015 (AL9) 2´10-6 (two per million)

Page 286 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Lindane (g-BHC) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000032 1´10-6 0.0002 6´10-6 (six per million) Mercury (inorganic) nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.0012 NA 0.002 NA Methoxychlor endocrine toxicity (causes hormone effects) 0.00009 NA 0.03 NA Methyl tertiary- butyl ether (MTBE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.013 1´10-6 0.013 1´10-6 (one per million) Molinate carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.001 1´10-6 0.02 2´10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Monochloro- benzene (chlorobenzene) nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.07 NA 0.07 NA Nickel developmental toxicity (causes increased neonatal deaths) 0.012 NA 0.1 NA Nitrate hematotoxicity (causes methemoglobinemia) 45 as nitrate NA 10 as nitrogen (=45 as nitrate) NA
Nitrite hematotoxicity (causes methemoglobinemia) 3 as nitrite NA 1 as nitrogen (=3 as nitrite) NA

Page 287 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Nitrate and Nitrite hematotoxicity (causes methemoglobinemia) 10 as nitrogen10 NA 10 as nitrogen NA N-nitroso- dimethyl-amine (NDMA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000003 (3´10-6) 1×10-6 none NA Oxamyl general toxicity (causes body weight effects) 0.026 NA 0.05 NA Pentachloro- phenol (PCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0003 1´10-6 0.001 3´10-6 (three per million) Perchlorate endocrine toxicity (affects the thyroid) developmental toxicity (causes neurodevelop- mental deficits)

0.001 NA 0.006 NA
Picloram hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.166 NA 0.5 NA Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00009 1´10-6 0.0005 6´10-6 (six per million) Radium-226 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.05 pCi/L 1´10-6 5 pCi/L (combined Ra226+228) 1´10-4 (one per ten thousand) 10 The joint nitrate/nitrite PHG of 10 mg/L (10 ppm, expressed as nitrogen) does not replace the individual values, and the maximum contribution from nitrite should not exceed 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen.

Page 288 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Radium-228 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.019 pCi/L 1´10-6 5 pCi/L (combined Ra226+228) 3´10-4 (three per ten thousand) Selenium integumentary toxicity (causes hair loss and nail damage) 0.03 NA 0.05 NA Silvex (2,4,5-TP) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.003 NA 0.05 NA Simazine general toxicity (causes body weight effects) 0.004 NA 0.004 NA Strontium-90 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.35 pCi/L 1×10-6 8 pCi/L 2´10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Styrene (vinylbenzene) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0005 1×10-6 0.1 2´10-4 (two per ten thousand) 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloro- ethane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1´10-6 0.001 1´10-5 (one per hundred thousand) 2,3,7,8-Tetra- chlorodibenzo-p- dioxin (TCDD, or dioxin) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 5´10-11 1´10-6 3´10-8 6´10-4 (six per ten thousand)

Page 289 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Tetrachloro- ethylene (perchloro- ethylene, or PCE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00006 1´10-6 0.005 8´10-5 (eight per hundred thousand) Thallium integumentary toxicity (causes hair loss) 0.0001 NA 0.002 NA Thiobencarb general toxicity (causes body weight effects) hematotoxicity (affects red blood cells)

0.042 NA 0.07 NA
Toluene (methylbenzene) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) endocrine toxicity (harms the thymus)

0.15 NA 0.15 NA
Toxaphene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1´10-6 0.003 1´10-4 (one per ten thousand) 1,2,4-Trichloro- benzene endocrine toxicity (harms adrenal glands) 0.005 NA 0.005 NA 1,1,1-Trichloro- ethane neurotoxicity (harms the nervous system), reproductive toxicity (causes fewer offspring) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) hematotoxicity (causes blood effects) 1 NA 0.2 NA

Page 290 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL 1,1,2-Trichloro- ethane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0003 1x10-6 0.005 2´10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Trichloro- ethylene (TCE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0017 1´10-6 0.005 3´10-6 (three per million) Trichlorofluoro- methane (Freon 11) accelerated mortality (increase in early death) 1.3 NA 0.15 NA 1,2,3-Trichloro- propane (1,2,3-TCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0000007 (7×10-7) 1x10-6 0.000005 (5×10-6) 7´10-6 (seven per million) 1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane (Freon 113) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 4 NA 1.2 NA
Trihalomethanes: Bromodichloro- methane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00006 1x10-6 0.080* 1.3´10-3 (1.3 per thousand)11 Trihalomethanes: Bromoform carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0005 1x10-6 0.080* 2´10-4 (two per ten thousand)12 * For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 11 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromodichloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample. 12 Based on 0.080 mg/L bromoform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

Page 291 ends

Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk3 at the PHG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Trihalomethanes: Chloroform carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0004 1x10-6 0.080* 2´10-4 (two per ten thousand)13 Trihalomethanes: Dibromochloro- methane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1x10-6 0.080* 8´10-4 (eight per ten thousand)14 Tritium carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 400 pCi/L 1x10-6 20,000 pCi/L 5´10-5 (five per hundred thousand) Uranium carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.43 pCi/L 1´10-6 20 pCi/L 5´10-5 (five per hundred thousand) Vinyl chloride carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00005 1´10-6 0.0005 1´10-5 (one per hundred thousand) Xylene neurotoxicity (affects the senses, mood, and motor control)

1.8 (single isomer or sum of isomers)
NA 1.75 (single isomer or sum of isomers)
NA
* For total trihalomethanes (the sum of bromodichloromethane, bromoform, chloroform, and dibromochloromethane). There are no MCLs for individual trihalomethanes. 13 Based on 0.080 mg/L chloroform; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample. 14 Based on 0.080 mg/L dibromochloromethane; the risk will vary with different combinations and ratios of the other trihalomethanes in a particular sample.

Page 292 ends

Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2022 15

Chemical Health Risk Category1 US EPA MCLG2 (mg/L) Cancer Risk3 at the MCLG California MCL4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) Chloramines acute toxicity (causes irritation) digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach) hematotoxicity (causes anemia) 45,6 NA7 none NA
Chlorine acute toxicity (causes irritation) digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach) 45,6 NA none NA Chlorine dioxide hematotoxicity (causes anemia) neurotoxicity (harms the nervous system)

0.85,6 NA none NA
Disinfection byproducts: haloacetic acids (HAA5) Monochloroacetic acid (MCA) general toxicity (causes body and organ weight changes8) 0.07 NA none NA 1 Health risk category based on the US EPA MCLG document or California MCL document unless otherwise specified. 2 MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by US EPA. 3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1´10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California. 5 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG. 6 The federal Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), or highest level of disinfectant allowed in drinking water, is the same value for this chemical. 7 NA = not available. 8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.

Page 293 ends

Woodland City CouncilJune 20, 2023

Woodland City Council
June 20, 2023