Hydrohistorian
Tucson Water Company
Modelled boundary. EPA estimated this service area (Random Forest) rather than tracing a utility-supplied map; treat the edge as approximate. About 0 km².
Where the water comes from
| Facility | Kind | Water |
|---|---|---|
| NO 1 WELL LOWER ARAPAHOE BASN | Well | Groundwater |
| NO 2 WELL LARIMER FOXHILL | Well | Groundwater |
These are EPA's facility records, not DWR structures. Which decreed rights sit behind an intake is the next phase; nothing here is inferred.
DWR structures that name this system
Source Probable join · fetched 2026-10-06 · matched on DWR's recorded contact or an EPA intake name; verify on the dossier
No DWR structure on file records this system as its contact, and none of its EPA intakes matches a structure name in its districts. DWR records a contact on only a fraction of structures, and only for districts fetched from its live service, so this is absence of a record, not evidence of no rights.
Compliance record
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-07 · verify at EPA ECHO ↗
1 violation open now, none health-based. These are monitoring, reporting or notice requirements — a sample not taken, or a result not filed on time. They are real obligations, but they are not a finding about the water itself.
EPA's own summary: violations in 2 of the last 12 quarters. In violation for, in EPA's words: 8000=Revised Total Coliform Rule. Currently: 8000=Revised Total Coliform Rule.
What happened
All 1 violation record on file, grouped into the 1 distinct thing EPA's codes describe. Dates are the compliance period the violation is filed against.
EPA violation code 5A, contaminant 8000 — not in the code table this build carries.
Every violation record, as filed (1 of 1)
| Compliance period | What | About | Kind | Status | Measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-27 | code 5A | Revised Total Coliform Rule | other | open |
What the regulator did about it
15 enforcement actions on this system's federal record. In Colorado the state is the primacy agency, so most actions are the state's; EPA acts directly on tribal systems and when it steps in.
| Date | Action | By |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-17 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2026-07-17 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2026-07-08 | St Compliance achieved System distributed CCR late jkk 7/17/26 |
state |
| 2026-02-27 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2026-02-27 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2019-05-01 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2019-05-01 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2019-05-01 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2019-05-01 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2019-04-30 | St Compliance achieved System RTCd with sample. AS |
state |
| 2018-05-01 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2018-05-01 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2018-05-01 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2018-05-01 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2018-04-06 | St Compliance achieved System RTCd with sample. AS |
state |
Lead and copper
The latest 90th-percentile lead result is 0.0025 mg/L (sampling period ending 2025-12-31) against an action level of 0.015 mg/L, below it. 7 results on file.
The action level is not a health limit: it is the level at which the rule requires a system to act (corrosion control, public education, and in some cases replacing lead service lines). Lead mostly enters water from household plumbing, so a system-wide percentile does not tell you what comes out of one tap.
Violation, enforcement and lead/copper records are EPA SDWIS federal reporting, fetched monthly; the summary is EPA ECHO. Code names come from EPA's own REF_CODE_VALUE table. SDWIS carries violations, not routine sample results — nitrate, disinfection by-product and PFAS values are not in it, and a clean record here means nothing was reported as a violation, not that nothing was ever detected. For what was measured, ask the system for its Consumer Confidence Report.
PFAS and lithium: EPA's UCMR 5 monitoring, 2023–2025
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-10-09 · verify at EPA UCMR occurrence data ↗
EPA did not sample this system under UCMR 5 (the rule covered every system serving more than 3,300 people and a drawn sample of smaller ones).
What changed recently
Differences EPA's monthly federal record showed against the month before. A date in brackets is EPA's own; otherwise it is when this site first saw the change.
- Enforcement action: St Violation/Reminder Notice (2026-07-17)
- Enforcement action: St Public Notif requested (2026-07-17)
- Enforcement action: St Compliance achieved (2026-07-08)
Save this system to My Water and these changes appear there each time you visit.
Common questions
Who provides drinking water in Henderson, Colorado?
Tucson Water Company is the public water system serving 90 people in Adams County, from groundwater. Its EPA public water system id is CO0101158.
Where does Tucson Water Company get its water?
Tucson Water Company reports groundwater as its primary source. EPA lists its source facilities as NO 1 WELL LOWER ARAPAHOE BASN, NO 2 WELL LARIMER FOXHILL.
Does Tucson Water Company have any drinking water violations?
EPA's compliance record shows no open health-based violations for Tucson Water Company at the last monthly fetch. Older and non-health-based entries, if any, are listed on this page.
Every provider in Adams County.
The record
EPA SDWIS federal reporting as of 2026-10-06; the compliance record above is EPA's own, fetched monthly, and the ECHO report carries the rest. Report a problem →