Hydrohistorian
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 |
|---|---|---|
| WELL NO 1 | 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 2026-09-09 · 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 2026-09-09 · verify at EPA ECHO ↗
EPA's summary: violations in 0 of the last 12 quarters; not a serious violator.
No health-based or open violation on the federal record for this system.
Lead and copper: the latest 90th-percentile lead result is 0.0012 mg/L (sampling period ending 2025-12-31) against an action level of 0.015 mg/L; 6 results on file.
SDWIS federal reporting carries violations and lead/copper percentiles only; nitrate, disinfection by-product and PFAS sample results are not in it. Codes are EPA's (violation, contaminant, rule); the ECHO report expands them.
PFAS and lithium: EPA's UCMR 5 monitoring, 2023–2025
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-09-09 · 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).
The record
EPA SDWIS federal reporting as of 2026-09-08; the compliance record above is EPA's own, fetched monthly, and the ECHO report carries the rest. Report a problem →