Hydrohistorian
City of Grand Junction
Serves Grand Junction.
Its service area also reaches Lower Gunnison River (14.0%).
Boundary traced from City of Grand Junction. About 23 km².
Where the water comes from
| Facility | Kind | Water |
|---|---|---|
| SOMERVILLE FLOWLINE | Intake | Surface water |
| MASTER METER FROM CLIFTON CO0139180 | Consecutive connection (purchased) | Surface water · from CLIFTON WD |
| MASTER METER FROM UTE CO0139791 | Consecutive connection (purchased) | Surface water · from UTE WCD |
| GUNNISON RIVER PUMP STATION | Intake | Surface water |
| KANNAH CREEK FLOWLINE | Intake | Surface water |
| PURDY MESA FLOWLINE | Intake | Surface water |
These are EPA's facility records, not DWR structures. Which decreed rights sit behind an intake is the next phase; nothing here is inferred.
Wholesale connections
Buys water from CLIFTON WD, UTE WCD.
Sells water to 3 systems: CLIFTON WD, LITTLE PARK WATER COOP, UTE WCD.
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
1 structure on DWR's record 1 matches an EPA intake by name. A match says who DWR lists, not who owns the water: a ditch company can own the headgate while the system owns shares, and a consultant can be the contact. The dossier holds the decree.
| Structure | Type | Source | District | Matched on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PURDY MESA FLOWLINE 4200561 | 7 | NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK | Lower Gunnison River | intake name: PURDY MESA FLOWLINE |
Compliance record
Source Register of another agency · fetched 2026-09-09 · verify at EPA ECHO ↗
No open violation and no health-based violation on EPA's federal record for this system at the last monthly fetch. That is a record of reported compliance, not a test result: SDWIS carries violations, not routine sample values.
EPA's own summary: violations in 0 of the last 12 quarters.
No health-based or open violation on the federal record for this system.
What the regulator did about it
6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2018-03-20 | St Compliance achieved Reported LT2 sample late for Jan 2018 and RTC by reporting on time next month. ejc |
state |
| 2018-03-16 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2018-03-16 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2017-02-06 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2017-02-06 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2017-02-06 | St Compliance achieved Resampled on 11/16/16. ejc |
state |
Lead and copper
The latest 90th-percentile lead result is 0.0082 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 2026-09-09 · verify at EPA UCMR occurrence data ↗
6 samples, 120 results, 2024-06-26 to 2025-03-12. No PFAS was detected at the reporting limits; lithium was not detected.
| Contaminant | Results | Detected | Highest, µg/L | Reporting limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HFPO-DA | 4 | 0 | < 0.005 | 0.005 |
| PFHxS | 4 | 0 | < 0.003 | 0.003 |
| PFNA | 4 | 0 | < 0.004 | 0.004 |
| PFOA | 4 | 0 | < 0.004 | 0.004 |
| PFOS | 4 | 0 | < 0.004 | 0.004 |
| lithium | 4 | 0 | < 9.0 | 9.0 |
Rows shown: every detected contaminant plus the regulated PFAS and lithium; the rest were below their reporting limits. These are UCMR monitoring samples, not compliance samples. EPA's April 2024 rule set 4.0 ng/L (0.004 µg/L) for PFOA and PFOS, the same as UCMR 5's reporting limit, so any detection of either is at or above it; the rule's compliance date and its other limits have been under revision since 2025 and are not applied here. State PFAS sampling is on CDPHE's pages ↗.
Common questions
Who provides drinking water in Grand Junction, Colorado?
The City of Grand Junction is the public water system serving 26,000 people in Mesa County, from surface water. Its EPA public water system id is CO0139321.
Where does the City of Grand Junction get its water?
The City of Grand Junction reports surface water as its primary source. EPA lists its source facilities as SOMERVILLE FLOWLINE, MASTER METER FROM CLIFTON CO0139180, MASTER METER FROM UTE CO0139791, GUNNISON RIVER PUMP STATION.
Does the City of Grand Junction have any drinking water violations?
EPA's compliance record shows no open health-based violations for the City of Grand Junction at the last monthly fetch. Older and non-health-based entries, if any, are listed on this page.
Places this system serves
Census places its EPA service-area boundary substantially covers. Each page lists every system serving that place.
Every provider in Mesa County.
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 →