Hydrohistorian
White Horse Springs Water District
Modelled boundary. EPA estimated this service area (Random Forest) rather than tracing a utility-supplied map; treat the edge as approximate. About 5 km².
Where the water comes from
| Facility | Kind | Water |
|---|---|---|
| NEW WELL NO 5 | Well | Groundwater |
| NEW WELL NO 2 | Well | Groundwater |
| NEW WELL NO 3 | Well | Groundwater under the influence of surface water |
| NEW WELL NO 1 | Well | Groundwater |
| NEW WELL NO 4 | 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 ↗
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 1 of the last 12 quarters. In violation for, in EPA's words: 0999=Chlorine.
No health-based or open violation on the federal record for this system.
What the regulator did about it
18 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-19 | St Compliance achieved SOX applied, system reported July 2024 samples on 08/19/2024. MHE 8/20/2024 |
state |
| 2024-08-16 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2024-08-16 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2018-07-12 | St Compliance achieved System submitted raw water TC and E. coli sample results from all active wells from monitoring done in 2018. hpo 7/13/2018 |
state |
| 2016-06-10 | St Compliance achieved TC+ in Jan 2016, did not collect rpts, took 2 of 5 temp samples in Feb 2016. Collected all required samples in March and April 2016. hpo 6/10/2016; Took TC sample 11/22/15, submitted to us late. Took all required samples on time in Dec 2015. hpo 6/10/2016 |
state |
| 2016-04-07 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2016-04-07 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-31 | St Compliance achieved RTCR |
state |
| 2016-03-29 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2016-03-29 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-15 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2016-03-15 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-15 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-15 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-15 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-02 | St Violation/Reminder Notice | state |
| 2016-03-02 | St Public Notif requested | state |
| 2016-03-02 | St Public Notif requested | state |
Lead and copper
The latest 90th-percentile lead result is 0.0015 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 ↗
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).
Common questions
Who provides drinking water in Aspen, Colorado?
White Horse Springs Water District is the public water system serving 70 people in Pitkin County, from groundwater. Its EPA public water system id is CO0149842.
Where does White Horse Springs Water District get its water?
White Horse Springs Water District reports groundwater as its primary source. EPA lists its source facilities as NEW WELL NO 5, NEW WELL NO 2, NEW WELL NO 3, NEW WELL NO 1.
Does White Horse Springs Water District have any drinking water violations?
EPA's compliance record shows no open health-based violations for White Horse Springs Water District at the last monthly fetch. Older and non-health-based entries, if any, are listed on this page.
Every provider in Pitkin 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 →