Water Management - BlogFlock

Arsenic Water Quality Standards - Aqua Talk

2026-02-11T14:00:00.000Z

Right now - arsenic is regulated in wastewaters statewide due to water quality standards that were conceived of over 20 years ago. Because arsenic can be quite detrimental to human health and for surface waters that are a source of drinking water, it is important to protect the drinking water supply by adopting protective standards.

Colorado has surface water standards to protect both drinking water (water supply) and fish ingestion. The surface water standard for water supply is 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L). This is quite low, and comparable to the PFAS maximum contaminant levels proposed by EPA (4 nanograms per liter).

The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates arsenic at 10 micrograms per liter (ug/L), or 10,000 nanograms per liter as a maximum contaminant level (or MCL). Also, the practical quantitation limit, or PQL for arsenic currently stands at about 1 micrograms per liter. Having such large discrepancies between the water quality standard, the drinking water MCL, and the PQL creates challenges in implementation of standards within the permitting framework.

The division worked with stakeholders and the commission throughout the 2010s and the early part of this decade to implement statewide temporary modifications because of uncertainty in what the standard should be, and the challenges presented by these discrepancies. While being an interim solution that is unique to Colorado, this solution is only temporary. Each time we extend it, we have to get it approved by our partners at EPA Region 8. Colorado has utilized the temporary modification tool since 2011 (Reg. No. 38.79) to recognize the underlying, use-based standard as a goal while using the level generally deemed to be technologically feasible to set permit limits (i.e., 0.02-3 ug/L). Currently, the arsenic temporary modification is scheduled to expire in 2029.

As part of the Water Quality Roadmap, the division is currently scoping out what implementation of the protective arsenic standards will look like in the permitting framework. Keep informed of our progress through our quarterly roadmap meetings, which will also offer regular stakeholder input opportunities. The next Roadmap meeting will be held on March 5, 2026.

➽ Tyson Ingels, Watershed & Engineering Program Manager

Coaches' Classroom: Public Notices: Division Tools and Templates to Cover All Your Bases - Aqua Talk

2026-02-04T14:00:00.000Z

The public notification rule establishes requirements for public water systems to communicate any problems about the water to anyone using the water they produce. Specifically, problems related to meeting drinking water standards, failing to test the water, or other situations related to protecting the health of consumers all require public notice and must meet the requirements in the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11).

Resources
Public Notice Templates are a great tool for efficiently meeting the regulatory requirements. The templates can be generated using our online public notice generator tool. Using the generator tool ensures that your public notice contains the 10 required elements of a public notice, as well as any specific required language.

Choosing the correct violation category
There are three tiers of public notice:

Tier 1 is required for the most immediate potential public health impacts.
Tier 2 is for situations with potential to have serious effects, such as exceeding a maximum contaminant level.
Tier 3 is for violations and situations that may not directly impact public health.

In addition to the tier levels for public notification, public notices may have different language requirements depending on the specific violation. Field-based violations are those that are identified during sanitary survey inspections. When creating a public notice for a field-based violation, you will select the violation category that lists “sanitary survey identified violations - Tier 2 or 3” (see image below). The template will contain instructions and a link to the Public Notice Health Effects Language for Sanitary Survey Tier 2 Violations chart, which provides the language required to be entered for each violation found on your Sanitary Survey findings letter. You will also need to add the description of each violation, the date the violations need to be corrected, and the steps you are taking to correct them in the table provided in the template you generate. Once completed, you are ready to deliver the notices to your customers per the tier requirements. After you distribute the public notice(s), please submit a final copy, along with a certificate of delivery to the drinking water portal.

Consumer Confidence Reports to Meet Public Notification Requirements
Community public water systems are required to complete a Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) each year. Under some circumstances, a Tier 3 public notice requirement can be met using the CCR.

The CCR must fall within 1 year of learning of the violation.
The CCR must be delivered using a direct delivery method.
All 10 public notice elements must be included.

While Tier 2 violations can’t be satisfied with the CCR, all unresolved violations and significant deficiencies are required to be reported on the CCR, this includes those listed on a corrective action plan for a Sanitary Survey deficiency.

Want to learn more?
If you are interested in learning more about field violations during a sanitary survey and how to complete your public notice requirements, sign up for one of our upcoming free Sanitary Survey Preparation Trainings. If you have more specific questions about health-based violations and PN requirements, join us for our Monitoring and Operating for Regulatory Compliance (MORC) training. All of our training is free and offered in virtual or face-to-face formats.

➽ Angela Green Garcia, Drinking Water Training Specialist

Acute team: How does the WQCD help you prepare for and respond to acute incidents? - Aqua Talk

2026-01-28T14:00:00.000Z

Back in October, we discussed different types of acute health risks, what they are, how to report them, and how to prepare your water system. Today, we want to introduce the Drinking Water Acute Team at the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) that responds to and supports public water systems when acute incidents occur.

What is an Acute Health Risk?

Common situations that may pose an acute health risk include:

Loss of pressure in a distribution system over a large area, such as from main breaks, power outages, or planned construction
Detection of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in finished water:

When confirmed by a repeat sample
Upon first detection if other information suggests the water may be unsafe
When follow-up E. coli testing is not completed after a positive total coliform result

Natural disasters that impact treatment, distribution, or source water quality
Cross connection or backflow incidents that can create contamination
Other circumstances that may result in contamination of drinking water

Acute Team Process and Response

When WQCD becomes aware of a situation that may pose an acute health risk, it convenes the Acute Team. This team is made up of experienced staff from multiple sections of the Safe Drinking Water Program.

The Acute Team will:

Contact the impacted public water system to discuss the situation
Determine whether the situation qualifies as an acute health risk
Decide if public notification is required and what type and methods are appropriate
Work with the system to identify the best course of action
Specify any additional steps needed to eliminate the health risk

All actions are taken in accordance with Colorado’s Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Safe Drinking Water Program Policy 1: Response to Acute Health Threats at Public Water Systems.

Policy 1 helps WQCD protect public health and implement the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11). Its purpose is to outline the WQCD’s approach to protecting drinking water consumers from acute health risks using methods such as requiring public water systems to quickly notify customers when an acute health hazard exists.

What a typical Acute Team response looks like:

1. Responding to an incident report

The Acute Team receives a report, often through the CDPHE Incident Reporting Line (1-877-518-5608), and contacts the impacted water system to gather details.

2. Evaluation of gathered information

The Acute Team reviews the information provided and determines the appropriate response, including whether a boil water or bottled water advisory and associated Tier 1 public notice are needed. Reporting an incident does not automatically result in an advisory. For small water outages, please refer to our Pressure Loss Guidance.

3. Steps to resolve the acute health risk

WQCD staff talk through the necessary actions to resolve the health risk with the water system. This may include:

Public notice and distribution methods
Repairing impacted portions of the treatment or distribution system
Disinfecting and flushing the distribution system
Identifying the number and location of follow-up samples
Sampling to ensure the water is safe to drink
Communicating actions taken and results to the WQCD

4. Ongoing Support

We encourage you to rely on the network of associations, non-profits, county, and state partners as you respond to and recover from acute situations:

WQCD: Acute Team remains available for questions and may check in periodically for updates. Additionally, the WQCD can review materials such as draft customer communications and sampling or flushing plans. We also offer support through our close relationship with Technical Assistance providers throughout the state, including but not limited to: WQCD Local Assistance Unit, Colorado Rural Water Association, Rural Communities Assistance Corp, Water Now Alliance, and many others.

CoWARN: The Colorado Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network is a coalition of drinking water and wastewater providers, engineers, technical assistance providers, and other water sector providers. The network aims to provide assistance between members during emergencies that affect your ability to provide drinking water and/or wastewater services to your customers and communities. Membership is free to join and easy to use.

Local Public Health Agencies and Emergency Managers: Working with your local public health agency is crucial to navigate an acute health risk. Many public health agencies have contacts with critical local customers (healthcare facilities, daycares, restaurants, grocery stores, etc.) and can help you coordinate communication and additional requirements for them. Local public health agencies may also support water delivery efforts and activate their emergency response teams.

5. Resolution

Once the water system has completed all required actions, the Acute Team reviews the steps taken and any sampling results. WQCD uses this information to confirm that the acute health risk has been resolved and will lift the boil or bottled water advisory.

Emergency Planning

Public water systems should prepare for the steps in this response process in advance.

1. Work with partners: You have partners in a variety of state and local agencies. We highly suggest that you coordinate with them prior to an acute event to ensure fast and efficient emergency response.

Establish contact with local authorities, public health organizations, and other local water/wastewater providers. Identify up-to-date contacts and develop a communication plan.
Reach out to your Local Emergency Manager and Local Emergency Planning Committee to ensure your system is part of the conversation about interdependencies with other critical infrastructure suppliers. Consider attending Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings to review emergency plans and incident command structure for your local response teams.
Coordinate with your communications team to draft potential notices and make a plan to navigate delivering tier 1 public notices.

2. Complete emergency management documents: The EPA has extensive drinking water-specific emergency management planning documents, templates, and checklists. Even if you have already completed some of these documents, please review them to ensure acute scenarios are covered.

3. Ensure you have CoWARN Access: If your system has had a CoWARN membership for decades or if you are a new member, we highly recommend that you log into the new website to ensure that you have the correct login credentials and that you are set up to activate CoWARN when the need arises.

How to join CoWARN
Action to take to log into new website and generate system profile
How to activate CoWARN
Please sign the updated Mutual Aid Agreement and submit it to the CoWARN admin - kyra.gregory@state.co.us

➽ Chelease Cotton, Lead Drinking Water Engineer

➽ Kyra Gregory, Local Assistance Unit Manager

Program Manager message: Infrastructure Funding - Aqua Talk

2026-01-21T14:00:00.000Z

During the 2020s, we have seen unprecedented federal support for funding drinking water infrastructure. However, it has also been complicated and challenging, and the future is uncertain regarding the continuation of federal funding. Yet it remains quite certain that water infrastructure needs for the next couple of decades will be enormous. The need stems from both replacing aging infrastructure and meeting new federal public health protection requirements, including lead and PFAS, with another major rule coming out in a couple of years to update the Microbial/Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBP) suite of rules.

As we reported in 2022, President Biden signed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law in 2021. The IIJA appropriated significant funds to the State Revolving Fund Programs (SRF), which is administered by the Co
lorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, Department of Local Affairs, and CDPHE. The Authority is the grant recipient for the SRF. DOLA evaluates the financial structure of the applicant’s application to the SRFs, and CDPHE manages the technical and compliance aspects of the SRFs. The funding is being allocated in essentially three “buckets,” including general infrastructure, emerging contaminants, and lead service lines. Initially, Colorado was projected to receive approximately $680 million over the five years. However, the actual awards have fluctuated to some degree due to adjustments made in Congress and reallocations of some of the lead money.

At this point, we are four years in and have one more to go. This funding represents a major opportunity for Colorado. But the need for continued water infrastructure support is enormous, especially considering the new federal drinking water rules mentioned above. There has been talk across the sector about extending the federal infrastructure investment. At the recent annual conference of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), a panel regarding funding and finance recommended emphasizing the following points when communicating about water infrastructure needs:

Positive impact for affordability. With so much pressure on rate payers these days, supporting water infrastructure is one way to support overall economic vitality and help keep water rates affordable.
Impact to small, rural communities. These communities tend to struggle most with tackling complicated, expensive infrastructure projects and these funding sources tend to help small, rural communities the most.
Share responsibility. Federal, state and local governments all share roles and responsibilities for safe water, and infrastructure investments like IIJA demonstrate that commitment.
Fundamental societal need. Adequate infrastructure is a cornerstone of safe water which is foundational for the economy and national security.
Specifically, for restoring SRF funding, the following points were discussed:
Without the SRFs, loan forgiveness and many great assistance programs that benefit small, rural communities will be lost.
SRF funding is vital to ensure the efficacy of many state primacy programs, which is a preferred option compared to direct federal implementation.
The SRFs support water affordability in small, rural communities that cannot afford modern water infrastructure.
Commitment to the SRFs is needed because they provide below-market loans, even 0% interest loans and loan forgiveness (like grants), especially to small, rural communities.

We share a collective commitment with local governments to protect public health and ensure safe tap water for all. Sustained infrastructure funding can help us move forward toward that goal. Contact us if your community is interested in pursuing this funding. Thank you.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E., Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Dear Aqua Answers - Why are unknown service line materials bad? - Aqua Talk

2026-01-07T14:00:00.000Z

Dear Aqua Answers,

I submitted the Lead Service Line Inventory (LSLI) for my water system in October 2024, as required. We were unsure of the construction materials used in some service lines. So, there are some unknowns. Why do I still need to refine my inventory? I heard that unknown line materials are bad. Why?

Please help.

Thanks,

Lea D. Line

Dear Lea,

Thank you so much for submitting your initial Lead Service Line Inventory (LSLI) last year. We understand that many systems do not know all the construction materials used in all their service lines. The Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) finalized by EPA in 2024 requires ongoing effort to identify service line construction materials and submitting a baseline service line inventory, including connectors, by November 1, 2027. This inventory is different than the initial inventory submitted in 2024. The baseline inventory submittal will establish your system’s baseline for identifying, prioritizing, and replacing lines that contain or may contain lead.

Under the LCRI, each system must track its progress by calculating a service line replacement rate, which is based on the number of lead, galvanized requiring replacement (GRR), and lead status unknown service lines identified in the baseline inventory. The required Lead Service Line Removal (LSLR) calculation method and required percent removals of lead lines may jeopardize future compliance if you have a high number of unknown service lines that are later confirmed to be non-lead. This lowers the total number of lines in the replacement pool without crediting overall progress in identifying service line materials. This structural flaw risks forcing systems to meet unrealistic replacement rates and/or face non-compliance, even when they have effectively removed all known lead or GRR service lines or ultimately determine all unknown service lines to be non-lead. Customer refusals to allow service line material identification or line removal will also heavily influence system compliance into the 2030s.

This means that unknown service lines are bad for future compliance with LCRI. CDPHE will be communicating with EPA about these concerns and seeking additional flexibility.

What can you do in the meantime? Make as much progress as possible on your system’s service line (and connector) inventory before the baseline inventory is due on November 1, 2027. Try to reduce the number of unknowns, especially by 2030.

The division continues to support water systems serving up to 15,000 persons by offering technical assistance provided by WSP. The program is currently operating on a wait list, and suppliers can sign up here to be contacted by WSP in the event that the division is able to provide additional funding for the program. Enrolled suppliers can request remote support or hands-on assistance, offered at no cost. The division has selected only one contractor to provide technical assistance to eligible water systems, and it will not reimburse systems for the costs of hiring outside contractors. Waitlisted suppliers should continue to work on their inventories while they await potential additional funding for the program.

In addition, the division has a team of drinking water coaches available to help you with LSLI project management. Our team can coach your system as you:

Identify and navigate grant and loan funding for service line identification and replacement

Navigate regulatory requirements, including inventory templates, communications tools, public notice and drinking water portal

Draft and update your LSLI

If you are interested in working with one of our coaches on your LSLI please fill out a coaching request form, and one of our coaches will reach out to assist you and your team.

Thank you for your efforts to identify service line materials in your water system.

Sincerely,

➽ Aqua Answers

Coaches Classroom: Writing and Implementing a Storage Tank Plan - Aqua Talk

2025-12-17T14:00:00.000Z

Over the last decade, since the Storage Tank Rule was adopted into the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, much progress has been made by Public Water Systems to protect their finished water quality by conducting more frequent and thorough tank inspections.

Since that time, rule implementation has been clarified and improved via policies and tools as questions have arisen. These policies can be accessed through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) storage tank website or by searching your favorite web browser for “CDPHE drinking water storage tank rule.” You can also try use these useful links:

For new operators or systems who are unaware, a significant aspect of the rule specifies that systems create and implement a written plan for their inspections of these vital distribution assets. The written plan is a requirement that ensures all storage tanks after the entry point are adequately inspected and maintained, and that work is done within the timelines set forth in the regulation and done by qualified personnel. The importance of a written plan is that it helps guide you and your team through the entire storage tank rule by providing a roadmap that defines procedures and outcomes of the process.

Common questions operators and systems have regarding the Storage Tank Rule include:

Q: Who does it apply to?

A: Section 11.28 of the Storage Tank Rule states that all Public Water Systems (PWS) that utilize finished water storage tanks located after the entry point must comply with the requirements specified in this rule.

Q: Are storage tanks now inspected as part of the sanitary survey process?

A: Yes. The division reviews the tank inspection work being done by the public water system during sanitary surveys. All storage tanks, including finished water storage tanks, are subject to inspection during a sanitary survey, but these inspections do not take the place of the inspections that water systems need to complete. In addition, the system’s storage tank plan will be reviewed during the sanitary survey.

Q: What are some of the other requirements of the rule?

A: As part of the rule, all public water systems must create a written storage tank plan, including inspection intervals.

Other aspects of the written plan are;

An inventory of finished water storage tank(s), including the following information for each:
Tank type and construction materials (e.g., elevated, buried, etc.).
Volume in gallons.
Approximate dimensions.
Location.
Number of inlets, outlets, overflows, hatches, and vents.
Coating systems.
Date put in service.
Rehabilitation and major maintenance history.

Q: Who oversees the certification requirements for storage tank inspections?

A: In summary, there is no certification/license required for personnel conducting either periodic or comprehensive storage tank inspections. The PWS is responsible for vetting the individual or contractor that is inspecting their tanks to ensure that they are qualified and will be using the correct methods for inspection. More detailed information can be found in the Policy 15 if you have further questions.

Q: Is a tank cleaning the same thing as doing a comprehensive inspection?

A: No. Tank cleanings regardless of how robust do not constitute comprehensive inspections. Regardless of whether hired contractors or internal personnel are used to perform comprehensive inspections, a written preparation plan needs to be developed and utilized. To have the inspection count as a comprehensive inspection it must include a documented evaluation of sanitary, structural and coating systems conditions, as well as security and safety concerns. Please see Policy DW-015 section 4.11 for more information.

Q: Does the Storage Tank Rule apply to my clearwell?

A: Although the rule applies only to tanks after the designated entry point (EP), CDPHE recommends using a similar approach for all storage prior to the EP such as clearwells. When conducting Sanitary Surveys, inspectors are finding significant deficiencies associated with clearwells that are similar to those found on tanks in the distribution system.

Q: What are some of the common tank deficiencies during sanitary inspections?

A: Common findings during Sanitary Survey Inspections of storage tanks include:

Improperly screened vents, damaged vent screens
Access hatches without complete gaskets or gaskets that have shrunk and do not seal against the frame.
Overflow pipes with missing screens or flap valves that do not seat and form a seal when closed.
Failures of interior coatings
Sediment buildup exceeding 1-inch

Q: What is a sanitary defect? If a sanitary deficiency or defect is found, how long do I have to fix the problem?

A: A Sanitary Defect as defined in Regulation 11, section 11.3(68) means a defect:

That could provide a pathway of entry for microbial contamination into the distribution system; or
That is indicative of a failure or imminent failure in a barrier that is already in place.

Examples of common sanitary defects found at storage tanks can be found in the CDPHE”s storage tank inspections checklists and drinking water policy 10 section 4.2.

The timeline for fixing sanitary defects is determined by the supplier in the corrective action schedule section of the supplier’s storage tank inspection plan. The schedule should be both reasonable and practical and is affected by various factors including: severity of the sanitary defect, complexity of the correction, tank accessibility and corrective action costs. Corrective action schedules range from short turnarounds for quick and easy corrections such as vent screen replacements to longer scheduled completions such as hatch replacements and possible longer completions for more complex corrections such as replacing a tank roof. We recommend identifying potential sanitary defects in DW policy 10 and the storage tank handbook to draft your corrective action schedule.

Q: What should I do if I or my system finds something that is concerning during a routine inspection or an issue is reported to us?

A: In cases where contamination or defects are discovered within the distribution system that could adversely affect public health, suppliers of water should immediately notify CDPHE by calling the 24-hour incident Reporting Line at 1-877-518-5608.

If you are looking for additional easy read information regarding the Storage Tank Rule, previous articles of Aqua Talk can be found by using the “Search This Blog” function at the right of this article.

If you have not started the process of creating a storage tank plan or are stuck and needing assistance, the Local Assistance Unit (LAU) Coaches are here to help. Please reach out to us via the Online Assistance Request form and we will be happy to assist you through the process.

➽ Steve Folle, Drinking Water Coach

Why the Delegation of Duties is so Important - Aqua Talk

2025-12-10T14:00:00.000Z

Resources:

You can find more information on the delegation of duties, including guidance documents, templates, and examples, on the Operator Resources webpage or on CCWP’s website.
If you have any questions about the delegation of duties, feel free to contact Jessica Morgan (cdphe.facilityoperator@state.co.us).

A written delegation plan is a tool that an ORC can use to authorize certified or uncertified individuals at a facility to perform specific tasks or activities related to the operation of the system. When used correctly, it enables an ORC to meet the regulatory responsibility of supervision over the operation of the facility and over the operational activities and functions of other facility operators, without having to be on-site 24-7. This may translate into cost savings, especially for smaller systems that don’t need and cannot afford a full-time ORC.

The written delegation plan also helps certified or uncertified operators understand the limits of their tasks and activities. That is, they know when they have to consult with the ORC. Keep in mind that only the ORC is authorized to make process control and system integrity decisions!

What makes an effective delegation plan?

Name of the facility/system, including the PWSID number or Permit number
Name of the ORC who is delegating the task or activity
Date range of delegation (delegation plans must be reviewed, and if appropriate, updated annually)
Name and/or brief description of the task or activity
Person(s) or Position Title of the individual(s) being authorized to perform the task or activity at the system
Delegation limits identifying when the individual(s) must contact the ORC for further instructions
Date of training provided by the ORC to the individual(s) being authorized to perform the task or activity
If the task or activity isn’t already included in writing in the individual’s job description, the delegation plan should document the individual’s written acceptance of the delegated task or activity (regardless, this is best practice)
Written standard operating procedures (SOPs) that provide detailed, step-by-step instructions for performing the task or activity.

A blanket statement delegating all operational responsibilities to an on-site individual does NOT meet the minimum requirements for a delegation plan because it does not identify specific tasks, nor does it identify the limits of each task.

Delegation is a specific ORC responsibility. An ORC cannot authorize a system owner or anyone else to delegate tasks to subordinate personnel. An ORC cannot delegate any responsibilities that are reserved to the ORC, such as process control or system integrity decisions.

Keep in mind that an ORC is accountable for the consequences of tasks performed by individuals acting under a written delegation plan. Therefore, it is necessary for the ORC to provide adequate training and to routinely verify that each individual to whom tasks are delegated is performing the tasks correctly. Written SOPs are a best practice to help ensure consistency of performance.

Because the ORC has supervisory responsibility, the ORC needs to train the individual, verify the person’s understanding of the task, verify the individual knows where the written SOPs are kept and how to refer to them if memory fails, and confirm the individual’s willingness to follow the instructions. If an individual trained by the ORC is unwilling or unable to perform in accordance with the ORC’s verbal and written instructions, the ORC needs to take back the delegated tasks or activities from that person. Then the ORC must then perform the tasks personally or find another person to perform them.

Regulation 100 states that “certified operators in responsible charge shall protect the public health and the environment in the conduct of their duties.” An ORC who allows untrained or inadequately trained individuals to continue performing tasks or activities incorrectly is not protecting public health and the environment. An ORC who allows workers who do not adequately adhere to the training and follow established SOPs to continue performing delegated tasks or activities is not protecting public health and the environment.

Division field and compliance staff are seeing an influx of inadequate delegation by ORCs, uncertified operators making process control and system integrity decisions, or even instances where the ORC is a so-called “paper operator.” These are operators who are designated as operators in responsible charge (ORCs) but fail to adequately supervise the operation of their facilities. They are ORCs on paper only, or “an operator in name only.” The Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board (board) has revoked operators’ certificates for posing risks to public health and the environment when, as the certified operator in responsible charge, they have been inadequately and/or inappropriately delegating essential ORC duties and/or failing to provide adequate supervision of a facility. In Colorado, this behavior is considered negligence; it constitutes operator misconduct that can result in loss of certification.

The bottom line is that the written delegation plan, when used correctly, is a great resource with benefits for the ORC, other facility operators, and system owners. When used correctly, it provides a lot of flexibility while still protecting the people we serve. Let’s keep our mission in mind and take the time to delegate responsibly and effectively!

➽ Jessica Morgan, Liaison for the Water/Wastewater Operator Certification Board

New Monitoring Schedule Website - Aqua Talk

2025-11-26T14:00:00.000Z

The Drinking Water Compliance Assurance Section (DWCAS) is updating how Monitoring Schedules are displayed. Monitoring Schedules communicate water system’s sampling and reporting requirements, as well as additional compliance requirements. DWCAS recognizes that this is a significant change. Which is why the rollout of this change will be implemented in phases. Please share this article with others who may not have received it.

The new schedules come with added features (listed below) that will be beneficial to many users. The reasons for the change are complex: First, the current system has been in place since 2012, and is intertwined with our aging data system. Second, with our data system potentially nearing its end-of-life, and to ensure continuity with any potential future changes, we are transitioning to a new adaptable platform. Lastly, the new system will allow us to make updates faster, increase accessibility, and offer an interactive display.

The new schedules are now available, along with the current system, at our drinking water monitoring schedule website.

Before diving into the features this new system has to offer, we encourage water systems to refer to our new Drinking Water Schedules Information and Guide or overview video.

As a part of the update, the new schedules system allows for interactive tables. The tables within the monitoring schedule can be filtered by water system, operator, facility, analyte, monitoring period, frequency, and compliance schedule type. This means, associated contacts can filter to view all systems they are linked to. This will be helpful for contract operators managing multiple systems.

After using the filters, water systems are able to create a specific link that can be bookmarked or saved for future use. For more information about creating your own unique link, please refer to our Drinking Water Schedules Information and Guide. Using the link will automatically filter the report. The new system retains the ability for PDF downloads. For more information about downloading the report, please refer to our Drinking Water Schedules Information and Guide. The new system also allows for individual table exports for offline access. This feature will be helpful for large public water systems with requirements across numerous facilities.

DWCAS recently made updates to the AIMS (Am I Missing Something) Tool. This update now shows all satisfied sampling schedules. The satisfied schedules section in the monitoring schedules links directly to the AIMS tool without extra filtering (this link is also available in SWIFT). This process is also more consistent as it uses the same system we use internally for determining compliance. Next, compliance schedules are linked to the website for systems to easily get to the relevant information and form. The new platform is better aligned with Colorado’s digital accessibility requirements (CDPHE digital accessibility).

Anticipated Questions:
Q: Why is this happening?
A: Our data system is nearing its end-of-life. Updating now positions us for continuous service regardless of the future data system. In addition, this will help us better meet accessibility requirements established by State law.

Q: How do I use the new system?
A: It is available at the same website. A detailed Monitoring Schedules Help Guide and overview video have been created to help users. It also includes steps for downloading as a PDF and exporting tables.

Q: How will I know that samples have been received in the new system?
A: Schedules in the new system contain a direct link to the recently updated AIMS Tool, providing confirmation of satisfied monitoring requirements. This has the following improvements:

Fully aligned with how compliance is determined internally.
Includes monthly schedules, so all analytes and frequencies are in one location.
Shows the number of samples received (instead of just stating the schedule was satisfied).

Q: Will the data still be updated weekly?
A: Yes, there is no change to the data update frequency. The updated schedules and AIMs tool will be available every Thursday morning.

Q: When is this happening?
A: We are targeting a complete implementation of the new Monitoring Schedule platform in Winter 2025. However, to ease the transition to the new system, from now through January 2026, both monitoring schedules are available online.

Q: I am having issues accessing my schedules. How can I fix this?
A: The monitoring schedules do not require a Google account to view. If you run into an issue, then your browser might not be up-to-date or a Google account might be tied to your browser. To fix this, you can try updating your browser, try a different browser (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari are all supported), or open a new window using Private or Incognito Mode (this will remove any saved login information). In the new Private window or Incognito Mode window, then try accessing the monitoring schedules.

Please do not hesitate to contact us during this transition for assistance. Thank you all for your commitment to Colorado’s drinking water and for your continued support as we update the Monitoring Schedule system.

➽ Phillip Stanwood; Data, Records, and Reporting Unit Manager

Colorado Adopts Federal PFAS Rule - Aqua Talk

2025-11-12T13:00:00.000Z

Resources:

The State of Colorado’s Water Quality Control Commission recently took final action in August 2025 and has adopted the April 2024 EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation into the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11). EPA has indicated that they plan to make changes to this rule and finalize them in 2026. Colorado’s PFAS Rule will adjust to these changes, but remain at least as stringent as the federal rule to maintain program primacy. However, no changes are expected to the initial monitoring rule’s timeline. Many drinking water systems have already started these efforts. For the PFAS rule, all community and non-transient, non-community water systems are required to complete initial monitoring for PFAS in all entry points by April 1, 2027.

This is a public health protection measure to facilitate positive public health outcomes (and environmental protection) in Colorado and the nation. This class of omnipresent chemicals and their serious effects on human health have been recently addressed with this regulation, both in drinking water and PFAS reductions in source waters. Thanks to the new PFAS regulations, this class of chemicals can be monitored and public exposure issues addressed.

The Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) wants to help water systems start sampling for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) now, reducing the sampling demand as systems prepare for this upcoming deadline. To this end, WQCD has been reaching out to systems that have yet to start PFAS sampling to notify them that we are offering to fund one-time sampling through the PFAS Grant Program. The deadline to apply for this free sampling opportunity is January 9, 2026. After this deadline passes, funding for one-time sampling will no longer be available, and systems will need to contact a certified lab and complete the sampling requirements as required under the regulation at their own expense.

The current six regulated PFAS chemicals and their respective Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) include:

PFOA - 4.0 ppt
PFOS - 4.0 ppt
PFHxS - 10 ppt
PFNA - 10 ppt
HFPO-DA (GENX) - 10 ppt
Mixture of two or more: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX, and PFBS - Hazard Index of 1.0

Sampling results from initial monitoring will be used to determine the future compliance monitoring schedule for each system. If PFAS results are found to exceed the current MCLs, completing initial monitoring will also allow systems to fully understand their PFAS system issues and begin the appropriate planning to address the contamination. If treatment is necessary, funds like the PFAS Grant Program, the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities Grant Program (EC-SDC Grant Program), and the State Revolving Fund are available to assist systems.

Unfortunately, some drinking water wells in remote rural areas have been shown to be vulnerable to PFAS contamination due to a variety of potential sources such as fire fighting foams, individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS), biosolids applications on farm fields, various industries, and landfills. PFAS compounds are pervasive in the environment, and early sampling can provide more opportunities for funding support. Fortunately, PFAS in drinking water is treatable, and the Division is here to assist public water systems and communities with technical and financial support.

➽ Adam J. Taubman Emerging Contaminants Coordinator

➽ Claire Wadler PFAS Program Specialist

Inspection Year 26 is Here! - Aqua Talk

2025-11-06T19:49:00.000Z

The Field Services Section (FSS) wrapped up Inspection Year 2025 (IY25), completing 496 sanitary surveys and four (4) Level 2 assessments/sanitary surveys. We would like to extend a big “Thank You” to all the water suppliers and operators for all their help in making IY25 a success!

After one inspection year ends, another starts, and the new Inspection Year 2026 (IY26) started on October 1, 2025 and will end on September 30, 2026. A total of 555 sanitary surveys are planned for IY26. The list of suppliers included in the IY26 sanitary survey plan takes into consideration a number of factors including:

Last sanitary survey date and EPA required frequency for sanitary surveys - community water systems are required to have a sanitary survey every 3 years, non-community systems are required to have a sanitary survey every 5 years.
Recently activated public water systems are prioritized for sanitary survey.
Other conditions or concerns may also lead to a prioritized sanitary survey.

Please note that if your system is due for a sanitary survey, your inspector will be reaching out to you to schedule the survey anytime during the IY26 inspection year (October - September), and that the scheduling is not based on the date of the previous inspection (i.e., will not be in March or after March every 3 years).

The Field Services Section also performs Level 2 assessments or Level 2 sanitary surveys as they are triggered under the Total Coliform Rule. Level 2 assessments are triggered by either an E. coli MCL violation or two Level 1 assessment situations occurring within 12 consecutive months. Level 2 assessments are site visits that include review and identification of atypical events that could affect distributed water quality or indicate that distributed water quality was impaired. Items also evaluated include changes in distribution system maintenance and operation, including water storage, that could affect distributed water quality, source and treatment considerations that affect distributed water quality, existing water quality monitoring data, and inadequacies in sample sites, sampling protocol, and sample processing. Level 2 sanitary surveys (L2SS) are a combination of the Level 2 assessment and a sanitary survey. Level 2 assessments/sanitary surveys must be performed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the violation that triggered the Level 2 assessment. More information on Level 2 assessments can be found in Regulation 11.16 - the Total Coliform Rule. Thankfully, due to Colorado’s disinfection requirements and the great work by our operators, we had only four (4) L2SS occur in IY25, and typically we experience under five (5) of these events a year. Compared to other states that do not require a minimum disinfection concentration in the distribution system, this number is very low.

Field Services recommends that suppliers take advantage of the free sanitary survey preparation course from the Local Assistance Unit. Operators who participate will receive 0.3 training units. The training provides concrete steps for your system to prepare for your next sanitary survey including:

The ability to recognize, address, and eliminate potential violations and system deficiencies

Actions to take to address potential violations and system deficiencies before your survey

If you are interested in this FREE training, please visit this document and click on the date that you would like to attend and fill out the associated registration form. Please reach out to cdphe.wqdwtraining@state.co.us with any questions or feedback, or if you do not receive an invitation email.

For any questions or concerns about sanitary surveys, please email our Field Services team at cdphe_wqcd_fss_questions@state.co.us. We look forward to working with you on your next sanitary survey, and thank you for all your efforts to protect public health!

➽ Heather Young, PE, CWP, Field Services Section Manager

Cybersecurity - Please fill out the WaterISAC survey by 11/7/25 - Aqua Talk

2025-10-31T00:37:00.000Z

CDPHE is sharing the following survey opportunity in partnership with Water Information Sharing & Analysis Center (WaterISAC). Please take a few minutes to share your response with this critical cyber partner! The survey will close Friday, November 7, 2025.

Link to survey

WaterISAC is asking utilities to respond to its survey asking about physical and cyber incidents and suspicious activities they've experienced in the past quarter, from July 1 to September 30, 2025. WaterISAC will share with any utilities that complete the survey its next Quarterly Water Sector Incident Summary report. Even if you have no incidents to report, WaterISAC is asking utilities to complete the survey anyways, simply indicating you experienced no incidents.

Why participate?

Providing this information helps keep the water sector and its partners apprised of the threats facing water and wastewater utilities, helping to inform the prioritization of preparedness measures that can prove critical to prevention, mitigation, and response efforts. WaterISAC understands incidents and suspicious activities constitute sensitive information. Only WaterISAC staff see the full responses and, for the report and any other products it develops, it maintains the confidentiality of utilities to include by omitting their names, locations, and other details that could be used to identify them. The report will be marked TLP:AMBER, which recipients may only share with members of their own organization and with clients who need to know the information to protect themselves or prevent further harm.

WaterISAC has included further details about how it maintains respondents’ confidentiality and protects the information on the first page of the survey. It also welcomes any questions you might have, which can be submitted by emailing analyst@waterisac.org or calling 866-H2O-ISAC.

Submitting a coaching request has never been easier! - Aqua Talk

2025-10-29T12:00:00.000Z

The water sector is more engaged now than ever before. With evolving regulations and emerging contaminants, the way we treat and distribute safe drinking water is constantly transforming. Water system owners and operators are expected to stay informed in real time as new technologies are implemented and new findings arise. Public Water Systems throughout Colorado each have varying capabilities and challenges to meet the changing compliance standards and keep up with the daily operations and maintenance. To take action in aiding systems and continuing compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Colorado Department of Public Health’s Water Quality Control Division offers free customized coaching and assistance through the Local Assistance Unit (LAU). This program provides technical assistance to public water systems that request support using the new WQCD Coaching Request Form.

*Please Note: There is a new google form link to submit a coaching request. The previous formsite link is no longer available and will redirect you to the current form linked above.

Who should submit a Coaching Request form?

If you are a water system administrator, operator, owner, or decision maker seeking assistance to increase your Technical, Managerial and Financial (TMF) capacities our coaches are available. TMF topics LAU coaches specialize in include:

Meeting and understanding regulatory compliance
Water resource management
System organization and planning
Operator certification
Asset management and Operations and Maintenance Planning
Navigating grant and loan application and implementation

Specific examples of coaching requests that can be submitted include:

Drinking water systems seeking additional support within the water sector.
New or current system owners needing help hiring and defining roles and responsibilities for an Operator In Responsible Charge.
Systems encountering enforcement order requirements.
Assistance with public notices.
Navigating backflow or storage tank plan requirements.
Support creating and managing a sampling schedule.
Preparing for or responding to a Sanitary Survey
Capital improvement plans, emergency response plans or monitoring plan assistance.
Guidance on submitting documents, the CDPHE website, and identifying funding opportunities.

The Local Assistance Unit encourages the use of this valuable service provided throughout the state of Colorado for public water systems. Coaches offer compliance courses, direct assistance, onsite visits and arrange plans to help systems achieve or maintain compliance. Whether in a small rural town or a larger municipality, our goal remains to upkeep the culture of health and ensure communities have access to safe, reliable drinking water.

To learn more about how the LAU can support your system visit the Aquatalk article: How can the Local Assistance unit help you?
To learn more about TMF capacity please visit the Aquatalk article: Capacity– why is it important, and what can I do about it?

Ready to get started? Submit a WQCD Coaching Request form here for tailored coaching sessions specific to your system's needs.

➽Priscila Lopez, Excellence Coach

EPA Cyber Alerts: Mitigate Vulnerabilities in F5 Devices - Aqua Talk

2025-10-22T23:26:00.000Z

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this alert to inform water and wastewater systems about Emergency Directive (ED) 26-01 issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This directive highlights an ongoing exploitation campaign by a nation-state affiliated cyber threat actor that has compromised F5 systems. The actor has exfiltrated data, including portions of F5’s BIG-IP source code and vulnerability information, providing them with a technical advantage to exploit F5 devices and software. This poses a critical threat to water and wastewater systems using F5 products. F5 is a is a technology company that provides products and services to protect and enhance the speed, reliability, and security of applications and networks.

Link to Emergency Directive 26-01
Specific Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) information can be found on the vendor’s webpage

Mitigations

Although Emergency Directive 26-01 is directed at federal agencies, EPA strongly recommends that water and wastewater systems review the Emergency Directive and follow the mitigation steps. Systems that outsource technology support should consult with their service providers for assistance with these steps.

Important: Water and wastewater systems are not required to report their activities to CISA, including those outlined in mitigation steps 2.b, 6, and 8 in the Emergency Directive. This requirement applies only to federal agencies; however, systems may choose to report voluntarily and are encouraged to do so if a compromise is detected.

Conclusion

If you have questions about any of the information in this alert, including assistance with the mitigation steps included in the Emergency Directive, please submit a request to EPA’s Cybersecurity Technical Assistance Program for the Water Sector. Additionally, CISA has provided the following contact information specific to this Emergency Directive:

General information, assistance, and reporting: CyberDirectives@cisa.dhs.gov
Reporting indications of compromise: contact@cisa.dhs.gov

Wildfire Response and Recovery Resources for the Water Sector - Aqua Talk

2025-10-22T13:00:00.000Z

The Water Quality Control Division has resources available to assist your county, municipalities, communities, and water and wastewater systems through wildfire response and recovery processes.

General resources

CO - Post Fire Playbook: updated May 2025.
After the Flames: general community resource.
CoWARN: Use CoWARN if you need to, update your profile so you receive activations, and utilize the message board to discuss post-fire treatment issues, etc.

Best practices to protect public health and comply with regulatory requirements

Communicate with the division if your water or wastewater system’s source water, collections system, treatment, or distribution system may be impacted by a wildfire.

Non-emergency concerns for planning and response:

Drinking water - communicate with your compliance specialist.
Wastewater - communicate with the division’s Lead Wastewater Engineer - David Kurz (303)692-6298.

Emergency concerns:

Immediate challenges with treatment, distribution, and collections, call the department’s 24-hour Incident Report Line - 1-877-518-5608
Drinking water - Please consult the Pressure Loss Response Guidance for additional information on pressure loss/outages.
If any portion of your distribution system was burned by the fire, please consult the WQCD acute team regarding flushing, sampling, and potential advisories. Contact Lead Drinking Water Engineer, Chelsea Cotton, chelsea.cotton@state.co.us, and the acute team email inbox, cdphe.wqacutes@state.co.us
If any portion of your distribution system loses pressure for any reason, such as wildfire impacts to infrastructure, power outage or intentional shutdown due to evacuation, please call the department’s 24-hour Incident Report Line - 1-877-518-5608.
If you are a surface water system and have filtration concerns, including but not limited to, if you are unable to meet your microbial removal or are getting close to exceeding your turbidity limits, following a wildfire, please call your compliance specialist. If you are calling outside of normal business hours please call the Incident Report Line.

Best management practices for immediate response:

Communicate the following information to the incident management team: locations of critical infrastructure, special considerations or hazards such as high-voltage power, chlorinators, source water protection areas. If you don’t have a direct line of communication with the incident management team, please reach out to our 24-hour report line and the department emergency management team will assist you with getting the correct point of contact.

Evacuation

Pay attention to all emergency alerts, instructions, and evacuate immediately if asked by authorities.
Turn off air conditioning or air circulation systems.
Detach any electrical garage doors.
Have an N-95 or other type of respirator available, if possible, to limit exposure to smoke and other toxic fumes.

Re-entry

Consult with the local incident management team before any utility personnel re-enter the facility.
Minimize the risk of inhaling dust particles by wetting debris.
If returning from evacuation, remember that dangers could still exist for personnel such as hot spots, charred and fallen trees, downed power lines, smoldering and falling debris, sinkholes, mud, and landslides, etc.

Resources

EPA’s Incident Action Checklist
Tier 1 public notice instructions - Use for boil or bottled water advisory once you receive the advisory for the division.
National Environmental Health Association - WILDFIRE RESPONSE Guide for Environmental Public Health Professionals

Best management practices for long-term recovery:

Purdue University - Addressing Contamination of Drinking Water Distribution Systems from Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) After Wildfires
Center for Disease Control - Private Wells after a Wildfire
Boulder County Health Department - Fire Recovery Resources for Private Wells and Septic

➽ Kyra Gregory Drinking Water Training Specialist

➽ Chelsea Cotton, P.E. Lead Drinking Water Engineer

Program Manager Message: A reminder about The Significance of Deficiencies! - Aqua Talk

2025-10-15T13:00:00.000Z

Hello everyone,

In the Winter 2009 Aquatalk issue, we ran a Program Manager message about significant deficiencies. This was in the aftermath of the 2008 waterborne disease outbreak in Alamosa, Colorado. We have not had a waterborne disease outbreak at a public water system in Colorado in the 17 years since. Water utilities and the Safe Drinking Water Program have worked together since 2009 to correct thousands of significant deficiencies across the state. But we thought it would be a good time to rerun this article (with a few updates) as a reminder of how important it is to address significant deficiencies and avoid complacency despite our strong recent track record. We have had situations of reported illnesses likely associated with drinking water problems, but the exact combination of epidemiological evidence needed to confirm a waterborne disease outbreak did not materialize.

The Safe Drinking Water Program periodically conducts sanitary surveys at all public water systems in Colorado. During the survey, we review source(s), treatment, distribution system, finished water storage, pumps and controls, monitoring and reporting data, system management and operation, and operator certification

compliance. The Safe Drinking Water Program believes that the benefits of conducting sanitary surveys include providing compliance and technical assistance, communicating with water systems to better clarify current and upcoming regulations, and conducting a detailed review of all the elements listed above to help ensure that the water system is able to provide safe drinking water to its customers.

After the survey is complete, a sanitary survey report letter is sent to the water system. The sanitary survey letter will notify you if your system has any significant deficiencies. Significant deficiencies are conditions or practices at a water system that may result in the production of finished water that represents an unacceptable health risk to the public. Occasionally, we find situations that represent an imminent, acute health threat to public health. These instances require the immediate attention of both the water system and the state.

However, more typically, the sanitary survey letter will include a specific time frame for the water system to correct the significant deficiency or contact us regarding its plan to correct the significant deficiency. This follow-up is required in the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Due to the public health risk that significant deficiencies represent, it is imperative that public water systems correct significant deficiencies and that the Safe Drinking Water Program verifies that these issues are addressed. Section 11.38(3) of the regulations requires a public water system to respond in writing to significant deficiencies and violations from Sanitary Survey reports no later than 45 days after receiving the report. The response must indicate what actions the system will take to address the significant deficiencies and violations noted in the survey letter and include a proposed schedule for completing those actions.

Therefore, I encourage you to locate your last sanitary survey letter from us and review it to see if any significant deficiencies were noted. If there were significant deficiencies, are you sure that they were corrected? I recommend verifying that the deficiencies were corrected and contacting the person who conducted the sanitary survey, if necessary. If the deficiencies have not been corrected, then I recommend contacting the person who conducted the survey and developing a plan to correct the deficiencies. When the deficiencies are corrected, please provide documentation of the correction, including photos, by uploading them to the Drinking Water portal. This will confirm that the deficiency is resolved.

By working together to identify and correct significant deficiencies, the Safe Drinking Water Program and public water systems can help ensure that the public always receives safe drinking water.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Acute Health Risks - Can it happen to you? - Aqua Talk

2025-10-09T17:50:00.000Z

The below article is a re-run and update from an article published in the 2007 Summer Aqua Talk newsletter. Since then, the water sector has navigated many acute and emergency situations in partnership with the WQCD. We value your continued partnership and vigilance as you protect the public health and environment for our communities.

We could all learn a little something from the Boy Scouts, especially when it comes to acute health risks in drinking water systems. Acute health risks that must be reported can be caused by events such as:

Acute total coliform maximum contaminant level violations (when fecal or E. Coli is present);
Failure to collect repeat samples after a fecal or E. Coli positive sample;
Failure to test for fecal or E. Coli in a total coliform positive repeat sample;
Nitrate, nitrite or total nitrate nitrite maximum contaminant level violations;
Failure to take nitrate or nitrite confirmation sample within 24 hours after receipt of the first sample showing exceedance of the maximum contaminant level;
Surface water treatment rule violations, such as not using a filter cartridge, not feeding coagulant, or a single exceedance of the maximum allowable turbidity limit or failure to maintain chlorine level entering the distribution system; etc).
Suspected waterborne disease outbreak;
Situations such as depressurization of a distribution system due to a line break or loss of power;
Uncontrolled cross connections that contaminate the water supply;
A treatment or supply emergency (for example, failure or significant interruption of key water treatment processes, a natural disaster that disrupts water supply, chemical spill or unexpected loading of pathogens);
Tampering or vandalism that could have contaminated the water supply

Preparing for these situations can save lives, not to mention save you time and money. To help you keep your cool in a stressful situation, consider preparation measures such as:

Plan: Gather necessary forms and phone numbers, including the 24-Hour incident reporting hotline (877) 518-5608.
Be familiar with the Public Notice wizard to create public notice templates and think through possible acute situations.
Designate people responsible for specific activities, make sure your Operator Delegation Plan is up to date.
Practice with benchtop exercises/drills. Use this coaching request form to request a Local Assistance Unit benchtop exercise for your facility.

If your system has experienced tampering or suspected tampering, including a cyber attack, you are required to notify the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment immediately. For details, see section 11.2(1) of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations and visit the Drinking Water Security Response Toolbox. Report physical and cyber security incidents to the WQCD Tampering Threat and Incident Report Form.

For more information about acute procedures, please check Drinking Water Policy DW-0001 Response to Acute Health Threats from Public Water Systems, the Pressure Loss and Main Break Guidance and the Drinking Water Emergency information website.

CoWarn, the statewide Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (CoWARN) of utilities helping utilities to prepare for the next natural or human-caused emergency is also a resource to help public water systems.

By being prepared, water suppliers can effectively handle emergency situations and potential acute situations to protect public health.

➽ Heather Young, PE, CWP, Field Services Section Section Manager

➽ Emily Clark, Drinking Water Enforcement Unit Manager

Legionella Bacteria and Drinking Water Disease Outbreaks - Aqua Talk

2025-10-01T13:00:00.000Z

I attended the American Water Works Association’s (AWWA’s) Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) in Denver, Colorado, earlier this year. There were some excellent sessions on a wide variety of topics. However, the session that stood out the most to me covered Legionnaires' Disease and drinking water. Presenters include Dr. Mark Lechavellier, Dr. Chad Seidel, Sheldon Masters, and Julie Kennedy. The session covered some of the latest research into Legionella and drinking water, plus a case study regarding an outbreak in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, that occurred from 2023 to 2024.

Although there are over fifty Legionella species and about half can cause disease, Legionella pneumophila is the most important because it causes most Legionnaires' disease cases and occurs naturally in aquatic environments. The species can infect free-living Amoeba, where the amoeba can act as a host for Legionella. The 1989 drinking water Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) set a treatment technique for Legionella and established a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) equal to zero. Groundwater systems have no such treatment technique requirements, but one-third of the outbreaks occur in groundwater systems. Partly due to better reporting and testing, Legionella cases rose 10-fold from 1990 to 2021. Legionnaires’ outbreaks often occur in buildings such as hotels, medical facilities, and offices. People catch Legionnaires’ disease by inhaling small droplets of water suspended in the air containing Legionella. Legionnaires’ disease does not spread from person to person.

Dr. Lechavallier reported on a Legionella occurrence study that involved water testing 57 utilities. Overall, 9,118 samples were collected, and 1.2% (109) were positive. Thirty-two percent of utilities had detections. A chlorine residual of at least 0.4 mg/L dramatically reduced the positive detection frequency. Dead-end water lines, low water usage, and tank sediment raised the risk of finding Legionella. Flushing can be effective in reducing Legionella levels. Optimum Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT) reduces pipe corrosion, which reduces the habitat where Legionella can grow. The study concluded that while eliminating Legionella is impossible, testing and management are feasible. Communicating with commercial and industrial customers about Legionella can also be beneficial.

Unfortunately, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, experienced a severe Legionella outbreak from 2023 to 2024. Grand Rapids has a population of 11,000 and uses groundwater from five wells. The community did not disinfect and had three storage tanks (0.5 million-gallons each) and 81 miles of distribution system. Increased disease incidence began in mid-2023, but water was not believed to be the cause at that time. Legionella were not found in the water system, but the bacteria were found in the water in buildings with Legionnaires’ Disease cases. Over the next year, there were 34 total cases with 30 people hospitalized and two fatalities. After a complete assessment and expert assistance, including Dr. Seidel, chloramination started in June 2024. There have been no Legionella cases in Grand Rapids since then. Considerable effort also involved working with building owners in the town. Generally, buildings that maintain and actively implement water quality management plans do not have outbreaks.

EPA is in the process of updating its rules addressing Microbial Pathogens/Disinfection Byproducts (M/DBPs). It will be a few years before the update is finalized, and these rules will still not apply to groundwater systems. The updated rules are likely to improve the treatment technique requirements for Legionella at surface water systems. While we believe that Colorado is well-positioned to implement improvements due to our rules covering disinfectant residual, storage tanks, and cross connection control (backflow prevention), the occurrence data in this study are concerning. Additionally, even with solid operations by water utilities, important work involving water quality management plans within buildings is not part of our oversight. We encourage utilities to learn more about Legionella and consider partnering with their commercial and industrial customers, especially health facilities like hospitals and nursing homes, to take steps that could reduce the likelihood of a Legionnaires’ Disease outbreak in Colorado.

As always, thank you for keeping our drinking water safe.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

➽ Co-Author Chelsea Cotton, P.E. Lead Drinking Water Engineer

EPA Cyber Alerts: Cisco Products and SonicWall Cyber Incidents - Aqua Talk

2025-09-29T20:12:00.000Z

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is posting the following cyber alerts in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Please reach out to EPA with any questions about this or any additional Cyber concerns watercyberta@epa.gov.

Alert: Identify and Mitigate Potential Compromise of Cisco Devices

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this alert to inform water and wastewater systems about Emergency Directive (ED) 25-03 issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This directive highlights an ongoing exploitation campaign by an advanced threat actor targeting Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA). The campaign is widespread and involves exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities to achieve unauthenticated remote code execution on Cisco ASAs. Additionally, it includes the manipulation of read-only memory (ROM), enabling threat actors to maintain access even through reboots and system upgrades.

Link to Emergency Directive 25-03

Mitigations

Although Emergency Directive 25-03 is directed at federal agencies, EPA strongly recommends that water and wastewater systems review the Emergency Directive and follow the mitigation steps. The Emergency Directive includes a detailed step-by-step guide along with resources to assist in implementing each mitigation. Systems that outsource technology support should consult with their service providers for assistance with these steps.

Important: Water and wastewater systems are not required to report their activities to CISA, including those outlined in mitigation steps 2, 3, and 6 in the Emergency Directive. This requirement applies only to federal agencies; however, systems may choose to report voluntarily and are encouraged to do so if a compromise is detected.

Conclusion

Additionally, CISA has provided the following contact information specific to this Emergency Directive:

General information, assistance, and reporting: CyberDirectives@cisa.dhs.gov
Reporting indications of compromise: contact@cisa.dhs.gov
Colroado specific assistance and interpretation of the emergency directive for the water sector: kindra.brewer@cisa.dhs.gov

Alert: SonicWall Releases Advisory After Cybersecurity Incident

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing this alert to inform water and wastewater systems that are customers of SonicWall Firewalls, particularly those customers with preference files backed up on MySonicWall.com. SonicWall's security teams have recently detected suspicious activity targeting firewall preference files stored in the cloud. Although there is no current evidence of these files being leaked online by threat actors, they may contain information that could facilitate unauthorized network access by making it easier for attackers to exploit the related firewalls.

Mitigations

All water and wastewater systems that are customers of SonicWall are recommended to follow the remediation steps provided by SonicWall. Water and wastewater systems that outsource technology support are recommended to consult with their service providers for assistance with these steps.

Log in to your MySonicWall.com account and verify if cloud backups exist for all registered firewalls. If the fields are blank, you are not at risk.
If the fields contain backup details, verify whether impacted serial numbers are listed in your account. Upon login, navigate to “Product Management | Issue List” and the affected serial numbers will be flagged. If serial numbers are shown, the firewalls are at risk, and you should immediately follow the containment and remediation guidelines provided by SonicWall.

If you have used the Cloud Backup feature, but no Serial Numbers are shown, SonicWall will provide additional guidance in the coming days to determine if your backup files were impacted.

Please continue to check back on the following page for additional information and updates: MySonicWall Cloud Backup File Incident.

Conclusion

If you have questions about any of the information in this alert, please contact EPA’s Water Infrastructure and Cyber Resilience Division, Cybersecurity Branch at watercyberta@epa.gov. Organizations are encouraged to report suspicious or criminal activity to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at IC3.gov or CISA via CISA’s Incident Reporting System

PFAS Grant Program Over the Past 5 Years - Aqua Talk

2025-09-24T13:00:00.000Z

Click here for more information about the PFAS Grant Program.

PFAS are man-made chemicals with unique properties that make them useful for many consumer and industrial uses (e.g., waterproofing, non-stick surfaces). But those properties also make them persistent in the environment. PFAS chemicals from firefighting foam, personal products, and other substances are toxic and may get into the groundwater and surface water, potentially contaminating Colorado’s drinking water supplies. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects including low infant birth weights, cancer and negative effects on the immune system.

The state continues to address PFAS issues through legislative-directed funding from Senate Bill 20-218. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Substances Response Act (SB20-218) was signed into law on June 29, 2020 ( C.R.S. 8-20-206.5(7)).

The act created fees on the transportation of fuel products, which will be collected between September 1, 2020, and September 30, 2031, when the available balance in the fund is less than nine million dollars. The collected fees are placed in the PFAS Cash Fund established by the legislative bill. The funding is managed by the Water Quality Control Division and can be used for the PFAS grant program, PFAS takeback program, and PFAS technical assistance to impacted communities.

The PFAS Grant Program provides funding opportunities to eligible entities through three (3) primary project categories:

Sampling - standard sampling and Independent Environmental Studies;
Emergency Assistance - to communities and water systems affected by PFAS; and
Infrastructure -water system infrastructure for the treatment of PFAS and prevention strategies for upstream sources of PFAS.

The PFAS grant program has awarded over 19 million dollars in grant funds to help communities across Colorado identify and mitigate PFAS in water. Some current and past projects include:

Determining the impacts of firefighting foam, ski wax, and septic systems on source water.
Piloting PFAS treatment for drinking water systems and landfill leachate.
Installation of filtered drinking water stations in schools.
Several fish tissue sampling efforts.
Over $3.5 million to identify and assess PFAS in drinking water, source water, and groundwater.
~$12 million used to implement PFAS treatment for clean drinking water.

A full list of awarded projects can be found on the PFAS Grant Summaries webpage. In addition, our annual legislative reports on the program progress can be found on the PFAS Laws webpage.

Any questions may be directed towards the cdphe_wqcd_pfas_grant@state.co.us email. Please use the subject line “Grant Program Questions.”

➽ Sierra Mitchell, PFAS Program Coordinator

Equipping Operators with Skills to Manage and Overcome Testing Anxiety! - Aqua Talk

2025-09-17T13:00:00.000Z

As coaches, one thing we often hear is that sitting for water and wastewater operator certification exams is a dreaded experience. While this apprehension is completely understandable, it is not insurmountable. We are re-publishing the below article that will help you understand where this anxiety comes from, steps you can take to overcome your testing anxiety, and tangible tools to help you succeed when you take your next operator certification exam. Thank you for all the work you do to protect the environment and public health of your communities. Keep calm and test on!

➽ Kyra Gregory, Drinking Water Training Specialist

Note: This article has been reposted with permission from the author, Tom Healy, Director of Certification Services for The Association of Boards of Certification. Original article published Summer 2021 Arkansas Drinking Water Update

We have all experienced it, that feeling of dread and foreboding before taking an exam; a myriad of scenarios running through your head outlining the worst possible outcomes.

These feelings of testing anxiety are very real and can have detrimental effects on an operator’s exam performance. In fact, a recent survey of operators conducted by the Ohio Water Environment Association found that nearly 30 percent of respondents cited testing anxiety as a main cause for not passing the exam.

To examine why testing anxiety is such a prevalent phenomenon, especially in high stakes vocational testing such as an operator certification exam, I spoke with Dr. Ian MacFarlane of Elizabethtown College. Dr. MacFarlane is an Assistant Professor of Psychology, as well as a clinical psychologist. With more than 1,000 hours of therapy work with college students and adults, he has helped countless individuals recognize and overcome testing anxiety.

Why do Operators worry?

Taking a certification exam is different from a high school biology or chemistry final: the stakes are exponentially higher. Psychologically, operators may feel that taking an exam related to their everyday job duties raises a question about their professional competence. This spark of anxiety will be fanned further if a passing score on the exam is mandated for their current job or required for promotion potential.

When asked how test anxiety manifests, Dr. MacFarlane pointed to both cognitive and physical (or somatic) symptoms stating, “The most detrimental effects of anxiety are cognitive. The human brain is limited to a certain amount of processing power at one time. The more your brain is occupied with the anxiety of the exam, the less ability it has to process the exam content. It would be akin to going into a wrestling match with one hand tied behind your back. Anxiety is a ‘mental suck’ or leech draining your brain power and limiting your ability to recall information or facts that might be as familiar to you as the names of your parents.”

One particularly common manifestation of testing anxiety Dr. MacFarlane cited is detachment–an operator is likely to avoid the discomfort of test anxiety by simply not thinking about the exam. Just as your body will pass out instead of coping with a lack of oxygen, you are likely to avoid the discomfort of test anxiety by simply not thinking about the exam. He noted, “This can be quite detrimental as this avoidance loop can cause you to disengage from exam preparatory practices which can seriously hinder performance on the exam.”

Other effects of anxiety can be seen as physiological symptoms such as nausea, stomach cramps, or lightheadedness. To explain this, Dr. MacFarlane offered, “Our bodies lack the ability to differentiate between real life and mental simulations. So, if we are extremely worried or anxious about something, our minds can create physiological manifestations that are directly associated with the negative mental simulations.”

Why do some operators who excel in their jobs perform poorly on the exam?

Even though the exam is measuring the knowledge and application of tasks that an operator performs daily, while in the testing environment, they lose the contextual cues that would normally assist them in everyday operations.

Without those additional sources of information, operators must work harder to draw parallels between the tasks on the exam and the tasks they perform in their job. In other words, because an operator is not being tested in the environment in which he/she normally performs a task (a water or wastewater system), it can be difficult to recognize and solve the same problem in a test environment.

What can operators do to help with testing anxiety?

1. Practice, Practice, Practice

There is no better way of reducing test anxiety than to spend an adequate amount of time preparing and practicing. Test-taking is a skill—one that must be practiced and honed. Dr. MacFarlane noted that in many cases, due to inefficient study techniques, people have a tendency to work on areas in which they are already proficient and to avoid areas that could use improvement. Operators should make better use of their study time by taking periodic practice tests to help gauge the areas they need to work on. As an added benefit, the practice tests will train them to work under the pressure of a time constraint. Because the time limit on most certification exams can create a state of panic, it is important that operators learn to perform under these stressors and to control the feelings of unease.

2. Don’t “cram”

Countless studies have been done over the years on the ineffectiveness of “cramming,” or waiting until the last available opportunity to study for an exam. Say an operator spends the last six hours before the exam reviewing material. It is easy for them to think that they have everything committed to memory; the material is “fresh” in their mind. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. Reviewing this way gives an operator a familiarity with the material, meaning he/she will be able to recognize it when they see it on paper. Unfortunately, the ability to recognize concepts is not the same as being able to recall it. The ability to recall or reconstruct information accurately when an operator needs it requires exposure to the information over a long period of time.

The best course of action is to build a study plan that spans the course of several weeks prior to the exam. The more time an operator spends reorganizing the material so it has a structure, the more likely they are to commit the information to long term memory. Operators should aim for 45-60 minutes per day with their study material for at least six weeks prior to the exam.

3. How can an operator cope with anxiety on test day?

Even the most prepared test-takers can feel anxiety on test day, but there are proven methods to counteract the effects. Operators should start with getting adequate sleep the night before. Studies have shown that people perform better on memory tasks when they are well-rested. Some people will suffer from interrupted sleep when particularly worried about something. To help with this, operators can try exercising for 30 minutes before bed. Doing so will help their bodies release excess cortisol (stress hormone) in their systems caused by anxiety and will allow them to sleep better.

An operator should ensure their body is well nourished the day of the exam. This means do not skip breakfast and eat healthy foods such as grains or fruit and avoid foods with high fat content. The goal here is to eliminate as many distractors as possible so an operator can dedicate all their attention to the exam. If an operator is tired or his/her body does not have enough fuel, it can drastically hinder their performance.

4. Breathing – The 5-5-7 Method

During the exam, it can be extremely beneficial to stop at regular intervals (perhaps every five questions) and take deep breaths. The 5-5-7 is a breathing exercise performed by inhaling for five seconds, holding your breath for another five seconds, then exhaling for seven seconds. Dr. MacFarlane suggested that completing this exercise at regular intervals during a test session can physiologically stimulate the central nervous system, which can heighten an operator’s awareness and push anxiety from their mind. He also stressed the importance of practicing this technique for several weeks prior to the exam during their preparation, saying “The more practiced you are in this technique, the more effective it will be during exam time. Your body and mind will have a Pavlovian response to the exercise which increases its effectiveness.”

5. Muscle Relaxation

Another proven technique outlined during our discussion was progressive muscle relaxation, or PMR. This is done by deliberately applying tension (by clenching) to certain muscle groups and then releasing the induced tension. During this process, all of an operator’s attention should be focused on how their muscles feel as the tension is released. As operators learn to distinguish the feelings of a tense muscle as compared to a completely relaxed one, they are able to recognize the physical effects anxiety has on their bodies and can quickly alleviate it with this technique. Operators should be encouraged to practice PMR both when preparing for the exam and on the day of testing. They should spend 15-20 minutes at a time performing this technique on their major muscle groups (feet, legs, hands, arms, neck, and shoulders) and it will help mitigate anxiety.

The Bottom Line

While these methods have been shown to help with anxiety, they may not work for everyone. There are many more techniques that may offer relief, and operators can use these tips as a starting point to find what works best for them. Above all, operators should make sure they spend adequate time studying and reviewing the material. The better command they have of the content, the less anxious they will be about the exam, and the better they will perform.

➽ Tom Healy, Director of Certification Services for The Association of Boards of Certification