PFAS and the Camas Water System

Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Facebook Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Twitter Share PFAS and the Camas Water System on Linkedin Email PFAS and the Camas Water System link

**Updated 7/12/24**

Thank you to everyone who was able to attend the joint open house hosted by City of Camas, in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Clark County Public Health and the Washington State Department of Health, July 9, 2024, at Lacamas Lake Lodge. For those that were unable to attend, please view the Open House Information Boards below, or through the Documents section to the right. For additional information visit: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/contaminants/pfas



**Update 5/21/24**

Information for Drinking Water Customers Regarding the City’s PFAS Response

This information is being provided to City of Camas, WA water system customers to inform you of the City’s ongoing response to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) within portions of the City’s groundwater sources (i.e. wells).

Status of Well 13

In accordance with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) requirements the City first notified customers in January of 2023 that one of the City’s ten well sources, Well 13, had PFAS detections that were slightly above the “State Action Level” (SAL). There was an average detection level of 15.8ppt and the SAL is 15 ppt. Since that time, the City has provided multiple notices to the public through various sources that Well 13 has been used seasonally as needed to meet water demands. Most recently, a social media/website announcement was made that Well 13 was turned on again on May 15th as a cautionary measure after two of the City’s other wells had to be taken offline for mechanical service. The two wells are being repaired as quickly as possible, and in the meantime, Well 13 will only be used if the water demands get high enough that the City’s other remaining wells are not able to keep up. However, with the summer months nearly here, we also want our customers to understand that Well 13 will remain on and likely be used as a regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024 when demands are less, at which time it would be turned off again through the winter.

You can help! Reducing your irrigation use to every other day (e.g. odd/even based on the last number of your address), or using native plantings and not irrigating at all, can minimize the need for the use of Well 13.

City’s PFAS Response Plan & New EPA Rule

In 2021, the Washington State Board of Health (SBOH) adopted a rule that required water system utilities, including the City of Camas, to test for PFAS. PFAS are a newer class of contaminants, that at the time, were not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As discussed above, the rule also requires the City to notify you if any test results exceed the SAL.

The City has taken the PFAS concern seriously and continues to be proactive in our approach to the water system. After volunteering in late 2020 to test our water system for PFAS prior to most other providers in the State, the City has been actively researching, sampling, monitoring and reviewing options with the City Council to help address PFAS within the City’s system on both a near-term and long-term basis. Most immediately, the City is currently designing treatment system improvements for Well 13, which will likely include the use of either granular activated carbon or ion exchange treatment media. Treatment for Well 13 is anticipated to be online in late 2025, and based on early estimates is anticipated to cost approximately $6,500,000.

In addition to designing treatment for Well 13, the City’s team of experts are also assisting the City with completion of a comprehensive PFAS response management plan which will include a comprehensive review of the City’s well sources and identification of all potential funding resources for future treatment or new water sources. We received some additional help towards this effort in April when the Nation finally received certainty regarding our target PFAS treatment levels from the EPA.

Exposure to PFAS occurs in various ways, including through drinking water. Because of the widespread use of PFAS in manufacturing, it has become a world-wide issue and one that until very recently, even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Safe Water Drinking Act did not address or provide guidance for the States or water providers to follow. On April 10, 2024, EPA announced their final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six specific PFAS. This included development of a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFOA, PFAS, PFHxS HFPO-DA and PFBS. EPA also finalized health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these same PFAS. The regulated MCLs and MCLGs are shown in the table below.

The final PFAS NPDWR Rule requires:

  • Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027.
  • Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
  • Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.

The NPDWR provides States an additional 2 years to create and adopt individual state regulations to be in compliance with the NPDWR. It is expected that DOH will adopt similar levels to EPA for utilities in Washington State. The City’s monitoring completed in 2021 and 2022 should count towards meeting the requirements in the first bullet and we are already moving on treatment options for Well 13. Even though the City’s other sources have been testing below the State Action Level of 15 ppt; unfortunately, based on prior PFOS test results greater than 4.0 ppt it appears that other City wells may now need additional monitoring under EPAs MCL. As such, as part of the City’s response management plan we will be monitoring all wells and investigating further to determine if additional treatment or alternative sources are needed to meet the new MCL.

This is of the highest priority for the City’s water system, and we are working as quickly as possible to get treatment in place and have a solid response management plan as a roadmap for the future.

The standards established by EPA are set to reduce PFAS to the lowest levels that are feasible for effective implementation. If you are concerned about the level of PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing an in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf

For fact sheets and more information on the new EPA National Primary Drinking Water regulation related to PFAS, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

For more information related to the City’s water system and PFAS, please visit https://engagecamas.com/pfas-and-the-camas-water-system or contact Rob Charles, Utilities Manager (360-817-7003 or rcharles@cityofcamas.us) or Steve Wall, Public Works Director (360-817-7899 or swall@cityofcamas.us). Please do not hesitate to share this notice with others who may drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments and businesses).

We have also completed the 2023 Consumer Confidence Report, which you can find here: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/55218

To view previous updates: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/57246

*Please note, the City tests for numerous Perfluorinated Compounds that fall under PFAS, we will only show results that are detectable.








City Well No.
DOH Source No.Testing Date
PFAS Measured
Result
State Action Level (SAL)
Result
Well 5
(Last used August 2022)
063/22/2022(PFOS) PFoctane Sulfonic acid 6.9ng/L15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.6ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane Sulfonic acid
3.7ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
8/5/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.2ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
6.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.3ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.9ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFPeA) PFpentanoic acid
2.7ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
2.3ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.6ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
6.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 13
(Turned off since 10/10/23)
168/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
25ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
3/23/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/8/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.84ng/L
15ng/l
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.76ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.23ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/22/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
10.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.13ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
15.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.27ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
17ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.3
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/31/2023(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.8 ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.4ng/L

10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

12ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.8 ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.6 ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/l15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 14
(In general use)
177/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.18ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.19ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.35ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Well Field East"
(In general use - Sampling location is after blending of Wells 6 and 14)
183/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.6ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.4ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
5.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.8ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.0ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Oak Park Well Field"
(In general use - Sampling Location is after blending of Wells 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12)
193/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.2ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.28ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/23(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.4ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
1.0ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
5711 SE Strong Road (Crown Road Booster Station)
System Test8/23/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
2.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
27200 Robinson Road
System Test
9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.0ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Deer Haven
System Test

9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
13.7ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Crown Park
System Test

9/11/2023

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

11.5ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

3.11ng/L
10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NE Sitka Dr
System Test


9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

2.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NW Woodburn Drive
System Test



10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.88ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

2.03ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
1620 SE 8th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
14.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.69ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
2822 NW 18th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
12.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.81ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
North Chestnut St
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.64ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4542 NW Rae Ct
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
11.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.38ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Stone Leaf
System Test
10/5/2023
NDNDNDND


Well Locations:


**Updated 7/12/24**

Thank you to everyone who was able to attend the joint open house hosted by City of Camas, in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Clark County Public Health and the Washington State Department of Health, July 9, 2024, at Lacamas Lake Lodge. For those that were unable to attend, please view the Open House Information Boards below, or through the Documents section to the right. For additional information visit: https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/contaminants/pfas



**Update 5/21/24**

Information for Drinking Water Customers Regarding the City’s PFAS Response

This information is being provided to City of Camas, WA water system customers to inform you of the City’s ongoing response to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) within portions of the City’s groundwater sources (i.e. wells).

Status of Well 13

In accordance with the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) requirements the City first notified customers in January of 2023 that one of the City’s ten well sources, Well 13, had PFAS detections that were slightly above the “State Action Level” (SAL). There was an average detection level of 15.8ppt and the SAL is 15 ppt. Since that time, the City has provided multiple notices to the public through various sources that Well 13 has been used seasonally as needed to meet water demands. Most recently, a social media/website announcement was made that Well 13 was turned on again on May 15th as a cautionary measure after two of the City’s other wells had to be taken offline for mechanical service. The two wells are being repaired as quickly as possible, and in the meantime, Well 13 will only be used if the water demands get high enough that the City’s other remaining wells are not able to keep up. However, with the summer months nearly here, we also want our customers to understand that Well 13 will remain on and likely be used as a regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024 when demands are less, at which time it would be turned off again through the winter.

You can help! Reducing your irrigation use to every other day (e.g. odd/even based on the last number of your address), or using native plantings and not irrigating at all, can minimize the need for the use of Well 13.

City’s PFAS Response Plan & New EPA Rule

In 2021, the Washington State Board of Health (SBOH) adopted a rule that required water system utilities, including the City of Camas, to test for PFAS. PFAS are a newer class of contaminants, that at the time, were not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As discussed above, the rule also requires the City to notify you if any test results exceed the SAL.

The City has taken the PFAS concern seriously and continues to be proactive in our approach to the water system. After volunteering in late 2020 to test our water system for PFAS prior to most other providers in the State, the City has been actively researching, sampling, monitoring and reviewing options with the City Council to help address PFAS within the City’s system on both a near-term and long-term basis. Most immediately, the City is currently designing treatment system improvements for Well 13, which will likely include the use of either granular activated carbon or ion exchange treatment media. Treatment for Well 13 is anticipated to be online in late 2025, and based on early estimates is anticipated to cost approximately $6,500,000.

In addition to designing treatment for Well 13, the City’s team of experts are also assisting the City with completion of a comprehensive PFAS response management plan which will include a comprehensive review of the City’s well sources and identification of all potential funding resources for future treatment or new water sources. We received some additional help towards this effort in April when the Nation finally received certainty regarding our target PFAS treatment levels from the EPA.

Exposure to PFAS occurs in various ways, including through drinking water. Because of the widespread use of PFAS in manufacturing, it has become a world-wide issue and one that until very recently, even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Safe Water Drinking Act did not address or provide guidance for the States or water providers to follow. On April 10, 2024, EPA announced their final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six specific PFAS. This included development of a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for PFOA, PFAS, PFHxS HFPO-DA and PFBS. EPA also finalized health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for these same PFAS. The regulated MCLs and MCLGs are shown in the table below.

The final PFAS NPDWR Rule requires:

  • Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of these PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027.
  • Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
  • Beginning in five years (2029), public water systems that have PFAS in drinking water which violates one or more of these MCLs must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water and must provide notification to the public of the violation.

The NPDWR provides States an additional 2 years to create and adopt individual state regulations to be in compliance with the NPDWR. It is expected that DOH will adopt similar levels to EPA for utilities in Washington State. The City’s monitoring completed in 2021 and 2022 should count towards meeting the requirements in the first bullet and we are already moving on treatment options for Well 13. Even though the City’s other sources have been testing below the State Action Level of 15 ppt; unfortunately, based on prior PFOS test results greater than 4.0 ppt it appears that other City wells may now need additional monitoring under EPAs MCL. As such, as part of the City’s response management plan we will be monitoring all wells and investigating further to determine if additional treatment or alternative sources are needed to meet the new MCL.

This is of the highest priority for the City’s water system, and we are working as quickly as possible to get treatment in place and have a solid response management plan as a roadmap for the future.

The standards established by EPA are set to reduce PFAS to the lowest levels that are feasible for effective implementation. If you are concerned about the level of PFAS in your drinking water, consider installing an in-home water treatment (e.g., filters) that are certified to lower the levels of PFAS in your water. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf

For fact sheets and more information on the new EPA National Primary Drinking Water regulation related to PFAS, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

For more information related to the City’s water system and PFAS, please visit https://engagecamas.com/pfas-and-the-camas-water-system or contact Rob Charles, Utilities Manager (360-817-7003 or rcharles@cityofcamas.us) or Steve Wall, Public Works Director (360-817-7899 or swall@cityofcamas.us). Please do not hesitate to share this notice with others who may drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example, people in apartments and businesses).

We have also completed the 2023 Consumer Confidence Report, which you can find here: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/55218

To view previous updates: https://engagecamas.com/21559/widgets/70670/documents/57246

*Please note, the City tests for numerous Perfluorinated Compounds that fall under PFAS, we will only show results that are detectable.








City Well No.
DOH Source No.Testing Date
PFAS Measured
Result
State Action Level (SAL)
Result
Well 5
(Last used August 2022)
063/22/2022(PFOS) PFoctane Sulfonic acid 6.9ng/L15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.6ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane Sulfonic acid
3.7ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
8/5/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.2ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
6.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
5.3ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.9ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFPeA) PFpentanoic acid
2.7ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFHxA) PFhexanoic acid
2.3ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBA) PFbutanoic acid
2.6ng/L
None
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
6.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 13
(Turned off since 10/10/23)
168/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
25ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
3/23/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/8/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
8.84ng/L
15ng/l
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.76ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.23ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
6/22/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
10.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.13ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
15.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.27ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.1ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2022(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
17ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: At or Exceeding State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.3
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/31/2023(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
3.8 ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
4.4ng/L

10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

12ng/L15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
12/5/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
7ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.8 ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.6 ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/24(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.5ng/l15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Well 14
(In general use)
177/13/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.18ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.19ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.35ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Well Field East"
(In general use - Sampling location is after blending of Wells 6 and 14)
183/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.3ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.6ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.4ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid

2.4ng/L

345ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/2023(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
5.9ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.8ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFBS) PFbutane sulfonic acid
2.0ng/L
345ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
"Oak Park Well Field"
(In general use - Sampling Location is after blending of Wells 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12)
193/22/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
11/9/2022
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.2ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4/4/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.2ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
7/13/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.28ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/27/23(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.4ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
1.0ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
5711 SE Strong Road (Crown Road Booster Station)
System Test8/23/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
2.69ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
27200 Robinson Road
System Test
9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
3.0ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Deer Haven
System Test

9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
13.7ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
3.9ng/L
10ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Crown Park
System Test

9/11/2023

(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

11.5ng/L


15ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
9/11/2023

(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

3.11ng/L
10ng/L


PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NE Sitka Dr
System Test


9/11/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid

2.8ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
NW Woodburn Drive
System Test



10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
9.88ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid

2.03ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
1620 SE 8th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
14.4ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.69ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
2822 NW 18th Ave
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
12.1ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.81ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
North Chestnut St
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
4.64ng/L
15ng/L

PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
4542 NW Rae Ct
System Test
10/5/2023
(PFOS) PFoctane sulfonic acid
11.5ng/L
15ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
10/5/2023
(PFOA) PFoctanoic acid
2.38ng/L
10ng/L
PFAS Detected: Lower than State Action Level (SAL)
Stone Leaf
System Test
10/5/2023
NDNDNDND


Well Locations:


Questions about PFAS?

loader image
Didn't receive confirmation?
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Facebook Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Twitter Share Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? on Linkedin Email Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results? link

    Have the two maintenance deficient wells been repaired and if not, how much longer do you expect repairs to take? Has any testing been for any PFAS compounds been done on Well 13 since the repairs began and if so, what are the results?

    Basstalker asked 29 days ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your questions. Both wells that were out of operation for maintenance purposes are now operating. Three samples of Well 13 have been taken since it was activated in mid-May, all three were below the State Action Level of 15 ppt.

  • Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Facebook Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Twitter Share Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. on Linkedin Email Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same. link

    Appreciate the response to my request. I would suggest the City and Utilities turn off every sprinkler that is watering public green space to limit the need for Well 13 water. Since I do not have yard sprinklers, I shall do my part and ask City to do the same.

    marklabar asked about 2 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas, and thank you for your comment and suggestion. This has been shared with staff.

  • Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Facebook Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Twitter Share Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? on Linkedin Email Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority? link

    Interesting to note that well 5, one of the furthest wells away from the GP Mill site now (as of 4/4/24) registers a PFOS contamination level that exceeds the EPA's drinking water standard. This shows the rate of growth and extent of contamination that has impacted the City's water supply. While it is stated in the recent update (5/21/24) that the highest priority is monitoring, when will finding the source of PFAS contamination and reducing the risk to our entire water supply become a priority?

    Basstalker asked about 2 months ago

    Thank you for your comments/question and thank you for using Engage Camas. Investigating potential sources is part of the City’s current strategy and work program with our consultant team, including updating our current groundwater flow model. However, PFAS has been so broadly used over the last few decades that it’s been proven to be very difficult to find actual sources of contamination. The City will continue investigating, but will also be working on developing and evaluating treatment alternatives and other long-term strategies to provide water into the future.

  • Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Facebook Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Twitter Share Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. on Linkedin Email Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas. link

    Clearly the City of Camas has a water problem. Not just Well 13, but all other wells contain PFAS, some more than others. In April, the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for six forever chemicals, including PFOS and PFBS; PFOS and PFBS are PFAS compounds. The agency noted that PFOS is "likely to cause cancer" and that no level of the chemical is considered safe. Studies link PFAS to an increased risk of some cancers, developmental effects in children, reduced immune function, interference with hormones and other health harms. Virtually everyone now has at least one PFAS compound in their blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. So why then should we allow the City to use Well 13 as a "regular water source from June 1 through Fall 2024"? I say, turn it off, please, and do not hide behind State Action Level and NPDWR rules that provide 5 years to implement solutions and instead make a solution the most urgent priority for all citizens and visitors of the City of Camas.

    marklabar asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, due to water consumption, we can not turn off Well 13 during the summer months, unless we have an alternative source. Please note, your comments have been made public and will be shared with Administration and Staff. 

  • Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Facebook Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Twitter Share When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? on Linkedin Email When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report? link

    When do you expect to issue a Clean Water report (Consumer Confidence report) for the year 2023? Also is there any new PFAS data to report?

    Basstalker asked 4 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and thank you for your questions. The CCR is due in July each year, and we usually try to make it available by June. Please note, we will post it to this site once it's complete. In terms of testing, the most recent test for 2024 were conducted in March. We're awaiting the results and will post as soon as we receive those. 

  • Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Facebook Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Twitter Share Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? on Linkedin Email Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells? link

    Has the City of Camas developed a risk management plan that addresses the following circumstances - 1) Compromise of well 13 and inability to use this for repeated tests above the PFAS SAL? 2) Compromise of any other well/wellfield with tests above the PFAS SAL? 3) Treatment options (either individual wells or groups of wells in a wellfield) to safely deliver water from ANYWHERE in the system? 4) Funding increases to ratepayers vs grants or low interest revolving funds? 5) Vulnerability to potential contaminants of concern from any potential discharges (air, soil, or water/groundwater) within a mile of any supply wells?

    Soldier76 asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. All of these items have been, and are being, reviewed in one form or another through staff and current on-call consultants (hydrogeologists). In addition to current staff and on-call consultants, the City has also began the process of bringing on a larger team to review the potential effects of the PFAS on the system that we’ve seen to date, complete further investigation, develop options for treatment, help track EPA rulemaking, etc. Since being made aware of the PFAS in the water system, the City has been primarily focused on trying to determine the extent of PFAS in our groundwater sources (wells) and throughout the system as that is the most pressing issue. Though there is no immediate apparent contaminate area around the wells, more specifically around Well 13 which has PFAS levels above the State Action Level, the City has also began a process to monitor areas around Well 13 to determine the extent of the PFAS plume in the groundwater. It’s anticipated that additional investigation will occur around not only Well 13, but also around the Lower Washougal River Wellfield once we have additional consultant resources available. As discussed above, to date, the City has been using staff and our on-call hydrogeologists to monitor EPAs proposed rulemaking and has begun the process of bringing on a larger team to review the potential effects of the PFAS on the system that we’ve seen to date, complete further investigation, develop options for treatment, help track EPA rulemaking, etc. 

  • Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Facebook Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Twitter Share What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? on Linkedin Email What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13? link

    What is Camas doing to fix this problem? This should be the most important issue facing Camas. Not roundabouts, housing or any other issue. The photos are not expanded, where is well 13?

    Dhinesley asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and sorry for the delayed reply. Well 13 is located on Cramer Lane off of 1st Avenue to the southeast of Louis Bloch Park. The City continues to put significant resources towards this topic to determine the best path forward for the community. Please continue to check back to the Engage Camas site for updated information. 

  • Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Facebook Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Twitter Share Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. on Linkedin Email Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina. link

    Hello everyone, we are Retired and my disabled Veteran husband and I are Worried. We are on Camas Water. We're always careful about using water and our bills are already high. We pay for our home water and I have to buy water from outside sources now which is also heavy for us to carry. Sadly Thinking of how to buy a house filter and is there something you can do for us. Will you give us some compensation for this. We would be going into Credit card debt for the filter. We have been using the Refrigerator filter but it doesn't filter everything. Thank you for your help sincerely Christina.

    Cabong60 asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and sorry for the delayed reply. Thank you for your husband’s service. Unfortunately, the City is not compensating individuals or households for the purchase of filters. PFAS limits are based on long-term health exposures and if you’re concerned about the need to use filtered water, we recommend that you speak with your health care provider. If you decide to use filters in your home, we would also recommend that you use reliable sources like the Environmental Protection Agency or Washington State Department of Health to find products that have been certified to remove PFAS. Links to these pages can be found in the included FAQs on the Engage Camas site. Because this is a world-wide issue, there are also a multitude of reliable scientific agencies that have completed research on available filters and their efficacy in removing PFAS.

  • Share I have 3 questions: 1- why are we still using well 13 when there is a well in use that is testing lower for contaminates that is not in use and we have entered into the fall where water use should be lower? 2- Do different wells supply different areas and if so how do we determine where our home’s water supply comes from? 3- How can you justify providing contaminated water with no clear action plan and then advising your water customers who belong to sensitive groups to drink filtered or bottled water? I would expect a clear action plan as our costs have not gone down and you are not providing the service (clean water) that we are paying for. on Facebook Share I have 3 questions: 1- why are we still using well 13 when there is a well in use that is testing lower for contaminates that is not in use and we have entered into the fall where water use should be lower? 2- Do different wells supply different areas and if so how do we determine where our home’s water supply comes from? 3- How can you justify providing contaminated water with no clear action plan and then advising your water customers who belong to sensitive groups to drink filtered or bottled water? I would expect a clear action plan as our costs have not gone down and you are not providing the service (clean water) that we are paying for. on Twitter Share I have 3 questions: 1- why are we still using well 13 when there is a well in use that is testing lower for contaminates that is not in use and we have entered into the fall where water use should be lower? 2- Do different wells supply different areas and if so how do we determine where our home’s water supply comes from? 3- How can you justify providing contaminated water with no clear action plan and then advising your water customers who belong to sensitive groups to drink filtered or bottled water? I would expect a clear action plan as our costs have not gone down and you are not providing the service (clean water) that we are paying for. on Linkedin Email I have 3 questions: 1- why are we still using well 13 when there is a well in use that is testing lower for contaminates that is not in use and we have entered into the fall where water use should be lower? 2- Do different wells supply different areas and if so how do we determine where our home’s water supply comes from? 3- How can you justify providing contaminated water with no clear action plan and then advising your water customers who belong to sensitive groups to drink filtered or bottled water? I would expect a clear action plan as our costs have not gone down and you are not providing the service (clean water) that we are paying for. link

    I have 3 questions: 1- why are we still using well 13 when there is a well in use that is testing lower for contaminates that is not in use and we have entered into the fall where water use should be lower? 2- Do different wells supply different areas and if so how do we determine where our home’s water supply comes from? 3- How can you justify providing contaminated water with no clear action plan and then advising your water customers who belong to sensitive groups to drink filtered or bottled water? I would expect a clear action plan as our costs have not gone down and you are not providing the service (clean water) that we are paying for.

    Brandi H asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas and sorry for the delayed response. Well 13 is needed to supply water during high demands as described on the Engage Camas site, but the piping system is also set up to use Well 13 under certain conditions – meaning other wells are not able to get water to, or enough water to, the right places in the City. For reference, Well 13 was also turned off for the winter on October 9, 2023.  Different Wells generally send water different directions through the piping system; however, the water ultimately gets mixed (“blended”) in storage reservoirs and in the piping. As such, we are unable to determine exactly which wells service specific households. If you belong to a sensitive group, we recommend speaking with your health care provider about the potential affects of PFAS in your drinking water. If you decide to use filters in your home, we would also recommend that you use reliable sources like the Environmental Protection Agency or Washington State Department of Health to find products that have been certified to remove PFAS. Links to these pages can be found in the included FAQs on the Engage Camas site. Because this is a world-wide issue, there are also a multitude of reliable scientific agencies that have completed research on available filters and their efficacy in removing PFAS. The City has outlined our steps for moving forward, including additional testing, working with the Department of Health, hiring experts to review and design potential treatment systems, and investigating long-term water supply options. 

  • Share I live near Camas high school. Which well would my household receive water from? Thank you. on Facebook Share I live near Camas high school. Which well would my household receive water from? Thank you. on Twitter Share I live near Camas high school. Which well would my household receive water from? Thank you. on Linkedin Email I live near Camas high school. Which well would my household receive water from? Thank you. link

    I live near Camas high school. Which well would my household receive water from? Thank you.

    Sandy asked 10 months ago

    Thank you for using Engage Camas. It's currently not possible to determine which houses or neighborhoods receive water from specific wells.  

Page last updated: 12 Jul 2024, 11:49 AM