
The experts who conducted the studies employed methods consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guid-
ance for risk assessment. They used estimates of the relative risks to human health associated with each alternate water
source. They analyzed samples from the three sources (Santa Ana River, imported water from Northern California and
Colorado River) and identified constituents of potential concern in each.
Conclusions Concerning Public Health
In keeping with standard practices in such analyses, the studies
divided the possible health risks associa
ted with the three water
supplies into three categories: non-carcinogenic, carcinogenic
and microbiological contaminants. In brief, the conclusions drawn
about the three categories follow:
Risks associated with non-carcinogenic health effects
Water from any of the three sources should not cause significant
non-carcinogenic risk to public health.
Indeed, the potential risk
posed by GWR System water is lower than the other two sources.
Risks associated with carcinogenic health effects
The carcinogenic risks associated with direct consumption of water from the GWR System should be lower than that
associa
ted with either Santa Ana River or imported (purchased) supplies from the Colorado River and Northern California.
Arsenic is the constituent that accounts for the majority of the risk in both alternatives (“No Action” and “Proposed
Action.”) The levels of arsenic in all three water sources, however, are below the existing regulatory minimum levels for
public safety.
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and 1,4 dioxane – which are used primarily as commercial chemicals – present more
carcinogenic risk than any other constituent identified in GWR System water. At the time this study was performed, the
California Department of Health Services had not established regulations regarding maximum levels of NDMA or 1,4 diox-
ane in drinking water. It should be noted, however, that the membrane technologies – microfiltration and thin-film compos-
ite reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide – will remove emerging compounds such as NDMA and 1,4
dioxane. All of these technologies will be used on 100 percent of the water purified by the GWR System.
Risks associated with microbiological contaminant health effects
GWR System water is “…projected to pose much less risk than Santa Ana River or imported water supplies from bacteria,
parasites and viruses,
provided that all processes in the system treatment facility are operating fully and properly,” the report
said. It is important to note that for purposes of the studies, the experts assumed that each supply was consumed directly,
before being used to recharge the groundwater basin. In fact, GWR System product water will be percolated into the ground-
water basin where it will remain for at least one year. This will allow the GWR System water to undergo a natural filtering
process while blending with water from the Santa Ana River, Northern California and the Colorado River.
Recommendations Concerning Operations
The conclusions about public health risks assume that the full-scale GWR
System produces wa
ter of a quality similar to that evaluated in the studies.
To ensure such production, the study concludes that the system should
incorporate a detailed monitoring program to ensure ongoing, reliable oper-
ations in both treatment and pipeline conveyance. The program should
include a plan to dispose of water that does not meet standards, the study
said (the GWR System will include constant monitoring programs).
“The Groundwater Replenishment System
will greatly reduce Orange County's
reliance on imported water by rejuvenating
valuable water lost to the ocean as well as
provide a creative, new, safe and reliable
water supply to meet our growing demand
for high-quality water.”
Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
"The project will produce the
safest and highest quality water
available from any source –
imported or local."
Taiwanese Medical and Dental Association
of Orange County