Litchfield Water Safe, City Says, After EPA Monitoring Violation Notice

Article Summary: City Administrator Breann Vazquez told the Litchfield City Council on Sept. 3 that a monitoring violation notice included with recent water bills stemmed from a July 2025 clerical failure to forward test results to the EPA on time, and that there was no problem with the safety or quality of the city’s water.

Litchfield Water Notice Key Points:

Water customers received an EPA-required monitoring violation notice by mail link or by email, depending on billing method.

Vazquez said July 2025 turbidity and chlorination tests were performed properly and submitted to the lab on time, but the results did not reach the EPA by the Aug. 10 deadline.

The city has spoken with the lab and says reporting will be submitted promptly going forward.

The violation predates the city’s contract with Veolia for operations and maintenance of the water treatment facility, Vazquez said.

LITCHFIELD — The Litchfield City Council on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2026, heard an explanation from City Administrator Breann Vazquez of a water notice that had generated questions from residents, with Vazquez telling the council and the public that the city’s drinking water is safe and that the notice reflects a reporting failure more than a year old.

Mayor Jacob Fleming asked the city administrator to explain the notice during the city report portion of the meeting, saying the city had received a number of questions about it.

Vazquez said customers who receive a paper utility bill would have found a link directing them to read a public notice about their water online, while customers signed up for electronic billing received the notice by email.

“I want to start off by saying there is no issue nor was there any issue with the safety or quality of the city’s water,” Vazquez said. She described the notice as an EPA-required monitoring violation notice arising from what she called a clerical issue.

What Happened in July 2025

According to Vazquez, the city’s regular turbidity and chlorination tests were performed properly in July 2025 and were submitted to the lab on time. The results, however, did not reach the EPA within the required window. She said the agency must have those results by Aug. 10, and that the results arrived later than that.

“Rightfully so, the EPA takes punctuality on receiving those results very seriously,” Vazquez said. “So we received a monitoring violation.”

She said the city has spoken with the lab about the lapse. “We will be certain that we are getting things to the lab promptly and that they are submitting those to the EPA on time,” she said. Vazquez said the water was tested and the samples came back clean, and emphasized that the violation did not affect water quality.

The official minutes of the meeting record the explanation in similar terms, stating that the notice arose from an action in July 2025 where a clerical error occurred, that the information requested by the EPA was not sent in a timely manner, and that this created the monitoring violation.

Veolia Transition and the Water Department

The notice discussion came alongside an update on the city’s new arrangement for running its water treatment facility. Vazquez told the council the city has contracted out the operations and maintenance of the water treatment facility to Veolia, and that the transition has gone well.

“John Shaw is doing a great job overseeing it. We are very pleased with them,” she said. Vazquez added that the monitoring violation did not occur on Veolia’s watch, noting the lapse dates to July 2025.

The minutes summarize the same point in a single line: “Veolia’s transition has gone well, and John Shaw is overseeing.”

The water notice was one of several water-related items before the council at the same meeting. The council also approved two easement agreements needed for the Yaeger Lake Trail water line project, a $14,000 purchase of replacement meter reading software for the city’s Badger meters, and the purchase of a replacement pickup truck for the water treatment plant. Taken together, the items drew repeated comments from the council about the condition of the city’s water infrastructure and the work still ahead of it.

Neither the minutes nor the meeting discussion identifies the lab involved, the specific EPA office that issued the violation, whether any penalty attaches to the violation, or the date the public notice was mailed. There was no public participation at the meeting, and no resident addressed the council about the notice.