Residents tell council Las Cruces Utilities underreported lead in drinking water

At Monday’s Las Cruces City Council meeting, several residents accused Las Cruces Utilities of inadequate sampling and inconsistent reporting of lead levels in drinking water, calling for accountability and corrective action.

Lynn Moorer, a public commenter who brought charts and handouts to the dais, said the utility sampled only about 154 properties from 2015 through 2024 ‘‘out of about 40,000 connections citywide’’ and that the department’s consumer confidence reports showed lower lead levels than laboratory records. Moorer said utility records include five exceedances of the EPA action level (15 parts per billion), and she cited specific lab readings of 40 ppb and 21 ppb and a separate disadvantaged property that measured 89 ppb in 2018. ‘‘There’s no evidence that utilities has gone back to this disadvantaged property since that sky-high reading in 2018,’’ she told the council.

Liz Rodriguez Johnson followed, saying the ‘‘evidence continues to grow that utilities personnel are not trustworthy’’ and accusing staff of downplaying results and failing to notify property owners when samples exceeded federal thresholds. She said inconsistent inspection reports had labeled some service lines as not lead when independent plumbers found galvanized piping and lead connectors.

Councilors did not take immediate policy action during public comment. Several speakers urged the council to require more frequent sampling, resampling of properties with exceedances, clearer public notices, and a corrective plan to identify and replace lead-bearing service lines.

What the speakers asked for aligns with federal requirements for public notification when lead action levels are exceeded and with common practices that increase sampling density in vulnerable or high-risk neighborhoods. City staff present at the meeting acknowledged they would provide follow-up materials and suggested the council and county are coordinating on related oversight and reporting measures, but no formal directive or vote on additional sampling was announced at the meeting.

The council’s meeting record shows public comment on utilities beginning in the public-participation section; residents requested that staff return with clarifying data and next steps. The council also discussed related utility items in prior closed-session summaries, but no formal remedial action was adopted on May 4. Residents pressed for transparency and immediate resampling of the properties cited.