Residents generally unwilling to pay for tastier water supply

Superior Dairy, the famed ice cream parlor on Douty Street, is on the short list of top reasons to visit Hanford, according to the local tourism agency.

The rotten egg smell of the town's water isn't.

When people in this San Joaquin Valley city of 50,000 residents drink publicly provided water, they imbibe small amounts of hydrogen sulfide - a gas also found in human flatulence.

That notable characteristic generates a lot of unflattering remarks from those who don't live here.

But if past information is any indication, the majority of Hanford's regular water users aren't interested in paying a higher bill to eliminate taste and odor issues that have no negative health effects.

A 1990 telephone survey completed by an intern working for the City of Hanford found that only 46 percent of Hanford ratepayers would shell out $3 more a month to neutralize hydrogen sulfide in the water.

At $5 more a month, the number plummeted to 27 percent.

When residents were asked only if they were in favor of treatment, without any reference to cost, 34 percent said yes, 53 percent said no and 13 percent had no opinion.

The question assumed chemical treatments that might give the water a slightly chlorine taste.

According to calculations based on a 1988 study done for the city of Hanford, the Sentinel figured that it would cost each ratepayer an additional $3.62 on their monthly water bill to treat for hydrogen sulfide for the next 20 years.

Hanford's water currently receives no continuous chemical treatment of any kind, according to city officials.

The 1990 survey results came from interviews with 140 individuals randomly chosen out of the 30,617 people who then lived in Hanford, according to documents.

Since then, Misenhimer said, the public works department has been getting feedback from a water systems complaint log.There was a big jump in the number of taste and odor complaints last year.

In 2006, there were 175, compared to 36 in 2005 and 42 in 2004, city records indicate.

Misenhimer said the 2006 spike in complaints might be the results of new residents unaccustomed to the water's peculiar characteristics.

He doesn't rank taste and odor as a big issue.

"It's maybe somewhere less than 1.5 percent of the customers," he said.

Many of the 2006 complaints were due to one well receiving chemical treatment for color problems, Misenhimer said.

The chemicals gave the water an odd taste unrelated to hydrogen sulfide, he added.

Misenhimer was quick to point to the overall quality of Hanford's water.

Currently, the only primary standard the water violates is for arsenic, a known carcinogen regulated by the California Department of Health Services. Hanford's wells currently average about 30 parts per billion, well over the 10 parts per billion mark established last year by the federal government. The allowable maximum was previously 50 parts per billion.

Hanford's water has never exceeded a secondary standard for odor, according to data provided by Richard Haberman, an official with the department's drinking water program.

It has, however, come right to the brink.

In 2000, one well equaled the maximum allowable level.

If the well had gone over the limit, it would have required more tests, according to the California Code of Regulations. If the average of the tests stayed above the limit, then city officials would be required to send out a written questionnaire to every Hanford ratepayer asking them if they want treatment for hydrogen sulfide.

No survey has been done by the city since 1990, according to Misenhimer.

In the interim, technology and public perceptions may have changed.

The 1988 study there being three stages of chemical treatment at each well site.

But other options exist, according to Dr. Fred Lee, a consultant with the California Department of Water resources.

"Typically, it's not expensive to do (it)," Lee said.

Alan Christensen, Hanford's recently installed city manager, said another study "is probably worth the time."

"Since 1990, the technology has really changed on water treatment," he said.

Public thoughts on the subject may be different as well.

The increasing number of Hanford residents who are new to the community may have created more of a desire for treatment, Christensen said.

"Treatment may be a future alternative that people are willing to live with just as a quality of life issue," he said.

But given the city's preoccupation with lowering arsenic levels, hydrogen sulfide isn't high on the priority list. The city will be proposing rate hikes next month to pay for the cost of rehabilitating existing wells and drilling new ones to pump out water with less arsenic in it.

"Personally, (hydrogen sulfide) isn't a health issue. It would be a big issue in my mind to cure it," Misenhimer said. Christensen, calling the odor a "shocker" for new residents, said he'd like to see it eventually eliminated.

"It's not an attractive thing," he said.

(Second of two parts)

(The reporter can be reached at 582-0471, ext. 3061.)

(Jan. 21, 2007)