We read 12 results from East Cherry Creek Valley Wsd’s 2025 water quality report. No results over a legal limit; 3 above a health goal or guideline.
Serves about 66,130 people · Water system ID CO0103035 · Read the district’s 2025 report (opens in a new tab)
Open this district in the water lookupCompare with your own test results, see the district map and get matched filters.
Results from the 2025 report
Each number is copied from the district’s report and links to the page it’s printed on. Where the report lists several plants, wells or purchased water, the highest is shown.
| Contaminant | Result | Health goal | Legal limit | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gross alpha (radioactivity)average · range ND to 3.5 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 7 | 1.25 pCi/L | 0 pCi/L | 15 pCi/L | Above the health goalThe health goal is zero |
| Radium (combined 226 + 228)average · range ND to 2.5 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 7 | 0.86 pCi/L | 0 pCi/L | 5 pCi/L | Above the health goalThe health goal is zero |
| Uraniumaverage · range ND to 2.1 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 7 | 0.63 ppb | 0.6 ppb | 30 ppb | Above the health goal1.1x the health goal |
| Bariumaverage · range 0.01 to 0.01 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 0.01 ppm | 2 ppm | 2 ppm | Below the health goal |
| Chromium (total)average · range 3 to 3 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 3 ppb | None set | 100 ppb | Below the legal limit |
| Copper90th percentile of 60 homes tested, 0 over the action level · listed as a violation in the report · Customer taps · 2025 report, page 7 | 0.06 ppm | 0.3 ppm | 1.3 ppm (action level) | Below the health goal |
| Disinfection byproducts (HAA5)average · range ND to 20.8 · listed as a violation in the report · Distribution system · 2025 report, page 7 | 6.73 ppb | None set | 60 ppb | Below the legal limit |
| Disinfection byproducts (TTHM)average · range ND to 42.8 · listed as a violation in the report · Distribution system · 2025 report, page 7 | 17.6 ppb | None set | 80 ppb | Below the legal limit |
| Fluorideaverage · range 0.19 to 0.24 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 0.21 ppm | 1 ppm | 4 ppm | Below the health goal |
| Nitrate (as N)average · range ND to 0.9 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 0.24 ppm | 10 ppm | 10 ppm | Below the health goal |
| Seleniumaverage · range 2 to 2 · listed as a violation in the report · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 2 ppb | 30 ppb | 50 ppb | Below the health goal |
| Sodiumaverage · range 55.5 to 64.1 · Entry points · 2025 report, page 8 | 58 ppm | None set | None | No health limit |
Utility results describe the whole system, measured where water enters the pipes, not your tap. Your home’s plumbing can add lead or copper. 1 number we weren’t sure about is held back until a person checks.
EPA testing for PFAS and lithium
EPA’s own nationwide testing (UCMR 5) found these in East Cherry Creek Valley Wsd’s water between Aug 2023 and May 2024. These are EPA lab results, separate from the district’s report. Anything not listed was not detected.
- Lithium25.4 ppbFound in 10 of 10 samples · highest resultAbove EPA’s health reference level of 10 ppb (a guide, not a legal limit)
Source: EPA UCMR 5 occurrence data. The highest single result is shown; one high sample doesn’t mean every glass is that high.
What you can do
Nothing here is an emergency notice: if the district has a violation, it must tell customers directly. If you’d like to lower these at your tap, these are the treatments that remove them, and the catalog shows the models certified for each. Ranking is by certified removal; commissions never change the order.
Radium and uranium
Found: Gross alpha (radioactivity), Radium (combined 226 + 228), Uranium
What removes it: Reverse osmosis.
More districts: Colorado water quality · All states · Something look wrong? Tell us