Erin Brokovich denounces Nipomo water additive

September 1, 2015
Erin Brockovich

Erin Brockovich

Environmental activist Erin Brokovich spoke out on Facebook last week against the Nipomo Community Services District’s plan to switch from chlorine to chloramine to disinfect water.

As of Tuesday, the district will begin using chloramine to disinfect water arriving in a new pipeline that runs from Santa Maria to Nipomo. Chloramine poses a threat to people with kidney disease or those undergoing dialysis. It can also be toxic to fish and aquatic life.

The district says chloramine is safe for general use when monitored correctly.

Brockovich does not agree with the districts claim that the additive is save.

Brockovich’s Facebook post:

“Water Consumers in Nipomo, California…

“You are being lied to!

“September 1, 2015… you will start drinking dangerous toxic ammonia and fluoride.


“Nipomo Community Services District Manager Michael LeBrun is telling you lies because he doesn’t know what he is talking about. “Chlorine is more volatile, and so you’ll get a taste or odor if you have a chlorinated water supply,” lied LeBrun. What you taste and smell are disinfection byproducts… chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane…not chlorine!!!

“Officials further lied saying chloramine is a quicker and more effective way to disinfect the water.

“Truth… Chloramine is a slower and much weaker disinfectant. Further…the chlorine breaks down but the ammonia does not… it becomes food for the biofilm and bacteria in the water pipes, your water heaters and your homes.

“I could go on and on… when will they just stop lying.

“They are adding the ammonia to the drinking water to sequester the chemical reactions that form toxic disinfection byproducts and comply with drinking water regulations… not for any other reason. The USEPA told them to clean the water to reduce the precursor organics… but instead they chose to go cheap…rather then clean the water they add the ammonia.

“Now you will be exposed to toxins potentially 10,000 times more toxic than the byproducts formed by chlorine alone.

“And as for the fluoride… do your own research… what a ridiculous waste and frankly…damn shame.”



  1. C.V. says:

    Bit¢h you got this one wrong.
    Chloramines have been used for years. Safe and reliable. Across the USA.
    This isn’t Hinckley, CA & chromium-6.
    GO AWAY from the Central Coast.
    Your scare tactic is NOT appreciated.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. CentralcoastRN says:

    I am not saying Erin Brockovich is wrong. I am not saying Nipomo is wrong.

    I am saying they are both a bit right.

    This is where being an informed consumer is important.

    California is in a drought. This means that water levels are lower. Visualize the water sources. More dirt, more gunk, more impurities. Chlorine is great, but by the time it gets to “the drinker”, it would seem the chlorine is more readily broken down in to “by products”, allowing more bacteria and impurities to pass through. The EPA allows only a certain level of by products in our water before it forces water boards/Environmental health to change what they do.

    Chloramine is basically chlorine and ammonia from what I understand. The ammonia is not tolerated by fish or turtles/reptiles. Those owners will have to go to a pet store and buy special water.

    Until the drought is over, people can either choose to drink chlorine purified water with extra bacteria and sludge in it, drink chloramine purified water in it that Erin Brockovich swears is poisoned (there are MULTIPLE types of chloramine chemically by the way), or people can buy or boil their water.

    Thumb me down if you wish. I only seek to inform.

    (-1) 9 Total Votes - 4 up - 5 down
    • tictac1 says:

      50% of people responding did not like the truth, or as Orwell said, “In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”. This is certainly such an age.

      Here’s another quote I like: “In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.” Very true. The science is readily available to everyone reading this. Simply open Google, type “chloramine drinking water ncbi”, and you will get a whole list of published, peer-reviewed studies. This is the science government agencies look at when making decisions-

      “Results of this study demonstrate that under test conditions, chloramine disinfection is safer than chlorine disinfection in the aspect of genotoxicity for drinking water, and the changes of genotoxicity are different from those of total HAAs.”

      “Currently, most drinking water regulations aggressively address DBP problems in public water distribution systems. The DBPs of most concern include the trihalomethanes (THMs), the haloacetic acids (HAAs), bromate, and chlorite. However, in the latest edition of the WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, it is recommended that water disinfection should never be compromised by attempting to control DBPs. The reason for this is that the risks of human illness and death from pathogens in drinking water are much greater than the risks from exposure to disinfectants and disinfection by-products.”

      The bottom line is that water disinfection DOES have some risks, mostly due to byproducts (DPB), which are genotoxic and carcinogenic. For people with fish, and people that simply don’t want to drink this stuff, there are affordable home RO units with activated charcoal, which is a good idea for certain people (smokers, pregnant women, etc.)

      “Across the study population cancer risk nearly doubled between the highest and lowest levels of DBP exposure, and the association with DBP exposure was even stronger among participants who carried one of three variant genotypes. Smokers also had a higher risk (smoking is the most significant known risk factor for bladder cancer).”

      Also, of the 600 or so DBPs, only about 50% have been identified, meaning we’re not sure of what’s in there, much less what it does over the long-term. That will of course change over time.

      Now downvote me for telling the truth…:)

      (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
      • CentralcoastRN says:

        OMG. Quit talking fancy facts and stuff. I was just sharpening my pitchfork…..

        (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
      • CentralcoastRN says:

        You know, basically we need to ask ourselves which type of potential carcinogens and byproducts we want in Nipomo’s tap water. It’s like asking someone if they would rather die by fire or acid….

        Reverse osmosis systems filter out 99%+ of impurities. I use Crystal Springs and I think I pay like $35 a month for RO + water softening. If people cannot afford that, there are ways to distill water at home….. but what a pain.

        (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
  3. 65buick says:

    This is such utter nonsense. Something like the Exide plant down south spewing lead all over the neighborhood is a failure. We’re talking about disinfecting water for the purpose of being able to drink it without getting sick. I seriously doubt that Ms. Brokovich is up to date on her chemistry.
    If you’d rather drink water from the stream, you’re free to do so.

    (0) 16 Total Votes - 8 up - 8 down
  4. MaryMalone says:

    Does anyone know what was the context of Brokovich speaking out against the extremely poor–and dangerous–decisions by NCSD?

    (-1) 9 Total Votes - 4 up - 5 down
    • Oneohfirst says:

      MaryMalone are you by any chance a former, but disgruntled employee of NCSD?

      (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
  5. Jorge Estrada says:

    Lying? Sounds like real science needs to be called in or just pay for the drinking water in question?

    (7) 7 Total Votes - 7 up - 0 down
  6. Mr. Holly says:

    Who do you trust?

    (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      I don’t trust NCSD, that’s for sure.


      (0) 12 Total Votes - 6 up - 6 down
  7. Pelican1 says:

    (-3) 7 Total Votes - 2 up - 5 down
  8. 65buick says:

    Fear mongering is no way to get your point across.

    (4) 22 Total Votes - 13 up - 9 down
    • cooperdog says:

      An act of desperation by someone who realizes they’ve become irrelevant.

      (-3) 33 Total Votes - 15 up - 18 down
      • kayaknut says:

        Who are you talking about?, Ms. Brockovich or most politicians in Sacramento?

        (16) 22 Total Votes - 19 up - 3 down
  9. indigo1955 says:

    If people would not have children for one generation and instead dedicate themselves to cleaning the earth up and resolving the vaccine issue with a greater degree of resolve, a lot of things could change. A baby’s kidneys would be very vulnerable to this chemical–even in utero. We have already seen a horrible trend in autism, cancer and other things we used to never see in children. But there is this drive in people—they seem to thing they are doing our over crowded, depleted planet a favor by reproducing. Actually, it is this crazed nuclear family concept—a mind matrix where unless one has home ownership, cars, money, holidays, children—the whole package—something is missing from their life.

    People used to live in tribes and the earth was never treated with chemicals at one point in time—and things were just fine.

    (-21) 41 Total Votes - 10 up - 31 down
    • BeenThereDoneThat says:

      No things just weren’t fine. People wanted and demanded cleaner water vs what use to be in tribes. People wanted to cure diseases vs tribe. People wanted shelter vs tribe.

      Your answer is simplistic to a bigger talking point. Also let’s not forget about open sewers in streets during dark ages. Oh and a little thing called the Black Plague. Nice try.

      (14) 24 Total Votes - 19 up - 5 down
    • kayaknut says:

      “People used to live in tribes and the earth was never treated with chemicals at one point in time—and things were just fine” and the average lifespan was 35 years, are you over 35? if so time to check out and let the younger folks have the earth.

      (12) 20 Total Votes - 16 up - 4 down
      • mkaney says:

        Sanitation is a good thing, but this notion that people didn’t live past 35 is nonsense. The average is so low because of the number of people that died as babies or young children. People commonly lived to be in their 60s and even 70s.

        (-2) 16 Total Votes - 7 up - 9 down
        • panflash says:

          Hell, Methusala lived to be 800. Right, Ted? Ted? Hello, Ted….. Earth to Ted…..

          (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
    • CentralcoastRN says:

      My generation is sacrificing enough. Thanks though. We are already handing out about $800 in social security, FICA, medicare that we will never see. We vote, but we cannot match the AARP voting block, nor do we have lobbyists in DC to advocate for us.

      (1) 5 Total Votes - 3 up - 2 down

Comments are closed.