Why Sometimes Newer Isn’t Always Better: Minnesota Department of Health’s Well Disinfection Guide

We always receive questions from homeowners across the country on how to properly disinfect a private well. There are many different private well disinfection guides available for private well owners through many public health, extension and state organizations across the U.S. The Private Well Class has used the Minnesota Department of Health’s Well Disinfection guide in our 10-week class and in our Resource Library. After careful review of all of the information on well disinfection available, our opinion is that the MDH guide is one of the best and most complete available.

However, in 2015, MDH updated the 2012 “Well and Water System Disinfection for Private Wells,” with a newer, shorter “Well Disinfection” guide. Honestly, we were disappointed in the new guide because in making it shorter, they also took out some of the details that made their guide so complete. The bottom line is that we are still referring private well owners to the 2012 version of the document in our resource library and in our lessons. The step-by-step process hasn’t changed much between the two, but the supporting information has. The content in the 2012 version is not only more in-depth, but it provides more background information that tells you why you are doing something in the process instead of just how to do it. It clearly explains what disinfection is and what might cause contamination of the well and water system.

The 2012 version addresses two important questions about disinfection, “How Often Should a Well be Tested?” and “When Should a Well be Disinfected?” It provides sound advice, some of which is missing in the newer version. Understanding when to disinfect is an important issue, we often talk to private well owners who have/are disinfecting their well when it is not necessary.

The only time you should disinfect your well is after sampling indicates you have bacteria. Testing should be completed annually, as well as any time the well has been opened, or there has been an event that has impacted your well (after a flood, fire, repairs, etc.).

The Minnesota Department of Health’s Well Management Program stands out as a leader among their peers and we often refer well owners to their materials. We thought it worth noting that though we like the older version of their well disinfection guide better, we rely on many of their materials to support well owners all over the country. You can find their website at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/

Well and Water System Disinfection for Private Wells (2012 version)

Our Partners Speak! January Partner Poll

In our January Partner Newsletter we asked our subscribers to answer the following question:

“Should coliform bacteria sample results be provided to well owners as presence/absence or a quantified number of colonies?”

We received eight responses:

Most coliform bacteria are not harmful, but they are an indicator for the potential presence of pathogens. When coliform bacteria are present in a private well water supply, there is a possible contamination pathway for a source of bacteria (surface water, septic system, animal waste, etc.) or other contaminant into your well. In other words, harmful bacteria may use this same pathway to enter your drinking water supply.

When coliform are present in a water supply, a follow-up test for E. coli is typically recommended. E. coli are the best indicator of potential health hazards, as they are only found in the gut and feces of warm-blooded animals. (To learn more about the basics of coliform bacteria, this guide from the New York Department of Health is helpful.)

The presence/absence test is simple, inexpensive, and goes by the theory that any coliform indicates a potential breach in the well. So if present, disinfect and don’t drink the water until the test comes back negative.

The camp that believes you should quantify the number of colonies thinks that understanding the magnitude of the contamination provides a better understanding of the possible causes. So, as one of our respondents noted, having one colony vs. hundreds certainly tells you something more than a presence/absence test.

The following response best sums up the argument from a public health perspective:

“There are some wells in our county that will continuously come back with a result of 1 (colony) test after test and shocking after shocking. There are also some wells that routinely come back over the maximum quantification level even after shocking. I feel like these two wells are completely different situations. The first well appears to have minor contamination while the second well has major contamination. Yes, they both pose a risk, but very few things are perfect in this world. I would be much more comfortable drinking out of the first well than the second well. Without quantification, there is no way to tell the difference between these two wells. If someone has repeated low levels of bacteria, I would recommend retesting more frequently to see how it changes; whereas the second well I would encourage them to talk to a contractor about rehabilitating the well or repairing the well system.”

The real take-home message from this exercise, at least based on the 8 responses we received, was that this is a confusing issue. Several responses mentioned bacteria being found miles below the earth for instance, and several assumed we were talking about fecal coliform in our question (E. coli), when we were not. We were asking about the total coliform test that is a requirement for community water supplies and considered the standard approach to judging the safety of a well from near-surface contamination.

Regarding the bacteria found at depth issue, bacteria are ubiquitous in our environment, indeed, but they are not all coliform bacteria. Iron bacteria, sulfate-reducing bacteria, and methanogenic bacteria, for instance, are all found in aquifers in Illinois. They actually help us understand other issues, like the reducing condition of the water in an aquifer, but they do not cause health issues. Several respondents seemed to think that all bacteria are a health risk; this is not the case.

Regarding the total coliform vs. fecal coliform vs. E. coli issue, testing for total coliform bacteria is a simple way to determine possible exposure to pathogens. The idea is to test for total coliform first because it’s easier and cheaper. Then, if there is a positive result, test for E. coli. We could have made this clearer, for sure, but for those who work with these results daily, the debate over a positive result versus a quantifiable result was the issue we were hoping to explore.

We were leaning more into the presence/absence camp when we started PrivateWellClass.org five years ago, to be honest. After all, any coliform means there could be a risk, and that is still true. But after hearing from many professionals, including at our conference last May, about the value of knowing the magnitude of the exposure, we are now leaning the other way. Both certainly have value, but, quantifying the test result does give you more information and provides value in making a decision.

If you would still like to chime in with your thoughts and opinions, we would love to hear from you. Take the poll. 

Educating Real Estate Professionals with Daphne Pee

Reaching and educating real estate professionals on properties with private wells and septic systems is one thing that the Private Well Class has been trying to accomplish within the past few years. Real estate professionals who are well-versed on buying and selling homes with private wells and septic systems are great assets and a good source of information for potential home buyers and sellers. We reached out to Daphne Pee of the Chesapeake Water and Septic Homeowners Education project to find out what it was like working directly with real estate professionals in Maryland. Daphne filled us in on some of her past experiences.

Q: Daphne, what is your position and role in the Chesapeake Water and Septic Homeowners Education project?:

DP: I am the coordinator of the Chesapeake Water and Septic Homeowners Education program.

Q: Please describe the program, in general, including how stable and successful the program has been over the years?:

DP: We started with a 2-year pilot program in 2012 with a mix of internal funding, a few small grants, and in-kind support from the Maryland Department of Health. Our program was modeled off of Virginia Tech’s Drinking Water Clinic, which consists of three meetings:

• Kick-off Meeting: Basic overview of the program, pass out the sampling bottles and surveys, and instruct the homeowners on how to collect their water sample.
• Water Drop-off: Homeowners drop off their water samples and surveys.
• Informational Meeting: Educational presentation which includes information about the homeowners’ drinking water source, how it can get contaminated, how their wells work, what they can do to protect their drinking water, and what they should be testing for and how often. 

The pilot program consisted of five clinics. Afterwards, we could not find a larger, more dedicated source of funding to launch the program more broadly. We then partnered with Virginia Tech to offer a more comprehensive water test, at a fee that was much less expensive than commercial water testing labs, but the cost was still too high and we got no registrants. This year, we have started conducting free, 1.5-hour seminars that covers most of the information from the clinics, but does not include water testing.

Q: What was your experience reaching out to the MD Association of Realtors (for your online seminar and article series)? Were they receptive?

DP: A few years ago, I contacted several people in the MD Association of Realtors headquarters and regional groups to introduce our work to them and try to find ways to offer training to their members. No one responded. Last year, a fellow Extension Educator who was also a Realtor sent an email to the MD Association of Realtors about our programming and I was immediately invited by their Director of Communications & Public Affairs to a meeting. We met by phone and I shared more details about the types of information I could provide and was offered a year-long series in their magazine, a webinar, and a series of infographics for their consumer-facing webpages. While their initial reception was encouraging, I have not heard much about the articles or webinar. I plan on following up with them after this last article is submitted.

Q: What important piece of advice could you give to other programs looking to work with real estate professionals?

DP: Find a realtor who sees the value in your program and can connect you to the right people in the organization to discuss opportunities to work together.

Jerry Tinoco Discusses Reaching Spanish-Speaking Communities

The Private Well Class is currently putting effort forth to translate many of our resources to Spanish. The real challenge that we have encountered is getting these resources out the individuals that could really use them. We reached out to Gerardo “Jerry” Tinoco Jr. to interview him about his efforts in predominantly Spanish speaking communities. Jerry is a Rural Development Specialist for the Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) and currently resides in California. Jerry works with Spanish speaking populations and provides many services in Spanish for private well owners.

Q: What is your current position and role in regards to your program working with Spanish-speaking communities?

JT: Currently I work in various capacities with Spanish speaking communities. I work both in private well related programs as well as in non-private well related programs. For my private well work, I mostly work in educating and outreaching to private well owners. I have conducted private well assessments and water quality sampling for Spanish speaking well owners and plan to hold a private well class for Spanish speaking communities dependent on private well systems. I also translate resources, factsheets, presentations, etc.

Q: What sort of situations do you encounter most often with working with a predominantly Spanish-speaking community that relies on private well water as a primary source of drinking water?:

JT: There is a general lack of basic operation and maintenance with most private well communities, both Spanish speaking and not. People are just unaware about the things they should be doing to not only ensure their well runs efficiently and effectively for a long time, but also what they should do to protect groundwater. Oftentimes, people are renters on properties with private wells and thus never really get invested in the maintenance of their private well system. I think this general lack of knowledge is fairly common in any private well community, Spanish speaking or not.

Q: Can you please highlight some challenges that partners may come across in private well outreach in Spanish-speaking populations?

JT: Unfortunately given the current political climate, I think one of the biggest challenges in working to outreach for private wells in Spanish speaking populations is simply gaining their trust. In working with Spanish speaking populations, one needs to be mindful that some may have a general suspicion of people going to their homes. But aside from that, a common challenge for any private well outreach is conveying the importance to their health and finances that properly operating and maintaining a well system has.

Q: In your opinion, what’s the number one thing that partners can do in order to do a better job of outreach in Spanish-speaking communities?

JT: I think the most important and basic thing anyone can do to increase outreach in Spanish-speaking communities is simply to put resources and a deliberate effort to reach out in Spanish speaking communities. It sounds obvious, but honestly simply just trying will yield results. Often times, outreach efforts are not accessible to Spanish speaking communities or poor/rural areas in general as well. Invitations and fliers will be in English only which already will not get you any Spanish speaking well owners. If the workshops themselves are in English only, that too will deter people from attending. In rural areas, e-vites or online webinars/factsheets may not be accessible to many. So as simple as it sounds I think the number one thing that we can all do is to allocate resources specifically for the purpose of educating Spanish-speaking communities. Put out fliers and invitations in Spanish. Outreach door to door in Spanish. Host Spanish meetings and workshops. Not translated by interpreters, but actually taught and led in Spanish.

Communities Unlimited and Tennessee Department of Health, A Proven Partnership

Q: Judy, what is your role with Tennessee Department of Health and what does your position entail?: 

Alaska Stakeholders Step Up

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's (ADEC) Hydrologist, Charley Palmer, discusses how stakeholders in Alaska have been voluntarily working together to protect groundwater and raise awareness on various issues and concerns. The Private Well Class met Charley during a webinar that mentioned Alaska's lack of private well regulation. After speaking with him more, we learned that stakeholder groups in Alaska are voluntarily working on best management practices (BMPs) for well construction and decommissioning in the state.

Q:  What is your job title and what does it encompass?:

CP: I’ve been a Hydrologist with the State of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) working in the Drinking Water Program since 2007. ADEC is responsible for ensuring that public water systems meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Within the Drinking Water Protection group, my role is to delineate source water protection areas, or where public water system wells get their water from (typically within the watershed), and to assess potential sources of contamination within this boundary. I then communicate the results to the water systems and the public with the intent of encouraging voluntary protection efforts. Some protection efforts are accomplished directly by the water system or the community it serves. However, other protection efforts are passively accomplished by our group through permit recommendations, agency collaboration, developing guidelines, public outreach, etc.

Q:  Alaska is unique in that there is a collaboration of many stakeholders working together to form guidelines. Can you explain more about how and when this started, who the stakeholders are, what the goals are, and where you are in the process?:

CP: Private water wells are different than the public water system wells that ADEC regulates, but they often use water drawn from the same underground source (aquifer); therefore, the matter in which private wells are constructed and maintained can impact nearby public water system wells. In Alaska, there are no statewide standards for private water wells, and only two local authorities, the Municipality of Anchorage and the City of North Pole, have regulatory code for private wells. Additionally, there are no requirements for groundwater professionals (i.e. well contractors, engineers, hydrologists, etc.) to have specialized water well knowledge or experience. As a result, there had been a growing concern by many stakeholders that the lack of statewide standards and proof of qualifications has led to an increasing risk to groundwater protection. 

In October 2012, ADEC facilitated an open public discussion in three different cities in Alaska, among potential stakeholders regarding issues and concerns with water wells and perceived impacts to groundwater sources. The purpose of the discussion was to raise awareness of issues and concerns and determine whether an interest existed to find solutions. In general agreement, stakeholders volunteered to participate in workgroup meetings and the Groundwater Protection and Water Wells stakeholder workgroup was formed. The first workgroup meeting was March 2013. The workgroup currently includes stakeholders from state agencies (staff from ADEC and the Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (ADNR)), as well as water well contractors (drillers and pump installers), hydrologists, engineers, public water system owner/operators, water testing lab professionals, and private citizens. Meetings were held roughly monthly during the generally slower construction season (October through March). 

The workgroup first acknowledged that there was not a centralized location for existing and future private well owners to find information relevant to Alaska. By spring 2014, we had collaborated to create the Alaska Private Drinking Water Wells & Systems web site containing information compiled from across the state and nation as it relates to private drinking water wells.

Next the workgroup began tackling water well construction and decommissioning (see discussion in following answers).

Q:  Can you describe the policy differences between the well decommissioning BMPs and the well construction BMPs?

CP: At the time the workgroup began, the ADEC Drinking Water regulations for public water systems, 18 AAC 80.015(e), adopted by reference copyright-protected water well decommissioning methods that applied to all types of water wells (including private wells), but were too generalized, not specific to Alaska’s conditions, and difficult to access. By June 2016, the workgroup thoughtfully developed the “Alaska Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Maintaining or Decommissioning Water Wells and Boreholes”, which take into account Alaska’s unique remoteness and natural conditions. Effective July 2016, an ADEC internal directive was issued to accept these BMPs as an approved alternate method. These BMPs are intended to be applied to the maintenance or decommissioning of all water wells and boreholes (public and non-public) in Alaska .

Also by June 2016, the workgroup completed the “Alaska Best Management Practices for the Construction of Non-Public (private) Water Wells”. At this time, these remain BMPs (are not tied to any regulations) and are intended to be referred to by the public and other agencies when installing or maintaining an existing or future private well.

Together, these BMPs balance protecting groundwater and public health with practices that are economically sustainable and can be applied statewide.   

Lessons Learned from Connecticut

Last month, March 23, 2017, the very first Connecticut Private Well Conference was held in East Hartford, CT. As the Private Well Class prepares for our own first national Private Well Conference coming up on May 23-25, we asked Tiziana Shea - a sanitary engineer for the CT Department of Public Health's Private Well program, about the lessons learned from planning and preparing for the Connecticut Private Well Conference. Tiziana shares some valuable insight for partners and other environmental health professionals below! If you would like to view the speaker presentations from the Connecticut Private Well Conference, you can do so here.

Q:   Why you decided to host the first CT Private Well Conference?

TS: In Connecticut about 23% of our population (more than 820,000 people), are served by their own private residential well. Local Health Departments and Districts have authority over construction of new private wells and approval of water quality results for new wells, but existing wells are not regulated in Connecticut. There is a need to bring professionals working in fields related to private wells together to discuss technical and outreach issues associated with them. In 2016 the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH), Private Well Program initiated the coordination of the Connecticut Private Well Task Force, which is comprised of 14 associations and programs that work with private wells in different capacities in Connecticut. The task force collaborates on matters related to private wells, such as laws, regulations, policies, technical topics, outreach and education, and training for professionals. This 2017 Connecticut Private Well Conference was meant as a way to spread discussion of private well matters and to provide training to individuals working in a field related to private wells.

Q  How the conference was funded?

TS: The Connecticut Department of Public Health has a cooperative agreement with the National Center for Environmental Health of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to reduce drinking water exposures in unregulated drinking water systems. Funding for the 2017 Connecticut Private Well Conference was made possible (in part) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additionally, the conference site was provided free of charge by Goodwin Community College, as long as the conference would be made available to students in a related field that attend the college. The opportunity to reach out to future environmental health and science professionals was a win - win for all parties involved.

Q  What was the turnout, topics covered, and logistics of the conference?

TS: In order to determine relevant presentation topics for the conference, the CT Private Well Task Force members and organizations were asked to provide input regarding topics of interest among the private well field. A lot of topics of interest were generated initially, so from there we polled the task force members to prioritize topics for this first year’s event. Topics covered during the conference were: Existing MCLs and Action Levels for Private Wells; Road Salt Impacts to Drinking Water Wells; Sizing Variable Frequency Drive’s for Residential Well Pumps; Arsenic and Uranium in Domestic Wells in CT; Building Code and Private Well Construction; Drought in CT and Implications for Private Wells; Water Treatment Wastewater Disposal; and, Residential Water Treatment Fundamentals. The number of attendees exceeded our expectations, our final count with several walk-ins was 125 attendees.

Q:  What are your “lessons learned” from both the subject matter covered, and from hosting a state-wide conference?

TS: If you have the ability to test run electronics and other logistics in the room beforehand, take advantage of that! Be persistent in getting electronic copies of presentations ahead of the event so that you can be as coordinated as possible the day of the event. Start earlier than you think you’d need to, and stay organized.

Q:  Who were the attendees?

TS: 50% local health professionals or registered sanitarians; 15% well water industry professionals & specialists; 15% state or federal employees; 6% environmental lab professionals; Remaining: home inspectors, environmental consultants & specialists, home builders/remodelers, building officials, environmental health/science students.

Q:  What will you do differently next time?

TS: Consider a different space to hold the conference in. The facilities and people were great to work with, but lighting and support beams in the space provided made it difficult to see the presentation for some, and the space was tight for the number of individuals that attended.

Q:  How was the conference promoted? Do you think the promotion strategy you used was successful?

TS: We used several different means to promote the 2017 CT Private Well Conference. Because the event was hosted jointly with the CT Private Well Task Force our task force member partners reached out to their respective groups regarding the conference. The CT DPH also utilized an internal Everbridge system which allows us to contact local health officials via email, we posted registration information on our CT DPH private well program website, word of mouth and with the help of the PrivateWellClass.org, which was much appreciated! We feel as though our promotion strategy for this first conference was successful, as we exceeded the number of attendees we thought we’d get. However, in the future we plan to continue to expand our outreach to other groups of individuals that we’d like included in the mix.

Q:  What advice would you give the Private Well Class as they prepare to host the first national Private Well Conference next month?

TS: Be sure to work out as many details as possible beforehand, consider even the smallest or seemingly mundane things.

Q:  What were some of the most interesting or unexpected discussions, presentations, or partnerships formed form the conference?

TS:  In general; how well received the conference was, and the strong desire from so many to see it continue in future years. In my opinion, one of the most important messages brought up in some of the presentations, was one of working together, and to begin opening discussions where there are needs for it. The conference did facilitate different groups interacting that may not have otherwise done so. The conference also strengthened the partnerships established through the private well task force, and helped broaden that partnership with those not directly involved in the task force.

Tia Hastings, From Indian Health Service, Talks Tribal Water

Tia Hastings is an Environmental Engineer with the Indian Health Service. She provides engineering and project management services for projects with Native American Tribes and Nations for the New York and New England areas.

Q:  Can you please describe your position with Indian Health Services (IHS) and what sort of responsibilities your position entails?:

TH: I am an Environmental Engineer and Project Manager in the Nashville Area Indian Health Service in the Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC). SFC is under the direction of the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering (OEHE) within Indian Health Service (IHS). The IHS Nashville Area, has five field offices in addition to one Area office located in Nashville, TN to serve the tribes and nations from Maine to Florida and west to Texas. I work in Manlius, NY and serve the nations in NY. The IHS Nashville Area provides services to 30 tribes with over 17,500 Indian homes.
I develop projects to provide water, wastewater, and solid waste services to Native American communities. I work directly with the Native communities in New York State to assist in determining needs for projects, assisting the Nations with developing those projects, obtaining funding and implementing those projects. I provide site assessments, survey work, design, and construction inspection, write engineering reports, prepare project documents, track finances, process payment requests, and oversee construction. I also provide homeowner trainings and do community outreach.

Q:  Does IHS have a private well program? If so, can you tell me a little bit about it?:

TH: The Sanitation Facility Construction (SFC) Program supports the mission of the Indian Health Service to raise the health status of the American Indian and Alaska Native people to the highest possible level by planning, designing and overseeing the construction of water, waste water and solid waste facilities. The preferred alternative for the provision of safe drinking water is to connect tribal homes to community water systems that have a higher level of regulatory over-sight from the tribal government and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In cases were community water systems are not available or economically feasible to construct, a private well is the preferred alternative to provide access to drinking water. When installing a private well, the SFC Program will complete the necessary planning and inspection activities which include well sighting, constructing inspection, hydraulic pump test and water quality analysis to ensure the water quality meets EPA’s primary drinking water standards. If the water quality doesn’t meet the primary drinking water standards then a point-of-use device will be recommended and installed if desired by the homeowner. Finally, the SFC Program provides homeowner training to help ensure the facility provided will remain operable over the facility design life.

Q:  Can you describe one of your private well/clean drinking water program’s successes?

TH: A Tribal homeowner was having difficulty with the water in his home. The treatment system and filters were constantly clogging and were becoming expensive to maintain. IHS did a site visit to the home and determined that the home was connected to a very old hand dug well. The investigation and water testing performed by IHS revealed the well water did not meet the primary drinking water requirements. The water main for public water was down the road but did not extend to the home. We got approval and funding to extend the water down the road to this home, and connected it to the public water system. The home now has clean, uncontaminated public water.

Q:  Are there any other stakeholders that IHS works with that is involved with helping Native Americans get access to clean water via private wells or offers some other sort of assistance? And if so, what is their role?

TH: IHS works with other funding agencies to provide funding assistance for projects to provide drinking water, waste water and solid waste facilities. We also work with agencies and tribal organizations to provide homeowner trainings, project assistance and utility trainings. We have worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, Rural Community Assistance Partnership, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Water, United States Geological Survey, United South and Eastern Tribes, and our tribal partners to provide access to clean water.

Q:  Does IHS house any private well data for tribal lands? If so, is it available to the public? If it is, can you provide a link or contact information?

TH: IHS keeps and maintains data on all private wells that were installed by IHS. This data is not considered public data as it contains homeowner information. Requests for private well water quality data should be submitted to the tribe.

Q:  What are some of the challenges with making sure residents of tribal lands have safe water?

TH:  Source water quality is a challenge in making sure residents on tribal land have safe water. Some of the Nations are in areas where groundwater quality is very poor, and treatment systems for individuals would be quite expensive to maintain. Additionally, and proximity of homes to open dumps and inadequately treated wastewater can impact water quality. IHS works with tribal governments and communities to overcome these challenges to help ensure tribal homes have access to safe drinking water.

Q:  Are there any other clean water related issues that are currently plaguing tribes that IHS assists with?

TH: Annually the IHS assesses and reports on the sanitation facility needs in Indian communities. These assessments are done in collaboration with tribal governments. At the beginning of FY 2016 approximately, 7,500 Indian homes in the Nashville Area were in need of some form of new or improved sanitation facility. The total cost of this work in the Nashville Area was estimated to be $112 million with 64% of this need related to the supply of drinking water ($71.7 million), 29% related to wastewater disposal ($33.1 million) and 7% related to solid waste ($7.3 million). These needs include the replacement of aging and/or poorly maintained water distribution systems, sewer collection systems (mains, manholes and pumping stations) and closure of open dumps. The Indian Health Service strives to provide the necessary sanitation facilities and technical assistance to support operation and maintenance of the provided facilities so that tribal communities have sustainable access to safe drinking water and waste disposal that enhance and protect public health.

An Interview with Erin Ling and Site Visit to the VAHWQP Laboratory

Back in October, Steve Wilson and I had the opportunity to visit with Erin Ling and the Virginia Household Water Quality Program laboratory at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. Erin Ling is a Water Quality Extension Associate that helps to coordinate the Virginia Household Water Quality Program located at Virginia Tech which provides drinking water clinics for Virginia residents that rely of private water supplies. We were able to tour the facility, see the equipment, and interact with some of the individuals that make up the team at the Biological Systems Engineering Water Quality Lab.

Q: Can you tell me a little more about your lab on campus?:

EL: The BSE Water Quality Lab has been a part of our Biological Systems Engineering Department at Virginia Tech for decades (the department was founded in 1920, and soil and water conservation has always been a major focus). The Virginia Household Water Quality Program has been processing samples through the lab since 1989, and the lab’s qualified staff and equipment provide an amazing resource to Virginians through this program. The lab also handles a variety of samples related to stream and wetland ecology engineering research. Historically the lab was located in Seitz Hall on campus, and we were very fortunate to be moved to the beautiful new Human and Agricultural Biosciences Building 1 in 2014. The lab is not state-certified, although we follow all standard methods and maintain appropriate QA/QC. VAHWQP samples we process are intended for educational purposes, and we often refer people to certified labs for additional testing.

Q: What constituents does your lab sample for and for whom?:

EL: VAHWQP relies on a network of about 85 Extension agents across the state to help run well testing and education programs in about 55 counties each year (there are 95 counties in Virginia). The program is open to all Virginians who rely on private water supplies (mostly wells with a few springs in the mountainous parts of the state). In Virginia, about 1 in 5 people rely on private water supplies, which is about 1.7 million people. We sample for 14 parameters, including total coliform and E. coli bacteria, lead, arsenic, copper, nitrate, pH, hardness, sulfate, fluoride, sodium, total dissolved solids, iron, and manganese.

Q: Who makes up your team in the lab?:

EL: In the BSE Water Quality lab, we have the pleasure of working with Kelly Peeler, lab manager; Asa Spiller, lab assistant; and a variety of talented graduate and undergraduate students. We are also fortunate to have a partnership with Dr. Marc Edwards’ lab in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech (a.k.a. the “Flint Lab”, made famous for helping to characterize the dire situation with lead in water in Flint, Michigan). Starting in 2011, we began analyzing our well and spring water samples for lead, arsenic and a suite of additional metals. We really appreciate the assistance of Dr. Edwards, Dr. Kelsey Pieper, and Dr. Jeff Parks, the lead analyst in that lab. Our program has benefited from partnering with a variety of researchers, including those in the Flint Lab. Here is a list of the peer-reviewed papers that have been published in collaboration with VAHWQP.

Q: What sort of problems/contaminants does your lab see most often?:

EL: We see a lot of bacteria, mostly coliform (present in about 40% of samples) and some E. coli (present in about 10% of samples). This is why we tie a lot of our education to proper well location and construction. We also see a lot of lead in water supplied by wells in parts of the state. Up to 1 in 5 samples contains more than 15 ppb lead in first draw samples. Based on research conducted by Kelsey Pieper, we understand that this lead is coming from lead solder, brass components manufactured before Jan 2014, and sometimes galvanized steel. Lead is more of a problem in certain geologies (crystalline bedrock, found in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont of Virginia), and in shallower wells, where we find water that is often more acidic and therefore corrosive. We also find a fair amount of nuisance contaminants, mostly iron, manganese and hardness. Testing is the only way to know what’s in your water!

Q: What is the cost for residents to have their water tested? Do you/they receive any subsidies or discounts based on income?

EL: We charge $55 per sample for the 14 parameters, which is a pretty reasonable price for this number of parameters. Some counties are able to coordinate to provide subsidies by getting grants or donations locally.

Q: What has been the most challenging thing with coordinating and operating a university laboratory for the VAHWQ Program?

EL: Really just the biggest challenge is promoting the program and keeping up with demand to continue to grow in the most sustainable way possible. We would love to be able to serve everyone exactly when they want to test, but have to stick to our schedule (we offer testing in 3-4 counties per week for most weeks of the year), as we aren’t able to process individual samples. We are so fortunate to have the facilities and people we have to work with, and really have benefitted from working with such an extensive network of Extension agents across the state. We couldn’t do it without the human capacity, facilities and support of our many partners!

Q: For the two programs, VWON & VAHWQP, how do they work together, if at all?

EL: VWON is the Virginia Well Owner Network. We modeled this program after Penn State’s successful Master Well Owner Network, which is comprised mostly of volunteers who educate well owners about their water supplies. Although we do have a small volunteer network that is available to answer questions from the public, over time, we have shifted to focus on training Extension agents and what we call “agency collaborators” who are staff members of state agencies that also work with well owners, such as Virginia Dept of Health and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The Extension agents, as I mentioned, conduct drinking water testing programs locally with support from our campus faculty. They are our way of being able to hold many more programs across the state, and have a cadre of local experts to help answer the thousands of questions we get each year from the public. Agency collaborators help answer questions and refer people to the Virginia Household Water Quality Program whenever possible. We also have a close partnership with the Virginia Water Well Association, the state well drilling contractors’ membership group. They have been invaluable in providing technical assistance, serving as guest speakers, and helping us build and develop WellCheck (http://www.wellwater.bse.vt.edu/wellcheck.php), which is a partnership that provides well inspections to homeowners who need help with their wells after participating in a VAHWQP program.

      

To learn more about the VAHWQP you can view the 2017 Schedule and 2016 Annual Report at: 
Virginia Household Water Quality Program 2017 Schedule 
Virginia Household Water Quality Program 2016 Annual Report 

Pledging 2 Test in Galena, IL

This past March, the Private Well Class celebrated the 2016 National Groundwater Awareness Week with the Pledge 2 Test campaign. Well owners were invited to pledge to submit a water sample for testing to a lab in their area. One Pledge to Test Campaign participant was randomly selected to be reimbursed for the cost of testing the private well water at their residence, up to $200.

The randomly selected winner was Liz H. from Galena, IL. Liz and her family had purchased a new home in the country and pledged to test her water in our campaign. We interviewed Liz to find out what motivated her to want to test her water and what her experience was like. Liz had her well water tested at Lyons Lab in Stockton, IL.

Q:  How did you hear about the Pledge 2 Test campaign from The Private Well Class?

LH: Since we were looking at moving to the country and having our own well, I was a bit nervous about the water and run off that so many people talk about. I think it’s very important to have good drinking water since we have a six year old and we drink on average 5 gallons a week through our water cooler, so I signed up for the free well water class that I got through my realtor. We really never worried about it before since we have always lived in town or had city water.

Q:  What made you interested in testing your private well water?

LH: I want to know what we are drinking and I want to know if our family will have long lasting health risks with side effects down the road from drinking poor quality water. Good clean water seems to be a hot topic these days and it’s not all accurate.

Q:  What was the most challenging thing about collecting the sample/getting the test bottles?

LH: Since the lab is over a half hour away from where we live in the opposite direction of where we travel, it was hard getting to the lab before they closed. I tried for several weeks to get off work in time to make it over to Lyon’s lab but was unsuccessful. Finally I decided to call and see if they could send me the kit. They are very accommodating and sent the kit right away, it arrived in two days.

Q:  What was one thing about taking a sample that surprised you?

LH: The instructions were very easy to follow and the collection process was simple. It literally took me less than five minutes from start to finish after I read through the instructions twice.

Q:  Once you receive the results, do you think that there is there anything that you will change? Like adding a filtration system, etc.?

LH: Depending on what the results reveal, we will be making changes to whatever needs to be done. We have already started using a PUR system on our kitchen sink since that is where we get out tap water from. We also fill our five gallon water cooler from this same tap source. I am getting anxious to find out the results. The water has a pretty plain, good taste when it's cold. I don’t drink room temperature water so not sure if the taste is different.

Liz’s results for nitrate/nitrogen, arsenic, iron, lead, coliform, and E. coli were either absent or were well below the level needed for safe consumption as outlined by the U.S. EPA. 

Her water showed an elevated number of iron bacteria colonies. Iron bacteria are organisms which feed on the iron in a well. They are not considered a health risk, but as the colony grows, it may develop into a film, or biofilm, which will foul and plug pipes, pumps, and water treatment devices. An objectionable odor may also be produced. Bacteria (including iron bacteria) often are introduced into a well during the drilling process or when performing repair on a well or pump. Iron bacteria specifically, can be a natural part of a groundwater system. Which if were the case here, would mean that they could likely come back even if a single treatment were to eliminate them initially. Treatment typically involves disinfection with chlorine. Complete elimination may not be possible and the well may require repeated or periodic chlorination.

Some final thoughts from Liz: “I am so happy with the results. I am so glad to have won this and will be testing for nitrates every year between April and October as Lyons Lab has indicated. I am a bit smarter as to well water in the country now.”