Final report for ONE21-397
Project Information
Many well owners do not test their well water quality, and therefore are unaware if any contaminants are present, and what their health risks are. A study was conducted to assess Maryland farmers' understanding of their drinking water wells, water quality, and treatment. A 14 question survey was conducted with 167 respondents. In addition 77 farmers participated in a much reduced water quality analysis component which tested for bacteria, nitrate, 29 metals, and a subsample of wells were included in a 28 pesticide screening. Of the wells tested, 41% contained total coliform bacteria and 9% were positive for E. coli. In addition, 5.6% of wells had nitrate levels exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL). The metal analysis component of the project showed that 30.5% of wells have elevated sodium above the EPA SMCL (secondary maximum contaminant level) of 60 mg/l. Six % (4/65) of water samples exceeded the arsenic MCL of 0.01 mg/L and 6% (4/64) exceeded the nitrate MCL of 10mg/L. All well samples showed undetectable levels of pesticides at lab detection limits.
- Determine Maryland farmers’ understanding of private wells and water quality including well design, wellhead protection, testing recommendations, contamination risks and health issues and water treatment.
- Educate farmers by conducting project overview and testing protocol education webinars on the project, water sampling, and testing procedure/methods
- Develop a statewide snapshot of farm drinking water well quality by collecting and analyzing water quality data. Participating farms around the state will receive individual water quality analysis results.
- Share results and education through webinars and instructional videos including topics on basic well information, wellhead protection, water testing recommendations, interpretation of results and recommendations for well care and water treatment.
This farm well water project addresses conducting a preliminary survey of farm drinking well water quality in an effort to educate farmers on well care, water testing, and treatment recommendations to reduce health risks to farm families. Private water wells are the major source of drinking water for the farming community, and because they are not regulated as municipally supplied water, they can pose unknown health risks. Most farms also utilize septic systems for home wastewater treatment; and the risk of nitrate and bacterial contamination of wells from septic wastewater is well documented. In addition to the potential risk of bacteria and nitrate from septic systems, other contaminants from either natural or human activity sources can enter groundwater. These can include arsenic, chloride, copper, dissolved solids, iron, lead, manganese, and pesticides. The degree of contamination risk depends on a variety of factors including the concentration of the contaminant, type of well (bored, drilled, hand dug), condition of well, well depth, aquifer (unconfined, confined), and type of household plumbing (copper, galvanized, PVC), type geology, and age and condition of septic system.
Many well owners do not test their well water quality, and therefore are unaware if any contaminants are present, and what their health risks are. Studies on farm well water quality are very limited; however, a few studies do show contamination risks. A USGS study in 48 states found that 23% of private wells had contaminant levels greater than health-based standards, and almost 25% of agricultural/rural wells exceeded health-based standards, with 34% positive for nitrates. In a farmer focused project in St. Mary’s County (n=89), 74%, 22.4%, and 26% of wells exceeded the standard for total coliform, E. coli and nitrate respectively. A Delmarva USGS study revealed that pesticides and associated degradation products were widely detected at low levels (<1 mg/L) in groundwater and streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. They further noted that atrazine, metolachlor, and simazine are the most commonly detected pesticides in surface water, whereas atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in groundwater. These studies clearly show a concerning incidence of drinking water quality contamination for the farm community.
This study evaluated farm well drinking water quality in multiple regions of Maryland that represent varied well characteristics and all five of the major geologic physiographic provinces influencing groundwater quantity and quality. In addition, this project engaged and educated farmers on the health risks associated with contaminants, well protection practices, water quality testing recommendations, and water treatment options they can employ to remediate any contaminant and ensure good quality drinking water and protect their health.
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
- - Producer
Research
Project Objective 1: Determine Maryland farmers’ understanding of private wells and water quality including well design, wellhead protection, testing recommendations, contamination risks and health issues and water treatment
A 14 question online (Qualtrics) anonymous survey was developed and approved by the UMD Institutional Review Board (IRB) to measure farm well owners’ knowledge of:
● Well specifics - location, construction type (dug, bored, or drilled), depth, age, source aquifer, and type/age of home plumbing (copper, galvanized or PVC)
● Wellhead protection - sanitary well cap, ground sloping, grouting, flood prevention, and stormwater diversion
● Well testing – frequency of testing, what to test for, and meaning of results
• Contamination risks – malfunctioning septic system, corrosive water, stormwater, and pesticides
Survey questions are attached. To facilitate further participation of farmers in the water testing component of the project, participants could provide their name and email address. As an incentive to participate in the water analysis, a significantly reduced cost of $25 was charged (retail value of $500). An introduction to the project and survey was distributed to over 2,000 Maryland farmers using existing email or newsletter mailing lists on University of Maryland Extension Agriculture Educators. 167 farmers participated in the survey. The majority of participants elected to provide their name and email address to be considered for the water testing component of the project.
Project objective 2: Educate farmers by conducting project overview and testing protocol education webinars on the project, water sampling, and testing procedure/methods.
Two webinars were held with farmers participating in the well and water quality testing. The webinars described the project objectives, water sampling and testing methods. The webinar was recorded, and a video was produced and available for the farmers to review.
Project Objective 3: Collect and analyze water quality data for associations to location, geology type, well construction/design, type aquifer, plumbing, proximity to pesticide application, etc.
77 farmers were selected to participate in the water testing. As an incentive to participate, farmers were asked to pay $25 of the approximately $500 retail water analysis cost per sample. Farmers were supplied with the required sampling bottles, labels, forms, and sampling instructions. The Agriculture Agents coordinated farmer sampling and distribution of the samples with the UMD School of Public Health - Institute of Environmental Health Lab for bacterial analysis and mailing of samples to other cooperating labs.
First draw (drawn after overnight/unused) water samples were collected at the farm’s drinking water faucet by the farmer and shipped with ice packs within 24 hours to the lab. The UMD lab conducted the microbial analysis using standard membrane filtration. Water samples were analyzed for indicator bacteria (total coliforms and E. coli) using MI selective agar. Presumptive isolates were confirmed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
86 water samples of the 77 wells were tested for: alkalinity, coliform bacteria, E. coli, nitrates and a suite of 29 metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, lithium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfate, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc). Well water samples were collected in seven regions of the state in 20 of the 23 counties (See Table 1). Farmers of the 86 samples were provided the water quality analysis report including interpretation of the results and phone calls to further explain the results and treatment recommendations if warranted.
Alkalinity and nitrate were analyzed by a certified private lab in Maryland. Metal analysis was conducted by the Virginia Tech Environmental and Water Resources Engineering water quality laboratory using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Pesticide analysis included screening (absence or presence) and was conducted by Waters Agricultural Laboratory (Camilla, GA).
All data was anonymous and de-identified using a coding system developed by the co-PIs. Water samples were compared against EPA drinking water standards. Evaluation of associations of water quality parameters with type geology, type well (dug, bored, drilled), aquifer (unconfined or confined), wellhead condition, and type of plumbing were conducted using multivariate regression analysis (SAS 9.3).
Project Objective 4: Share results and education through webinars and instructional videos including topics on basic well information, wellhead protection, water testing recommendations, interpretation of results and recommendations for well care and water treatment.
Conducted six webinars in different regions of the state in conjunction with Agriculture Agents’ planned agronomy events. 382 farmers attended the webinars. Webinars presented the bacteria, metal, and pesticide data (available for the last two webinars), basic information about aquifers, well construction/design, well head protection, tips to protect groundwater including proper abandonment of wells, water testing recommendations, water treatment systems and available resources.
In addition, two abstracts, one presentation (34 participants attended), and two posters were presented at various meetings including: regional (American Water Resources Association National Capital Region Symposium, Washington D.C.); state (Maryland Water Monitoring Council, Linthicum, MD): and a national meeting (American Public Health Association's Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA). the Maryland presentation.
Objective 1: Determine Maryland farmers’ understanding of private wells and water quality including well design, wellhead protection, testing recommendations, contamination risks and health issues and water treatment
Results of the survey (n=167) are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2
|
Well Type |
Percent |
Age of Plumbing |
Percent |
|
Drilled |
91 |
< 30 yrs |
44.5 |
|
Hand Dug |
2.9 |
31-50 yrs |
43.7 |
|
Cistern/Spring |
4.2 |
51-75 yrs |
14.7 |
|
Don't Know |
1.8 |
75 + yrs |
1.8 |
|
|
Don't Know |
4.3 |
|
|
Age of Well |
|
|
|
|
< 10 yrs |
15 |
Tested Water |
|
|
11-25 yrs |
25.9 |
No |
38.8 |
|
26-50 yrs |
39.8 |
Within 5 yrs |
29.7 |
|
51+ yrs |
13.8 |
Last 10 yrs |
10.3 |
|
Don't Know |
5.4 |
Over 10 yrs |
21.3 |
|
|
|
||
|
Depth of Well |
|
Well Repairs |
|
|
< 30 ft |
4.2 |
None |
24.1 |
|
31-75 ft |
6.7 |
New Pump |
29.8 |
|
76-150 ft |
14 |
Water Filter |
18.5 |
|
151-250 ft |
18.9 |
Disinfection |
11.9 |
|
> 251 ft |
32.9 |
Well Casing |
3.3 |
|
Don't Know |
23.2 |
Well Replacement |
5.2 |
|
|
|
||
|
Well Cap Type |
|
Water Quality Issues |
|
|
Sanitary Cap |
87.6 |
None |
33.2 |
|
Concrete |
8 |
Scale |
13.4 |
|
Wood |
0.6 |
Odors |
9.5 |
|
Don't Know |
2.5 |
Taste |
8.3 |
|
|
Rust/Black Stain |
7.5 |
|
|
Type Plumbing |
|
Cloudy |
5.5 |
|
Cooper |
29.3 |
Pin Hole Leaks |
4.7 |
|
Lead |
9.4 |
Gastrointestinal Illness |
4.4 |
|
PVC |
49.3 |
Short Appliance Life |
3.6 |
|
PEX |
7.1 |
Blue Stains |
3.2 |
|
Multiple Types |
9.8 |
Other |
6.7 |
|
Don't Know |
4 |
|
|
Objective 3: Collect and analyze water quality data for associations to location, geology type, well construction/design, type aquifer, plumbing, proximity to pesticide application, etc.
Well Water Quality Analysis: 86 water samples of the 77 wells were tested for: alkalinity, coliform bacteria, E. coli, nitrates and a suite of 29 metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, lithium, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, silicon, silver, sodium, strontium, sulfate, tin, titanium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc). Farmers of the 86 samples were provided the water quality analysis report including interpretation of the results. A Master's student, Cameron Smith, in the UMD School of Public Health - Institute of Applied Environmental Health, analyzed the coliform bacteria and E. coli data and survey response feedback. Of the wells tested, 9 and 41% were positive for E. coli and coliform bacteria respectively. Region was a significant factor for both total coliform and E. coli presence in well water samples. Wells within the western part of the state had the highest percentage of positive results for bacteria. Wellhead cover type was also significant for the presence of E. coli, but not total coliforms. Well condition description was significant for the presence of total coliforms, but not E. coli.
A PhD Student, Rebecca Patterson, in the UMD School of Public Health’s Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, analyzed the data collected in 2022 for the chemicals which have an EPA MCL (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nitrate, selenium, and uranium) and sodium. After averaging duplicates in cases where participants sent in more than one sample from the same point of use location, 65 samples were included in the analysis. Six % (4/65) of water samples exceeded the arsenic MCL of 0.01 mg/L and 6% (4/64) exceeded the nitrate MCL of 10mg/L. For sodium, 31% (20/65) of water samples exceeded the EPA recommended limit to avoid effects on taste (30-60 mg/L) and 46% (30/65) exceeded the EPA health advisory level (20 mg/L) for consumers on restricted sodium diets (500 mg/day). Arsenic (p=0.0002) and sodium (p=0.003) concentrations varied by region. A poster of these results was presented at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting in November 2023.
Pesticide Analysis: The pesticide analysis component of the project was changed due to closure of the anticipated UMD lab and therefore a private lab was used. A pesticide screening package of 28 pesticides including: Alachlor, Atrazine, Benefin, Bromacil, Butachlor, Butylate, Cycloate, Eptam (EPTC), Ethalfluralin, Hexazinone, Isopropalin, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Molinate, Norflurazon, Oxadiazon, Oxyfluorfen, Pebulate, Pendimehtalin, Prodiamine, Profluralin, Prometon, Propachlor, Propazine, Simazine, Terbacil, Trifluralin, and Vernolate, was conducted. All well samples showed undetectable levels of pesticides at lab detection limits.
In addition, two samples were analyzed for glyphosate, and both were below the 10 mg/l detection limit.
We successfully identified that farm well water quality does show some risk to known contaminants that can impact human health. Of the wells tested, 41% contained total coliform bacteria and 9% were positive for E. coli. In addition, 5.6% of wells had nitrate levels exceeding the EPA MCL. These water quality parameters are indicators of some contamination by animal waste (insects, animal, wildlife, or human sewage) suggesting that the aquifer is contaminated or that the wellhead is damaged and providing entry of contamination into the well. Significant survey factors for total coliforms and E. coli included region, well condition description, and wellhead cover type. The presence of coliform bacteria and E. coli was greatest in the Western region with 89% and 56% respectively of the 9 wells tested. This may be due to the fractured rock geology potentially exposing wells to the shallow water table, which is at greater risk of surface contamination.
The metal analysis component of the project showed that 30.5% of wells have elevated sodium above the EPA SCML of 60 mg/l. Sodium can enter well water by the natural aquifer geology, road salts, fertilizers, or home water softeners. Since most farm wells tend not to be located near roads that are salted during winter months, the other sources are more likely candidates. 54.5% of these wells with elevated sodium have water softeners which use salt and therefore add sodium to the drinking water. Four wells had arsenic levels posing risk to human health and one well had elevated manganese which has been shown to cause neurological disorders, especially in children. The wells with arsenic were located in areas of known geology with naturally occurring arsenic. No samples showed lead or copper at the EPA MCL suggesting that water corrosivity was not a factor in those homes with copper or lead containing plumbing fixtures.
All farmers were provided with water quality results, and interpretation of the data and human health risks. In addition, they were informed of possible water filtration devices that will reduce contaminants to safe levels for drinking. Participants whose water samples tested positive for coliform bacteria, E. coli and/or nitrates were provided specific recommendations to correct the issue, either with addition of water filtration or repair of their well head.
There are a few additional other observations from the project. The survey results showed that well owners do not test their drinking well water quality or know what to test for, per follow recommended testing frequency, e.g. annually for coliform bacteria, E. coli and nitrate. This is a common issue with well owners. In addition, there is a small percentage of farmers who do not have proper sanitary well caps, therefore subjecting their well water to contamination.
Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary
Participation Summary:
Farmer partners (total of five) and 72 additional participating farmers were recruited by the Agents and represent different types of farms/practices and well types. Two webinars in the first two months of the project were provided to describe the scope of the project and water testing protocols. Six webinars were conducted providing results of the survey, summary of the water quality analysis data, and general well and water quality information including: basic hydrology and aquifers, well design, home well systems, sources of contamination, wellhead protection, water quality parameters and associated health risks, testing, and treatment options and their maintenance. Two videos were produced including a basic introduction to wells and importance of testing (this was developed by an undergraduate student), and one on the project, survey, and bacteria analysis results, and general well and water quality information.
A written report of the farmer’s water quality results was provided to farmers followed by individual reviews either virtually by Zoom or by phone/email to share and interpret water analysis results and discuss any treatment recommendations. These sessions were conducted by the lead investigator.
A poster on the bacteria results was developed and presented at the Maryland Water Monitoring Council Conference in Linthicum, MD and will be posted on the UME Water Quality Website featuring the project. The Master's student working on the bacteria component of the water analysis completed her thesis in late 2023 and is planning to submit results to a journal. Project results are anticipated to be presented at the 2024 NACAA meeting in 2024.
Learning Outcomes
Knowledge gain: Wellhead and protection practices, recommended water testing procedures, water quality parameters and risk to health, and water treatment/filtration systems.
Attitude Change: Increased understanding of the value of water testing to protect health
Skills/Awareness: Ability to inspect and protect wellhead, know where to go for water analysis, and understand the maintenance of filtration systems
Project Outcomes
An online five question follow up survey (Qualtrics) was conducted approximately one year post participation in an educational event/water testing. 30 farmers responded to the survey. When asked about what actions they took as a result of participation, 36.7% had their well tested; 6.77% had their well casing repaired; 10% replaced their well cap; 6.7% installed a filter; 6.7% stated they have not taken action yet, but plan to; and 26.7% have not action planned. Reason given for why no action was taken included: test results did not warrant action, and test results were very good. 50% of respondents stated they have shared information learned with family, neighbors or friends. When asked about rating their understanding of wells and drinking water quality as as result of participation in an education event, 45% stated they are moderately knowledgeable, 40% very knowledgeable and 5% stated they are extremely knowledge, showing that 90% of participants are knowledgeable to care for their well and drinking water quality. Five farmers responded requesting additional information about their wells and drinking water quality.
The project was successful in providing a preliminary assessment of farmer's knowledge of their well, well care practices, water quality, testing recommendations and treatment systems. The results will continue to be used in educating farmers in Maryland. The results could be beneficial to farmers in neighboring states.
Information Products
- Determining the Impact of Well Maintenance, Condition, Type, and Location Factors on E. coli and Total Coliforms in Maryland Farm Private Drinking Water Wells
- Inorganic chemical contaminants in groundwater vary based on regional geological characteristics and local land uses.
- Farm Wells and Drinking Water Quality
- Farm Wells and Drinking Water Quality
- Wells and Testing