Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: Impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior

Abstract

Regularly ingesting water with elevated arsenic increases adverse health risks. Since September 2002, the NJ Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing untreated well water for arsenic during real estate transactions in 12 counties. Its implementation provides an opportunity to investigate the effects of policy intervention on well testing and treatment behavior. Here we analyze results of a survey mailed to 1,943 random addresses (37% response), including responses from 502 private well households who purchased their homes prior to PWTA commencement and 168 who purchased after. We find the PWTA has significantly increased arsenic testing rates in an area where 21% of wells contain arsenic above the 5 µg/L NJ drinking water standard. The PWTA has allowed identification of more wells with arsenic (20% of post-PWTA vs. 4% of pre-PWTA households) and more treatment for arsenic (19% of post-PWTA vs. 3% of pre-PWTA households). Such an Act is a partial answer to significant socioeconomic disparities in testing observed among households for whom it is not required. Additionally residents purchasing homes since 2002 are younger and disproportionately more likely to have children in their household (60% vs. 32%), a priority group given their particular vulnerability to effects of arsenic. Despite more wells tested under the PWTA, post-PWTA well owners forget or misremember arsenic test results more often, are more likely to report not knowing what kind of treatment they are using, and are not reporting better maintenance or monitoring of their treatment systems than pre-PWTA households. This suggests serious challenges to reducing arsenic exposure remain even when testing is a requirement. Furthermore, only a fraction of wells have been tested under the PWTA due to the slow pace of housing turnover. We recommend more public resources be made available to support private well testing among socially and biologically vulnerable groups.

Private-well stewardship among a general population based sample of private well-owners

“…27 Overall testing rates were also lower compared to recent studies which found average lifetime testing rates were above 70% in New Jersey and as high as 89% in Maine. 10, 14, 15, 28 Five year testing rates (41%) were also comparable to testing rates from studies of target populations in communities at high risk of arsenic exposure in Wisconsin (41%) 27 and Maine (37%) as well as general Wisconsin population estimates from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (38%). 29 Rates of testing for common groundwater constituents of concern in the Wisconsin including arsenic and uranium were particularly low and reported by less than 2% of users.…”

“…Testing programs like those in Oregon and New Jersey can serve as potential important opportunities for both education and surveillance of well water quality and promotion of stewardship. 14, 20 A recent analysis of statewide programs requiring private well testing at the time of real-estate transactions have found testing rates to increase after policy implementation. 14 A desire for knowledge about water quality and safety when there were children or pregnant women in the home also relates to risk perceptions and was ranked as the third reason for testing.…”

“…14, 20 A recent analysis of statewide programs requiring private well testing at the time of real-estate transactions have found testing rates to increase after policy implementation. 14 A desire for knowledge about water quality and safety when there were children or pregnant women in the home also relates to risk perceptions and was ranked as the third reason for testing. Convenience was additionally important as having a well testing program in the area was also among the top five reasons for testing.…”

“…Findings are consistent with studies in Maine where the majority of respondents (80%) did not test within provincial recommended guidelines of every 12 months 10 and only 20% of respondents in New Jersey or Maine have ever tested for arsenic in the past. 14, 15 It is postulated this lack of regular testing is in part because testing guidelines can be confusing and users are often unaware of which guidelines to follow. A lack of knowledge about how and what to test for were the fourth and fifth cited reasons cited for not testing well water, suggesting potential modifications to existing education and outreach efforts in addition to changing risk perceptions and social norms could all reduce important barriers to testing.…”

“…10,18 Some states have begun to develop policies such as mandatory testing at the sale of a property or at the time of new well construction, however, these policies are dependent on population mobility and new construction to initiate or monitor water quality testing. 14, 20 Additional research into motivators and barriers to testing in a general population sample of well users could provide important insights into how best to target intervention and policy strategies to promote well stewardship.…”