Home Water Treatment Habits and Effectiveness in a Rural Arizona Community

Private well stewardship, including on-going testing and treatment, can ensure private well users are able to maintain source-water quality and prevent exposures to potentially harmful constituents in primary drinking water supplies. Unlike municipal water supplies, private well users are largely responsible for their own testing and treatment and well stewardship is often minimal. The importance of factors influencing regular testing, and treatment behaviors, including knowledge, risk perception, convenience and social norms, can vary by geography and population characteristics. The primary goals of this study were to survey a general statewide population of private well users in Wisconsin in order to quantify testing and treatment patterns and gather data on motivations and barriers to well stewardship. The majority of respondents reported using and drinking well water daily but only about one half of respondents reported testing their wells in the last ten years and of these, only 10% reported testing in the last 12 months. Bacteria and nitrates were contaminants most often tested; and, a private laboratory most often conducted testing. The most commonly reported water treatment was a water softener. Living in a particular geographic region and income were the most significant predictors of water testing and treatment. Iron and hardness, which influence water aesthetics but not always safety, were the most commonly reported water quality problems. Health concerns or perceived lack thereof were, respectively, motivators and barriers to testing and treatment. Limited knowledge of testing and treatment options were also identified as barriers. Results confirm previous findings that well stewardship practices are minimal and often context specific. Understanding the target population’s perceptions of risk and knowledge are important elements to consider in identifying vulnerable populations and developing education and policy efforts to improve well stewardship.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

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

Malecki

Schultz

Severtson

et al. 2017

“…If considering only treatment methods that are capable of removing arsenic from the water, then the rates of use are 17% and 9%, respectively. A recent study of private well owners in Arizona similarly found that household income and education were significant predictors of water treatment (Lothrop et al, 2015). For arsenic specifically we have previously found that while taking any mitigation action was not associated with SES, choice of mitigation action is significantly associated with income and education.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arsenic in private well water part 3 of 3: Socioeconomic vulnerability to exposure in Maine and New Jersey

Flanagan

Spayd

Procopio

et al. 2016

Arsenic is a naturally occurring toxic element often concentrated in groundwater at levels unsafe for human consumption. Private well water in the United States is mostly unregulated by federal and state drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the over 13 million U.S. households regularly depending on private wells for their water to ensure it is safe for drinking. There is a consistent graded association with health outcomes at all levels of socioeconomic status (SES) in the U.S. Differential exposure to environmental risk may be contributing to this persistent SES-health gradient. Environmental justice advocates cite overwhelming evidence that income and other SES measures are consistently inversely correlated with exposure to suboptimal environmental conditions including pollutants, toxins, and their impacts. Here we use private well household surveys from two states to investigate the association between SES and risks for arsenic exposure, examining the potentially cumulative effects of residential location, testing and treatment behavior, and psychological factors influencing behavior. We find that the distribution of natural arsenic hazard in the environment is socioeconomically random. There is no evidence that higher SES households are avoiding areas with arsenic or that lower SES groups are disproportionately residing in areas with arsenic. Instead, disparities in exposure arise from differing rates of protective action, primarily testing well water for arsenic, and secondly treating or avoiding contaminated water. We observe these SES disparities in behavior as well as in the psychological factors that are most favorable to these behaviors. Assessment of risk should not be limited to the spatial occurrence of arsenic alone. It is important that social vulnerability factors are incorporated into risk modeling and identifying priority areas for intervention, which should include strategies that specifically target socioeconomically vulnerable groups as well as all the conditions which cause these disparities in testing and treatment behavior.

“…In our water sampling in New Jersey (18% of n=22) and in Maine (15% of n=68) we have identified multiple examples of incorrect or ineffective treatment systems failing to deliver water below the arsenic MCL arsenic at the tap, 28,30 and similarly ineffective treatment has been observed elsewhere by others. 32,33 Several NJ well owners who sent water samples believed they were treating for arsenic because there was a system in their basement, although they did not know what kind of system it was and had never performed any maintenance on it. The presence of tanks in the basement can give the false assurance of safe water leaving well owners unconcerned about monitoring the quality of their water.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies of households living with arsenic in their well water show that due to deficiencies in technology and behavior in practice, real elimination of arsenic exposure is elusive. 30,32,34 Once significant gains in arsenic screening are achieved, shifting resources to education and support for these households facing arsenic problems in their well water will be necessary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Flanagan

Spayd

Procopio

et al. 2016

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.