Pesticide and Nitrate Trends in Domestic Wells where Pesticide Use Is Regulated in Fresno and Tulare Counties, California

Abstract

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation initiated regulations on pesticide use in 1989 to mitigate groundwater contamination by atrazine [6‐chloro‐N‐ethyl‐N′‐(1‐methylethyl)‐1,3,5‐triazine‐2,4‐diamine] and subsequently for simazine (6‐chloro‐N,N′‐diethyl‐1,3,5‐triazine‐2,4‐diamine), diuron [N′‐(3,4‐dichlorophenyl)‐N,N‐dimethylurea], bromacil [5‐bromo‐6‐methyl‐3‐(1‐methylpropyl)‐2,4(1H,3H)‐pyrimidinedione], and norflurazon [4‐chloro‐5‐(methylamino)‐2‐[3‐(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]‐3(2H)‐pyridazinone]. Annual water samples from 2000 to 2012 were obtained from domestic wells in Fresno and Tulare counties in regulated areas designated either as leaching groundwater protection areas (GWPAs), where residues move downward in percolating water, or runoff GWPAs, where residues move offsite in rain or irrigation runoff water to sensitive sites such drainage wells. Concentrations decreased below the reporting limit, so maximum likelihood estimation methodology for left‐censored data was used. Decreasing trends in concentration were measured in both GWPA designations for simazine, its breakdown products desisopropyl atrazine (ACET, 2‐amino‐4‐chloro‐6‐ethylamino‐s‐triazine) and diamino chlorotriazine (DACT, 2,4‐diamino‐6‐chloro‐s‐triazine), and diuron. Bromacil crop use was predominant in runoff GWPAs, where decreases over time were also measured. In contrast, increased trends were observed for norflurazon and its breakdown product desmethyl norflurazon [DMN, 4‐chloro‐5(amino)‐2‐(α,α,α trifluorometa‐tolyl] in runoff GWPAs. Use of simazine, diuron, and bromacil was regulated before norflurazon, so patterns of detection represent a shift to use of unregulated products. For NO3, 22 of 67 wells indicated linear decreases in concentration coinciding with decreases in pesticide residues in those wells. Concentration of ACET, DACT, diuron, and NO3 in well water was two to five times greater when located in runoff GWPAs. Greater amounts of herbicide were applied to crops grown in runoff GWPAs, but high concentrations in runoff water entering ponds or drainage wells could also be a factor for increased well water concentration. Initial regulatory measures appear to have been effective in reducing groundwater concentrations, but continued monitoring is needed to evaluate changes made to the regulatory approach in 2004.

A Bayesian approach to infer nitrogen loading rates from crop and land-use types surrounding private wells in the Central Valley, California

“…6). This region includes a significant portion of "runoff" designated GWPA zones on soils that contain a shallow hardpan layer (Troiano et al, 2014) and where dry wells used for surface drainage are common (DeMartinis and Royce, 1990). In addition, the water table in these same regions is relatively shallow (7-10 m b.g.s.)…”

Synthesis and Impregnation of Copper Oxide Nanoparticles on Activated Carbon through Green Synthesis for Water Pollutant Removal

“…It is usually found in literature studies with materials that remove one or two of these contaminants 22,[38][39][40][41] . However, considering that it is common to find several contamination forms in drinking water and not just one, studying a material with multi-pollutant removal potential is extremely valuable, since it could make the water treatment process simpler and more cost-effective [42][43][44] .…”

Analysis of Groundwater Nitrate Contamination in the Central Valley: Comparison of the Geodetector Method, Principal Component Analysis and Geographically Weighted Regression

“…Several studies in the San Joaquin Basin, Sacramento Valley and other counties have already confirmed high levels of nitrate in the groundwater of the CV [14][15][16][17][18]. Statistical methods have been used to study the relationship between groundwater nitrate contamination and predictor variables.…”