Springing for Safe Water: Drinking Water Quality and Source Selection in Central Appalachian Communities

Patton, Hannah; Krometis, Leigh Anne Henry; Sarver, Emily

doi:10.3390/w12030888

Cited by 19 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such observations extend not only to rural regions outside of Alaska but also to the urban fringe globally . Across the US, clusters of communities lack sustainable access to in-home water services, including those at the Texas–Mexico border (the Colonias), the Navajo Nation, and the Appalachian region. , And beyond the US, there are several remote Arctic communities in Canada, , Greenland, and Russia that also face similar water access and water security challenges. Overall, this work presents a framework that can be used in other water-insecure regions in the U.S. and beyond to assess drivers of residential water costs to provide a comparative benchmark and to help identify factors that can drive policy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energy consumption for water treatment and distribution in rural Alaska communities that represent one of the coldest and most isolated regions in the US has been unexplored. Using energy audits data from Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), we investigate the annual energy consumption patterns for water treatment and distribution in 78 rural Alaska communities (average population < 500 people) along with seasonal, regional, and population impacts, and water treatment/distribution system types. Regional trends of per capita annual energy consumption are as follows: Interior > Northern > Southwest > Gulf coast > Southeast regions of Alaska. Our results indicate that the per capita energy consumption is highest during the winter and lowest during the summer. Generally, the per capita energy consumption decreases with an increasing population. The variation of per capita energy consumption based on water distribution types shows that piped circulating systems consume the most energy, followed by washeteria, piped pressure, and closed haul. At the water treatment plant, space heating and electrical motors have the highest per capita energy consumption, followed by domestic hot water, tank heating, and lighting. The findings in this work suggest that per capita energy consumption (kWh/p) for water treatment and distribution in rural Alaska is about 12–26 times higher than the national average and about two orders of magnitude higher economic costs for the same. Overall, this work sheds light on energy use for water treatment and distribution in rural Alaska and establishes a baseline that would be useful for the rural Alaska communities’ adaptation to climate change efforts, specifically in planning for and designing new water systems or updating existing systems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the comments from our survey indicate that those on well water have problems with organoleptic and aesthetic properties, such as hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg) odors or staining from iron. Patton et al (2020) surveyed homeowners near roadside springs in three Appalachian states (Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia) with in‐home well water, and reported that over 80% of those surveyed did not trust their tap water for aesthetic reasons. The aesthetic properties of the water from the springs in our study are excellent: the water is clear, cold, and has no undesirable taste or odor.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, water from the springs has the potential to contain dissolved constituents or host micro‐organisms that can pose threats to human health. Our understanding of roadside spring use and water quality is not well documented and only recently have there been any published studies (Swistock et al 2015; Westhues 2017; Krometis et al 2019; Patton et al 2020). There has been at least one parasitic outbreak linked to a spring in upstate New York (Bedard et al 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Health Hazards of Roadside Springs: Results from Central New York

Sinton

Olivieri

Perry

et al. 2021

Contemporary Water Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across the United States, groundwater springs adjacent to roadways have been developed as unregulated drinking water sources. We attempted to address two basic questions: 1) why do people collect water at these springs; and 2) is the water safe to drink? We conducted a study during 2015‐2019 of seven springs in central New York State that included a survey of 199 users and analysis of the water for common dissolved constituents and bacteria. The survey of water users showed that over 70% of respondents use the springs at least multiple times per month for drinking water and the majority collect more than five gallons per visit. More than 80% of the users live farther than three miles from the springs and a recurring reason for drinking the spring water is that the taste is better than the water available at their homes. However, all the springs at some point tested positive for total coliform bacteria and all but one tested positive at least once for fecal coliform bacteria, meaning that 86% of the springs at some point did not meet U.S. municipal drinking water standards. None of the measured dissolved constituents exceeded drinking water standards, but one spring that exhibited elevated nitrate is downslope from a small cattle operation which may be affecting nutrient values in the water. Most of these springs appear to be fed by shallow, unconfined aquifers that are susceptible to contamination from nearby land uses that are not readily apparent from the roadside collection locations.

show abstract

“…In these communities, funding an in-home reuse system could be more affordable than traditional systems. In the contiguous United States, high capital costs also hinder access to in-home water services in the Navajo Nation, Appalachia region, , and the Colonias in Texas . The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the disproportionate health impacts in Tribal communities throughout the United States owing to lack of access to in-home water services .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tale of Two Communities: Adopting and Paying for an In-Home Non-Potable Water Reuse System in Rural Alaska

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several rural communities in Alaska lack piped water and sewer services (“unserved”), leading to residents self-hauling drinking water and manually disposing of waste. Being time and labor intensive, these practices result in extremely low household water use and detrimental health impacts, leading to wash disease rates that are higher than those of communities with piped water and sewer systems. This study reports on results from community meetings and surveys held in two unserved rural Alaska communities to evaluate perceptions of water reuse and the willingness to pay for an in-home water reuse system to identify possible price points they are willing to accept. The survey was designed to iteratively understand which water fixtures households desired and at what cost. Survey results showed that in-home water/sewer infrastructure may cost more than community members are willing or able to pay. There are also regional differences in acceptable costs and preferences for specific water fixtures. The results also suggest myriad local factors that may impact acceptance, desire, and willingness to pay for in-home water reuse. Overall, this work highlights the importance of community input and engagement as well as assessment of community needs and readiness while developing technological solutions for rural communities in Alaska and beyond.

show abstract

Springing for Safe Water: Drinking Water Quality and Source Selection in Central Appalachian Communities

Cited by 19 publications

References 32 publications

Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities

Rural Alaska Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Incur High Energy Costs: Identifying Energy Drivers Using Panel Data Analysis for 78 Communities

Potential Health Hazards of Roadside Springs: Results from Central New York

A Tale of Two Communities: Adopting and Paying for an In-Home Non-Potable Water Reuse System in Rural Alaska

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About