Lemley, Ann T.

English

Research Papers in Economics

WATER  QUALITY  - EVERYONE'S  PROBLEM
Ann  T. Lemley
Cornell University
Background
The issue of water quality, more specifically the quality of drinking
water derived from groundwater,  is one that is much in the news and
on the minds of policymakers  at all levels of government.  In the past,
groundwater has  been considered pure  and clean;  recently there  has
been abundant  evidence that this critical national resource can be and
is contaminated.
Prevention
Good  quality  water requires protection  of the  source,  and ground-
water aquifer protection requires policy decisions many of which must
be made at the local level. Land use decisions are critical to the main-
tenance  of high quality groundwater.  Decision makers must evaluate
the  effects  of agriculture,  residential  development,  sewering,  indus-
trial siting, and landfills. It is not always obvious which course to take,
and the situations  can become quickly polarized.
Water bearing aquifers do not fit nicely into political boundaries on
the land surface. Poor judgment with respect to an activity on the land
can lead to contamination  of a drinking water source  in the next town
or municipality.  Agricultural  activities  could  affect a  major ground-
water source.
Health Effects
The degradation of our groundwater has potential health effects that
concern many groups in the population.  Individuals  and families are
faced  with uncertainties  about what  is in their water,  what are safe
levels of contaminants,  and what they should  do about it. Local  gov-
ernments and communities are faced with water quality decisions. The
agricultural sector is concerned about farm family health, animal health,
and  continued  crop  production  without  contaminating  the  environ-
ment.  Fear of negative health effects from contaminated drinking water
is an issue  that is  not easily  resolved  because  there  are no  easy  an-
swers.
166One reason for the fear and uncertainty about water quality is that
many of the health risks associated with contaminants in water have
not been well-defined.  The current federal guidelines (Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations)  established  by the  United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the authority of the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 cover only a limited number of chemicals.
Ten inorganics,  four pesticides,  two herbicides,  trihalomethanes,  mi-
crobiological  contaminants,  and  radionuclides  have  had  maximum
contaminant  levels established for drinking water supplies,  but many
other  contaminants  known to  be  in water supplies  and known to  be
harmful  do not have  such levels established.  The USEPA has sched-
uled the development of Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations
[1],  but the  process  has been  delayed many  times. The  gap  between
known contamination and established guidelines has made water quality
policy issues  difficult for state and local governments.
Water Standards
Currently there are no federal maximum contaminant levels (MCL's
set for most organic solvents  and pesticides.  Both of these categories
present problems for groundwater quality. The lack of guidelines puts
a considerable  burden on states that must decide whether they want
to set their own guidelines and on communities where contamination
situations arise.
The water quality issue is further complicated by the fact that even
when standards  or guidelines  are set by the  federal or state govern-
ment,  they apply only  to community  water supplies.  The many indi-
vidual  wells common  in rural  areas are rarely  tested for other than
bacteriological  contamination.  When  a  contaminant  is  known  to  be
present above  the MCL  in a community supply, notification  of water
customers  must  take  place.  If the  community  supply  derives  from
groundwater,  it is very likely that other wells in the area could  also
be contaminated.  Many public policy issues arise with respect to test-
ing of individual wells and/or notification of well owners.
Treatment
There  are  several  choices  that  a  community  has when  wells  are
contaminated.  Among these are closing of some wells,  use of alterna-
tive surface  or groundwater  supplies, and treatment.  If treatment  is
the chosen path, there are other choices with respect to type of treat-
ment and point of treatment. Many available  technologies for treating
drinking water supplies  are still being tested by the USEPA.  Often a
decision  must be  made as to whether the treatment  should be at the
well  or at the  point-of-use.  These decisions  are technological  as well
as economic  and require careful analysis.
A study supported by the USEPA was conducted by Temple,  Barker
167and Sloane,  Inc.  for  the Water  Quality Association  to evalute point-
of-use  treatment  for  compliance  with  drinking  water  standards  [6].
This study focused  on  the current  list  of contaminants  with  federal
guidelines.  Others  [5]  are  attempting to compare the  effectiveness  of
treatment  methods  for toxic  organics that  do not  have  federal  stan-
dards  set.  The  results  of these  studies  will  provide  background  for
future policy decisions.
Another significant  issue  related  to groundwater  contamination  is
the  question  of who  pays  for  alternative  water  or treatment.  Some-
times the party responsible  for a contamination incident can be iden-
tified and made to  pay. More  often contamination  is not-the result of
a  single  incident  and/or  no  one  responsible  can  be  identified.  Com-
munities and individuals must still find a way to pay for good quality
water.
Case Studies
Pesticides
The first incident of large-scale pesticide  contamination  of ground-
water occurred  on eastern Long Island in New York State in 1979 [2].
The pesticide  aldicarb  (tradename  Temik) had been used on approxi-
mately 20,000 acres  of potato fields between  1975  and 1979. The pes-
ticide was particularly  effective against  two difficult pests, the Colorado
potato beetle and the golden nematode. Based on knowledge of nitrates
leaching to groundwater in this area, the local  cooperative  extension
staff expressed  concern in  1976 and  1977  about the  potential for  al-
dicarb to  leach. In  1979 some wells near potato fields were tested and
found to have detectable  levels of the pesticide. In the next year more
than 8,000 wells were tested and more than 2,000 had detectable levels
of aldicarb.
Several policy decisions had to be made very quickly. The state had
to set  a drinking  water  standard  for  the pesticide.  The  local  health
department had to determine what wells should be tested and if they
should be tested for other pesticides.  The company that manufactured
the  pesticide  withdrew  it from use  on Long  Island,  treated water  in
affected homes, and initiated research to predict how long the pesticide
would remain in the groundwater.
From the perspective  of the  farmers, a very  effective pesticide was
withdrawn  from use,  and decisions about future  crops to be grown  in
the area had to be made. They were obviously worried about becoming
dependent  on  another  chemical  that might  be found  in the  ground-
water.
The  local  cooperative  extension  association  and  Cornell  were  in-
volved  in every  aspect of this situation.  People  from  all of the  inter-
ested  agencies  were  brought together  to begin working  on the many
issues. Further investigation of groundwater quality showed the pres-
168ence of eight other pesticides.  Certain parts of the eastern end of Long
Island  have  had  extensive  water  treatment.  Consultants  have  pro-
posed  alternative  water  supply  plans.  Some  farmland  is  being  con-
verted  to  alternate  crops.  Basic  policies  about  future  protection  of
groundwater  on Long Island are currently under discussion.
The  finding of pesticides  in  Long Island  groundwater was  the  be-
ginning of a national  concern  about the  compatibility  of agriculture
and groundwater quality. There is a perception that many agricultural
chemicals  are present in groundwater.  Pesticides  are by nature toxic
and  are deliberately  applied  to the  soil.  Research  on  environmental
fate of agricultural  chemicals with respect to groundwater  is just be-
ginning.  A  National  Survey  of Pesticides  in  Groundwater  has been
proposed by USEPA's Office of Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide
Programs.  The focus  of the  survey  will be pesticides  in groundwater
as a result  of agricultural practices.  Samples will be taken from pri-
vate and public drinking water wells.
Even if the amounts of pesticides found in groundwater are minimal
and  not widespread,  there  is bound  to  be  concern when  anything  is
found.  If, on the other  hand, there  is widespread or (more likely)  sig-
nificant contamination  in hotspots, there will be major  questions raised
about  agricultural  practices  and  the  quality  of groundwater.  Policy
decisions  at all levels  will be  made,  and  cooperative  extension must
be prepared  to work with all sectors to resolve the issues.
Nitrates
A  very  specific  groundwater  contamination  problem  arose  in  the
small  rural village  (population 2,036)  of Clifton Springs,  New  York
[7].  The village had relied on  a series of 23 shallow wells for its water
for nearly  100  years. The wells are entirely  surrounded by active farms.
They were an adequate  and economical water supply.
From 1970 onward, sampling of the water supply showed increasing
amounts of nitrates, varying from  8 mg/l to as much as 20 mg/l.  (The
state and  federal  standard  is  10  mg/l).  In  1980 the New  York  State
Department  of Health (NYSDOH) directed the village  to correct this
situation by bringing the nitrate concentration  level down to the fed-
eral standard.
Ontario  County  Cooperative  Extension  became  involved at the  re-
quest of the regional office of NYSDOH, the mayor in the village, and
the  farmers  in the  vicinity.  The village  was  at odds  with  the  state,
and the farmers feared reprisal by state regulation or a lawsuit by the
village.
The  situation  posed:  a  possible  health  problem;  the  possibility  of
high  cost to the village if a new source of water had to be developed;
politically  damaging  confrontations  between  the  state,  village,  and
169farm  community; and  the possibility  of loss  of income to the  farmers
if more costly  practices had  to be adopted.
Cornell  Cooperative  Extension  became  involved because  of the ex-
pertise  available  in  agronomy,  the Water  Resource  Center,  and  the
Community  and  Rural  Development  Program.  The  Water  Resource
Center agreed  to make  a preliminary  study  of the  problem with the
village contributing the research costs. The local cooperative extension
staff attempted to facilitate an informational and educational program
for the community. They were immediately  involved  in a political sit-
uation since evidence  suggested fertilizer runoff was the primary source
of nitrate  contamination.  Although  the  ongoing  research  would  ex-
amine  several  potential  contamination  causes,  most  people  believed
agricultural  practices  would be the major contributing factor.
Cooperative extension's challenge was to keep the people focused on
learning facts,  forming no premature opinions  as to cause and effect,
and avoiding  debilitating  confrontations  between  villagers and  farm-
ers. The staff worked closely with the village mayor in forming an 18-
member citizen advisory committee comprised  of village residents and
concerned farmers. The goal of the committee was to advise the Cornell
researchers,  keep  the  village  and  farmers  informed,  and  submit  to
village  officials  recommendations  for  a  solution  to the  public  water
supply problem.
A Cornell extension/research  team from the College of Human Ecol-
ogy worked  with the  committee  to  ascertain  their concerns  and per-
ceptions of public information  and education needs.  Water customers
in the  village  had been notified  by mail  of high nitrate  levels  since
1978.  The Cornell team instituted a survey, which  included  a mailed
questionnaire  and  in-depth  interviews  in  10  percent  of the  village
households  [3].  The purpose  was to  assess the effectiveness  of notifi-
cation in influencing public knowledge  of the water problem,  the pub-
lic's  concerns, about  water  quality,  and  the  extent  of  the  public's
willingness  to pay to  correct the problem.
The  results  of the  survey  indicated  that  the  people  had  been  in-
formed about the problem and there was good understanding of it. The
Citizen's Advisory  Committee was effective  in aiding communication
particularly through its newsletter.  Those who most needed to  know
(parents  of infants  at  high  risk)  were  well-informed.  People  in  the
community were willing to pay for high quality water.
The final recommendations of the committee to the village included
a  short-term  solution,  i.e.  to  continue  to  buy water  from  a  nearby
village.  The  long-term  solution  recommended  was  an alternative  of-
fered by the Cornell research team, i.e. use of a wetland denitrification
system. The village  received  a grant from the United  States Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development  to attempt remedial  action.
Careful  work  by the  cooperative  extension  agricultural  agent and
170the regional field crop and livestock specialists from Cornell narrowed
most of the nitrate contribution to one farmer.  They persuaded him to
use different  fertilization practices  that have shown  good yields.  Fu-
ture aquifer contamination should be much less. The current contam-
ination may take as long as 25 years to be removed.
Organic Chemicals
Five counties  in the mid-Hudson  region  of New York  State began
major educational programs designed to address groundwater and haz-
ardous  waste  issues during  1983.  A  series of activities including  one
county's detailed inventory  of hazardous waste disposal  sites, projects
on inground  storage  tanks, road salting practices,  surface  waste  im-
poundments,  and the preparation  of a groundwater and surface water
atlas  had begun.  Using an  educational  intervention  strategy,  an  ad
hoc group - made up of educators  (including cooperative  extension),
agency personnel,  and citizen  leaders in the Hudson Valley - set for
itself a multiyear set of goals and began to implement an educational
program designed to bring to the region a greater awareness of water
resources and a broader understanding  of groundwater  issues [4].
The program consisted of the following phases:  1) yearlong seminar
series for  local  government  officials  and community  leaders,  2)  tech-
nical  workshops  for  county  and municipal  staff,  3)  preparation  and
distribution of two groundwater handbooks,  4) groundwater manage-
ment training for local government  and multitown  groups.
Thus far the beneficial  results have been that agencies  and profes-
sionals were not sidetracked,  threatened, or damaged;  the best avail-
able technical information and expertise were brought into discussions
of the issues;  a climate of trust and a willingness  to cooperate  on the
parts  of the  involved parties were  established;  involved  parties were
motivated to look for positive solutions;  and networks of local groups
and resource agencies  were organized.
Policy
The federal  government has authority over groundwater  through a
variety of statutes including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide  Act; the Resource  Conservation
and Recovery Act; the Toxic Substances  Control Act; the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response and Liability Act; and the Strip Mining
Conservation and Recovery Act.  The real policy issues with respect to
aquifer protection and water supplies are decided on the state and local
level.  State  and local  authorities are  responsible  for enforcing  many
of the federal laws and they set regulations that affect water resources.
Regulations on the state and local level that affect aquifer protection
include  pesticide  use, wastewater  discharge,  landfills,  industrial  sit-
ing, storage  of road salt, residential development,  and  zoning.  Regu-
171lations  that affect  water  supplies  include  drinking  water standards,
well  closings,  alternate water sources,  notification  of contamination,
and treatment options.
The decisions  that must be made require public health, technologi-
cal,  and  economic  input.  Often there  is  significant  controversy.  But
with  carefully  designed  educational  programs  such  success  can  be
achieved.  In each  of the  case  studies  presented,  a  program  was put
into place that helped to resolve  issues in a reasonable manner.  Some
of the  common  aspects  of these  programs  will  be  presented  in  the
following  section.
Educational Programming
The  purposes  of public  policy  initiatives  in water  quality  can  be
summarized  as follows:  to act as  a catalyst to resolve  issues through
compromise, to provide understanding of complex water quality issues,
to help clarify responsibilities  of parties  involved, and to conduct the
process early, before mediation,  negotiation,  or litigation.
Some of the groups that can  be involved  include  local  government
(key leaders),  regulatory  agencies,  the agricultural  sector,  the indus-
trial sector,  environmental  groups, homeowners,  and outside experts.
A strategy  must be  developed,  and  a program  tailored  for a  given
situation must be defined.  The purpose  of this workshop  is to use the
experience  of the  public policy  experts and  the information  provided
by the  two speakers to  devise  some common outline  for public policy
education  on water quality issues related to groundwater.
REFERENCES
[1]  Cotruvo, J.A.  and  C.  Vogt.  "Development  of Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations."  J.
Am.  Water Works Assn.,  no.  11  (Nov.  1984), pp. 34-38.
[2]  Guerrera,  A.A.  "Chemical Contamination  of Aquifers on Long Island, New York." J. Am.  Water
Works Assn.,  no. 6 (June,  1981), pp. 190-199.
[3]  Lemley,  A.T., J.  Fessenden-Raden,  C.A.  Bisogni,  and  J.M.  Holway.  "Nitrate  Contamination:
Public Awareness." J. Am. Water Works Assn., no.  2 (Feb.  1985),  pp. 34-39.
[41  Shaw,  C.P.  and J.E.  Ashton. Intervention Strategies for Addressing Community Groundwater
Problems and Hazardous Waste Issues. Ithaca  NY:  Cornell  Cooperative  Extension,  Community
Resource  Development,  1984.
[5]  Stover,  E.L. and D.F.  Kincannon.  "Contaminated  Groundwater Treatability - A  Case  Study."
J. Am. Water Works Assn., no. 6  (June, 1983),  pp. 292-298.
[6]  Temple,  Barker & Sloane,  Inc.  Point-of-Use Treatment for Compliance with Drinking Water
Standards. Lisle IL: Water  Quality Association,  1983.
[71  Wacenske, C. and  R. Lightfoote. A  Case Study of Cooperative  Extension's Involvement in Clifton
Springs. Ithaca  NY:  Cornell  University  Cooperative  Extension,  Community  Resource  Develop-
ment, 1984.
172

Chemical Contamination of Aquifers on Long Island,

WATER QUALITY - EVERYONE'S PROBLEM

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics