ARTICLE INDEX
Volume 3, Number 3
June 1993

DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Contaminants in drinking water always are cause for concern. However, it is important to distinguish between the acute and chronic effects of harmful substances.

Acute Effects
Acute effects appear shortly after ingestion of contaminated water, usually within several weeks. They usually appear soon after exposure to a toxic substance. For example, a farmer who accidentally spills a pesticide may soon suffer nausea, dizziness, and vomiting.

In Idaho and the rest of the nation the most commonly detected drinking water problem is bacterial contamination caused by improper well construction and maintenance. Bacterial contamination is a common cause of acute toxicity, producing symptoms as mild as upset stomach and diseases as serious as dysentery, typhoid fever, and hepatitis. Household cleaners and garden chemicals are other examples of contaminants that can produce acute effects.

Chronic Effects
Chronic effects appear after longer incubation periods, possibly even after a number of years. Chronic effects result from exposure to a substance over weeks or years. For example, a coal miner who breathes traces of coal dust for many years may later develop serious respiratory problems.

Over time, some drinking water contaminants can damage the liver, kidneys, heart, and other body organs. Health officials are almost always concerned about chronic effects of drinking-water contaminants such as low-level nitrates, radon, and volatile organic chemicals. Such effects may include cancer or damage to the central nervous system.

Drinking Water Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for drinking water fall into two categories -- primary standards and secondary standards.

Primary Standards
Primary standards are based on health considerations and are enforced by the EPA. They protect you from three classes of toxic pollutants: pathogens, radioactive elements, and toxic chemicals. Primary standards set a limit, called the maximum contamination level (MCL), on the highest allowable concentration of a contaminant in drinking water supplied by municipal water systems. The MCL is usually expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/l), which is the same as parts per million (ppm).

Secondary Standards
Secondary standards cover contaminants that cause offensive taste, odor, color, corrosivity, foaming, and staining. The concentration limit is called the secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL). Secondary standards are not enforced. They only provide guidelines for water treatment plant operators and state governments attempting to provide communities with the best possible water quality.

Idaho Standards
The state of Idaho has established water quality standards that are based on the actual or intended use of water. These uses include domestic, agricultural and recreational uses, and use for aquatic organisms.

Contaminants or potential contaminants covered by Idaho regulations include hazardous, deleterious, and radioactive materials; floating, suspended, or submerged matter; excess nutrients; oxygen-demanding materials; and sediment. Standards for Idaho water quality are established and enforced by the Division of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. While existing standards help ensure safe water, standards do not exist for many additional contaminants.

• Idaho drinking water standards do not apply to individual water systems, only to community water systems serving 10 or more residences or 25 people.
• Idaho drinking water standards are established based on current knowledge to provide a reasonable assurance that water will not cause health problems. They cannot always guarantee zero risk.
• Idaho drinking water standards can be made less or more restrictive in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act to meet specific water conditions at a particular site.

Idaho standards for domestic water supplies.

Substance	Maximum allowable concentration
	(mg/l or ppm)
Arsenic	0.050
Barium	1.000
Cadmium	0.010
Chromium	0.050
Fluoride*
Degrees up to 12.0 C (54 F)	2.400
12 C (55 F) -- 15 C (58 F)	2.200
15 C (59 F) -- 18 C (64 F)	2.000
18 C (65 F) -- 21 C (71 F)	1.800
22 C (72 F) -- 26 C (79 F)	1.600
26 C (80 F) -- 32 C (90 F)	1.400
Lead	0.050
Mercury	0.002
Nitrate (as N)	10.000
Selenium	0.010
Silver	0.050
Endrin	0.0002
Lindane	0.004
Methoxychlor	0.100
Sodium	No maximum established; 20 suggested as optimum
Toxaphene	0.005
Trihalomethanes	0.100
2,4-D	0.100
2,4,5-TP Silvex	0.010
Coliform bacteria	2 per hundred milliliter (ml) for any individual sample
Turbidity	5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) for any individual sample

* As determined by the average annual maximum daily air temperature for the area where the water is to be used.

BLUE THUMB BLOOPER
Taking a shortcut and using the hot water tap when cooking. That's taboo, and it can shortcut your health. Lead can dissolve into hot water from lead pipes and solder. Cold water is better. Heat it on the stove when cooking or making baby formula.

NITROGEN FERTILIZER USE PATTERNS IN SW IDAHO
Tim Stieber, University of Idaho Water Quality agent, conducted a survey of current grower nitrogen fertilizer management practices in the Idaho Snake-Payette Hydrologic Unit Water Quality Project (HUA). The Snake-Payette HUA comprises over 840,000 acres in Canyon, Gem, Payette, and Washington counties in southwestern Idaho. Nitrate-N is the most common pollutant detected in groundwater in the Snake-Payette HUA and across the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standard for nitrate-N of 10 parts per million (ppm) is exceeded by between 5 to 8 percent of the wells in the Snake-Payette HUA. Nitrogen fertilizer applied to cropland in the region is the primary suspected source of nitrates in local groundwater.

The specific objectives of this survey were:

• Determine the quantity of N used on important crops in the HUA.
• Determine the use of N BMPs such as soil testing, tissue testing, split applications, etc. on selected crops.
• Involve industry and agency personnel who commonly make N management decisions or supply N fertilizer to growers.
• Collect data that will help to prioritize educational and implementation efforts over the remaining years of the HUA.

Thirty-five local fieldmen and representatives of 19 private companies actively participated in this survey. Data were collected by using both grower interviews and field records. The data collected in 1992 covered 13,000 acres of cropland, which represented 3.6 percent of the irrigated acres in the HUA.

Basis for fertilizer application. A major goal of the survey was to determine a farmer's basis for applying N to a field. Both soil sampling and tissue sampling for analysis as a basis for applying nitrogen fertilizer to crops are considered BMPs that help protect groundwater quality. Soil and/or plant tissue samples are used as a basis for applying N on 55 percent of the acreage surveyed. Nitrogen recommendations are based on soil samples only on 33 percent of the acreage, while both soil and tissue sampling are used on 19 percent of the acreage.

The selected crops had a major impact on the likelihood of using soil and/or plant diagnosis as a means of determining the N fertilizer application rate. Virtually all of the potato, onion, and sugarbeet acreage used soil or plant tissue diagnosis for N management. Conversely, only 25 percent of the cereal acreage (wheat and barley) was soil tested. The likelihood of testing was related to the economic value of the crop.

Expense did not appear to be the primary reason for a lack of soil testing on 45 percent of the surveyed acreage. On the contrary, in these situations 88 percent of the growers felt that soil sampling was not necessary. This is contradicted by the fact that higher yields were reported for growers using soil testing for five of the six crops evaluated. Expense and the practicality of using soil sampling do not appear to be major sampling obstacles for the farmers interviewed.

Nitrogen application rates. The amount of N applied to farmland in the HUA is crop dependent. Average N application rates on onions, mint, potatoes, and sugarbeets are 297, 248, 204, and 187 lb/acre, respectively. Nitrogen application rates on cereals average 131 lb/acre. Nitrogen applications on legume crops (beans, alfalfa, and clover) were less than 100 lb/acre.

The average rate of N applied to cropland in the HUA was 108 lb/acre in 1991. The average ranged from 45 lb N/acre for legumes to 240 lb N/acre for shallow rooted high value crops (onions, potatoes, and mint). Deep rooted perennials (orchards and hops) and deep rooted annual crops (sugarbeets, small grains, and corn) were intermediate with application rates of 135 to 175 lb N/acre.

Approximately 32 percent of cropland in the HUA received less than 50 lb N/acre. This reflects the relatively large acreage of alfalfa. Eighteen percent of the cropland received more than 200 lb N/acre.

Split application of nitrogen. Nitrogen fertilizer is most likely to be applied as split applications on potatoes, mint, and onions. The fact that these crops are shallow rooted and that existing water management often creates leaching conditions for nitrates has resulted in an average of 3 to 5 applications of N on these crops. Conversely, split applications of N on corn, sugarbeets, and grains are less common.

Irrigation effect on N use. The two major types of irrigation systems -- furrow and sprinkler -- had an effect on the quantity of N fertilizer applied to some crops. The greatest observed differences were in mint where growers applied an average of 120 pounds more N per acre with furrow irrigation than with sprinklers. Nitrogen applications under furrow irrigation were 43 and 29 pounds per acre greater than with sprinklers in sugarbeet and small grain production, respectively. Only with potatoes did N use appear to be the same under both types of irrigation systems.

The results of this survey will allow targeted development of education and implementation programs to improve N use in the Snake-Payette HUA. A brochure on the results of this survey is available at no charge. You can request a copy of brochure WQ-17 by writing to the editor of WATER QUALITY UPDATE.

IFB WELLHEAD SURVEY: FREMONT COUNTY
On April 7, 1993, Fremont County became the 15th county in Idaho to take part in the wellhead survey program coordinated by the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation (IFB). Although this program was coordinated by the IFB it was truly a cooperative effort as five different government agencies and the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation united to make the program a success. The Idaho Department of Agriculture (IDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Health District 7, and the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System (UI-CES) assisted with program logistics, sample bottle distribution, and dissemination of information. The University of Idaho College of Agriculture's Analytical Laboratory (UI-AL) had major roles in planning and designing the quality assurance phase of the analytical part of the program and analyzed all samples for nitrates. The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) designed the quality assurance plan for the field effort, the questionnaire, and sampling procedures for the public. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) also participated in this study.

Quality control in this sampling project was the top priority. Blind spiked samples and blanks were randomly dispersed with farmer-provided samples to assure top quality. In addition, in some cases, duplicate farm wellhead samples were included. Nitrates were determined on water samples by the UI-AL in Moscow. After collection, a preservative was added to the sample before shipment to Moscow. Samples were run in the laboratory within 72 hours after collection. The most modern analytical techniques and equipment were used in this operation. A high degree of confidence should be placed on the numbers obtained from these samples.

In Fremont County 117 private wellhead samples were collected from farmers and rural residents. Eleven percent of the sampled wells in Fremont county contained nitrate-N levels greater than 10 ppm, which is the National Public Health Service drinking water standard. Fifty percent of the wells had nitrate-N levels above 2.0 ppm; 23 percent contained nitrate-N values between 2.0 and 4.9 ppm; and 27 percent of the wells had values of 5.0 ppm or greater.

A total of 1,966 samples from private wells and 1,195 control and quality assurance samples have now been collected from 15 Idaho counties. Over the next 12 months this program will be brought to several more counties. UI-CES has and will continue to prepare county by county brochures that provide the data from each sampling event as they occur. Brochures can be obtained directly from the individual county Extension offices.

NON-FARM PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT WATER QUALITY AND CHEMICAL USE
A survey of the attitudes of the non-farm public toward water quality and chemical use was conducted in 1992 in Cassia and Minidoka counties as part of the Interagency Snake River Plain Water Quality Demonstration Project. One hundred seventy eight non-farm residents responded to the survey conducted by Stacy Camp, former water quality Extension agent with the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain water quality attitudes by the non-farm population in an area of the state where agriculture dominates the local economy. This survey was completed by volunteers who attended fairs in Cassia and Minidoka counties. Even though this was not a statistically random survey, it provides interesting and useful information. The results of this survey will enable Extension to determine the educational needs of the public and to formulate an education plan. The results reported below represent only a small portion of the actual questions asked in the survey.

Of the 178 respondents, 48 percent lived within community city limits in Cassia and Minidoka counties, while the remaining 52 percent could be classified as rural non-farm. The respondents were asked a series of questions to identify the types of contaminants that cause drinking water pollution and with whom they consult when drinking water problems occur.

The non-farm public chose corrosive pipes (47%) and changes in water table levels (48%) most often as likely sources of drinking water contamination. Next in frequency were chemicals applied by farmers (35%), chemicals applied by the urban public (31%), industrial waste (24%), and animal/dairy waste (16%).

When asked who would be consulted if a water quality problem were suspected, many respondents answered that more than one person and/or agencies would be consulted. The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality/Health District was by far the most frequently cited source of information (49%). Next in frequency were the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System (30%), the Soil Conservation Service (24%), a neighbor (7%), and a physician (7%). Fifteen percent responded "other" which included city water works and private laboratories.

A series of questions was asked to determine the non-farm publics' attitudes toward fertilizer and pesticide use. The questions posed to the respondents and their answers are shown in the table below. An important finding of this survey is that 57 percent of the respondents believe that farmers handle pesticides in a way that damages water quality. In addition, two-thirds of those surveyed do not think that pesticides have extended human longevity and improved the quality of human life. The answers found in the pesticide related questions suggest that a significant portion of the non-farm public is concerned about the hazards of pesticide use by farmers. Since agriculture dominates the economies of Cassia and Minidoka counties it should be expected that the non-farm public is generally supportive of agriculture. One could suspect that the non-farm public's view of pesticide handling and use would be even more negative in a more urban environment where agriculture is not as important to the overall economy of an area.

The responses to the fertilizer use questions were less negative. Only 34 percent of the public thought that farmers apply too much fertilizer to their land. In contrast, 40 percent said that urban homeowners apply too much fertilizer to their property. Although the respondents recognize that over-application of nitrogen fertilizers may contaminate groundwater with nitrates, they appear to be much more fearful of groundwater contamination by pesticides.

The survey results suggest that the non-farm public does not consider animal wastes as a serious water quality problem. But in fact, most state agencies perceive animal wastes as a potentially greater problem to drinking water than commercial fertilizer or pesticides.

The results of this survey suggest that a fairly high portion of the urban public does not believe that the agricultural sector safely uses agrichemicals. If this distrust is warranted the agricultural sector must improve both the way it handles and uses agrichemicals. If, on the other hand, the non-farm distrust of agrichemicals is unwarranted it is also up to the agricultural community to demonstrate that it uses chemicals wisely, effectively, and efficiently through a convincing educational effort.

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE BMP APPROACH ON FARMS
(This is the fourth in a series of four articles on agricultural BMPs)
Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or reduce pollution. BMPs include structural and nonstructural controls as well as operation and maintenance procedures. They can be used in varying combinations to prevent or control pollution from a particular nonpoint source.

Developed by environmental and agricultural agencies, the BMP approach is a means of addressing nonpoint-source problems in a manner compatible with the traditional, voluntary approach to resource management -- an approach that has failed to produce significant national reductions in nonpoint-source pollution.

Environmental pollution has been a major issue not of the agricultural community but rather of environmental groups with a generally urban base. It should not be surprising, then, that BMPs have not been accepted widely by the agricultural community, particularly in the absence of cost-sharing or a clear economic advantage for the practice.

Resources should be directed to problem areas where BMPs will have the greatest long-term impact. Farmers must be motivated through education, technical assistance, cost-sharing when necessary, and some regulatory sanctions to address agricultural pollution problems. Farmers' concerns for groundwater protection will be greater than for surface water because farm families are worried about contamination of their own wells. Education programs should focus on this critical factor.

There are a number of benefits to voluntary adoption of BMPs. They are more acceptable to farmers, they offer more flexibility for site-specific conditions and farmers' abilities to adopt them, and they do not require the level of enforcement of a strictly regulatory approach. The farming community has argued that, for agriculture, the voluntary approach is more appropriate than regulations. Unlike less competitive industries, farmers generally are less able to pass on to consumers the increased production costs incurred due to pollution abatement. Also, regulations differ from state to state, or even among local areas. When farmers from various states or areas compete in the same markets, those in more strictly regulated areas may have to endure the economic hardship of absorbing increased costs.

Furthermore, application of a regulatory approach to nonpoint-source pollution problems has the significant problem of identifying both measurable, enforceable water quality standards and the resources needed to monitor compliance on millions of acres of agricultural land. Yet, despite the appeal of the BMP approach to nonpoint-source agricultural pollution abatement, the lack of significant adoption of these practices in the 15 years since they were proposed suggests that other measures must be considered if water quality benefits are to be realized.

There are currently two 5-year federally funded projects in Idaho that have the purpose of accelerating the transfer of BMP technology necessary to protect both ground and surface waters. These projects will allow the government to evaluate the relative success of voluntary BMP use by growers. One of the projects is located in Cassia and Minidoka counties and is called the Idaho Snake River Plain Demonstration Project. The other project, known as the Idaho Snake-Payette Rivers Hydrologic Unit Project, is located in Canyon, Gem, Payette, and Washington counties.
(Adapted from Groundwater and Public Policy, Series No. 5 by T. J. Logan)

EPA REGION 10 DEVELOPS STREAMWALK PROGRAM
Volunteer monitoring is becoming an increasingly widespread route for lay people to get involved in management of their local waters. By tapping the pool of enthusiastic volunteer workers, federal, state, and local agencies can educate residents and promote stewardship. Region 10's Streamwalk program for its four states (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Alaska) can serve as a model for those planning monitoring programs in other areas of the country.

The Streamwalk program is an educational program that allows people to understand and learn from what they see in a stream area. It is also a tool that citizens and students can use to monitor the health and condition of a stream. Finally, it is a simple and basic method to collect physical data to submit to EPA for inclusion in the regional stream condition trend database. EPA analyzes the submitted data and returns a stream health index report to the volunteer Streamwalker.

The process for completing a Streamwalk is simple and direct. After locating the stream site and section on a topographic map and determining that location's longitude and latitude, the volunteer Streamwalker begins to respond to the 11 stream description questions in the Streamwalk manual. The manual's survey form includes a series of land-use and riparian condition questions. The rationale and meaning of each information point is clearly described in the manual. Region 10 has developed a training video as a companion resource to the manual. This lively tape, starring members of David Douglas High School ecology club in Portland, Oregon, introduces the Streamwalk concept and assists volunteers in completing their first streamwalk.

By using the Streamwalk program, local governments, conservation districts, educators, nonprofit organizations, and the public gain a sense of stewardship and knowledge of their local stream resources. Outstanding examples of local implementation are provided by the city governments in Bellevue and Olympia, Washington. Both cities sponsor "Stream Teams." Area volunteers are recruited and trained in stream ecology and water quality issues, and then gather data for their education, information, and for use by local officials.

Schools and educational districts help implement Streamwalk programs. Using the "Streamwalk Teachers' Guide," teachers lead students, fifth grade and higher, in learning about factors and indicators of water quality, the importance of streams, and the role they can play in collecting trend data. The largest Streamwalk education program has been developed by the University of Idaho. Coordinated by the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute (IWRRI), Project Idaho WET, a state K-12 water education curriculum, includes the Streamwalk activity. Educators have also enhanced the education program with computers to electronically link students within watersheds, enabling them to compare Streamwalk data and share results.

Individuals not connected with an organized program are also important Streamwalk participants. People with special concern or knowledge of a stream monitor and accumulate data, assisting EPA, and assuring that threats to stream health will not go unnoticed.

Within Region 10, Streamwalk is designed for implementation at the local level. Region 10 has defined and limited its implementation role to providing support and information not readily available elsewhere within the region. Region 10 does not recruit volunteers, provide promotion and publicity materials, nor assign technical staff to investigate potential problems discovered by Streamwalkers. The region is firmly committed to the concept that the program is best implemented at the local level.

Booklets and teacher manuals are printed and distributed free of charge. Because of EPA's advanced computer capability, the database and the developing GTS system are kept within the regional office. The database program is freely shared with any regional entity having an adequate computer capability. Streamwalk Index reports are generated in the Region 10 office and returned to the surveyor.
(EPA NPS News-Notes, April 1993)

WHAT WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES CAUSE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION?
(This is the first in a series of articles on the causes of groundwater contamination)
Contaminants can enter groundwater from more than 30 different generic sources related to human activities. These sources commonly are referred to as either point or nonpoint sources. Point sources are localized in areas of an acre or less, whereas nonpoint sources are dispersed over broad areas.

The most common sources of human-induced groundwater contamination can be grouped into four categories: waste disposal practices; storage and handling of materials and wastes; agricultural activities; and saline water intrusion.

Perhaps the best-known sources of groundwater contamination are associated with the storage or disposal of liquid and solid wastes. The organic substances most frquently reported in groundwater as resulting from waste disposal in decreasing order of occurrence, are:

• trichloroethylene (TCE)
• chloroform
• benzene
• pentachlorophenol
• tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
• creosote
• phenolic compounds
• 1,1,1-trichloroethane
• toluene
• xylene

• septic systems
• municipal and industrial landfills
• surface impoundments
• waste-injection wells
• direct application of stabilized wastes to the land

Septic systems. Septic systems are the largest source by volume of waste discharged to the land. These systems are sources of bacteria, viruses, nitrate, phosphorus, chloride, and organic substances, including organic solvents such as trichloroethylene that are sold commercially to "clean" the systems.

In 1980, about 22 million domestic disposal systems were in operation, and about one-half million new systems are installed each year. It is estimated that from one-third to one-half of existing systems could be operating improperly because of poor location, design, construction, or maintenance practices.

Even when operating properly, systems can be spaced so densely that their discharge exceeds the capacity of the local soil to assimilate the pollutant loads. Because the 10- to 15-year design life of many septic systems built during the 1960s and 1970s is now exceeded, groundwater contamination caused by septic system failure probably will increase in the future.

Landfills. About 150 million tons of municipal solid waste and 240 million tons of industrial solid waste are deposited in 16,400 landfills each year. Some hazardous waste material may be deposited in municipal landfills and underlying groundwater may become contaminated. Wastes deposited at industrial landfills include a large assortment of trace metals, acids, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides, which may cause significant local contamination.

Surface impoundments. Surface impoundments are used to store, treat, or dispose of oil and gas brines, acidic mine waste, industrial wastes (mainly liquids), animal wastes, municipal treatment plant sludges, and cooling water. For the most part, these impoundments contain nonhazardous wastes; however, hazardous wastes are known to be treated, stored, and disposed of by 400 facilities involving about 3,200 impoundments. Some of these impoundments have significant potential for contaminating groundwater.

Injection wells. In some parts of the country, including Idaho, injection wells dispose of liquid wastes underground. Of particular concern is the widespread use of drainage wells to dispose of urban stormwater runoff and irrigation drainage. Contaminants associated with drainage wells include suspended sediments, dissolved solids, bacteria, sodium, chloride, nitrate, phosphate, lead, and organic compounds including pesticides.

Land application of wastes. In many places, solid and liquid wastes are placed or sprayed on the land, commonly after treatment and stabilization. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that more than 7 million dry tons of sludge from at least 2,463 publicly owned waste treatment plants are applied to about 11,900 parcels of land each year. Groundwater contamination can occur from improper land-disposal techniques.
(Adapted from Groundwater and Public Policy, Series No. 3 by D. W. Moody, USGS)

BLUE THUMB BASICS FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES
1. Know your drinking water. Learn the source of your water supply. Write your water supplier and request the list and schedule of water quality tests required by the EPA. Study local well codes and ask your county health department for assistance before you drill a new well. Always hire a licensed driller for water well drilling and pump installation.

2. Test your well. There are more than 13 million wells supplying drinking water to people in the U.S. -- most wells produce safe drinking water, but contamination can occur. If you have a well, have it regularly tested for contamination. The fact that a neighbor's well tests safe does not mean that your well is safe. Overloaded septic systems may be a source of well contamination. Ask your county health department for assistance.

3. Plug abandoned wells. Identify the abandoned water wells in your area or on your property and have them plugged by a licensed well driller. An open, abandoned well can draw contaminants directly from the surface into the aquifer below. In the past, some abandoned wells have been used for waste disposal.

4. Septic system maintenance. If you have a septic system, pump it out every 1 to 3 years. Do not flush grease, caustics, and non-biodegradable materials into the system. Before installing a new septic system, read local code requirements. Have your system installed by a licensed individual. Do not use septic tank cleaners. They are not needed and can prove harmful.

5. Yank that tank. Those old rusty underground storage tanks for oil and gasoline have become a menace. Federal law requires that abandoned underground storage tanks be removed from the ground and that leaking tanks must be replaced. If you have an underground tank on your property, have it checked for leaks.

6. Healthy farming and gardening. Pesticides and fertilizers leach down through the soil and into the groundwater below. If you farm or garden, apply the best livestock manure management practices available and test the soil to avoid over-application of fertilizers. Follow label recommendations for proper pesticide application. Do not apply chemicals if heavy rain is forecast. Learn about IPM (Integrated Pest Management). Contact your County Extension Office for further information.

7. Reduce, reuse, recycle. These are the three R's for those who are environmentally conscious. By molding our lifestyles after these three words, we can help prevent contamination of our groundwater resources. Remember, what goes into our garbage goes into our ground, and what goes into our ground goes into our groundwater.

8. Buy recycled products. Unless we demand recycled products there will not be a market for them. To strengthen the market, request recycled products at the local grocery store. Products made from recycled materials use only about half as much energy to produce. Paper made from recycled fibers reduces air pollution, saves trees, and creates five times as many jobs as paper made from virgin wood. Ask your local store to carry recycled products.

9. Become a green consumer. You can buy products that do not tax the environment or push toxins into your groundwater. A green product is one that has environmentally sound contents or is wrapped in environmentally sound packaging. Buy in bulk. Buy the economy size. Take your grocery bags back for a second trip. By becoming a green consumer you will save money by not purchasing packaging you will throw away as soon as you get home. SAY NO! to products that are over-packaged.

MORE BLUE THUMB BLOOPERS
Waiting a week to fix a leak. Assume little leaks only waste a little water? You can lose up to 200 gallons of water a day from a leaking toilet. And a faucet can drip 604,800 drops while you're waiting.

Slipping used motor oil into a storm sewer or burying it in the trash. Hey slick, oil can leach into lakes, rivers, and wells. Just one pint can expand over an acre of water. Take your used oil to a recycling center.

Failing to check for the recycled mark on paper before buying it. Still think recycled paper only helps trees? Recycled paper reduces water pollution from paper production by 35 percent. It saves water too -- 7,000 gallons for every ton of paper.

Using electricity as if it didn't affect water. It's time to shed some light on this. It takes more than 130 billion gallons of water a day to generate electricity in the U.S. Conserving energy is conserving water.

Thinking you can't make a difference. It's never a blooper to take a stand for clean water, through your actions and through your words. So put your Blue Thumb knowledge to work and give drinking water a hand every day.

Comments to webmistress: karenl@uidaho.edu

All contents copyright © 1997-2003.
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho.
All rights reserved.

Revised: January 3, 2003

URL: http://www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqu/wqu33.html