ARTICLE INDEX
Volume 5, Number 1
March 1995

SHOULD YOU HAVE YOUR WATER TESTED?
Whether to have your water tested is a serious question that concerns your health and that of your family. Your water should be safe to drink and acceptable for all other household uses. Contaminated water can cause illness and perhaps even death. In addition, a variety of less serious problems such as bad taste, off-color, odor, and staining of clothes or fixtures are symptoms of water quality problems.

Even water that appears problem-free and crystal clear may not be safe or acceptable. Even so, not all people need to test their water. Testing for all possible contaminants is impractical and unnecessary.

Public vs. Private Water Supplies. Many homeowners get water by turning on the faucet and making a monthly payment to a municipal or other local water system. They use public water supplies in which single households are connected to the same water system. Public systems draw water from rivers, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells.

In private systems, individuals or individual households provide their own systems. Most private drinking water comes from wells, sometimes from springs, and ponds.

If your water comes from a public water system, it is tested regularly for contaminants that are covered by federal and state standards. These contaminants include pathogens (coliform bacteria), radioactive elements, and certain toxic chemicals. However, some public water supplies may have water quality problems caused by inadequate treatment facilities or distribution systems. Some rural water supply districts do not have enough money to hire trained specialists or to comply immediately with expanding government requirements. In addition, corrosive water or deteriorating household pipes may add contaminants to drinking water after it enters the house.

If your drinking water comes from your own well, you alone are responsible for ensuring its safety. Routine testing for a few of the most common contaminants is highly recommended. Even if your water supply currently is pure and safe, regular testing can be valuable because it establishes a record of water quality. This record can be helpful in solving any future problems and in establishing or assessing damages to your water supply.

Testing Private Water Supplies. The following testing frequencies are guidelines. Test more often if you suspect a problem with the quality of your water supply.

• Once each year, test for coliform bacteria, nitrate, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The best times to test for these contaminants are during spring or summer following a rainy period. These tests also should be conducted after repairing or replacing an old well or pipes and after installing a new pump.
• Every 3 years, test for sulfate, chloride, iron, manganese, lead, hardness, and corrosion index.
• If a new baby is expected in the household, it is a good idea to test for nitrate in the early months of pregnancy, before bringing the infant home and again during the first 6 months of the baby's life.
• Special situations--Where you live, and what is next to where you live, can sometimes affect the quality of your water. If someone in your family becomes ill or if the taste, odor, or color of your water changes, your water supply may be contaminated.

Collecting Test Samples. Most testing laboratories or services provide their own sample containers. Use the containers and carefully follow the laboratory's instructions for collecting, preserving, and handling water samples. Samples for coliform bacteria testing must be collected in sterile containers under sterile conditions. Some collection procedures call for water to run from an inside tap for several minutes before you fill the sample containers. Other instructions ask you to collect samples in the morning, after water has been confined in the pipes overnight. Samples should arrive at a laboratory within 24 hours of collection.

Laboratories may sometimes send a trained technician to collect the sample or to analyze the sample in your home. Ask if this service is available. You may obtain better samples and therefore more reliable test results.

Record all your water test results as a reference for future testing. Even slight changes in contaminant concentrations are good indicators of new water problems. By comparing recent test results with past results, you may discover you need a change in treatment or that a treatment device is working poorly.

Contact your local health district or Extension office for additional information on available local testing services.

KNOW YOUR WATERSHED CAMPAIGN
What do the American Farm Bureau Federation, Alpha Zeta Fraternity, the World Wildlife Fund, and the American Planning Association have in common? All are among more than 45 "National Partners" who have signed on to a new campaign to encourage the agricultural community's local watershed management efforts.

The campaign motivates local agricultural leaders to develop private-public partnerships to identify specific problems and promote sustainable natural resources within their watersheds. Such locally led planning efforts have great flexibility for solving natural resource problems and may reduce the need for regulation.

Says Bob Wayland, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Oceans, Wetlands, and Watersheds: "The campaign recognizes that the source of the problems is not limited to agriculture, and that solutions must be found by working within local watersheds to identify all pollution sources and take action in concert with all stakeholders in the watershed."

Coordinated by the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), Know Your Watershed provides tools to help local residents and landowners establish grassroots watershed partnerships. When CTIC receives requests for information and assistance from local watershed groups, its sends "Watershed Alerts" to the network of national partners, who provide assistance through their local affiliates. Already, over 500 individuals and groups have requested help in networking with other local groups and motivating stakeholders.

Know Your Watershed is producing a series of guides for local watershed partnerships. The guides include:

• "Getting to Know Your Local Watershed"
• "Building Local Partnerships"
• "Leading and Communicating"
• "Managing Conflict"
• "Putting Together a Watershed Plan"
• "Carrying Out a Watershed Plan"
• "Guide to Information and Resources"

The media are playing a major role in the initiative, and consequently information has already reached more than 4.2 million farmers and ranchers. Successful Farming, Farm Journal, Progressive Farmer, and other major farm publications support the initiative, and local TV stations are airing a video promoting the watershed approach.
(EPA News-Notes)

Farmers and Ranchers: Test your friendliness toward your watershed.

CTIC Scorecard for Farmers and Ranchers
All Americans are concerned about their environment. However, we sometimes overlook many things that have a potential effect on water quality. The following questions offer the opportunity to build or confirm your level of awareness about the watershed in which you live.
	If you pressure rinse and recycle your plastic agrichemical containers, give yourself 20 points. Add 10 points if you use returnable containers or dissolvable packaging.
	If you calibrate your spray equipment at least once a year, +10 points. For each additional time you calibrate your equipment each year, +5 points.
	If you use realistic yield goals when figuring fertilizer requirements for crops, +10 points. If you don't give fertilizer credits for manure and legumes, -10 points.
	If you mix or load chemicals and fertilizers within 200 feet of a well or waterbody, -10 points.
	If you collect and recycle used motor oil, +10 points. If you dump or spread used oil to control road dust, -10 points.
	If you scout your fields for pests (insects or weeds) before you apply pesticides, +10 points.
	If you have written a letter or placed a phone call in the past year to a legislator or public official about your watershed, +20 points.
	If you are a member or active in an agricultural or natural resource organization, +10 points. If you support educational programs for youth, +10 points.
	If you have been actively involved in a land use issue in your watershed over the last year, +20 points.
	Total

Scoring: 90 and over: You are a good friend to your watershed. 70-89: You are aware and working hard for your watershed. 40-69: You could do more for your watershed. Less than 40 points: You need to become more aware of your watershed. To order additional copies of this scorecard contact: Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Phone: (317) 494-9555 FAX (317) 494-5969

Rural and Suburban Landowners: Test your friendliness toward your watershed.

CTIC Scorecard for Rural and Suburban Landowners
All Americans are concerned about their environment. However, we sometimes overlook many things that have a potential effect on water quality. The following questions offer the opportunity to build or confirm your level of awareness about the watershed in which you live. What is a Watershed? A watershed is a geographic area that contains a common outlet, such as a stream, river, lake, or wetland, into which water drains.
	If you know where the surface water runoff from your property goes, give yourself 10 points. Add 10 points if you know the stream, river, wetland, or lake into which the surface water flows. Why? Because you know your watershed address!
	If you have a septic tank and/or drinking water well, and know where they are located, +10 points. If they are within 100 feet of each other, -10 points.
	If you collect and recycle used motor oil, +10 points. For each of the following you recycle: plastic, paper, glass, and metal, +5 points.
	If you practice any type of composting, +20 points.
	If you have written a letter or placed a phone call in the past year to a legislator or public official concerning your watershed, +20 points.
	If you are active in a landowner or stakeholder organization, +10 points.
	If you have participated in a household hazardous waste recycling program, +10 points.
	If you have been actively involved in a land use issue in your watershed over the last year, +20 points.
	Total

Scoring: 90 and over: You are a good friend to your watershed. 70-89: You are aware and working hard for your watershed. 40-69: You could do more for your watershed. Less than 40 points: You need to become more aware of your watershed. To order additional copies of this scorecard contact: Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Phone: (317) 494-9555 FAX (317) 494-5969

Idahoans: Test your ecological quotient below.

What is Your Ecological Quotient (EQ)?
Many Americans are concerned about the environment. However, it's sometimes easy to overlook activities that we can perform to have a positive impact on the environment. The following quiz is designed to test your Ecological Quotient (EQ). See how well you score.
	Do you recycle your glass, plastic jugs, tin cans, motor oil, paper, or aluminum? Give yourself 10 points for each one you recycle. Subtract 5 points if you recycle none.
	If you have donated money to an environmental cause or organization in the last year, +10 points.
	If you littered in any way, -10 points.
	If you wrote a letter to a legislator or other public official regarding an environmental issue, +15 points, two or more letters, +25 points. If you didn't write any letters, -5 points.
	If you car pool, ride the bus, or bike on a regular basis instead of driving alone, +20 points.
	If your car gets less than 20 miles per gallon, -5 points.
	If you use recycled paper, +20 points.
	If you purposely buy products that reduce your waste generation, such as returnable glass bottles and unpackaged bulk foods, +15 points.
	If you walked somewhere instead of drove in the past week, +5 points.
	If you compost yard waste and/or feed scraps in your backyard, +20 points.
	If you have taken an active role in an environmental issue in the last year, +20 points.
	Total

Scoring: 90 and over: Good for you, a true friend of the environment! 70-89: Concerned and doing okay. 40-69: You can try harder. Less than 40 points: OOPS! You're part of the problem. To order additional copies of this scorecard contact: Conservation Technology Information Center, 1220 Potter Drive, Room 170, West Lafayette, IN 47906 Phone: (317) 494-9555 FAX (317) 494-5969

BMPs FOR EROSION CONTROL
(This is the first of a two part article on BMPs to control erosion from agricultural land.)
Sediment from eroding croplands is the largest nonpoint source pollutant in Idaho's surface water (rivers, lakes, streams, reservoirs). Some facts:

• Idaho has 6.5 million acres of cropland producing over 27 million tons of sheet and rill erosion per year.
• Sediment from this eroding cropland is the largest nonpoint source pollutant in Idaho's surface water.
• Not all eroding soil ends up in Idaho's surface water. The average sediment delivery rate is about 20 percent, or about 5 million tons per year.
• Sediment from cropland has nutrients attached to the eroding soil particles. Each ton of sediment contains about 3 pounds of nitrogen and 2.8 pounds of phosphorus.
• Based on sediment delivery rates, about 9,000 tons of nitrogen and 8,500 tons of phosphorus are delivered into Idaho's surface waters each year.

• rainfall and snowmelt,
• soil erodibility,
• land slope and slope length,
• crops and soil cover, and
• presence of supporting conservation practices.

1. Conservation cropping sequence.
2. Crop residue management and conservation tillage.
3. Contour and cross-slope farming.
4. Contour strip cropping and divided slopes.
5. Deep chiseling and subsoiling.
6. Cover crops.
7. Grassed waterways.
8. Vegetative filter strips.
9. Terraces.
10. Water and sediment control basins.
11. Mulching.

Conservation Cropping Sequence
(Use to reduce soil erosion by 40 to 50 percent.)

• Remember the cardinal rule for reducing erosion: keep the land covered!
• Start with crops that protect the soil.
• A good conservation cropping sequence contains a high percentage of crops that are soil hugging, produce heavy canopy cover, and produce large amounts of after-harvest residue.
• Do not grow crops producing low residue more than one year in a row.
• Use crops that provide protective cover during normal high erosion periods.

• Use crop residue management to protect the soil not covered by a growing crop.
• Crop residue management begins with selection of high residue-producing crops.
• Use conservation tillage systems such as no-till and mulch till to plant crops while maintaining crop residue on the soil surface.
• No-till uses a one-pass drill with openers that places seed and fertilizer in narrow bands without disturbing the area and residue between the drill rows.
• Mulch tillage uses equipment that disturbs the full soil surface but does not invert the soil or bury excessive amounts of crop residue.
• One important aspect of mulch tillage is using chisels, conservation plowing, and/or uphill plowing as the first tillage operation.
• For conservation plowing and uphill plowing, remove trash turners from moldboard plows so a row of residue is left sticking out along the edge of each furrow. The goal is to leave the soil rough with about 1,500 pounds of crop residue (60 percent surface cover) on the soil surface after primary tillage. Surface straw intermixed with the soil will rapidly wick moisture into the soil.

• Perform tillage operations on the contour or across the slope.
• Ridges left by the tillage implement will trap and store rainfall and snowmelt, increase the amount of water that infiltrates into the soil, and reduce the amount that runs off the surface.
• Use cross-slope farming when the topography makes it impractical to stay on the true contour, but still stay as close to the contour as possible.

• Divide fields into narrow strips so that strips containing higher erosion crops are alternated with low erosion crops.
• Operate every other strip to trap surface runoff so it doesn't run downhill to the next strip.
• Divided slope farming is a form of strip cropping used where the hill isn't long enough to accommodate three normal strips. Divide the hill into two fields, alternating the protective crop and trap strip with the less protective crop.

WHEAT GROWERS RELEASE BMP MANUAL
The trend in environmental protection is toward cooperation among public and private organizations at least in part because the magnitude and nature of nonpoint source pollution is often beyond the ability of government to solve alone. Thus, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other organizations are developing government and industry partnerships to take on these tasks.

One example of these partnerships is Best Management Practices for Wheat: A Guide to Profitable and Environmentally Sound Production, recently released by the National Association of Wheat Growers Foundation and the Cooperative Extension System. This best management practice (BMP) manual, funded in part by a grant from EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, provides information on wheat growth, economics of BMPs, erosion, and nutrient and pesticide management. It includes one- and two-page fact sheets on 39 BMPs that prevent or reduce pollutant entry into surface or groundwater.

Availability, Detachment, Transport, and Deposition. The manual is built around four basic principles: pollutant availability, detachment, transport, and deposition. According to these principles, pollutants are first made available (e.g., from an excess of nutrients), then detached (e.g., by rain), transported to a waterway (e.g., by overland flow or rill erosion), and finally deposited in a new location (e.g., into a filter strip or sediment basin). The focus on these principles allows the grower to understand the mechanics of erosion and pollutant movement.

According to the manual, the best way to address a problem is to reduce the availability of pollutants or prevent the detachment of sediment. Addressing availability and detachment is often the most cost-effective treatment and the basis of pollution prevention.

The manual describes, for each of the 39 BMPs, the BMP's definition, purpose, principles, and strategies: how it works, and where it works best. The sections on conservation and structural BMPs include charts showing the relative costs of these practices and their effects on controlling environmental problems.

In most cases, several BMPs will be needed to address all resource concerns. Nutrient managment, for example, consists of several BMPs, including setting realistic yield goals, soil testing and plant analysis, nitrogen timing and rates, manure management, nutrient placement methods, and soil and site evaluation. By selecting BMPs to meet certain goals for resource management, the grower can ensure that such concerns are adequately addressed.

Management goals are included for each potential pollutant, including erosion, nutrients, and pesticides. The goals include meeting the erosion component of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Conservation Management System, developing and implementing a nutrient plan, and using integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. Growers must apply their own judgment in selecting the BMPs to meet these goals to ensure protection of the resource.

The manual concludes with a short section on "Planning Your Own BMP System." This section helps the grower address specific concerns, select specific BMPs to implement, and finally, to devise a partial budget for determining the BMP's economic impact. The National Association of Wheat Growers Foundation has piloted several BMP workshops to educate its members on the content and use of the BMP manual. Workshops for all 21 Foundation-affiliated states are scheduled for 1995.
(EPA News-Notes)

COLLEGE STUDENT VIEWS ON WATER ISSUES
Over 175 students at the University of Idaho were polled on their attitudes toward environmental issues over the past 18 months. This 30-question poll targeted students across a broad spectrum of majors and represented the following colleges at the University of Idaho: Letters and Science (55%), Engineering (12%), Forestry Range and Wildlife (10%), Mines and Earth Resources (8%), Agriculture (7%), Business (4%), Art and Architecture (3%), and Education (1%). All students taking part in this poll were enrolled in the introductory environmental science class on campus (Environmental Science 101). While not a statistically designed poll, the results of this survey reflect attitudes of students that will likely become future leaders in this state. Consequently, I think the opinions expressed by students should be of interest to our readers.

Students were asked to respond to 30 different statements. They could agree, disagree, or express no opinion to each statement. I am selecting student opinions to eight statements dealing with water issues for inclusion in this article. The statement appears in bold type followed by a pie chart showing student response. My comments to student opinions follow each question.

1. Wetlands in the United States should be protected at all costs.

The majority of University of Idaho students taking part in this poll support wetland protection. These views are similar to current opinions generally expressed by the urban public across the United States.

2. On a world-wide basis, pollution has become worse over the last 20 years.

Over seventy-five percent of the students share the belief that world-wide pollution has become worse. The scientific evidence also supports this conclusion.

3. In the United States, pollution has become worse in the last 20 years.

Over 60 percent of the students participating in this poll think pollution has become worse in the United States. Scientific evidence to support this view is inconclusive. Some scientists think many facets of pollution are coming under control, while others believe that population growth and land development in the United States offset these environmental gains made in the 1970's and 1980's.

4. The rivers in Idaho are becoming cleaner.

Only 7 percent of the students polled think Idaho rivers are becoming cleaner. The students have the perception that Idaho's rivers are getting dirtier. The scientific evidence shows the exact opposite. In fact, Idaho rivers have become much cleaner over the last two decades. Soil erosion control programs which include the use of best management practices (BMPs) in both agriculture and forestry have greatly reduced the sediment load of our rivers. The negative perception of students may be due to localized problems like the Middle Snake near Twin Falls where nutrient loading had caused algal blooms recently. Despite the fact that some serious local problems do exist, Idahoans have and are improving the quality of water in the state's rivers.

5. All pesticides should be banned.

Only 17 percent of the polled students believe that pesticides should be banned. The polled students apparently believed that pesticide use is a legitimate means of controlling at least certain potential health hazards (e.g., malaria) and food production problems. Based on what I routinely hear in the media (television, magazines, etc.) I expected the anti-pesticide feeling to be higher.

6. Given a choice I would buy produce (vegetables) grown without the use of pesticides and commercial fertilizers (I am also willing to pay more!).

Three-fifths of the polled students, given a choice, would rather buy and pay the extra money for vegetables grown without the use of commercial pesticides and fertilizers. This answer shows that students are suspicious of agrichemicals because of potential environmental contamination and/or chemical residues in their food). Even though these students would make the personal choice to buy food grown without these chemicals they consider an outright ban on pesticides unacceptable (question 5).

7. I would be willing to see the price of my electricity bill tripled if it would help save salmon from extinction in rivers in the Pacific Northwest.

Three-quarters of the students were not opposed to increased power bills for salmon protection. Conversely, one-quarter of the polled students were unwilling to foot an increased electricity bill to prevent salmon extinction. The economic cost of saving the salmon would be relatively steep to an individual; however, one could ask what is the long-term environmental cost not to save them? I could be a cynic and conclude that many students participating in this poll do not currently directly pay their own power bills (e.g., power bills hidden in dormatory, fraternity, or sorority house bills).

8. The Endangered Species Act should consider both economic and environmental costs equally when deciding if a species should be protected.

Only 33 percent of the polled students disagreed with this statement. Students had differing reasons for disagreeing. Some felt that economic reasons alone should determine the merits of species protection. Conversely, some students felt that only environmental facts should determine if the species should be listed. Based on the student responses to this question it appears that the existing version of the Endangered Species Act warrants little if any modification.

In general, the responses reported above by University of Idaho students are similar to the opinions of the majority of young urban adults in the eastern United States. These results also concur with a recent Idaho Statesman commissioned Lou Harris poll which found that young Idaho adults show far more commitment to environmental protection than middle-aged (30-49) and older (50+) Idahoans. This group of UI students appears to be more pro-environment (for the protection of resources) than the general public in Idaho. University of Idaho students who are not native to Idaho generally tended to be more pro-environment than native born UI students. This same trend has been observed in the adult population of the state.
(R. L. Mahler)

FINANCING APPROACHES FOR LOCAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
(This is the first in a series of articles on local approaches to procure funding to protect groundwater.)
Although threats to public health from contaminated groundwater are better understood everyday, funds for groundwater protection programs--including wellhead protection--are, and will remain, scarce. As a result, local officials responsible for protecting underground drinking water sources will find it increasingly useful to consider the full range of options available for obtaining and managing the funds needed to assure effective groundwater protection programs.

Many groundwater protection efforts focus on a particular source of concern, such as landfills or leaking underground storage tanks or agrichemicals. Unlike these focused initiatives, however, wellhead protection programs cut across all potential sources of contamination. Because its primary focus--wellhead protection--is the resource itself rather than the source of contamination, wellhead protection indirectly addresses virtually all potential contamination sources that threaten public drinking water supplies.

Wellhead protection programs are currently some of the most comprehensive and coordinated groundwater protection efforts, and therefore the scope of financing options available for wellhead protection programs may serve as a model of available options for financing other local groundwater protection programs as well.

The Advent of Wellhead Protection. Wellhead protection--the protection of limited geographic areas around wells and wellfields that provide public water supplies--is a preventive approach to drinking water protection being adopted throughout the country. Because it is local water supplies that need protecting, the success of wellhead protection will depend in great part on local implementation activities.

In response to concern that public wells and wellfields were not protected adequately from local sources of pollution, the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require that each state establish a wellhead protection program. The Act requires that each program:

• specify roles and duties of state agencies, local governments and public water supplies in the development and implementation of wellhead protection programs,
• delineate the wellhead protection area for each wellfield providing public water supplies,
• identify source of contamination within each wellhead protection area,
• develop management approaches to protect against contamination of water supplies,
• develop contingency plans for each public water supply system indicating the location and provision of alternate drinking water supplies to be used in the event of well or wellfield contamination,
• site new wells properly to minimize potential contamination and maximize yield, and
• ensure public participation in the wellhead protection program.

Land Acquisition. Buying land outright or buying the development rights to vulnerable land around public water supply wells can help prevent groundwater contamination by foreclosing potentially harmful land uses overlying recharge areas. Protection from intensive agricultural production can prevent potential seepage of chemical pesticides or fertilizers into drinking water aquifers. Similarly, preventing industrial development can eliminate the potential for chemical spills and groundwater contamination.

Capital Facilities. Capital facilities are investments in plants, equipment, or other structures that improve real property. They are characterized by high initial costs and long useful lives, over which the initial investment may be repaid. An example of capital facilities for wellhead protection is the construction of sewer lines to replace septic systems in recharge areas.

Regulatory Measures. Regulations can be designed to prevent certain land uses in wellhead protection areas that have a significant potential for groundwater contamination. If such activities are already in place, regulations can be used to limit the probability of contamination through a system of permits, inspections, and enforcement actions. Groundwater quality monitoring programs can support these regulatory efforts, as well as protection planning and groundwater modeling activities.

A less restrictive regulatory measure is the use of operating permits, which attempt to minimize the chances of groundwater contamination by allowing potentially polluting activities in wellhead protection areas, but monitoring their efforts through discharge limitations, groundwater quality monitoring and testing, facility inspections, and enforcement actions.

Management Measures. Communities support a wide variety of management activities that contribute to wellhead protection, including public education, data collection and mapping, and contingency planning. The annual cost of these measures depends on the level of effort.

Most wellhead protection programs have an accompanying public education program designed to increase public awareness and appreciation of wellhead protection measures. Technical assistance programs also are common, especially in wellhead protection programs that rely on private activities or the joint actions of several subdivisions of government.

Data collection, mapping, and modeling groundwater resources can help identify wellhead protection areas, pinpoint existing sources of contamination, and monitor the quality of water at the wellhead and in the protected area.
(Adapted from Groundwater and Public Policy. Series No. 14 by Norbert Dee of the US-EPA.)

Comments to webmistress: karenl@uidaho.edu

All contents copyright © 1997-2003.
College of Agriculture, University of Idaho.
All rights reserved.

Revised: January 3, 2003

URL: http://www.uidaho.edu/wq/wqu/wqu51.html