New study is a wake-up call for water safety in private wells
Is your drinking water safe? That’s the question economics professor Gabriel Reid wants rural Iowans with private wells to consider. As principal investigator of a study published last month in Environment Science & Technology, Dr. Reid surveyed 22,000 rural households, a scale rarely seen in such studies. The study, supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, showed that with just a little information and a few simple nitrate test strips, more people will start testing their water. The results showed that they were willing to pay even for these tools.
Professor Reid highlights the broad public health concerns associated with drinking water contamination and provides an economist’s perspective on weighing the costs and benefits of environmental policies.
How many Americans depend on private wells for drinking water?
Approximately 23 million households in the United States rely on private wells. The federal government provides basic information about what contaminants to be concerned about, and some states offer free or subsidized testing in addition to the information. However, these households are solely responsible for ensuring the quality of their drinking water.
The only way to know if your water is safe is to send a sample to a laboratory and have your water tested. However, although federal guidance recommends testing for certain contaminants at least once a year, prior research has shown that testing is primarily done when a well is drilled or a home is sold. are.
Why did we focus on Iowa?
Agriculture is one of the largest sources of surface and groundwater pollution across the United States due to excessive nutrients being applied to crops. The problem is particularly acute in Iowa, one of the most agriculturally concentrated regions in the world. If it’s a big problem anywhere, it’s a big problem in rural Iowa, because Iowa has both row crops and livestock that produce the highest amounts of nutrients of any U.S. state. Dew.
Previous studies have shown that Iowa’s state program, which provides free well water testing, is underutilized, with counties spending only a fraction of their allocated funds. We saw an opportunity to increase participation in a program that people should take full advantage of.
Approximately 22,000 rural households were surveyed with a response rate of 50%. That’s pretty high. What does it mean?
First, it shows that you designed your survey well. We followed best practices and included a $2 invoice in the mailer to keep the survey simple and increase response rates. However, despite these efforts, the response rate was high, indicating that people were interested. The hardest part of email surveys is getting people to open them, since most emails these days are spam.
People who found out it was coming from a reliable source like Iowa State University Extension and then became aware of the topic probably thought: “It’s a very simple study,” he emphasized, “and this is very important for your health and the health of the state.” We want to know more about what you are doing to keep your family safe. ”A lot of people responded.
When it comes to water testing barriers, people may not even know the program exists. Perhaps the test strip turned pink and you realized, “I might have a nitrate problem.” It can also be behavioral. People often put off tasks like this until they are reminded of them. It is likely a combination of information and behavioral barriers that help people overcome their tendency to procrastinate on important tasks.
Your research shows that nearly 40% of households do not test or filter their water frequently or supplement their drinking water with other sources, making them more likely to be exposed to contamination. I understand that. What are the potential health effects of this exposure?
The most well-known effect of drinking water with high concentrations of nitrates is that it inhibits the ability of blood cells to transport oxygen. This is not a big problem for adults, but it can be fatal for babies. The first cases of so-called “blue baby syndrome” were recorded in rural Iowa in the early 20th century. If you feed your baby milk made with well water that has very high nitrate levels, an oxygen deficiency will set in and your baby will turn blue because his body can’t process the amount of oxygen it needs.
Although this is the most famous case, blue baby syndrome was not recorded in the United States for a long time. Many public health studies have shifted to understanding the effects of consuming moderate to small amounts of nitrate over long periods of time. This research is notoriously difficult because it is difficult to directly link long-term exposure to low concentrations of nitrates to health effects that may occur decades later. However, increasing evidence indicates that long-term exposure to water with high nitrate concentrations is associated with increased incidence of bladder cancer, colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects in newborns.
What are the social costs of this lack of testing?
For some households, spending money to filter water or use bottled water may not pose a health risk, but those expenses are also costs. If we clean the groundwater and lower its nutrient levels, these households won’t have to spend as much money on filtered or bottled water.
However, we find that people are not making the necessary efforts to avoid exposure to contaminated drinking water. This suggests that health care costs, both individual and societal (through Medicare and Medicaid), may be higher than previously thought. Although there is no direct evidence regarding these costs yet, the data suggests that health care costs could be significant, given that people do not take sufficient precautions to avoid contaminated well water. strongly suggests that.
What are the key lessons from this study?
This raises concerns about the quality of rural households and their drinking water. This part of the population doesn’t get much attention unless the problem is very serious, such as a major spill or the intrusion of severe contaminants into groundwater. However, many of these households have contaminants in their drinking water, which can be a concern, especially with long-term exposure.
Our findings show that very few people in our large sample are avoiding exposure or even know if their water is safe. Water may look clear, smell and taste delicious, but it contains pollutants that are not good for your health. This suggests that more programs and interventions are needed to encourage rural households to change their behavior. That means testing your water more, filtering it more, or even avoiding it.
We invest heavily in public water systems, but it may be worthwhile to redirect some of these funds to subsidize water testing for rural households. In many states, testing is cumbersome and expensive. There are a lot of low hanging fruits here. Simply letting households know whether their well water is safe and whether they need to do something about it can be effective.
This seems like an environmental issue, but you’re an economist. What draws you to this issue?
As economists, we often weigh the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Costs are usually easy to quantify. The cost of taking land out of agricultural production or installing a filtration system is easy to calculate. The industry is very good at making sure we know what those costs are. However, its benefits, especially health-related benefits, are more difficult to measure. That’s what this research program begins to explore. We are trying to quantify how many people are potentially exposed, understand their basic behaviors, and measure how much they spend trying to avoid drinking contaminated water. Noda. This will help make better policy decisions when comparing different programs that can reduce pollutants.
From here, what is the next step? What is not known yet?
We would like to expand this type of effort to other states to see if similar actions, such as lower testing rates and minimal use of filtration and bottled water, are common. We are also seeking funding to continue this research in Iowa.
One of the challenges we faced was determining whether water testing would lead to other behavior changes, such as using bottled water or installing filters. Our sample size was not large enough to find strong evidence for that. We need to learn more about the impact of these interventions and how to improve them. More importantly, we need to expand on this research and encourage policy makers to consider programs that lower the barriers to water testing for households with wells.
