Authors: B. B. Ross, Professor, Dept. of Biological Systems Engineering, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, Virginia; L. D. Barnes, Extension Agent, Family and Consumer Sciences, Floyd County, Floyd, Virginia; D. L. Gardner, Extension Agent, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Floyd County, Floyd, Virginia; K. R. Parrott, Associate Professor, Dept. of Near Environments, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, Virginia; and A. C. Bourne, Undergraduate Student Assistant, Dept. of Biological Systems Engineering, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, Virginia
Publication Number 442-924, March 2003
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Objectives
Methods
Findings and Results
Conclusions
References
Appendix
Following completion of the program, a survey was mailed to the 101 participants. Forty-nine participants returned survey forms on which they identified their reason(s) for participating in such a program; the primary reason being concern about safety of their water supply. Returned survey forms also provided insight into measures participants had already taken, or planned to take, to improve the quality of their water supply. Nearly two-thirds of the households who reported having at least one water quality problem had taken, or planned to take, at least one measure to improve the quality of their water supply. Fourteen percent or more of all participants had taken, or planned to take, one or more of the following actions: improve existing water treatment equipment, shock chlorinate the water system, and purchase or rent water treatment equipment.
Return to Table of Contents
Several individuals should be noted for their contributions: Bill Seaton, Graduate Student, Department of Geology, Virginia Tech is acknowledged for sharing his expertise at public meetings. Appreciation is also extended to Virginia Cooperative Extension, Floyd Office Program Support Technician, Brenda Hale and to Amy Ingram, 4-H/Youth Agent for their support.
Responsible for the majority of the water quality analyses, as well as coordination among the various labs and for much of the data management, was the Water Quality Laboratory of the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. Carol Newell, Laboratory Supervisor, and her staff, are especially acknowledged for their efforts. Assisting with the general water chemistry analysis was the Soils Testing Laboratory of the Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences at Virginia Tech.
Additional support from Virginia Tech should also be noted. Judy Poff of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center was instrumental in providing educational publications for participants at the public meetings. Joe Gray of the Virginia Cooperative Extension Distribution Center is appreciated for his assistance in preparing and mailing the evaluation survey packets to participants. Appreciation is due Diane Mahaffey for her efforts in preparing project forms and in typing this manuscript. In addition, Bev Brinlee and Tim FisherPoff are acknowledged for their editorial contributions.
Return to Table of Contents
Throughout Floyd County, most wells were drilled only for farm or domestic water supply. George and Gray (1988) have estimated that 75% of Floyd County's drilled wells and nearly all of its dug/bored wells are inadequately constructed. It was also estimated that nearly 6% of households have failing or inadequate waste disposal systems.
Floyd County has a land area 382 square miles and lies almost wholly within the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The county is centrally drained by the Little River, a major tributary of the New River. The Blue Ridge Mountains form the eastern and southern borders of the county.
County population increased by 4% during the period 1980-90. Most new home sites are rural-based without public water and sewage services. As rural home sites encroach on agricultural land, the water supply becomes suspect to residents. Of equal importance is the potential failure of septic systems, since some home sites are on land less than ideal for a properly functioning septic system.
In addressing similar concerns, Ross et al. (1991) initiated a pilot program of household water quality education in Warren County, Virginia, which included water sampling, testing, and diagnosis. Based on requests and support from local interests, subsequent programs have been conducted in 38 additional counties. During the course of these projects, more than 6,000 households submitted water samples through local Virginia Cooperative Extension offices to be analyzed for the following: iron, manganese, hardness, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, total dissolved solids, pH, saturation index, copper, sodium, nitrate, and total coliform and fecal coliform/E. coli bacteria.
Major household water quality problems identified, as a result of these previous analyses, were determined to be iron/manganese, hardness, fluoride, and because of their potential health significance, corrosivity, bacteria, and to a lesser extent, sodium and nitrate, although the occurrence and extent of these problems varied across counties. In most county programs, a limited number of additional samples from "high-risk" households were tested for over two dozen pesticides and other chemical compounds. Most of these compounds have been detected in measurable quantities in one or more samples, with several values exceeding a corresponding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health Advisory Level (HAL) or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). It was the need to assess the current state of rural household water supplies in Floyd County, in addressing the above water quality issues, that led to the implementation of the Floyd County Household Water Quality Education Program.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Table of Contents
The program was launched through meetings held in Willis and Check in early March. Attendees of these initial meetings, who had paid $30 per household water sample to be submitted, were presented with information on local hydrogeologic characteristics in relation to groundwater pollution, likely sources of, and activities contributing to, groundwater contamination, the nature of household water quality problems (both nuisance and health-related), and specifics of the water testing program to follow.
Provisions were made to analyze up to 150 household water samples in Floyd County. Water sampling kits, for use by the participants themselves, were made available at the meetings and at the Floyd County Cooperative Extension Office after the meetings for late registrants. Two types of water sampling kits were distributed: (1) general water chemistry analysis for iron, manganese, hardness, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, total dissolved solids, pH, saturation index (Langlier), copper, sodium, and nitrate; and (2) bacteriological analysis (total coliform and E. coli).
The sampling kits included a 250 ml plastic bottle for general water chemistry samples and a sample identification form (see Appendix). The form included sampling instructions and a questionnaire on which participants were asked to describe the characteristics of their water supply. Also included in the kits was a 125 ml sterilized plastic bottle for bacteriological sampling. Instructions called for sampling from a drinking water tap and for flushing water systems prior to sampling to minimize contaminants contributed by the plumbing system. Persons who already had a water treatment device, such as a water softener, were requested to provide information about the type of equipment so that effective evaluation of their water quality and proper interpretation of results could be obtained, as further explained below.
Water samples were collected on March 10 and 24 at the Extension Office in Floyd. At the close of each collection day, all samples were packed in ice and immediately delivered to Virginia Tech in Blacksburg for analysis.
The water quality analysis was coordinated by the Department of Biological Systems Engineering Water Quality Laboratory at Virginia Tech. The Soils Testing Laboratory of the Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences at Virginia Tech was subcontracted to analyze samples for several of the constituents. Water quality analyses were performed using standard analytical procedures (USEPA, 1979).
After the analysis had been completed, participants were reminded by mail to attend a subsequent meeting in Floyd in mid-April to obtain and discuss the test results and management practices to reduce or prevent water contamination. Complete test results were ultimately mailed to those participants who could not attend any of the meetings. A sample report form and accompanying report interpretation are shown in the Appendix.
At the conclusion of the program, an evaluation survey was mailed to participants (see Appendix). The objectives of the survey were to determine (1) the reasons for participation in the educational program and for having household water tested, and (2) what actions to correct water quality problems the participants had taken, or planned to take, as a result of participation in the program. Limited socio-economic information was also requested to obtain a profile of the total audience reached by the program.
In addressing overall project objective 2, local government and public officials were kept apprised of water quality test results, during the course of the program and at its completion. While the project was designed to involve voluntary participation, and quality control in sampling was not assured, the information gathered was nevertheless deemed useful for water quality assessment and planning at county and regional levels.
Return to Table of Contents
Profile of Participant Households
The average length of the respondents' residence in Floyd County was 19 years. The length of residence reported ranged from 1 to 70 years. Twenty percent of those responding had lived in Floyd County for 5 years or less. The size of the respondents' households ranged from one to six members; average household size was 2.52. It can, therefore, be estimated that more than 250 Floyd County residents were directly impacted by the water analysis/diagnosis aspect of the program.
More than one-half (51%) of the respondents were college graduates and all of those indicating educational level achieved had at least a complete high school education (see Figure 1); facts that are not surprising, since it is likely that such individuals would have a greater awareness and understanding of water quality issues and be more likely to participate in such a program.
Participation in the program was on the high end of income distribution. Figure 2, which shows the family income (before taxes) of the respondents, indicates that a likely majority of the respondents exceeded the median family income ($27,439 according to the 1990 Census) of Floyd County (Koebel et al., 1993). Fourteen percent of respondents declined to indicate family income.
Profile of Household Water Supplies
The initial survey answers, provided by all 101 participants in the water testing program, helped to characterize their water supplies (see Appendix). One set of questions dealt with the proximity of the household water supply to potential sources of groundwater contamination. One such question sought to define housing density, which may have an impact primarily from the standpoint of contamination from septic systems and related water quality problems. Participants were asked to classify their household environs as one of the following four categories, ranging from low to high density: (1) on a farm, (2) on a remote, rural lot, (3) in a rural community, and (4) in a housing subdivision. As shown in Figure 3, farm (55%) was the most common and subdivision, selected by only 2% of households, the least common.
Participants were also asked to identify potential contamination sources within 100 feet of their water supply. The major sources identified were streams (18%) and septic system drainfields (8%). Indications of proximity (within one-half mile) to larger activities, which could potentially contribute to groundwater pollution, were also sought. Agricultural activities were the most commonly identified; 54% of the participants indicated that their water supply was located within one-half mile of a major farm animal operation.
Information was also obtained regarding characteristics of the participants' water supply systems. Regarding the type of water source supplying the household, 58% of the participants reported that they rely on a well and 42% depend on a spring. Participants who had a well were asked to provide an estimate of the well depth, if known. Of those participants indicating well depths, 93% reported depths of more than 50 feet, while 7% reported less than or equal to 50 feet. The maximum well depth reported was 480 feet; the average well depth was 166 feet. Twenty percent of the wells were constructed in or prior to 1970. The earliest reported well construction date was 1930.
Household water systems were further identified with respect to the type of material used in the piping network for water distribution throughout the dwellings. The most widely used material was plastic (64%), while copper was reported by 26% of the participants. Five percent of participants reported, "Don't know".
To properly evaluate the quality of water supplies in relation to the point of sampling, participants were asked if their household water systems had water treatment devices currently installed, and if so, the type of device. The results of the inquiry are presented in Figure 4. Thirty-eight percent of the participants reported at least one treatment device installed, with the most common type of treatment device in use being a sediment filter (87%).
Participants' Perceptions of Household Water Quality
Participants were also asked about problems they were experiencing in their household water systems (see Appendix). They were asked initially whether or not they experienced one or more of the following conditions: (1) corrosion of pipes or plumbing fixtures; (2) unpleasant taste; (3) objectionable odor; (4) unnatural color or appearance; (5) floating, suspended, or settled particles in the water; and (6) staining of plumbing fixtures, cooking appliances/utensils or laundry. With the exception of (1) above, with which 15% of the participants identified, participants were given several more specific descriptions from which to choose if answering positively.
Ten percent of the participants responded that their water had an unpleasant taste. For these participants, the identification of tastes is presented in Figure 5. "Metallic" taste was the most common problem, identified by 40% of those who reported taste problems, followed by "bitter" at 30%. Other tastes, such as iron, were identified by 30% of participants noting taste problems
An objectionable odor was reported by 9% of the participants. Of these, the description of odors selected is shown in Figure 6. The most prevalent odor described was "rotten egg", identified by 56% of those reporting odor problems, followed by "musty" at 22%.
Twelve percent of the participants affirmed their water had an unnatural color or appearance. "Muddy" and "yellow" were identified by 42% and 33%, respectively, of those who reported appearance problems (Figure 7). Forty-two percent offered their own descriptions by selecting "other" to include rusty.
A related question sought to identify the presence of solid particles in participants' water supplies. Twenty-three percent described such a condition; almost half (48%) of these reported that they noticed "brown sediment" in their water (Figure 8). Thirteen percent indicated "other" including descriptions such as green specks.
Staining problems were reported by 42% of the participants. As presented in Figure 9, the major problem was that of "rusty" identified by 52% of those with staining problems, followed by "blue-green" stains, reported by 38%.
Household Water Quality Analysis
Ultimately, two sample groups resulted: the "tap water" and "raw water" samples. The "tap water" group consisted of the 101 individual household water supplies analyzed to represent the actual water quality at the drinking water tap (including treated water). The "raw water" group consisted of samples from untreated systems only - a total of 67 samples.
The raw water sample results presented below may not be entirely indicative of the status of raw groundwater quality in Floyd County. This may be particularly true for many of the nuisance contaminants, for which treatment systems have been installed since many of the already treated supplies likely represented the worst cases for specific contaminants correctable by treatment devices. Therefore, the inclusion of actual raw water (before treatment) analyses, if they had been available from those households with treatment devices installed, would likely have tended to worsen the overall assessment of Floyd County raw water quality.
General Water Chemistry Analysis
The tests included in the general water chemistry analysis are listed in Table 1, along with the detection limits, where appropriate, for each test as determined by laboratory equipment and testing procedure constraints. Also presented are the averages and ranges for each sample group defined. Table 2 provides, for both sample groups, the percentage of constituent values exceeding a given water quality standard or guideline. The results and importance of each test for both of the sample groups are individually discussed below.
Iron. Iron in water does not usually present a health risk. It can, however, be very objectionable, if present in amounts greater than 0.3 mg/L. Excessive iron can leave brown-orange stains on plumbing fixtures and laundry. It may give water and/or beverages a bitter metallic taste and may also discolor beverages.
Fifteen percent of samples in the tap water group and 17% in the raw water sample group had iron concentrations exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.3 mg/L. This result was not surprising in view of the generally accepted notion that excessive iron is prevalent in rural water supplies throughout much of Virginia. One participant reported the installation of an iron removal filter and the results of the sample questionnaire (see Appendix) revealed that 52% of the 42 who reported staining problems, or 22% of all participants, classified the color of those stains as "rusty" (red/orange/brown). Stains of this color on plumbing fixtures, cooking appliances/utensils, and/or laundry are usually attributed to excessive iron concentrations.
It should be noted that the SMCL for iron is likely based more on taste considerations than long-term staining tendencies, particularly on plumbing fixtures. It has been suggested that concentrations below 0.1 mg/L are preferred, when stain prevention is of concern. When a value of 0.1 mg/L was used as the threshold concentration, an additional 9% and 10% of samples in the tap water and raw water groups, respectively, exceeded this limit.
Manganese. Manganese does not present a health risk. However, if present in amounts greater than 0.05 mg/L, it may give water a bitter taste and produce black stains on laundry, cooking utensils, and plumbing fixtures.
The results of these analyses indicated that the extent of manganese problems in Floyd County may be similar to that of iron. While manganese stains are generally dark and six participants indicated "black" stains, 18% of the tap water and 15% of the raw water samples exceeded the SMCL for manganese of 0.05 mg/L. The "particles in water" description of "black specks", also reported by six participants, may also provide evidence of excessive manganese concentrations.
Hardness. Hardness is a measure of calcium and magnesium in water. Hard water does not present a health risk. However, it keeps soap from lathering, decreases the cleaning action of soaps and detergents, and leaves soap "scum" on plumbing fixtures, and scale deposits in water pipes and hot water heaters. Softening treatment is highly recommended for very hard water (above 180 mg/L). Water with a hardness of about 60 mg/L or less does not need softening.
Hardness is an additional "natural" parameter usually linked to karst terrain and limestone formations that are not prevalent in Floyd County. Only two households had installed water softeners (Figure 4) and little use of water softeners appears to be warranted, as only one of the tap water and raw water samples exceeded the maximum recommended hardness level of 180 mg/L.
Hardness tolerance, like that of many nuisance contaminants, is somewhat relative to individual preferences. For example, water with total hardness between 60 mg/L and 180 mg/L may warrant the installation of a commercial water softener in the view of some household water users while others are satisfied with untreated water. Fifteen percent of tap water and 13% of raw water samples were in the range of 60 mg/L to 180 mg/L total hardness, indicating that nearly one-sixth of all samples could be classified as "moderately hard" or "harder."
Sulfate. High sulfate concentrations may result in adverse taste or may cause a laxative effect. The SMCL for sulfate is 250 mg/L. Sulfates are generally naturally present in groundwater and may be associated with other sulfur-related problems, such as hydrogen sulfide gas. This gas may be caused by the action of sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as by other types of bacteria (possibly disease-causing bacteria) on decaying organic matter. While it is difficult to test for the presence of this gas in water, it can be easily detected by its characteristic "rotten egg" odor, which may be more noticeable in hot water. Water containing this gas may also corrode iron and other metals in the water system, and may stain plumbing fixtures and cooking utensils.
Sulfate concentrations were relatively low for both the raw water and tap water sample groups. None of the raw water or tap water samples exceeded 250 mg/L. The complaints of a "rotten egg/sulfur" odor by more than one-half of those reporting odor problems, indicate that hydrogen sulfide gas may be a problem in some household water systems in Floyd County; a conclusion that can not be confirmed by the presence of sulfate.
Chloride. Chloride in drinking water is not a health risk. Natural levels of chloride are generally low, and high levels in drinking water usually indicate contamination from a septic system, road salts, fertilizers, industry, or animal wastes. High levels of chloride may speed corrosion rates of metal pipes and cause pitting and darkening of stainless steel. The EPA has set an SMCL for chloride of 250 mg/L. Only one of the samples in the tap water and raw water sample groups exceeded the SMCL for chloride.
Fluoride. Fluoride is of concern primarily from the standpoint of its effect on teeth and gums. Small concentrations of fluoride are considered to be beneficial in preventing tooth decay, whereas moderate amounts can cause brownish discoloration of teeth, and high fluoride concentrations can lead to tooth and bone damage. For these reasons, the EPA has set both a SMCL of 2 mg/L and a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 mg/L. None of the samples in either sample group exceeded the SMCL or the MCL for fluoride.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). High concentrations of dissolved solids may cause adverse taste effects and may also deteriorate household plumbing and appliances. The EPA SMCL is 500 mg/L total dissolved solids. Average TDS concentrations were 52 mg/L and 53 mg/L for the raw water and tap water sample groups, respectively. None of the raw water or tap water samples exceeded the standard with a maximum TDS concentration of 300 mg/L.
pH. The pH indicates whether water is acidic or alkaline. Acidic water can cause corrosion in pipes and may cause toxic metals from the plumbing system to be dissolved in drinking water. The life of plumbing systems may be shortened due to corrosion, requiring expensive repair and replacement of water pipes and plumbing fixtures. Treatment is generally recommended for water with a pH below 6.5. Alkaline water with a pH above 8.5 is seldom found naturally and may indicate contamination by alkaline industrial wastes. The EPA has set a suggested range of between 6.5 and 8.5 on the pH scale for drinking water.
The average pH reading was 6.5 for both the raw water and tap water sample groups. None of the tap water or raw water samples exceeded a pH of 8.5. For the tap water and raw water sample groups, respectively, 58% and 57% of the measured pH values were less than 6.5. While the remaining samples had a pH above 6.5, slightly acidic water with a pH between 6.5 and 7.0 can lead to less immediate staining and corrosion problems. An additional 25% of both tap water and raw water samples fell into this category.
Saturation Index. The saturation index (Langlier) is used, in addition to pH, to evaluate the extent of potential corrosion of metal pipes, plumbing fixtures, etc. It is a calculated value based on the calcium concentration, total dissolved solids concentration, measured pH, and alkalinity. A saturation index greater than zero indicates that protective calcium carbonate deposits may readily form on pipe walls. A saturation index less than zero indicates that the water does not have scale-forming properties and pipes may be subject to corrosion. Saturation index values between -1 and +1 are considered acceptable for household water supplies.
No saturation index values were determined to be above +1 in either sample group. Values of less than -1, however, were determined for 99% of both the tap water and raw water samples. Average saturation index values were -3.06 and -3.01 for the tap water and raw water sample groups, respectively, with a minimum value of -5.00 for the former and -4.87 for the latter group.
Copper. The EPA health standard for copper in public drinking water supplies is 1.3 mg/L, the maximum level recommended to protect people from acute gastrointestinal illness. Even lower levels of dissolved copper may give water a bitter or metallic taste and produce blue-green stains on plumbing fixtures. Consequently, EPA has established an SMCL for copper of 1.0 mg/L in household water.
One of the samples in each sample group exceeded the SMCL of 1.0 mg/L, but not the recommended health level of 1.3 mg/L, for which the maximum measured copper concentration was 1.08 mg/L in both cases. Since natural levels of copper in groundwater are low, and the primary contributor of copper in drinking water is corrosion of copper water pipes and fittings, low copper levels were expected, even in the case of tap water samples, assuming that water lines were flushed properly prior to sampling.
Sodium. Sodium may be a health hazard to people suffering from high blood pressure or cardiovascular or kidney diseases. For those on low-sodium diets, 20 mg/L is suggested as a maximum level for sodium in drinking water, although a physician should be consulted in individual cases. Average sodium concentrations were 4.6 mg/L and 3.5 mg/L for the tap water and raw water sample groups, respectively, while the maximum concentrations were 66 mg/L for the former and 15 mg/L for the latter group. For the tap water samples, only two samples exceeded 20 mg/L, while none of the raw water samples exceeded 20 mg/L.
It should be reemphasized, however, that the suggested threshold of 20 mg/L for sodium is relatively low and applicable only to individuals suffering from health problems, such as heart disease or high blood pressure. To evaluate the presence of high sodium levels in the context of an otherwise healthy individual, a threshold value of 100 mg/L sodium has been suggested. As is evident from the maximum concentrations presented above, none of the samples exceeded this value.
Nitrate. High levels of nitrate may cause methemoglobinemia or "blue-baby" disease in infants. Though the EPA has set a MCL for nitrate (as N) of 10 mg/L, it suggests that water with greater than 1 mg/L not be used for feeding infants. Levels of 3 mg/L or higher may indicate excessive contamination of the water supply by commercial fertilizers and/or organic wastes from septic systems or farm animal operations, which may be subject to seasonal and climatic influences.
The maximum concentration of nitrate obtained was 8.9 mg/L for the tap water and 6.3 mg/L for the raw water sample group, therefore no sample in either sample group exceeded the MCL of 10 mg/L. Thus, serious nitrate contamination does not appear to be a widespread problem in Floyd County. When a 1 mg/L threshold value was selected, however, a much higher occurrence of nitrate was determined. In this case, nearly one-third of the samples, 30% of the tap water and 33% of the raw water samples, exceeded the level of potential concern to infant health. Furthermore, 9% of the tap water samples and 8% of the raw water samples had nitrate concentrations exceeding 3 mg/L, indicating that health-impacting levels would likely be approached in a number of cases.
Bacteriological Analysis
A common hazard of private household water supplies is contamination by potentially harmful bacteria and other microorganisms. Microbiological contamination of drinking water can cause short-term gastrointestinal disorders, such as cramps and diarrhea that may be mild to very severe. Of the non-gastrointestinal disorders, one particularly important disease transmissible through drinking water is Viral Hepatitis A. Other diseases include salmonella infections, dysentery, typhoid fever, and cholera.
Coliform bacterial detection is simply an indication of the possible presence of pathogenic, or disease-causing organisms. Detection of coliform bacteria is confirmed by a total coliform analysis result above zero. Coliforms are always present in the digestive systems of all warm-blooded animals and can be found in their wastes. Coliforms are also present in the soil and in plant material. While a water sample with total coliform bacteria present may have been inadvertently contaminated during sampling, other possibilities include surface water contamination due to include poor well construction, contamination of the household plumbing system, or water table contamination. To determine whether or not the bacteria were from human and/or animal waste, positive total coliform tests were followed up by an analysis for E. coli bacteria.
Of the 101 Floyd County household water samples analyzed for total coliform bacteria, 37 (37%) tested positive (present). Subsequent E. coli analysis for these total coliform positive samples resulted in 11, or 30%, positive results, or 11% of all household water samples undergoing bacteriological analysis. The percentages of positive total coliform and E. coli results for the raw water sample group were 42 and 12, respectively.
The susceptibility of household water supplies to bacteriological contamination has often been associated with the type of water source. For example, it is generally accepted that the likelihood of bacteriological contamintion of springs is greater than that of well water supplies, which usually offer better protection from surface, or near surface, contaminants. This contention is clearly borne out by the results of this program, which indicated that the incidence of total coliform and E. coli contamination of springs was 40% and 14%, respectively, while for wells, positive total coliform and E. coli results were obtained for 34% and 9% of the samples.
While fecal bacteria in household water supplies may have originated from animal waste generation in some cases, it is likely that, considering the wide geographic distribution of positive results and the proximity of water supplies to specific pollution sources, many fecal coliforms present in water were due to human waste from septic systems. Although, positive results should be viewed with concern, they are not a cause for panic. Individuals have probably been drinking this water for some time with no ill effects and could possibly continue to do so. Nevertheless, such problems should be further investigated and remedied, if possible. Program participants whose water tested positive were given information regarding emergency disinfection, well improvements, septic system maintenance and other steps to correct the source of contamination. After taking initial corrective measures, they were advised to have the water retested for total coliform, followed by E. coli tests, if warranted.
Post-Program Survey
Following the completion of the basic educational program, a survey form (see Appendix) was mailed to the 101 households whose water supply had been tested. The objectives of the survey were to determine: 1) reasons for program participation and for having water tested, and 2) what the respondents had done to correct water quality problems as a result of participation in the educational program. Forty-nine participants (49%) had returned the survey forms by the deadline.
Household Water Testing History
Participants were asked to indicate their previous experience with water testing and, specifically, if and when they had last had a laboratory analysis of their present household water supply. Forty-one percent of the respondents indicated that they had previously obtained water test results. Of those reporting a prior testing date, 50% had done so within the past five years and 20% within the past two years.
Reasons for Program Participation
People participated in the water quality program for one or more reasons. Seventy-one percent of the respondents were prompted to participate by concern about the safety of their water supply. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents were prompted by nuisance problems, such as staining, objectionable taste, and odor, etc. Twenty percent wanted to follow up on previous tests of their household water. Fourteen percent cited other reasons, such as general curiosity and low-cost opportunity.
Follow-up Activities Taken or Planned
Participants were asked to indicate the measures they planned to take, or had already taken, to improve the quality of their water supply, since receiving the results of their water quality analysis. Table 3 presents the results of this inquiry, with the greatest number of households (14% or more) indicating one or more of the following actions: improve existing water treatment equipment, shock chlorinate the water system, and purchase or rent water treatment equipment.
Participants were asked if the water analysis showed that their water was unsatisfactory for one or more of the following: bacteria, nitrate, sodium, iron, manganese, hardness, and pH. Responses were grouped in four categories: 1) households with potential health problems (positive coliform test results and/or unsatisfactory levels of nitrate or sodium in their water samples), 2) households with unsatisfactory levels of nuisance contaminants (one or more of the following: iron, manganese, hardness, and pH), 3) households with potential health problems and unsatisfactory levels of nuisance contaminants, and 4) households with neither potential health problems nor unsatisfactory levels of nuisance contaminants.
The measures planned or already taken to improve household water as follow-up to the water quality analysis were generally in agreement with the water quality problems identified by the testing. Of the households with potential health problems only and those with health problems in combination with unsatisfactory levels of nuisance contaminants, 74% had taken, or planned to take, at least one measure to improve their water supply. The measure taken by the greatest number of households in these two categories was: shock chlorinate the water system.
As expected, respondents were more likely to address health-related problems than nuisance problems. Of the households with unsatisfactory levels of one or more nuisance contaminants only, 56% had taken, or planned to take, at least one measure to improve their water supply. Not unexpectedly, the group of households that reported the fewest follow-up measures (14%) were the households with neither potential health problems nor unsatisfactory levels of nuisance contaminants.
Return to Table of Contents
Water quality analysis, for many nuisance constituents, generally supported the participants' descriptions of their water supplies regarding such problems as staining, taste and odor, and appearance. The severity of these symptoms is confirmed by the high incidence of water treatment devices installed -- 38% of all households participating had one or more water treatment devices installed.
Considering the results for both the raw and tap water sample groups, and the influence of water treatment devices, the major remaining household water quality problems in Floyd County, existing from a nuisance standpoint, were iron/manganese and corrosivity. The major health-related concerns were corrosivity (because of the potential to raise dissolved copper and levels in water) and bacteria. Thirty-seven percent of the samples tested positive for total coliform and 11% were positive for E. coli bacteria. In these positive cases, participants were advised of ways to improve water supply conditions and were encouraged to pursue retesting for coliform bacteria.
Sixty-six percent of the households that reported having at least one water quality problem had taken, or planned to take, at least one measure to improve the quality of their water supply. Fourteen percent or more of all respondents had taken, or planned to take, one of the following actions: improve existing water treatment equipment, shock chlorinate the water system, and purchase or rent water treatment equipment.
Return to Table of Contents
Koebel, C.T., M.S. Cavell, and W.L. Morgan. 1993. The Virginia Housing Atlas: Housing Trends and Patterns to 1990. Blacksburg, Virginia: VPI&SU, Virginia Center for Housing Research.
Ross, B. B., J. E. Woodard, T. A. Dillaha, E. B. Orndorff, J. R. Hunnings, and K. M. Hanna. 1991. Evaluating Household Water Quality in Warren County, Virginia. Information Series 91-1 (Household Water Quality Series 1). Blacksburg, Virginia: VPI&SU, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
USEPA. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Report No. EPA 600/4-79-020. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to Table of Contents
View this document in PDF format