|
 The water in one household is so corrosive it gutted three
dishwashers and two washing machines. Another couple’s water is so
salty the homeowners tape the taps when guests visit. Even the
community’s welcome center warns travelers, “Do Not Drink The
Water.”
So, when the water crisis in Flint, Michigan happened, Stephanie
Weiss and husband Andy Greene feared that, as in Flint, their
corrosive water was also unleashing lead into their tap water. Weiss
scoured water-testing reports in Orleans and discovered the truth:
Lead levels in her water – fed by a private well – exceed the
threshold set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for public
water systems and utilities.
The community’s experience is not unique. Across the country,
millions of Americans served by private wells drink, bathe and cook
with water containing potentially dangerous amounts of lead, Reuters
reporting and recent university studies show.
Researchers from Penn State Extension and Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, or Virginia Tech, tested private
well systems in their states and found that 12 percent of wells in
Pennsylvania and 19 percent in Virginia had lead levels exceeding
the maximum EPA threshold for public water systems. Lead poisoning
can lead to heart disease, kidney disease and brain damage. It is
especially dangerous to children, as small amounts of exposure can
cause irreversible developmental delays.
 Though most Americans are served by public water utilities, private
wells are the main source of drinking water for 15 percent of U.S.
households, or 47.8 million people. Typically located in rural
areas, private wells serve residents not connected to municipal
water lines. Though many wells are found in impoverished
communities, some serve wealthy homeowners and those living in urban
environments.
Little research has examined the lead risk in private well water on
a national scale. But if the researchers’ rate played out
nationally, more than 9 million Americans served by private wells
would have unsafe levels of lead in their water, according to a
paper published in October by some of the same Virginia Tech
researchers who found lead in Flint’s water.
For a map, click
here
TESTING GAP
Yet these private wells always fall outside EPA testing regulations,
and only a few states require that wells be tested for lead. Unless
residents pay for tests, they may not know what lurks in their
water.
The community in Orleans, in Jefferson County dotting the
northernmost tip of New York State, is one case study. Weiss and
Greene found that the water they use to cook for their two children,
ages eight and 10, measured lead levels more than double the EPA
threshold, town records show.
“When I realized that my water had the equivalent of Flint levels of
lead, I got chills,” said Weiss, assistant director of Save the
River, an environmental advocacy organization. “I felt sick thinking
of all the things I had tried to get right as a mother for my kids
to grow up happy and healthy, when all the while they were living
with lead contaminated water.”
“I was also angry thinking that the state government had likely
caused this situation.”
 The aquifer feeding their well is polluted with salt from a nearby
barn used by the New York State Department of Transportation to
store salt spread on roads during snowstorms, according to an
analysis by Alpha Geoscience, a Clifton Park, New York, consulting
firm that specializes in hydrogeologic studies. The study was
commissioned by Stephen Conaway, a local winery owner who sued the
state for allegedly polluting his water in 2011.
As far back as 2004, a DOT official told Conaway it was not
unreasonable to assume the salt barn was the source of
contamination, according to a letter sent to Conaway and reviewed by
Reuters.
Flint is not served by private wells, but its battle to get the lead
out of the water has triggered alarms in other communities –
including those served by private wells, which can draw in corrosive
water that leaches lead, copper and other heavy metals from well
components, water pipes and plumbing fixtures.
NO STANDARDS
The EPA has no standards for private wells, even as the National
Ground Water Association recommends testing. Asked about the
standards gap, an EPA spokesman said that the Safe Drinking Water
Act, as written by Congress in 1974, makes the EPA responsible for
regulating only public water systems.
Under the EPA Lead and Copper Rule, published in 1991, if 10 percent
of samples taken by a water utility contain a lead level of 15 parts
per billion or higher, the utility must improve corrosion control
and inform the public of the lead risk. The utility may have to
replace lead water lines.
The university researchers used this standard to assess potential
harm in communities served by private wells.
Water from one Virginia home had lead levels 1,600 times the EPA
maximum threshold, concluded Virginia Tech researcher Kelsey J.
Pieper, lead author of a study published in the Journal of Water and
Health last September that examined lead levels in tap water from
houses in Virginia using wells. Pieper’s research, along with a 2013
Journal of Environmental Health study by Penn State Extension
researchers, point to a problem governments have largely failed to
address.
 Lead exposures decreased after 1980s legislation banned lead in
paint and gasoline. But private wells remain a potential source of
exposure. If lead exposure from private wells is not addressed, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be challenged to
meet its goal of eliminating elevated levels of lead in children by
2020, Pieper found.
Pieper said many private wells across the country have clean water,
but she recommends testing.
“Looking at lead concentration in Flint’s water and our results in
private wells in Virginia, they were similar,” Pieper said. “One of
the biggest differences is it’s solely the responsibility of the
homeowner to identify and correct the problem for private water
systems.”
To be sure, private homeowners are responsible for testing and
maintaining their wells.
Yet many have no idea they should test for lead. Some who do test
find troubling answers.
[to top of second column] |
LEAD AND CHILDREN IN PENNSYLVANIA
In central Pennsylvania, Jeremiah Underhill and his wife took their
one-year-old son Dalton to the family doctor for his checkup in
April 2014. Knowing the family was renovating their 76-year-old
house, and concerned paint in the house may contain lead, their
doctor suggested testing Dalton for lead.
The results showed elevated lead levels in his system.
“I was devastated,” said Jeremiah Underhill, an attorney in
Harrisburg, whose family home is surrounded by 30 acres of corn and
soybean fields.
The Underhills immediately began a battery of tests searching for
the lead’s source. For years, public health experts have cited paint
as the most dangerous source of poisoning for children, who may
ingest paint chips and dust in older housing.
But it was a water sample, not paint, which tested positive for
lead. The lead level in the water was at the maximum threshold set
by the EPA, though Penn State analysts warned that the levels could
fluctuate and may well exceed the maximum if tested more regularly.
The Underhills found that, as in Flint, their well water was
corrosive and leaching lead from plumbing in their house.
The family installed a treatment system to make the water less
acidic. Their soda-ash injection system cost about $400, though if a
family member had not helped install it, the cost would have been
far higher. Today, their water has no lead and Dalton’s blood work
is clear. The couple feels fortunate to have caught it early,
knowing lead exposure can trigger brain damage.
“The only reason we caught this was because our doctor was smart
enough to say, ‘Let’s test this,’” Underhill said. “I mean, it was
the water we used to mix Dalton’s formula.”
Most children are never tested, and rules on testing children for
lead exposure are inconsistent and often ignored across the country,
Reuters found.
“Many physicians, wrongly, don’t believe that lead poisoning is
still a problem,” said Dr. Jennifer Lowry, a toxicologist and
pediatrician at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri.
“They may not be seeing it because they are not testing for it. I
think every kid should be tested.”
SURPRISING SOURCES
Many people believe if they have a new home or well, their plumbing
does not contain lead. Yet virtually all plumbing before 2014 has
some lead in its components, and older homes tend to have more
leaded plumbing. Until January 2014, “lead free” meant the plumbing
component contained less than 8 percent lead.
In Highlands, North Carolina, Robert and Suzanne Gregory discovered
lead in their water after drilling a well for their home last
August.
Macon County required they test the new well for bacteria. Robert,
an engineer, wanted to know more and paid for an in-depth test that
found the water corrosive and contaminated with lead. He believed
the source was the galvanized steel pipe that ran down his well. The
couple had the galvanized pipe, whose coating may have contained
lead, replaced with lead-free stainless steel. They tested again and
the lead was gone.
“The combination of acidic water and galvanized steel is a problem,
and I think it’s bigger than most people understand because most
people don’t even know they have galvanized,” Robert said.
Even if a homeowner conducts a lead test, the solutions can be too
expensive for families with limited means. Some water treatment
systems cost more than $10,000.
Only a few states, including New Jersey and Rhode Island, require
wells be tested for lead – a test required when the property and
well are transferred to a new owner. Though many states require
tests for e coli and other bacteria, lead tests are seldom required,
said John Hudson, vice president at Mortgage Financial Services in
San Antonio, Texas.
For a graphic, click
here
A PLEA FOR CLEAN WATER
Some residents know they have contaminated wells and want municipal
water, but can’t get it.
In Orleans, New York, residents live in a region known for its
boating, fishing and outdoor activities but also its doggedly high
unemployment rate. The town began petitioning the state for
municipal water four years ago. Since then, residents have made
flyers and set up a Facebook page, but there’s still no plan in
place for public water.
State officials say they aim to obtain $13 million to extend
municipal water service to homes in Orleans with contaminated water,
but Kevin Rarick, the Orleans town supervisor, calls the plan “smoke
and mirrors.” Almost all of the money would come from a loan that
would cost each water user $500 a year to pay off, and the state has
not announced a plan to change the way it stores salt at the barn.
Homeowner Greene, whose family has had to replace salt-tainted
appliances, views the equation as unfair: The state polluted the
aquifer feeding his well, and now wants his community to bankroll
the solution.
New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation said the
source of the salt is “inconclusive,” and that the salt has been
stored safely. An official noted that the state has given residents
bottled water.
“If I had a salt pile that leached salt into my neighbor’s well, the
state would be here the next day fining me and making me clean it up
and making me be a good neighbor,” said Greene. “That’s all we want
from them, to be a good neighbor.”
(Edited by Ronnie Greene)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
