DEQ Proposes Changes to Backup Generator Rules

 The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulates backup generators primarily through air quality permits and rules governing their operation, particularly in the context of data centers. The regulations specify when generators can be used, their emission standards, and permit requirements, with a general emphasis on non-emergency use limitations. 

The data centers that increasingly fuel our interactions need to run 24 hours a day to keep the internet going. So, these facilities include backup power generators, often fueled by diesel or natural gas, and intended to run only during emergencies. Each data center is equipped with sometimes dozens, sometimes hundreds of tractor trailer-sized generators. Running generators burns fossil fuels for power emits pollutants such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and carbon dioxide. 

In the summer of 2022 Virginia regulators proposed allowing Northern Virginia data centers to use backup generators in a more continuous manner for a five-month period during which energy “transmission problems” were anticipated. Homeowners’ associations that were already opposing data center projects in their backyards quickly coalesced to contest the proposal. The data center industry ended up asking regulators to rescind it.

But the outsized power demands have only grown since then, especially as more hyperscale data centers enabling AI come online. This past summer, the region faced another test of its grid when power demand for cooling reached record highs during heat waves in June and July. PJM Interconnection, which manages the grid for the northeastern U.S., issued permission in late June for places with high power consumption to use backup systems instead of the grid to prevent blackouts.

Electricity demand continues to grow faster than the generation being added to the grid. An extreme period of cold when the ubiquitous air heat exchanges cannot make the temperature gap and are forced to operate on the les efficient electric heat resistance to warm the homes could topple the grid.

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is currently accepting comments (until December 4th ) on a proposed change that would allow data centers to run backup diesel generators during planned outage events. Until now, these generators could only be used in the case of “sudden and reasonably unforeseeable events” or maintenance. In other words, these diesel generators–one of the most polluting forms of energy generation–were only ever meant to serve as backup power in emergency situations.

Below are the comments from the Piedmont Environmental Council:

“Utilities want the flexibility for the data centers to be able to run their existing backup diesel generators during planned outage events. This is driven by a desire to expedite timelines and avoid paying for more expensive options better equipped to protect public health."

"Planned outages, such as while transmission lines are built or worked on, are considered foreseeable, meaning data center operators have sufficient time — and are expected to — seek alternative options. Options typically used include: a) renting mobile Tier IV gas generators with higher pollution controls, or b) retrofitting Tier II generators with SCRs (selective catalytic reduction systems) to protect the public from pollution."

"But DEQ's proposal would allow data centers to potentially turn on hundreds to thousands of diesel generators, putting public health at greater risk. We believe this change should not be allowed or, at the very least, should be strictly limited and regulated."

The Public Comment Period ends on Thursday. Until then you can provide your comment at the following link: Guidance Document Public Comment Forum

DEQ Proposes to Allow more Frequent Operation of Backup Generators

A bad idea is once more being considered. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) proposes to allow backup diesel generators to operate more often, particularly at data centers in Northern Virginia. This would lead to significant increases in air pollution, noise, and environmental impacts in the region, especially to residential communities and schools.

There are 4,000 MW of backup generation (primarily diesel) in the Potomac River Basin is concentrated in Northern Virginia, with an estimated 9,000 permitted diesel generators across the state, many of which serve data centers in Loudoun and Prince William counties (Source 1,2,8).

---

Air and Health Impacts

The core issue is that these generators are generally Tier II or unrated diesel engines (designed only for emergency use) and are a highly polluting energy source (Source 1.2, 3.3). Increased operation would directly increase the emission of harmful air pollutants, posing a significant public health burden.

• Particulate Matter (PM): Diesel generators emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known carcinogen (Source 1.1). Increased use would raise the concentration of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter), which can penetrate deeply into the lungs and bloodstream, exacerbating asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Source 1.8).
• Ozone Precursors (NOx): The generators emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, which react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to form ground-level ozone (smog) (Source 3.3). Allowing generators to run during anticipated disruptions often coincides with peak summer heat and grid stress, which are already the highest ozone-forming conditions (Source 1.2).
• Cumulative Health Costs: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) and related studies estimate that even a fraction of the permitted emissions could result in an annual public health cost of $190–260 million in Virginia and surrounding states (Source 1,8).

Impact on Schools and Residential Areas:

Children are especially vulnerable to air quality impacts. Proximity of generator clusters to sensitive receptors—such as schools, hospitals, and residential areas—is a key concern, as increased operation would directly expose these communities to higher levels of toxic emissions (Source 1,2).

---

Noise Impacts

The allowance for more frequent operation, especially for non-emergency reasons like planned maintenance or grid support, would lead to chronic noise pollution in adjacent communities.

• Disruptive Decibel Levels: Diesel generators are extremely loud. When multiple units run simultaneously, they produce a constant, industrial-grade humming and droning noise (Source 3,2).
• Quality of Life: Residents near data centers already report that the noise from cooling equipment and routine testing disrupts sleep, conversation, and the ability to use outdoor spaces (Source 3,2). Extending the permitted operating time beyond brief emergency tests would make this noise pollution a pervasive, ongoing issue.
• Increased Frequency: The proposal is designed to allow use during "planned outage events" or grid constraints (Source 1,2). This shifts the use from unpredictable, rare emergencies to foreseeable, planned operations, increasing the overall frequency and duration of loud generator operation (Source 3,2).

---

Environmental and Regulatory Impacts

• Climate Change (GHG): Increased burning of diesel fuel for non-emergency grid support directly increases greenhouse gas emissions, making it more difficult for Virginia to meet its climate goals, such as the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) targets (Source 1,1).
• Cumulative Emissions: The total number of permitted generators is enormous (nearly 9,000 across the state, with thousands concentrated in Northern Virginia) (Source 1.8). The concern is that DEQ has not publicly estimated the potential cumulative impact of thousands of these generators operating together for extended periods, effectively using them as a temporary, polluting power plant (Source 1,2).
• Regulatory Precedent: Environmental groups oppose the change, fearing it sets a "slippery slope" precedent that allows generators, which are permitted only for emergency use, to be used for demand response—where data centers are paid to reduce grid usage by running their polluting backup power (Source 1,2).

---

Sources

1. PEC Web Map, "Data Centers, Diesel Generators and Air Quality"
2. PEC Virginia, "Proposed Increase to Data Center Diesel Generator Use"
3. Bay Journal, "Virginia regulators consider letting data centers regularly use fossil-fuel power for part of the year"
4. Trinity Consultants, "Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Releases Three Air Permitting Guidance Documents for Data Centers"
5. Virginia Conservation Network, "ADDRESSING DATA CENTER IMPACTS & ENSURING TRANSPARENCY"
6. JLARC, "Data Centers in Virginia"
7. McGuireWoods, "Virginia DEQ Withdraws Proposed Rule Allowing Extended Backup Generator Use"
8. Virginia Regulatory Town Hall, View Comments on Proposed Rule

COP 30 Ends

COP30 that was held  in the rainforest in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, closed declaring that it achieved agreements on tripling adaptation finance and launched initiatives to protect forests and scale up climate finance. However, it failed to adopt a formal roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, leading to disappointment among many nations and civil society groups. The United States did not send an official delegation though California Governor Galvin Newsome made an appearance.

What was decided:

• Finance at scale: Mobilise $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action.
• Adaptation boost: Double adaptation finance by 2025 and triple by 2035.
• New initiatives: Launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and Belém Mission to 1.5°C to drive ambition and implementation.
• Climate disinformation: Commitment to promote information integrity and counter false narratives.

COPs continue to operate around consensus. Many compromises are made, but just one country can veto a proposal. At the conference Brazilian scientist Carlos Nobre issued a stark warning: fossil fuel use must fall to zero by 2040 – 2045 at the latest to avoid temperature rises of up to 2.5°C by mid-century. That trajectory, he said, would spell the near-total loss of coral reefs, the collapse of the Amazon rainforest and an accelerated melt of the Greenland ice sheet.

The world is in a critical state is supported by scientific data released at the conference: 

• CO2 emissions are projected to reach a new record high in 2025 (38.1 billion tonnes), an increase of 1.1% over 2024 levels.
• 1.5°C Goal is beyond reach: The remaining carbon budget to limit warming to 1.5°C is "virtually exhausted" and expected to be gone before 2030 at the current emission rate which is still rising. Keeping warming below 1.5°C is "no longer plausible".
• Warming and Water Stress: Global temperatures will continue to rise with 2024 likely the first year to temporarily exceed the 1.5°C threshold. The accompanying impacts, including droughts and water stress, are intensifying. 

Expectations were high that COP30's final decision would include explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels. More than 80 countries backed Brazil’s proposal for a formal ‘roadmap.’ However, more nations did not.

The Tropical Forests Forever Facility was launched. The goal is to raise $125 billion to pay countries to conserve forests. There were  $5.5 billion in initial pledges. Brazil also committed to creating new Indigenous territories.

• Methane Reductions: Seven countries (including the UK, Canada, and Germany) signed a separate statement to achieve "near zero" methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector.
• Renewable Energy: Public utility companies in various countries pledged nearly $150 billion for new grids and energy storage to accelerate the global clean energy transition. 

COP30 fell short of the decisive action on fossil fuels that many scientists say is necessary to "correct course" and keep the 1.5°C limit within reach.

  

Drought Expands

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in coordination with the Virginia Drought Monitoring Task Force, has expanded the drought watch advisory to now include 50 counties and 23 cities. Virginia has endured three dry years and this water year (October 1 2025 -September 30 2026) has started off very dry.

from DEQ

The drought advisory is intended to help Virginians prepare for a potential drought and now includes the following areas:

• Middle James: Albemarle, Amelia, Amherst, Appomattox, Buckingham, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, Nelson, Powhatan, Prince Edward counties; and the cities of Charlottesville, Colonial Heights, Hopewell, Lynchburg, Petersburg, and Richmond
• Northern Virginia:  Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William counties; and the cities of Arlington, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park 
• Northern Piedmont: Culpeper, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, Rappahannock, Spotsylvania, and Stafford counties; and the city of Fredericksburg
• Roanoke River: Bedford, Campbell, Charlotte, Franklin, Patrick, Halifax, Henry, Mecklenburg, Pittsylvania, and Roanoke counties; and the cities of Bedford, Martinsville, Salem, and Roanoke
• Upper James: Alleghany, Bath, Craig, Botetourt, Highland, and Rockbridge counties; and the city of Covington
• Shenandoah: Augusta, Clarke, Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren counties; and the cities of Buena Vista, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Winchester

Recent lack of precipitation has resulted in continued below normal or declines in streamflow and groundwater levels throughout northern, central, and south-central regions of the state. The forecast for the next week suggests limited precipitation east of the Blue Ridge Mountains (0.10 to 0.25”) with slightly higher, but still below normal, totals forecasted in western portions of the Commonwealth (0.25 to 0.5”). Above normal temperatures are predicted over all the Commonwealth for the next two weeks. Below normal water levels are present in Smith Mountain Lake and Switzer Lake with storage at all other major water supply reservoirs at normal levels.

Groundwater monitoring wells along the Blue Ridge Mountains and throughout northern portions of the state continue to exhibit moderate declines and were generally below or much below normal levels in these areas. Groundwater levels in three indicator wells were below the 5th percentile, one in the Roanoke and two in the Northern Virginia drought evaluation regions. Groundwater levels in three indicator wells were between the 5th and 10th percentiles, one in each of the Roanoke, Northern Virginia, and Upper James drought evaluation regions.

from USGS

DEQ is working with local governments, public water works, and water users in the affected areas to ensure that conservation and drought response plans and ordinances are followed. Localities and residents that are supplied water from the Potomac River should consult the Metropolitan Washington Water Supply and Drought Awareness Response Plan for specific triggers and actions to be taken. All Virginians are encouraged to protect water supplies by minimizing water use, monitoring drought conditions, and detecting and repairing leaks.

Water Impacts of Data Centers in the Potomac River Basin

The following is a summary of a recent presentation by Alimatou Seck, PhD Senior Water Resources Scientist Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB). All points, and data are hers. The video of the presentation is worth watching if want to know more.

Webinar: Water Impacts from Data Centers in the Potomac River Basin - YouTube

Water Supply System Overview

The Washington Metropolitan Area (WMA) water supply system provides water to approximately 6.1 million residents across three states. On average, the system meets a demand of 400 million gallons per day (MGD), with peak demand escalating to 600 MGD during the month of August. Upstream, consumptive water use averages 107 MGD annually, but reaches 125 MGD in the summer. This upstream use has a noticeable effect on the overall flow of the Potomac River.

 
Data Center Water Use

Data centers play a critical role in supporting digital infrastructure, and their growth has accelerated rapidly due to advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and the expansion of cloud computing services. In the United States, water consumption had been stable for a extended period of time then water consumption specifically by data centers increased from 15 MGD in 2014 to 48 MGD in 2023. In Virginia alone, data centers used an estimated 2.1 billion gallons of water in 2023, averaging about 6 MGD.

 
Cooling Technologies

Data centers utilize various cooling methods to manage heat and maintain operational efficiency. These include air cooling, evaporative cooling, and direct liquid cooling. Among these, direct liquid cooling is recognized for its lower water footprint compared to traditional cooling techniques. Additionally, hybrid cooling systems are being adopted to further minimize water losses by recirculating water within the system.

 
Water Use Estimates

On average, each data center facility uses between 38,000 and 42,000 gallons of water per day, though this data includes the older and smaller data centers built earlier and few of the new hyperscale data centers that are currently being built. Data centers do not disclose their power usage nor water usage. Dr. Seck used power consumption as derived from backup generator permits and disclosure from the ICPRB water utility partner to determine the relationship between power consumption and water use. Then she used the projections from the JLARC report to project a range of water use. Projections indicate that water use by data centers will increase substantially by 2050. The extent of growth will largely dependent on the adoption of efficient cooling technologies.

 
Future Projections

Looking ahead, the water consumption of data centers is expected to rise markedly. Under medium-growth scenarios, peak day water use could reach as high as 80 MGD by 2050 (that's 13% of summer water use). Water use also displays seasonal variability, using the most water in the summers when temperatures are highest. Combining the drought experience in the summer of 2023 with the projected growth in summer water demand it appears that there will not be enough storage and reserves in the system to meet the forecast demand during dry / drought periods.

 
Key Takeaways

• Currently, data centers have a modest impact on overall water use in the region, but they represent a rapidly growing sector.
• Future water use will be shaped by technology choices and trends in energy demand.
• Building resilience in the system will require effective management of both water and energy needs, especially in the face of uncertainty.

Further Considerations

• Transparency in water and energy usage data is essential for managing future demand effectively.
• There is potential for state-level regulations to restrict water withdrawals by data centers in the future.
• Ongoing innovations in technology and operational practices can improve water use efficiency across the sector.

Iran’s Teaters on the Edge

 Iran has begun water rationing due to a severe drought and decades of mismanagement, leading to critically low levels in reservoirs. In response to the crisis, authorities have lowered water pressure, implemented nightly cuts in Tehran (before it was announced), and have already started rationing in some cities.

The authorities have also called on people to curb consumption during the day. Water rationing has not yet been reported in other parts of Iran. The Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has warned that Tehran could face more severe rationing or even evacuation if rainfall does not increase soon, a scenario that could affect the almost 10 million people of Tehran.

The five main reservoirs supplying water to Tehran are at historically low levels, currently holding just 11% of overall capacity. In Mashhad, Iran's second-largest city with 4 million residents, reservoirs have fallen below 3% of their capacity, with three of the four dams supplying the city now out of operation due to lack of water. Nationwide, 10% percent of Iran's reservoirs have run completely dry, and more than 20 dams are holding under 5% of their capacity.

Short-term fixes exist, but experts say fundamental reforms and tough policy decisions are needed to avert a catastrophe. Without rain and swift and effective action it is hard to see how the regime will survive. Attempts at seeding the rain clouds have failed because there was not enough moisture. Iranian officials have not yet presented a concrete plan to tackle the emergency but suggest prayer.

Water scarcity is already fueling local tensions and protests, which could escalate into broader social conflict, especially as rising inflation, unemployment, housing issues, and the high cost of living further erode people’s capacity to cope with yet one more crisis.

Conspiracy theories are once more rampant usually accusing Israel and the U.S. of stealing Iran’s rain clouds. Most recently the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Mohsen Arbabian claimed in an interview on the Iranian YouTube channel that the U.S. and Israel have been "deliberately diverting clouds" away from Iran for over four decades, alleging that satellite imagery shows altered cloud trajectories. He contrasted the low water levels of Iran’s Lake Urmia now nearly dry with the relatively stable levels of Turkey’s Lake Van as supposed evidence of this manipulation.

This echo’s Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, head of Iran's Civil Defense Organization, 2018 claim that "Israel and another country in the region have joint teams which work to ensure clouds entering Iranian skies are unable to release rain". Similar claims were made by other officials and experts in the past two years as the drought in Iran worsened. 

However, Reza Haji-Karim, head of Iran’s Water Industry Federation, told the website Didban Iran that the city’s water resources are in decline. “Water rationing should have started much earlier. Right now, 62% of Tehran’s water comes from underground sources, and the level of these aquifers has dropped sharply.”

The crisis, he said, is the result of years of neglecting scientific warnings about groundwater depletion and climate change. “The only way to save Tehran is through a chain of measures – from wastewater recycling and consumption reform to cutting agricultural water use,” he added. Unfortunately for them, despite a decade of warnings they have waited too long.

More than 90% of Iran’s water supply is used for irrigation. Iranian law requires that 85% of food be produced domestically. However, Iran does not have the water and soil resources for that, and nearly 30% of agricultural produce is wasted due to a lack of infrastructure, outdated irrigation practices and misguided crop selection according to Morad Kaviani, Professor of geography and hydro- politics at Kharazmi University.

Iran has been using groundwater reserves at unchecked rates; leading to widespread land subsidence and ecosystem collapse in central Iran and Sistan and Baluchestan to the southeast. Tehran and many other cities have outgrown their supplies, forcing reliance on water transfers from distant aquifers via outdated and poorly maintained infrastructure.

We are going to see unfolding in real time the fate that awaits governments that mismanage water resources. Not just dictatorships, it is common under all forms of government to ignore water resource management when there are competing concerns. However, even in water resource rich areas our cities are running up against the true limits of freshwater on earth.

Lake  Urmia, Iran from NASA

What's in the Wells of Prince William County

Earlier this month the well owners who participated in the 2025Prince William County Well Water Clinic received their results by email. Below you can see the summary of what was found in the 131-water analyses performed. VA Tech tested for the naturally occurring contaminants and common sources of contamination: a poorly sealed well or a nearby leaking septic system, or indications of plumbing system corrosion. These are the most common contaminants that affect our drinking water wells. Also, this year they expanded their analysis to additional metal contaminants from plumbing sources and additional contaminants with health concerns.

To determine if treatment is necessary, water test results should be compared to a standard-usually the U.S.EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW) limits. Though private wells are not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Safe Drinking Water Act, the SDW act has primary and secondary drinking water standards that we use for comparison. Primary standards are ones that can impact health and from the tested substances include coliform bacteria, E. coli bacteria, nitrate, lead, and arsenic. Secondary standards impact taste or the perceived quality of the water. Then there are the substances with a health reference level (HAL) below which health impacts are not anticipated and LHA a level of contamination that if consumed over a lifetime may have health impacts.

Just because your water appears clear does not mean it is safe to drink. The 2025 Prince William County water clinic found that 30.5% of the wells tested PRESENT for coliform bacteria. This is higher than last year. Coliform bacteria are not a health threat itself; it is used to indicate other bacteria that may be present and identify that a well is not properly sealed from surface bacteria. The federal standard for coliform bacteria is zero, but the federal standard allows that up to 5% of samples can test positive for coliform during a month.

One of the bacteria contaminated wells tested positive for E coli. Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water is contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and those with compromised immune systems. However, people can drink water contaminated with fecal bacteria and not notice.

If your well is contaminated with coliform but not fecal coliform or E. coli, then you have a nuisance bacteria problem, and the source may be infiltration from the surface from rain or snow melt. Typical causes are improperly sealed well cap, well repairs performed without disinfecting or adequately disinfecting the well, failed grouting or surface drainage to the well. Very low levels of coliform (1-5 MPN) may appear in an older well during extremely wet springs.

If your well was found to have coliform bacteria present you should shock chlorinate the well (according to the procedure from VA Tech), repack the soil around the well pipe to flow away from the well and replace the well cap. Then after at least two weeks and the next big rainstorm retest the well for coliform. If coliform bacteria is still present then a long-term treatment should be implemented: using UV light, ozonation, or chlorine for continuous disinfection. These systems can cost up to $2,000 installed (maybe more with recent price increases).

If you have fecal coliform in the well or E. coli, your well is being impacted by human or animal waste and you are drinking dilute sewage. This year 3.8% of the wells tested were found to have E. coli present. If there is not a nearby animal waste composting facility, then you are probably drinking water from a failed septic system- yours or your nearest neighbors or in some areas a leaking sewer line. To solve this problem you need to fix or replace the septic system that is causing the contamination, replace the well or install a disinfection and micro filtration or reverse osmosis system. Giardia or Cryptosporidium are two microscopic parasites that can be found in groundwater that has been impacted by surface water or sewage. Both parasites produce cysts that cause illness and sometimes death. Chlorine can work against Giardia but not Cryptosporidium. Ultraviolet (UV) light works against both Giardia and Cryptosporidium so it is the preferred method of treating this problem.

The failing septic systems can often be identified by using tracer dyes. While continuous disinfection will work to protect you from fecal bacteria and E. coli, be aware that if your well is being impacted by a septic system, then the well water might also have present traces of all the chemicals and substances that get poured down the drain. Long term treatment for disinfection, and micro-filtration should be implemented: using UV light, ozonation, or chlorine for continuous disinfection, carbon filtration, and anything that is used for drinking should be further treated with a reverse osmosis systems or micro membrane system both work by using pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane. Large quantities of wastewater are produced by reverse osmosis systems and need to bypass the septic system or they will overwhelm that system creating more groundwater problems. Reverse osmosis systems produce water very slowly, a pressurized storage tank and special faucet needs to be installed so that water is available to meet the demand for drinking and cooking.

Nitrate can contaminate well water from fertilizer use; leaking from septic tanks, sewage and erosion of natural deposits. One of the wells in our group of 131samples had nitrate levels above the MCL. The regulatory limit for nitrate in public drinking water supplies, 10 mg/L,  was set to protect against infant methemoglobinemia, but other health effects were not considered and are emerging as problems. Nitrate in a well tends to climb slowly over the years if the septic systems do not have at least 3 acres between them. Based on a study done years ago in Dutchess County NY at least 3 acres are necessary to naturally treat the nitrate.

Dr. Mary Ward of the Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute has lead several important studies comparing all the research on the health impacts from exposure to nitrate in water. The first review was of studies published before 2005. In 2018 Dr. Ward was lead author on a review of more than 30 epidemiologic studies on drinking water nitrate and health outcomes. If your nitrate-N levels are climbing, you might want to read Dr. Ward’s work. There are AOSS systems designed to remove nitrate. These are very expensive (think new car expensive.)

This year they found 7.6% of homes had first draw lead levels above the SDWA maximum contaminant level of 0.01 Mg/L. After flushing the tap for at least one minute none of the homes had lead levels above the 0.1 mg/L level; however, many scientists do not believe that any level of lead is safe to drink over an extended period of time. Often homes that have elevated lead in the first draw, have lower pH values. Corrosive water is the primary risk for lead in well water. However, over time water with a neutral pH could dissolve the coating on galvanized iron, in brass well components and plumbing fixtures.

Houses built before 1988 when the ban on lead went into effect and have low pH water typically have higher lead concentrations. Lead leaches into water primarily as a result of corrosion of plumbing and components in the well itself but can also result from flaking of scale from brass fittings and well components. Corrosion control techniques such as adjusting pH or alkalinity that are commonly used to neutralize aggressive water will not work in to reduce lead being leached from well components. For most instances, though, a neutralizing filter and lead removing activated carbon filters can be used to remove lead leaching from plumbing pipes, solder and fixtures. Recently, some home water treatment companies are offering home treatment systems that neutralize the water and add orthophosphate other phosphate solution to coat the piping to prevent further corrosion of metal pipes. It should work if maintained. This type of solution is used in public water supplies. I have no experience with this type of home system and am not aware of any testing.

Iron and manganese are naturally occurring elements commonly found in groundwater in this part of the country. 5.3% of the wells tested exceed the iron standard and 1.5% exceeded the manganese standard. At naturally occurring levels iron and manganese do not present a health hazard. However, their presence in well water can cause unpleasant taste, staining and accumulation of mineral solids that can clog water treatment equipment and plumbing and discolored water. The standard Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L or ppm) and 0.05 mg/L for manganese. This level of iron and manganese can be detected by taste, smell, or appearance. In addition, some types of bacteria react with soluble forms of iron and manganese and form persistent bacterial contamination in a well, water system and any treatment systems. These organisms change the iron and manganese from a soluble form into a less black or reddish brown gelatinous material (slime). Masses of mucous, iron, and/or manganese can clog plumbing and water treatment equipment even in extreme circumstances clog up a well pump.

All systems of removing iron and manganese essentially involve oxidation of the soluble form or killing and removal of the iron bacteria. When the total combined iron and manganese concentration is less than 15 mg/l, an oxidizing filter is the recommended solution. (Iron bacteria, hydrogen sulfide and tannins can also be removed with pre-chlorination.) An oxidizing filter supplies oxygen to convert ferrous iron into a solid form which can be filtered out of the water. Higher concentrations of iron and manganese can be treated with an aeration and filtration system. This system is not effective on water with iron/ manganese bacteria but is very effective on soluble iron and manganese, so you need to do further testing to determine what type of iron/manganese you have before you install a treatment system. Newer iron filters have an option to add an ozone generator to kill reducing bacteria.  Water softeners can remove low levels of iron and manganese and are widely sold for this purpose because they are very profitable but are now being banned in some locations due to rising sodium and chloride levels, what is known as inland salinization. Increasing salinization of our water resources is a growing problem in our region. Also, water softeners are easily clogged by iron bacteria.

Chemical oxidation can be used to remove high levels of dissolved or oxidized iron and manganese as well as treat the presence of iron/manganese (or even sulfur which was found in one well exceeding the EPA MCL) bacteria. The system consists of a small pump that puts an oxidizing agent into the water before the pressure tank. The water will need about 20 minutes for oxidation to take place so treating before a holding tank or pressure tank is a must. After the solid particles have formed the water is filtered. The best oxidizing agents are chlorine or hydrogen peroxide. If chlorine is used, an activated carbon filter is often used to finish the water and remove the chlorine taste. The holding tank or pressure tank will have to be cleaned regularly to remove any settled particles.

The pH of water is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity. The pH is a logarithmic scale from 0 – 14 with 1 being very acidic and 14 very alkaline. Drinking water should be between 6.5 and 8.5. For reference and to put this into perspective, coffee has a pH of around 5 and salt water has a pH of around 9. Corrosive water, sometimes also called aggressive water is typically water with a low pH. (Alkaline water can also be corrosive.) Low pH water can corrode metal plumbing fixtures causing lead and copper to leach into the water and causing pitting and leaks in the plumbing system. The presence of lead or copper in water is most commonly leaching from the plumbing system or well rather than the groundwater. Acidic water is easily treated using an acid neutralizing filter. Typically, these neutralizing filters use a granular marble, calcium carbonate or lime. If the water is very acidic a mixing tank using soda ash, sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide can be used. The acid neutralizing filters will increase the hardness of the water because of the addition of calcium carbonate. 14.5% of the wells tested were found to have acidic water or a high pH (probably from too much salt in the water softener) this year. A too high a pH is usually from over treating with a water softener, but can be an expression of other pollution.

Water that contains high levels of dissolved minerals is commonly referred to as hard. Groundwater very slowly wears away at the rocks and minerals picking up small amounts of calcium and magnesium ions. Water containing approximately 120 mg/L can begin to have a noticeable impact and is considered hard. Concentrations above 180 mg/L are considered very hard. Hard water can be just a minor annoyance with spotting and the buildup of lime scale, but once water reaches the very hard level 180 mg/L or 10.5 grains per gallon, it can become problematic. Overall, 15.3% of homes tested had very hard water. (It is to be noted more than half of homes reported having a water softener.)

Two methods are commercially available (and certified) to treat hard water. A water softener and a water system that work through a process called template assisted crystallization (TAC), have been certified by DVGW-W512 and are available in whole house units. In template assisted crystallization, water flows through a tank of TAC media. When the hard water comes into contact with the media, the magnesium and calcium ions are caught by the nucleation sites. As more calcium and magnesium ions build up within the sites, small micro-crystals form and flow through your plumbing. They do not attach themselves to your water pipes as scale.

The ubiquitous water softening system is an ion exchange system consisting of a mineral tank and a brine tank. The mineral tank holds small beads of resin that have a negative electrical charge. The calcium and magnesium ions (along with small amounts of other minerals) are positively charged and are attracted to the negatively charged beads. This attraction makes the minerals stick to the beads as the hard water passes through the mineral tank. Sodium from salt is used to charge the resin beads. The brine tank is flushed out when the resin beads are recharged carrying the salty solution to the environment. Inland salinization of surface waters and groundwater is an emerging environmental concern. Research has shown that salinization has affected over a third of the drainage area of the contiguous United States even in areas without road salt. At the present time the EPA guidance level for sodium in drinking water is 20 mg/L. Given the number of homes with elevated sodium and our local geology, it is probably a reflection of the number of homes with water softeners-52.7% of the wells tested had elevated sodium.

One of wells was found that had arsenic exceeding the EPA MCL for drinking water of 10 ppm. While arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in soil and groundwater it is not typically found at significantly elevated levels in this geology. Arsenic is best removed by water treatment methods such as reverse osmosis, ultra-filtration, distillation, or as a last choice ion exchange (water softeners). Typically, these methods are used to treat water at only one faucet. Though anionic exchange systems (water softeners) are whole house systems, they may not be the best choice.

Elevated chloride was found in three samples and can be removed using either reverse osmosis or ion exchange filters.

Elevated uranium was found in one sample. Because uranium gets into your body primarily through ingestion (and not through the skin or through inhalation), it is not usually necessary to treat all the water in your home, but only the water you drink. Reverse osmosis (RO) treatment systems are the most common type of treatment used for uranium removal and are very effective.

Traces of other metals were found in a small handful of samples. Activated carbon filters are used to address these problems. When the activated carbon is fully contacted with water, the heavy metal ions will be adsorbed into the developed voids of the activated carbon to remove the contaminant. 

 

My Water Test Results 2025

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates public water systems, the responsibility for ensuring the safety and consistent supply of water from a private well belongs to the well owner-in this case me. I test my well water annually. An easy way to do this is to participate in the Virginia Tech Extension Virginia Household Water Quality Program (VHWQP). This year the program expanded the number of  contaminants tested for. Not all of the substances tested for had established health standards.

Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA  established regulatory limits (standards) on over 100 chemical and microbial contaminants in drinking water.   These contaminants include bacteria from human waste, industrial discharge streams (of great concern back in 1974 when the SDWA was first created) and water disinfection by-products and distribution system contaminants. They also regulate naturally occurring contaminants. For each of these contaminants, EPA sets a legal limit, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL). In addition, EPA sets secondary standards for less hazardous substances based on aesthetic characteristics of taste, smell and appearance, which public water systems and states can choose to adopt or not. Then there are the health reference level (HAL) below which health impacts are not anticipated and LHA a level of contamination that if consumed over a lifetime may have health impacts.

What is typically done is to compare the test results to the regulatory or health advisory levels to see if there is an exposure to be concerned about.

It turns out that over a week ago the VHWQP emailed me my water analysis from the sample taken as part of their well water clinic. The email ended up in my junk folder. This is what I saw when I opened my attachment. (I’ve organized the results in the same sections that VHWQP did): 

 

None of the chemicals or bacteriological indicators that they tested for were found to be in excess of the U.S. EPA safe drinking water recommended limits. All good. In addition to the 15 contaminants typically found in well water, their instrument that analyzes metals and elements returns data for 14 additional contaminants, many of which are rarely found in well water, that Virginia Tech screens for. None of those contaminants were found to be elevated in my water samples.

In addition, VHWQP also screened for 8 substance for which there is no established health limit so no comparison could be made.

This year, though below the regulatory limit they found trace levels of lead in the first and second draw sample from the powder room sink. This gave me pause since the last time I used this sink for sampling the flush was ND. While this was all within the EPA safe drinking water limits, I do not believe that there is a safe level of lead.

The presence of lead in water that sits for several hours or overnight generally comes the pipes and fixtures and becomes a bigger problem the older the pipes and fixture become. Over time older pipes and fixtures corrode or simply wear away and the lead and other corrosion material (like rust) is carried to the drinking water. Time and water do cause corrosion, but this can be aggravated by the pH of the water or other changes in water chemistry. The amount of lead corroded from metal plumbing generally increases with water corrosiveness.

My water is neutral, I have plastic pipes in the house. It is possible to see traces of lead because there is lead and copper in the well equipment, pressure tank fittings and faucets. Until 2014 when the 2011 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act went into effect, almost all drinking water fixtures were made from brass containing up to 8% lead, even if they were sold as "lead free." Homes built with PVC piping in the 2000's may have some lead in most of the faucets.

Also, before 2014 Prime Western grade “lead free” galvanized steel zinc coating was required to contain between 0.5%-1.4% lead. After 2014, “lead free” galvanized steel must have less than 0.25% lead in the surface coatings. My galvanized steel well casing was installed in 2004. Over time, even under neutral condition, any lead used in coatings can be released to the water and pumped to the household tap or accumulate in scale layers on the pipe surface or well bottom where scale can accumulate and be released or picked up and pumped with the water.

In 2018 I began replacing the faucets in the house, starting with the ones we use for cooking or drinking. There is little I can do about the galvanized steel casing in the well at this point.  The brass fittings on pressure tanks and pitless adaptors are now available with less then 0.25% lead and were replaced in 2020. A few years ago, at a different sink the results suggested to me that the faucet might be the source- so it got replaced and the following year we did not detect lead. Problem solved there. Now I think it is time to replace the faucet set in the powder room, the sink I used for testing this year.

I test my drinking water every year to make sure it is safe to drink.  When we bought our home I tested the well for all the primary and secondary contaminants in the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as a suite of metals and pesticides using a certified laboratory. I wanted a comprehensive baseline. Still, I did not test for everything, nobody could afford to (I think there are 80,000 or more known chemicals). At the time I did not test for PFAS it was not part of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the tests available at the time were much less sensitive than is available today, but the test is still very expensive.

I tested the well  extensively before purchasing my home to make sure that the well was drawing from a groundwater aquifer that was not contaminated. While you can treat, you cannot really "fix" groundwater.  In addition, I wanted a well that was fine without any need for water treatment to address naturally occurring contaminants- my prejudice. Initially, I tested for Bacteria (Total Coliform and E-Coli), 19 heavy metals and minerals including lead, iron, arsenic and copper (many which are naturally occurring, but can impact health); 6 other inorganic compounds including nitrates and nitrites (can indicate fertilizer residue or animal waste this was once a cattle operation); 5 physical factors including pH, hardness, TDS, alkalinity; 4 Trihalomethanes (THMs) and 47 Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) including Benzene, Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Trichloroethene (TCE). Organochlorine pesticides, herbicides and PCBs. Finally, I tasted the water. It tested below the MCL, SMCL and health advisory limits and liked the taste of the water.

I do not have any treatment equipment in the house, so I was able to do only one set of water tests. When you test a well at a purchase, always test the raw water so that you know what you are buying, and test the water after any treatment to make sure the treatment equipment is working properly. What you can live with in terms of water treatment equipment is really a personal decision. I preferred to have water that did not need of any treatment and was a little hard because I like the taste of hard water. I am picky about my coffee and tea. When the test is more widely available (and cheaper), I will be testing for PFAS. For now, though, a good sign is that Prince William Service Authority did not find any PFAS in their Evergreen water system which like my home draws from groundwater wells in the Culpeper basin. Actually, most of the wells for that system are about 2.25 miles as the crow flies so it is not a guarantee given the distance to their well heads from my house, but its all I’ve got right now. There is always something new to look for.

Testing the Stabilized Yield in a Well

I have recommended that when buying a home with a well you have at least a 6 gallon a minute stabilized yield. The reason you want to make sure you have at least a 6 gallon a minute stabilized well yield/flow is to be sure that the water supply is adequate to do laundry and have everyone shower in the morning. The rule of thumb is 6 gallons/minute is an adequate yield to supply on-demand water for a typical household (some places they use 5). It really depends on how many people and bathrooms and how deep the well is.

So let’s talk about this. First you begin by taking a look at the well completion report on file with the county health department. It shows how deep the well was drilled, where water was found and the stabilized yield. The minimum you should look for are:

1. The well stabilized yield should be greater than or equal to 6 gallons/minute
2. The well should be drilled and more than 100 feet below grade (deep)

Over time the yield of most wells falls and what was an adequate well 20 years ago may not be now. In some geologies the well yield can fall by 50% or more in 20 years, and a low yielding well may be drying out after 20 years. It is also possible that over the years the groundwater level has fallen below the level of water zones in your well because of overuse of the groundwater aquifer or reduced recharge to the aquifer. Nationally, groundwater levels are falling.

In order to actually measure the stabilized yield on a well, you need a licensed well driller with the right equipment test the yield of the well for you and here is why. First, any sane person would not let some random Stanger open their well. Especially one with a YouTube video as research. Anytime you open a well you must thoroughly disinfect it. To properly disinfect a well is major pain in the butt and in my case, it can take up to a week before the rust color and chlorine are thoroughly out of the well water. I would no sooner let you open my well than cut a piece of the drywall out to look at the insulation.

As a review, you disinfect a well by circulating a concentrated chlorine solution throughout the system. The level of chlorine to use is between 50 ppm and 200 ppm (parts per million) depending on which University extension office is asked. Once the chlorine solution is well mixed (this can take a few hours), you seal up the well and system for 12-16 hours then you flush the well.  

If you have not recently chlorinated the well a bunch of orange and brown gunk will come out of the well during the flush. Because I chlorinate my well every few years, I only get orange/ brown tinged water.  To flush my well, I run the hoses to a non-sensitive area for at least an additional 24 hours till it runs clear and the chlorine level drops towards non-detect. It can take an additional week for my well to clear of every trace of chlorine and discolored water. 

Second, you need to pull the pump and use a specialized pump and an appropriate power source to perform an actual pump test. Otherwise you can only test a yield less than your pump rate.  Read the Virginia guide here. In addition, in an established neighborhood it is possible that you will impact neighbors. The low tech method is probably better for these purposes.

Using the hoses is one way to make sure the well yield is adequate. The rate at which a hose runs is impacted by the length of the hose, but it is typically about 3 gallons a minute at normal garden length (you can easily check that with a stop watch and a 1-gallon bucket- 60/seconds to fill bucket= rate). If you are running two hose you are running off about 6 gallons a minute. To make sure that your well is recharging at least at that rate you need to account for the water in the well itself.

The well column holds water. If the well was drilled to 150 feet below grade and the static water level is 43 feet below grade, there is about 156 gallons of water stored in your well. [you calculate the gallons of water in a well by is:

volume = 𝜋×𝑟2×ℎ×7.48

• where 𝜋 equals 3.14159
• radius is one half the diameter of the well in feet
• height is the depth of the well minus the static water level and
• 7.48 is the number of gallons per cubic foot.

Using my well as an example, it is 150 feet deep and when measured 5 years ago had a static water level of 43 feet below grade so that mean there is about 156 gallons of storage in my well. If I ran my hoses for 5 hours I would have used 1,800 gallons of water. This is enough for our purposes. You need to check the hoses every 20 minutes to make sure they are still running and that the rate of flow remains constant (bucket and stop watch).  If my well did not run dry in all that time it is a safe bet that there is plenty of water to run a household.  

Back in 2020 I replaced my pump and pressure tank. I wanted to make sure I had adequate recharge to size up my pump. The only way I could do it was to measure off the pump itself. These days you can measure the static water level using a sonar gun to bounce the signal off the water. The well guy had one. My static water level in early March of 2020 was 43 feet below grade. This is 13 feet lower than when the well was first finished.

If you pull your pipe out of well bringing the pitless adaptor to the surface (using the correct tools your could actually pump the water out of the well at the rate the pump runs. Most residential wells use 10 to 15 gallons a minute. After putting the new pump in the well, the well guy ran the pump for about two hours. I measured the flow off the pump at about 4 seconds to fill the gallon bucket. At that flow rate it would only take two hours to run 1,800 gallons. Which it did. Before he sealed up the well, he once more measured the static water level- still at 30 feet below grade. That proved that my well recharge rate exceeded the pump rate. Good to go with my new pump after letting the well settle and chlorine shocking the well to disinfect it. No one but me or a licensed and vetted well contractor ever messes with my well.

The water is flowing out of the pitless adaptor

I ran all that water on the down slope side of the well.

make sure you use a quick clamp to secure the pipe

COP 30

Next month, Brazil will welcome global leaders and representatives to the 30th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 30). The 30th UN climate conference will take place from 6-21 November 6^th -21^st   2025 in Belém, Brazil. It will bring together world leaders, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and civil society to discuss priority actions to tackle climate change. For 2 weeks, delegates from nations across the globe will convene to discuss the next steps in the ongoing fight against climate change and pretend that it is still possible to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. It’s not.

COP30 will focus once again on the efforts needed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, the presentation of new national action plans (NDCs) and the progress on the finance pledges made at the last meeting  COP29. In the runup to the annual meeting the U.N., Climate NGO’s , activists and others have been releasing information, essays and pleas.

Last week, the U.N. announced that “Developing countries” are receiving less than 10%  of the money they need to adapt to increasing extreme weather. The U.N. states that this is “putting lives, livelihoods and entire economies at risk.”  While Brazil is pitching COP30 as the COP of adaptation, focusing on social dimensions, systems transformation and implementation.

However, Bill Gates has just released an essay on climate change, “Three tough truths about climate- What I want everyone at COP30 to know.”  I urge you read the entirety of his thoughts on the topic, but if you do not have time here are some highlights excerpted from his essay.

• Climate change is serious, but we’ve made great progress. We need to keep backing the breakthroughs that will help the world reach zero emissions.
• But to do it we can’t cut funding for health and development—programs that help people stay resilient in the face of climate change.
• It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate strategies, which includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries and reducing the premium paid for less CO2 intensive products.

Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. Unfortunately, the constantly calling climate change an existential threat  is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.

Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries. Climate change will hurt poor people wherever they are more than anyone else. The biggest problems for humanity are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people.

COP30 is taking place at a time when it’s especially important to get the most value out of every dollar spent on helping the poorest. The pool of money available to help them is shrinking as rich countries cut their aid budgets and low-income countries are burdened by debt. 

We have to think rigorously and numerically about how to put the time and money we do have to the best use. In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.

The forecast for global warming has ameliorated 

Mr. Gates argued that we should measure success by our impact on human welfare more than our impact on the global temperature, and that our success relies on putting energy, health, and agriculture at the center of our strategies. He went on to urge that at COP30 and beyond, to make a strategic pivot: prioritize the things that have the greatest impact on human welfare. It’s the best way to ensure that everyone gets a chance to live a healthy and productive life no matter where they’re born, and no matter what kind of climate they’re born into. 

 

Mr. Gates argues that we have indeed "bent the curve" 

On a local level I have realized that with the proliferation of data centers we have no pathway to achieving the climate goals laid out by the Board of County Supervisors. Furthermore, even if we did achieve the stated climate goals, it would  not prevent the climate from changing. We must focus on adaptation, communication and the hardening of all our infrastructure, power, water, roads, buildings and services against the weather. We must protect the most vulnerable in our communities.