Private Wells

 

Over the weekend I had a little fun with AI and made up some slides using the EPA website as source material. 

The Case for Funding and Building a Groundwater Monitoring Network

Groundwater is a critical part of our water supply and the hidden reserve that sustains streams, wetlands, private wells, and public water systems during dry periods. In a watershed like the Culpeper Basin, long-term water security depends on keeping withdrawals in balance with recharge. That balance can no longer be assumed. Development has increased impervious cover, droughts have become more consequential, and local observations suggest that groundwater conditions may be changing faster than rainfall alone would explain. Yet we still lack the one thing needed to manage the resource responsibly: a reliable, long-term network of monitoring wells.

Here in Haymarket, there are visible warning signs that deserve attention. Observations from the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy showed perennial streams such as Little Bull Run and Catlett’s Branch going dry during a dry August, while Catharpin Creek was reduced to isolated pools. When streams that are expected to flow year-round begin to fail, that suggests a loss of groundwater support to surface water. In other words, what appears to be a streamflow problem may actually be a groundwater storage problem. Those field observations do not prove the full extent of the issue, but they underscore why direct groundwater monitoring is urgently needed.

Nearby jurisdictions are already building the technical case for systematic monitoring. The Fauquier County Groundwater Resource Assessment and Monitoring Study states that regional- and local-scale data are needed to manage aquifer withdrawals, evaluate water-level declines, identify contributing areas to wells, assess interconnections among pumping wells, and quantify interactions between groundwater and streams. It further notes that surface-water and groundwater monitoring networks are being established specifically to define current conditions and support future investigations. That is directly relevant here: a monitoring network is not simply descriptive; it is the basic infrastructure required to estimate sustainable yield, detect drawdown trends, and evaluate the hydrologic consequences of additional pumping or land use changes.

Regional evidence from Loudoun County points in the same direction. The Assessment of the Groundwater Supply in Loudoun County compiles long-term groundwater, streamflow, and drought information and concludes that groundwater conditions have worsened over the past several decades. The report documents declining water levels, dry wells, springs, and ponds, and argues that parts of western Loudoun are withdrawing groundwater faster than it can be replenished by natural recharge. Whether one accepts every inference in that assessment or not, the central point is difficult to dismiss: without a sufficiently dense and continuous monitoring record, it is impossible to distinguish temporary drought effects from persistent storage decline or to determine whether current withdrawals are within sustainable limits.

That matters because a falling water table affects more than individual wells. As groundwater levels drop, less water remains stored in soil, regolith, and fractured bedrock, and streams can lose the groundwater contribution that keeps them flowing between storms. Once that connection weakens, drought impacts intensify: wells become more vulnerable, streamflow becomes flashier and less reliable, and ecosystems lose the steady baseflow they depend on.

Field observations before and after major land-use change point to a consistent pattern of groundwater stress:

• Wells are being drilled deeper.
• Surface runoff has increased.
• Infiltration and groundwater recharge have decreased.
•  Some ponds, wells, and springs have permanently gone dry.
• The water table has dropped from above the top of bedrock to below it in many locations.
•  Groundwater storage in weathered bedrock has diminished.
•  Some streams and creeks are no longer reliably gaining flow from groundwater and may lose water when nearby wells are pumped.

The cost of waiting can be enormous. When communities discover groundwater problems only after wells fail, the response often shifts from planning to crisis management: emergency well drilling, interconnections, treatment upgrades, or costly new supply projects. A monitoring network is far less expensive than reacting after shortages become acute. It provides the early warning needed to avoid missteps, target conservation measures, and make infrastructure decisions before a water emergency forces them.

This is why proactive planning matters. A groundwater monitoring network would allow local officials, utilities, planners, and residents to track long-term trends, distinguish drought effects from over-withdrawal, identify vulnerable areas, and evaluate whether current land-use and water-supply decisions are sustainable. Without that information, policy is forced to rely on assumptions and guesses. With monitoring, decisions can be based on evidence that is collected over time.

The stakes extend beyond individual wells. The Occoquan Reservoir is one of two major water sources for the Fairfax Water that it supplies water to about one million people in Northern Virginia. Because groundwater storage influences baseflow to tributaries across the watershed, and baseflow in turn contributes to reservoir inflows during dry periods, uncertainty about groundwater conditions is also uncertainty about regional drought resilience. A local monitoring network would therefore support not only private-well protection, but also broader watershed-scale planning around water quantity and hydrologic reliability.

Modeling can be useful, but in fractured-rock aquifers it is inherently a simplification of a highly heterogeneous system. In Virginia’s Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Mesozoic basin settings, groundwater occurrence and movement vary significantly with local geology, fracture density, weathered-regolith thickness, and topographic position. The Groundwater Characterization and Monitoring Program notes that, in these hard-rock provinces, groundwater occurs mainly in fractures and joints and that hydrogeologic conditions vary substantially from place to place. For that reason, recharge estimates derived from gridded inputs alone cannot establish whether a particular area is recovering seasonally, trending downward over multiple years, or losing hydraulic support to nearby streams. Continuous groundwater-level monitoring is what converts a conceptual understanding of recharge into an observable record of aquifer response.

Soil-Water-Balance (SWB) models often a cheap and quick way to estimate potential recharge, are not direct proof of sustainable yield. The U.S. Geological Survey’s Soil-Water-Balance software is explicitly designed to estimate potential groundwater recharge from daily climate, land use, soil, and flow-direction inputs. The Fauquier County SWB application used that framework to estimate recharge to fractured-rock aquifers and calibrated results in part with base-flow estimates from stream gages. Those are useful screening tools, but they do not directly measure aquifer storage change, drawdown, or the timing and location of recharge transmission through discrete fracture networks. In fractured-rock systems like the Culpeper Basin, water moving below the root zone may still be delayed, diverted laterally, taken up again, or discharged to surface water before it produces measurable recovery in the deeper aquifer tapped by wells. The practical implication is straightforward: modeled recharge can inform hypotheses, but only direct groundwater-level observations can test whether the aquifer is actually recovering at a rate consistent with current and projected withdrawals.

That is the core reason to fund and build a monitoring network now. A well-designed network would provide continuous water-level data, establish local trends, improve drought response, strengthen land-use planning, and help protect both private wells and downstream surface waters. It would also give the public and decision-makers a shared factual basis for difficult choices about growth, conservation, and infrastructure. If groundwater is to remain sustainable, the first step is to measure the system directly and manage it before avoidable damage becomes irreversible.

Reforest Prince William

While continuing to rezone to increase housing density and build data centers, Prince William County is also taking steps to address decades of loss of precious forestland. A re-forestation program called Reforest PWC has been getting started in the past two years.

Tree canopies play a crucial role in supporting environmental and human health. A tree canopy shades the ground below, providing a continuous cover created by the branches and foliage of multiple trees. Tree canopies provide shade, sheltering wildlife, regulating temperatures (through shade and evapotranspiration), intercepting rainfall, and contributing to air purification by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen through photosynthesis. In urban environments, the tree canopy improves the overall environmental quality by reducing heat and stormwater flow.

Yet, Virginians continue to lose trees at an alarming rate. Virginia’s tree canopy decreased 19% from 2001-2023. The research shows that Prince William County and Loudoun County have lost nearly 5,400 acres of tree canopy to development from 2014-2021; the construction data centers, housing developments, road expansions and electrical transmission lines. The loss of tree canopies diminishes our environment’s capacity to filter water pollutants and reduce air pollution and smog and maintain the functioning of our essential Occoquan Watershed.

In 2023, the Reforest PWC program began as an opportunity for residents to reforest their own property with free trees and labor provided by the County. Reforest PWC has already been responsible for the planting of over 44,000 trees across large tracts of land in the County, most of it privately owned. This has resulted in over 48 acres of new permanent wildlife habitat being created (though a fraction of what was removed by development). This is just the beginning. With sufficient funding, tens of thousands more trees are planned for planting over the next decade, and community participation will play a vital role in achieving this goal.

Calling All Residents

The biggest challenge for this program is finding both suitable land and receptive landowners to begin the reforestation process. However, once a favorable consultation determines the project is a good match, the actual installation of the trees is completely free. Any eligible landowner in the county can participate in the program, provided there is sufficient planting space on their property. Ideal locations often consist of half-acre to multiple acre lots with large sections of lawn or grassland. These types of sites allow sufficient sunlight for newly planted trees to grow and establish quickly, generating new healthy forests in a shorter amount of time.

Why Reforest?

Reforestation provides many benefits to homeowners, beginning with significant time and cost savings. For example homes located in the former Rural Crescent areas of Nokesville and Haymarket include up to ten acres of recently converted farm fields that require frequent mowing. If a homeowner hires a local landscaping company, this maintenance can cost approximately hundreds of dollars per week, or up to $12,000 for the growing season. By contrast, a forest requires limited maintenance for forest health once established. No mowing, no fertilizing, and less lawn to rake means more time and money saved.

Forested areas of a property offer additional advantages as well. Forests help protect viewsheds and privacy, increase property values, reduce road noise, act as wind buffers for exposed properties, help filter well water, provide valuable wildlife habitat, and prevent erosion. When it comes to improving a property, reforestation is one of the best long-term investments a landowner can make, offering a strong return over time. This is especially true given that the Reforest PWC program is completely free for eligible landowners in Prince William County.

What is the Process?

The application process begins with an in-person, onsite meeting with the County Arborist to determine whether a property is a good candidate for reforestation. If the site qualifies and the landowner agrees to participate, a planting date is scheduled for either fall or spring, depending on availability. County-supervised contractors then plant approximately 450 to 600 native trees per acre, as site conditions allow.

The species mix includes a diverse selection of native deciduous and evergreen trees, with a balance of overstory and understory species, as well as shrubs. This intentional diversity supports long-term ecological resilience, enhances wildlife habitat, and restores the layered structure of a natural forest. A varied species mix is also more resilient to climate change, invasive species, and extreme weather events, helping ensure these reforestation efforts endure for decades to come.

What’s the Catch?

Naturally, a reforestation program of this scale may seem too good to be true. With an estimated planting value of approximately $10,000 per acre, this is no small investment. While such an offer may raise questions or skepticism, Reforest PWC is truly 100% free for all County residents.

After agreeing to participate in an onsite planting project, the landowner signs a Memorandum of Understanding committing to keep the planted forest area undisturbed in the future, including no mowing or construction. This agreement does not place the property under a formal easement or impose a legally binding land use classification that would affect future resale. Rather, it represents a good-faith commitment by the landowner to protect a valuable ecological investment that will benefit the County for generations to come.

A Future Rooted in Restoration

Reforest PWC is a forward-thinking investment in the landscapes we all share. It restores what has been lost, protects what we have left, and builds a legacy of good environmental stewardship for generations to come. By participating today, you help shape a greener, healthier, and more resilient future for Prince William County. The best time to plant a tree may have been 100 years ago, but the next best time is always today. It is never too late to take action for the good of our environment.

How to Apply

To learn more about eligibility or to start the application process, residents are encouraged to apply via this link. After submitting your application, staff will contact you to arrange a site visit to your property. We look forward to partnering with our residents to restore and grow new forests throughout the County.

Prince William Landfill Keeps Moving Forward

Prince William Landfill is right off Dumfries Road in Manassas, VA and has operated at this location since 1972 when it was merely the county dump. Today the landfill encompasses 1,000 acres, receives a little under 1,000 tons/day of household trash, and has extensive environmental controls.

The oldest section of the landfill contains 57 acres that were closed in 1991 when the state law that regulates landfills (HB 1205) went into effect. That area has undergone retrofit with liners and leachate and landfill gas collection systems to protect the environment in an ongoing effort to manage the problems we created in the past. The newer section of the landfill was designed to comply with modern environmental regulations and sustainable practices.

Today Prince William County Landfill is engineered and built as a series of cells. The cells include liners of plastic membranes and watertight geo-synthetic clay liner fabric on the bottom of the cells along with a leachate collection system. At the end of each day, earth covers the trash deposited in the cell, to keep animals away, improve aesthetics- cut down on the smell. When a cell is full it is capped to prevent (or at least limit) the rain that percolates through the landfill and covered in soil.

In 2025 Cell 3B was opened and Phase II capping took place. The area capped was filled, compacted and covered with a lining and soil suitable for grass to grow and stabilize the slope. Phase I was capped about 10 years earlier. Prince William Landfill has operated for half a century.  Landfill gas is generated during the natural process of bacterial decomposition of organic material contained in the trash buried in the landfill. Landfill gas is approximately forty to sixty percent methane, with the remainder being mostly carbon dioxide. Landfill gas also contains varying amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, sulfur, and other contaminants. The gases produced within the landfill are either collected and flared off or used. The landfill gas cannot be allowed to build up in the landfill because of the explosive potential. 

Landfill gas is a renewable energy source. Landfill gas that is used to produce energy does not have to be flared and wasted. In 1998 the County formed a partnership with NEO Prince William to install a landfill gas collection system and a 1.9 MW energy recover facility which was a two-engine turbine that burned the gas to make electricity that was sold to NOVEC, the local electric cooperative. The 1.9 MW energy recovery system was utilizing less than 25% of the currently available landfill gas for energy recovery. Any excess gas was being flared.

OPAL Fuels, previously known as FORTISTAR who acquired NEO, continued to collect the landfill gas (LFG) and generate electricity using onsite engines, expanding the system over the years. The initial two 16-cylinder CAD engines were added to in 2013. A new building was built to house three additional larger 20-cylinder engines. The five engines consumed approximately half of the gas produced by the Landfill by turning turbines to produce 6.7 megawatts (MW) of electricity. To handle the other half of the gas produced, the Landfill has been using flares to destroy the methane for several years.

In September 2021, the board of county supervisors voted unanimously to allow OPAL Fuels to retire its generators and design and install a renewable natural gas production facility at the landfill. OPAL Fuels would provide capital and operate the facility,  but share the profits with Prince William County. In addition, air emissions would be reduced. The new RNG facility eliminates combustion of LFG in the flares and the engine facility, instead converting the LFG to consumer-grade RNG with a 95% conversion efficiency. Also, it was anticipated that revenue to the country would increase.

from PW Landfill

At full output, the RNG facility will produce approximately 12.4 million gas gallon equivalents (GGE) of RNG per year which will be used as vehicle fuel or to provide energy to homes and businesses. The end use of the RNG off-site will create additional environmental benefits by replacing fossil fuels. The profit share for the Electricity Generation Plant was about $250,000 annually. The profit share for the RNG Plant will be a minimum of $400,000 annually and can be upwards of $1 million, depending on the price of natural gas and the volume of gas sold. Natural gas prices are volatile.

The transition at the landfill from electricity generation to renewable natural gas (RNG) production was finished in early 2024, marking a shift from on-site power turbines to a high-efficiency processing facility. This change is a key part of the county's Eco-Park vision, which aims to convert the landfill into a hub for multiple renewable energy sources, including solar.

The 10MW electrical transmission lines and interconnects to NOVEC previously used by the 6.7 MW gas plant simplifies the process for solar integration. This existing infrastructure can now be used to feed solar-generated power back into the grid NOVEC. The county's long-term plan for the Eco-Park includes installing solar panels on sections of the landfill that have reached capacity and been capped. By shifting gas processing to a smaller, more efficient footprint, more surface area becomes available for solar arrays.

Drought 2026

Last week when the U.S. Drought Monitor published the current status. All of Virginia was noted to be in Drought with 97.39% (dark orange) in severe drought and 17.57% in extreme drought (red area). Since the beginning of the water year on September 30, 2025 Haymarket has experienced 15.76 inches of rain. Average for that period of time is 23.16 inches of rain. The drought continues to build.

The dry conditions in Virginia have prompted several local governments to institute burn bans due to increased wildfire risk. Droughts in Virginia can have far-reaching impacts on agriculture, water availability, and wildfires. Yet, the largest irrigated crop in Virginia is suburban lawns. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has placed the region under a drought warning, which indicates that a "significant drought event is imminent".

Most of the Potomac watershed is now experiencing abnormally dry conditions due to a record-breaking lack of rainfall since 2024. Due to these conditions, the water utilities are encouraging customers to practice wise water use for indoor activities—like washing clothes and dishes, showering, and brushing your teeth—and for outside uses like watering their lawns or washing their cars. Prince William Water has wise water use tips that suggest if you are continuing to water your lawn, only water three days a week and avoid the peak water times (set on all your automatic sprinkler systems) of 4-8 am.  

The Washington DC metropolitan area is home to over 5 million residents who rely on the Potomac River for approximately 75% of their drinking water. Since the early 1980s, the three major water suppliers in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have operated as a cooperative regional system to ensure reliable access to this shared resource. Until very recently, despite significant population growth, water demand has remained essentially flat due to widespread adoption of water-saving fixtures and appliances, but there is little that can be achieved with water-saving fixtures. Now, the addition of suburban lawns and data centers is increasing water use especially in the summer months.

The ICPRB reports that new record low flows continue to be set. Last week, the USGS gage at Little Falls is 3,570 cubic feet per second, while the 96-year historical low for this time of year had been 3,820 cubic feet per second. That low was set in 1969, not coincidentally around the same time that ICPRB’s Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac was established to manage drought. So, unless the watershed get lots of rain in the coming months, it appears we are headed into a drought of historical proportions. 

The ICPRB believes that there is an above-normal probability our region needing releases from the Washington metropolitan area’s back-up water supply reservoirs for the 2026 summer and fall seasons. Typically, the use of the Jennings Randolph and Little Seneca reservoirs is triggered by low river flows resulting from a combination of low summer precipitation and low groundwater levels. 

Now is the time to be water wise. For me, I am avoiding replanting anything this year and leave the lawn to the weeds, dirt and bald spots until the drought is over. I will continue to fill the gator bag on the 6 inch caliper maple that I bought a few years back, the redbud recently planted. 

What’s in the Wells of Prince William County 2026

Earlier this month the well owners who participated in the 2026 Prince William County Well Water Clinic received their results by email. Below you can see the summary of what was found in the 70-water analyses performed (this was the smallest group in several years). 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 2026 Prince William County water clinic found that 25.7% 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.

Three of the 18 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 diluted sewage. This year 4.3% 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 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 need 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. None of the wells in our group of 70 samples had nitrate levels above the MCL. The average level of nitrates was under 2 mg/L. 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 2 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. Seven of the wells tested exceed the iron standard and 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 this slime, 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) 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. 17.1% of the wells tested were found to have acidic water and 2.9% were found to have 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 salt water infiltration or 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, 7.1% of homes tested had very hard water. (It is to be noted about 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-45.7% of the wells tested had elevated sodium.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 Well Test Results in 2026

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). They are always expanding and improving the program, and looking for emerging areas of concern. 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. This is what I saw when I opened my attachment.

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 and last year, though below the regulatory limit they found trace levels of lead in the first and second draw sample from the powder room sink. 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.

I think in the coming year, I will replace a few faucets. There is little I can do about the galvanized steel casing in the well at this point, though I could research linings. 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 and last.

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. 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 (except for a kitchen point of use filter), 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, its time to replace some faucets and see if the trace of lead disappears. I am concerned because lead was still found (though at a lower concentration after letting the water run for a couple of minutes. My kitchen filter removes lead.

Numerous point-of-use (POU) filters, including pitchers, faucet mounts, and under-sink systems, are specifically certified to remove lead. For verified protection, look for products certified against NSF/ANSI Standard 53 (for health-related contaminants like lead) or NSF/ANSI Standard 58 (for reverse osmosis systems).