2018 a Warm and Wet Year in the United States

On February 6th 2019 NOAA announced that 2018 was the fourth warmest year on record ranking just behind 2016 (the warmest), 2015 (the second warmest) and 2017 (the third warmest). The land surface temperature was 2.02 degrees above average, both the fourth highest on record While the globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.19 degrees F above average. 

from NOAA

However, the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 53.5 degrees F (1.5 degrees above average). Most of the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest experienced near-normal temperatures, while the west of the Rockies and across the coastal Southeast was warmer than average. Overall, 2018 was the 14th warmest year on record. The United States has now had 22 consecutive warmer-than-average years.

Record high annual temperatures were experienced elsewhere on the globe- across much of Europe, New Zealand, and parts of the Middle East and Russia. No land areas were record cold for the year. The diagram below from NOAA shows the full picture of earth’s annual average temperature.

As most of you know, in the U.S., last year’s weather story was more about wetness than heat. Precipitation for the contiguous U.S. averaged 34.63 inches (4.69 inches above average), the third wettest year in the 124-year record. Here in my corner of Virginia total precipitation was almost 71 inches in my yard. I know this because I am a member of the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network known as CoCoRaHS, a non-profit, community-based network of volunteer citizen scientists working together to measure and map precipitation (rain, hail and snow).

Extreme weather events were attributed to the changing climate. In 2018, the U.S. experienced 14 weather and climate disasters, each with losses exceeding $1 billion and in all totaling around $91 billion in damages. Both the number of events and their cumulative cost ranked fourth highest since records began in 1980. Extreme event attribution seeks to determine whether climate change altered the likelihood of occurrence of a given extreme event. A long-term, high-quality records and a computer model capable of producing a realistic simulation are being used to assess the influence of climate change on extreme rainfall, drought, wildfires etc. Currently, scientists a better able to detect the influence of human-caused global warming on heat waves and, to a lesser extent, heavy rainfall events than our ability to detect its influence on tornadoes or hurricanes. Scientists look to be able to quantify cause and-effect relationships in the climate system in the future. 

from NOAA

Nonetheless, according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I and II the impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future. The severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur. Unfortunately, control of global greenhouse gas emissions is not in our hands. The United States represents about 13% of global emissions. In order to avoid exceeding 1.5 degrees C of warming, the recent The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ,the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change, says carbon pollution must be cut almost in half by 2030, less than 12 years away, and then reach "net zero" by mid-century. The greenhouse gas emissions from the United States have been decreasing. As you can see below the trajectory of emissions is not good. 

from Oliver et al

The problem is that under the Paris Agreement China has only agreed to stop growing their CO2 emissions by 2030 and the reduction in emissions pledged so far are nowhere near sufficient to hold temperature change to 2 degrees C let along attempt 1.5 degrees according to the climate models.

With China in 2016 as the largest CO2 emitter at slightly more than 26% of the total- twice the United States level, the goals of the Paris Agreement cannot be met without reductions in China and the other nations still growing their emissions and all other nations must increase the level of emissions cut pledged to even meet the 2 degree C goal, let along the aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees C.

Fracking- Menace or Boon?

From Florida, Ohio and New Jersey the movement to ban “fracking” has picked up this winter. At this time New York and Maryland have banned fracking. Vermont has also banned fracking, but that was symbolic since they have no know shale gas reserves. To fully understand the issue in order to make well informed decisions we should revisit the most cited scholarly article on the costs and benefits of fracking.

Robert Jackson, the Kevin and Michelle Douglas Professor of Environment and Energy at Stanford University, has done considerable work examining the environmental impacts from fracking. A couple of years back, he and a group of co-authors published a paper entitled: “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking” in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.( Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:7.1–7.36) that is a fabulous summary of everything we do and do not know about the impacts of fracking.

In this paper Robert B. Jackson of Stanford University, Avner Vengosh, from Duke University, J. William Carey, from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Richard J. Davies, from Durham University, Thomas H. Darrah, for Ohio State University, Francis O’Sullivan, from MIT and Gabrielle P´etron from the University of Colorado at Boulder reviewed all 166 fracking studies that have been performed and peer reviewed to consolidate all that we know about fracking and identify the areas where more research needs to be performed. This paper is a complete and thorough review of all the risks and benefits associated with the hydrocarbon extraction method known as fracking.

Fracking is the current method of extracting unconventional oil and natural gas that is locked inside impermeable geological formations. Fracking is enabled by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (thus the name fracking). Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected for disposal. Natural gas or oil will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for improved access to the methane or oil reserves.

Over the past 15 years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wide diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations throughout the United States and Canada. The annual production of methane (CH4) in the United States had increased over 40% from 2005 to about 33,357 billion cubic feet of gas a year in 2017. The ability to frack oil and natural gas deposits has profoundly changed the estimates of recoverable oil and gas resources and the energy future of our country. The United States is the largest producer of methane. There is now known to be adequate natural gas resources for the foreseeable future.

Fracked oil and gas can result in an economic boom as it generates income. If fracking is done carefully and properly the safely extracted gas can reduce air pollution and even water use compared with other fossil fuels. However, the authors point out that availability of vast quantities of natural gas is likely to slow the adoption of renewable energy sources; and if fracking is done poorly toxic chemicals from fracking fluid could be released into our water supplies and methane could be release to the air.

Methane is the primary component of natural gas and during drilling leaks from oil and gas wells. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methane accounts for 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and has more than 80 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it escapes into the atmosphere. In 2018 the administration proposed weakening a yet to be implemented Obama-era policy to require testing and repairing methane leaks during drilling operations.

As fracking has expanded, so has a public and regulatory concern about the possible environmental consequences of fracking and horizontal drilling. Fracking is banned in in the New York State and Maryland portions of the Marcellus Shale basin based primarily on health and environmental concerns. These concerns include air pollution from the operation of heavy equipment, human health effects for workers and people living near well pads from chemical exposure, noise and dust, induced seismicity from the disposal of fracking fluids, and increased greenhouse gas emissions from poor well head control and continued use of hydrocarbons. However, the biggest health and environmental concerns remains the potential for drinking water contamination from fracturing fluids, natural formation waters, and stray gases. Vermont has also banned fracking though it has no gas reserves.

In the drought plagued west the amount of water needed to hydraulically fracture a well can be a significant drain on already strained water resources. On average takes 3.8 million gallons of water for each well. Though about half the water will be returned as “flowback,” the recovered water will contain chemical and radiological contaminants. The study found that surprisingly, shale-gas extraction and processing are less water intensive than many other forms of energy extraction. The water intensities for coal, nuclear, and oil extraction are approximately 2 times, 3 times, and 10 times greater than for shale gas, respectively. Corn ethanol production uses substantially more water because of the evapotranspiration of the plants, and 1,000 times more water than shale gas if the plants are irrigated. However, renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar consume almost no water.

Maintaining well integrity and reducing surface spills and improper wastewater disposal have been found to be the way to minimize contamination from the chemicals used in fracking fluid and from naturally occurring contaminants such as salts, metals, and radioactivity found in oil and gas wastewaters that are returned to the surface. Though, there have been few definitive studies of the frequency, consequences, and severity of well integrity failure. Studies done in Ohio and Texas found over a 25-year period on a mix of traditional and shale gas wells found an extremely low level of incidence of groundwater contamination. In Ohio they found 185 cases of groundwater contamination caused primarily by failures of wastewater pits or well integrity out of about 60,000 producing wells, for an incident rate of about 0.1%.The rate for Texas was found to be even lower at about 0.02%. The Texas study included 16,000 horizontal shale-gas wells with none reporting groundwater contamination.

A significant concern is that hydraulic fracturing could open small cracks thousands of feet underground, connecting shallow drinking-water aquifers to deeper layers and providing a pathway for the chemicals used in fracking and naturally occurring geological formational brines to migrate upward. In practice, according to Dr. Jackson and the others this is unlikely because of the depths of most (but not all) shale formations tends to be 3,000-10,000 feet below ground level, and man-made hydro-fractures rarely propagate more than 2,000 feet. According to Dr. Jackson a more plausible scenario would be for man-made fractures to connect to a natural fault or fracture, an abandoned well, or some other underground pathway, allowing fluids to migrate upward). A simpler pathway for groundwater contamination, though, is through poor well construction and integrity. In the first study to test for potential drinking-water contamination associated with unconventional energy extraction overlying the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania that is what was found.

The scientists found that the number of peer-reviewed studies that have examined potential water contamination is surprisingly low, though it may be the most important risk. Wastewater from oil and gas exploration is generally classified into flowback and produced waters. Flowback water is the fluids that are return to the surface after the hydraulic fracturing and before oil and gas production begins, primarily when the well is completed. Typically it consists of 10–40% of the injected fracturing fluids and chemicals pumped underground that return to the surface mixed with an increasing proportion of natural brines from the shale formations over time. Produced water is the fluid that flows to the surface during extended oil and gas production. It primarily reflects the chemistry and geology of deep formation waters. These naturally occurring brines are often saline to hypersaline and can contain toxic levels of elements such as barium, arsenic, and radioactive radium. However, more work still needs to be done to understand fracking’s impact and gather the data necessary for improved geo-mechanical models for how hydraulic fracturing affects the well hole environment and how fluids move through rock formations.

Clearly, in some geology and circumstances fracking is undesirable or high risk. In Pavillion, Wyoming, it is clear that the drinking water aquifer has been impacted, but whether it was caused by the fracking is not clear. These were drinking water wells in a coal producing area, and contamination could have been introduced into the water by previous generations of oil and gas development. Hydraulic fracturing in this tight sandstone formation occurred as shallowly as 322 meters. A lack of vertical separation between fracking activity and drinking water increases hydraulic connectivity and the opportunities for contamination of drinking water supplies.

Throughout their study the scientist recommend a series of research questions that should be answered to more fully model and understand fracking. In addition they emphasize the need for greater transparency from companies and regulating agencies in information and the need for baseline studies prior to drilling is critical to even know if water or human health has been impacted. Predrilling data needs to include measurements of groundwater and surface-water quality and quantity as well as air quality, and human health. The scientists pointed out that there have been virtually no comprehensive studies on the impact of fracking on human health while state regulators and law in some instances allow fracking virtually in people’s backyards. The fact that the Pavillion, Wyoming field with no vertical separation could be legally fracked highlights the problem. Fracking needs to be well understood and the risks managed to make sure that is a benefit to mankind and is only used in appropriate and low risk locations.

The Pipes Froze Overnight What to Do

Where I live in Virginia is a lovely place with moderate four season weather. Though we have snow, it usually doesn’t stay on the ground too long because it is rare to have more than a week of freezing weather. This past week artic cold descended on much of the mid-west and low single digits arrived in Virginia. Nothing ever dies on the internet, so my home phone number and email address are out there and I got lots of calls for what sounded like frozen pipes from near and far.

Once you have a frozen pipe, the best strategy is to slowly warm it up and let it melt. A frozen pipe does not have to mean a burst pipe, but the only way you will know if the pipe has burst (other than ripping out the ceiling or wallboard) is to defrost the pipe and run the water and look for the leak. Water expands when it freezes applying force in all directions, but damage done by the ice usually occurs at elbows and joints where the force is constrained. Some plumbers believe that toilet valves and pressure tanks (used in homes with private wells) can allow a plumbing system to absorb the increased pressure and reduce the likelihood of a burst pipe.

If on a very cold day you turn on a faucet and either get nothing or just a trickle comes out, suspect a frozen pipe. Usually, this happens when the temperature drops overnight and there was no water being used. If you have a frozen pipe you need to identify which part of your piping is frozen. If it is the supply line, there will be no water to any part of the house. If however, after checking you find that there is water in parts of the house, then the frozen pipe is on an exterior wall or above an unheated space.

The likely pipes to freeze are against exterior walls of the home, or are exposed to the cold, like outdoor hose bibs, and water supply pipes in unheated interior areas like basements and crawl spaces, attics, garages, or kitchen cabinets. Pipes that run against exterior walls that have little or no insulation are also subject to freezing.

If there is no water anywhere, then it is either the well or the supply line into the house. In sub-zero weather wells with separate well houses can freeze. Back in the day, an inefficient 100 watt incandescent bulb provided enough wasted heat to keep a well house from freezing, modern efficient bulbs do not. You are going to need to put a heat source in the well house to warm it up.

A well with an immersion pump and a couple feet of pipe above ground and exposed might also freeze. Covering an exposed well pipe with an insulating tarp can help it warm up, though the last time I had to help someone do that we ended up using an electric blanket under a black mover pad using the electric heat and the midday sun to warm up their well.

If it is the supply line from the well then you need to warm the well house or the well pipe and try to warm the area where the pipe enters the home, for example under the garage. Hopefully, the pipe froze in the most vulnerable areas at the two ends. If your pipe is not buried deep enough, there is simply nothing you can do but wait for the weather to warm up.

Once you had addressed the well house or well head, then you need to do is raise the temperature in the garage or where the pipe enters the house (it might be a crawl space). A ceramic heating cube ($39 from Lowes) in the garage or crawl space can help warm up a frozen pipe entering the home or a water pipe that runs above of adjacent to a garage.

To defrost interior pipes the first thing you need to do is raise the temperature in the house to at least 68 degrees. Open the cabinet doors under the sinks, and ceramic heating cubes in any bathroom that is adjacent to an unheated space (like a dormer, over a garage, etc.). You need to get the pipes warm enough for the ice to melt. Open a faucet a touch in the sinks or tub. The open faucets are intended to offer another source of relief of pressure as the pipes defrosted and allow the water to flow as the pipe defrosted. Basically, you need to get the pipes warm enough for the ice to melt. If you have plastic piping that is considerably more tolerant of freezing than copper pipes. There is a real shot that a plastic pipe can freeze without bursting if all the connections and elbows are sound.

Okay, what next. Patience. It took me almost 24 hours to defrost my pipes the last time I had to do it. With any luck, when the water starts to flow, it will be into the sink and not a burst pipe. Repeatedly freezing and thawing a plastic pipe can cause it to stress fracture. So, in the future, plan for freezing weather. Turn on the heating cube in the garage open the cabinet below the sink and run the extra heaters overnight to prevent the pipes from freezing in the first place. For those of you with separate well houses that are far more likely to freeze overnight and no longer have access to the 100 watt bulb that kept the old below grade well house warm enough during New England winters, there are Thermocubes, heating tape and heating pads.

Power Use in the American Home

Americans use a lot of energy in their homes, in businesses, and in industry. Between natural gas, heating oil, propane, electricity and other sources the American home uses about 20% of all energy used in the United States. Most energy use is for heating followed by electric use as broken down tin the pie chart above. Below you can see that the total energy used in the housing sector has decreased falling below even as the number of homes has grown. The nation’s 118 million households consumed 77 million Btu on average in 2015.

In the last survey by the Department of Energy (2015) only about 25% of homes in the United States relied exclusively on electricity for power, heating and cooking. This was up from the last survey, but still the vast majority of homes still use another source of energy for heating in most cases that is natural gas. In the Northeast natural gas and heating oil are both widely used to heat homes. In the rapidly growing south, heat pumps that run on electricity are a popular option. In the coldest climates electric heat pumps are neither cost effective nor practical. Natural gas is still the least expensive widely used method to heat a home in a cold climate.

The breakdown of the energy use in homes is changing. Air conditioning has become a much larger share of energy use in the past decade or so. In the last survey by the Department of Energy they found that 87% of homes use air conditioning having at least one portable unit. Most newer homes have central air conditioning.

In addition, the Department of Energy found that 90% of homes had at least one desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and 79% have more than one. Although U.S. homes have an increasing number of computers, the number of televisions per home is declining. In 2015, homes had an average of 2.3 televisions, down from an average of 2.6 televisions per home in 2009. More than twice as many households reported not using a television in 2015 compared to 2009. It seems that Americans are viewing entertainment on their phones, tablets and computers instead.

Prince William Well Water Clinic

The Virginia Household Water Quality Program provides affordable, confidential water testing and education to well owners in Virginia. Prince William will be having a water clinic again this year.

Water samples will be tested for: iron, manganese, nitrate, lead, arsenic, fluoride, sulfate, pH, total dissolved solids, hardness, sodium, copper, total coliform bacteria and E. Coli bacteria. What we test for are mostly 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. Though this is by no means an exhaustive list of potential contaminants, these are the most common contaminants that effect drinking water wells.

To avoid having too many people show up on the day of the clinic and long lines for check in this year the program is asking participants to prepay for the analysis. Sample kits will be $55 again this year. Pre-payment can be made in person or by mail at the VCE office at 8033 Ashton Avenue, Suite 105, Manassas VA 20109.

Make checks out to “Treasurer, Virginia Tech”. To register for this class, or to ask questions about the program, please call 703-792-7747 or master_gardener@pwcgov.org

The Prince William Drinking Water Clinic has 3 parts:
1. The Kick-Off Meeting on March 25th from 7-8:30 pm at PWC Board Chambers in the McCoart Building, 1 County Complex, Woodbridge, VA 22192 introduces water quality concerns in our area and hands out the water sampling kits.

2. The Sample Drop Off on March 27th from 6:30am-10am ONLY at the VCE Office, 8033 Ashton Ave., Manassas 20109

3. The Results Interpretation Meeting on May 6th from 7-9 pm at PWC Board Chambers in the McCoart Building, 1 County Complex, Woodbridge, VA 22192 will explain the report, include a discussion and answer questions on dealing with water problems.

Water Samples must be dropped off on Wednesday March 27th , between the hours of 6:30am and 10am at the VCE - Prince William Office, 8033 Ashton, Suite 105, Manassas, 20109. NO EXCEPTIONS for sample drop off. However, if you are unable to attend the kick off or results meetings arrangements can be made to pick up a test kit or your results at another time, please call 703-792-7747 or master_gardener@pwcgov.org for assistance.

According to the 2017 Annual Report for the Virginia Household Water Quality Program from Virginia Tech, there are 1.7 million Virginians or 22% of the state’s population get their household water from a private well. Municipal water supplies are regulated and regularly tested under the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act. Private wells are the responsibility of the well owner. Over 2,000 households have their water tested each year through the Virginia Household Water Quality Program.
Water samples will be tested for: iron, manganese, nitrate, lead, arsenic, fluoride, sulfate, pH, total dissolved solids, hardness, sodium, copper, total coliform bacteria and E. Coli bacteria. What we test for are mostly 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. Though this is by no means an exhaustive list of potential contaminants, these are the most common contaminants that effect drinking water wells.

The chart below shows what we found in the 101 private wells tested in the first round of testing we did in Prince William County in 2018.

Household water quality is driven by geology, well construction and condition, nearby sources of groundwater contamination, and any water treatment devices and the condition and materials of construction of the household plumbing. To ensure safe drinking water it is important to maintain your well, test it regularly and understand your system and geology.

The Treatment Options

This is the water analysis for a recently drilled well for a new home. The test results are summarized in the chart below. Though over 100 substances were tested for, only substances for which there was a finding are listed.

In summary the analysis found levels of: iron at more than 3 times the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act secondary standards and manganese at almost 30 times the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act secondary standards, turbidity was 13 times the standard and the water tested as very hard. In addition, the home purchaser reported that the “water smells like sulphur in the house and very annoying.” I assumed that the purchaser had a hydrogen sulfide problem, there is adequate sulfate present, but the water was not tested for hydrogen sulfide.

As you can see, turbidity the measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency due to the presence of suspended particulates is a problem. The more total suspended solids in the water, the murkier it seems and the higher the turbidity. Turbidity can be caused by silica, soil finds or iron bacteria. Generally, iron bacteria and other reducing bacteria are not problems in the first couple of years of a well. It takes time for the bacteria introduced during drilling to spread. Iron bacteria are present in most soils and can be introduced into a well or water system during drilling, repair, or service. Though, iron bacteria can produce unpleasant tastes and odors commonly reported as: "swampy," "oily or petroleum," "cucumber," "sewage," "rotten vegetation," or "musty,” it is unlikely that is the problems here. The most common causes of turbidity in wells are dirt and colloidal solids that are too small and too fine to settle out properly.

My recommendation would be to begin by addressing the iron, manganese and assumed hydrogen sulfide problem. A greensand filter often referred to as oxidizing, iron or red water filter can be a good solution. Like most home model water filters the typical manganese greensand filter is a pressure filter, a fully enclosed tank type filters that operates at the same pressure as the water delivery system so that you do not need to buy a booster pump. These devices are used for a variety of water treatment processes such as taste and odor improvement, iron and manganese removal and removal of suspended matter (turbidity) in water. The water treatment performed by a pressure filter is determined by the filter media that is inside the tank. Most companies that sell pressure filters use the same tank for all treatments but change the inside filter media depending on the type of treatment needed.

Iron filters contain a resin designed to remove iron and manganese that is in solution. It will also act as a filter and catch iron and manganese precipitates that have been oxidized before reaching the filter. Typically these filters are effective for iron and manganese removal concentrations up to 10 ppm. However, this type of filter will not tolerate iron bacteria, because the slimy material that is produced coats the greensand and fouls it, and over time iron bacteria builds up in a well. That is why the usual first step is to treat the well for iron bacteria. In addition the greensand filter must be regenerated with a new solution of potassium permanganate when the oxygen is depleted. This process is similar to regenerating a softener. The filter must be backwashed every so often based on the size of the filter. The typical cycle is weekly and there are systems that are automatic.

The iron filters have been less successful in actual practice. First, the well must be regularly treated to knock back iron bacteria. In addition, for the iron filter to work properly the correct flow rate is the secret to effective iron removal. Adequate flow is required to clear the filter bed of sediment before it becomes too dirty. Most well pumps used for private drinking water wells supply 10 to 15 gallons per minute (gpm) of flow. The size filter that can be used is limited by the backwash water available. That is why many of the home pressure filters are tall thin “bottle-type” units that are only 8 inches in diameter. This size filter can be backwashed with 8 to 10 gpm flow. However, the low surface area only provides treatment for a limited water flow of about 2 gpm on average or about 5 gpm for short peak flows. Use of higher volumes of water would result in iron breakthrough, but some of the breakthrough can be picked up by the needed water softening system that has some ability to control iron and manganese.

Another approach for iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide removal is chlorination. Chlorination and filtration can remove high concentrations of iron, iron bacteria, and hydrogen sulfide gas. The iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide gas is oxidized by the chlorine in a holding tank. A sediment filter is used to remove the iron and manganese particles followed by an activated carbon filter used to remove excess chlorine and other impurities. The resulting water has an excellent taste. For this system to work the pH of the water must be above 7 so a small amount of neutralizing solution of soda ash (sodium carbonate) or caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) into the holding tank. This raises the sodium content of the water. Potassium can be substituted for sodium at a higher price and may be preferable. Adjust the feeder to provide the correct rate to result in a pH of near 7 that is necessary for chlorination. No other method of home water treatment has as many benefits as chlorination- disinfection and oxidizing agent. Both approaches can be effective, but the pH adjustment using a neutralizing filter will make what is already very hard water harder. And the soda ash or caustic soda can raise the sodium levels which is already elevated and will probably be raised more by a softener.

With the hardness at 270 mg/L a water softener seems necessary. Bath soap combines with the minerals and forms a pasty scum that accumulates on bathtubs and sinks. The minerals also combine with soap in the laundry, and the residue doesn’t rinse well from fabric, leaving clothes dull. Hard water spots appear on everything that is washed in and around the home from dishes and silverware to the floor tiles. Many can live with the water spots and soap scum issues by adding vinegar to dishwashers and using hard water formulated shampoos, but are induced to treat their water because of the potential impacts on plumbing and appliances.

When heated, calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate are removed from the water and form a scale (lime scale) in cookware, metal hot water pipes, dishwashers and water heaters. As the scale builds up more energy is required to heat the water and hot water heater and small kitchen appliances have to work harder which will burn them out eventually. Thus, in hard water locations hot water heaters and other appliances have a shorter life. However, softened water increases the potential for leaching heavy metal from metal pipes. Not a problem in the new construction.

Eventually the surfaces of the beads in the mineral tank become coated with the calcium and magnesium. To clean the beads, a strong salt solution held in the brine tank is flushed through the mineral tank this occurs two or three times a week and consumes 20-30 gallons of water. Sodium is typically used in the brine tank, but potassium can also be used. The excess sodium solution carrying the calcium and magnesium is typically flushed to the septic system. The amount of sodium in water conditioning systems can be a real problem for humans, the septic system and the environment. There are areas that are banning their use. Softened water is not recommended for watering plants, lawns, and gardens due to its sodium and chlorine content; however, plants are fine with potassium.

Also, you do not want to drink or cook with what is usually high sodium softened water. It might be worthwhile to see if you can do without the water softener, or use potassium chloride instead of the sodium chloride to reduce the sodium. The sodium levels in the water are already elevated, using the potassium versions could reduce this impact. There are no health-based drinking water standards for sodium and potassium. Neither has a secondary drinking standard, but potassium is less harmful to the garden and septic system. Traditionally softened water using sodium chloride can cause toilet paper clogs in septic piping and impair the functioning of the septic tank.

A water softener is necessary if the homeowner wants a reverse osmosis systems to eliminate lead, MEK or tetrahydrofuran. Waste water from reverse osmosis systems is typically connected to the house drains and will add to the load on the household septic system. This is a significant additional water use and load to the septic system and could impact the life and functioning of the septic system and well since a 5 gallon a day reverse osmosis system might waste 50-90 gallons a day. The principal uses of reverse osmosis in are for the reduction of high levels of nitrate, lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, sulfate, sodium and total dissolved solids. Using a soda ash feed on a chemical feed tank will also remove lead an activated carbon filter could also strip out the MEK and tetrahydrofuran (also known as 1,4 dioxane) is an emerging contaminant in drinking water. The technologies that are proven to remove the largest spectrum of contaminants are Granular Activated Carbon and reverse osmosis. In the waste water industry advanced oxidation processes used to remove 1,4 dioxane from waste water.

Overall, the treatment equipment will cost about $15,000-$20,000 installed and require a service contract to keep the system “tuned.” Good thing the homeowner can afford it.

What Do these Water Test Results Mean?

Over the weekend I received several water analysis reports from people who had contacted me through the Rural Household Water Quality program. The extent of the testing varied among the reports. One of the broadest reports was from someone who had purchased the WaterCheck plus pesticides package from National Testing Laboratories, Ltd. This test covers 107 different items; 22 metals, 7 inorganic chemicals, 5 physical factors, 5 trihalo methanes, 47 volatile organic chemicals (solvents), and 20 pesticides, herbicides, organices and PCB’s and bacteria tests. The Minimum Detection Levels, which are the lowest levels at which the laboratory detects that contaminant are below the levels established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, so this relatively affordable test will serve as a broad screen of drinking water.

In order to determine if a finding is a problem or of concern, water test results should be compared to a standard. The standard most commonly used is the U.S.EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW) limits. Though private wells do not fall under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Safe Drinking Water Act, we can use the standards that we use for comparison. Primary standards are ones that can impact health. Secondary standards impact taste or the appearance of the water. There were some findings that are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The WaterCheck with Pesticides test results showed levels of: iron, manganese, turbidity and hardness that were quite high-exceeding the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act secondary standards. These should be address to make the water more acceptable. Detectable levels of copper, calcium, lead, lithium magnesium nickel, potassium, silica, sodium, strontium, zinc, alkalinity as CaCO3, sulfate, chloride, methyl-ethyl ketone, and tetrahydrofuran. The pH was at the low end of the normal range, and the turbidity was very high. All other substance tested for were non-detect. .

Water quality is driven by geology, well construction, age and condition, nearby sources of contamination, and, within the home, water treatment devices and composition of plumbing materials. The type, age, depth of the well, and the recharge rate are unreported.

Methyl-ethyl ketone, (MEK) and tetrahydrofuran are organic solvents. Methyl-ethyl ketone has no EPA MCL limit and the absolute level of MEK was not high at 70 parts per billion compared to the workplace exposure Threshold Limit Value (TLV) 200 parts per million. Though EPA does not have a MCL for Tetrahydrofuran, the state of Minnesota does at 600 parts per billion. Minnesota has found that their regional groundwater had tetrahydrofuran contamination and worked with state and federal agencies to determine a safe level. The well water tested had Tetrahydrofuran at 90 parts per billion. An acceptable exposure level. The question is how were these chemicals introduced into the groundwater.

Though traces of copper, calcium, lead, lithium magnesium nickel, potassium, silica, sodium, strontium, zinc, alkalinity as CaCO3, sulfate, chloride were found, none of the levels of contaminants were above the MCLs or SMCLs of the Safe Drinking Water Act so would be acceptable for public drinking water supplies. Though the water sample from the point tested was below the MCL for lead of 15 ppb, I am one of the many who believe that there is no safe level for lead. The level found was 5 parts per billion and could have been a first flush sample from a home that has not be occupied for some time. A filter that removes lead should be considered for drinking water.

As stated before test results found levels of: iron at more than 3 times the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act secondary standards and manganese at almost 30 times the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act secondary standards, turbidity was 13 times the standard and the water tested as very hard. In addition, the home purchaser reported that the “water smells like sulphur in the house and very annoying.” I assumed that the purchaser had a hydrogen sulfide problem, but the sulfate results bring that into question. However, the water was not tested for hydrogen sulfide.

Some of the weirdest water problems turn out to be iron or reducing bacteria. Generally, iron bacteria produce unpleasant tastes and odors commonly reported as: "swampy," "oily or petroleum," "cucumber," "sewage," "rotten vegetation," or "musty." The taste or odor may be more noticeable after the water has not been used for some time and are not easily explained by other causes. These bacteria when exposed to sulfate can also produce the characteristic rotten egg smell. There is often a discoloration of the water with the iron bacteria. Though the most classic symptom of iron bacteria is a rust colored slime, it may be yellow, brown, or grey if exposed to manganese or sulfate. It is sometimes possible to see a rainbow colored, oil-like sheen on the water. A quick screen for iron bacteria would be to feel the rubber flapper in your toilet tanks. The iron bacteria tends to accumulate there. (This will not work if there is a water softener in the house- the slime will be there, not in the toilets.)

Turbidity is a measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency due to the presence of suspended particulates. The more total suspended solids in the water, the murkier it seems and the higher the turbidity. Turbidity can be caused by silica, soil finds or iron bacteria.

On Wednesday, we'll talk about the options for treatment.