Are Current Well Water Standards Safe?

Dave Belluck, a former Wisconsin state toxicologist who was involved in creating the state’s nitrate standards for drinking water in the 1980s, alleges the science that was used to create those standards, and followed for decades, are deeply flawed and should be stricter. But officials at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) say they follow the lead of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when setting drinking water standards. Furthermore, lowering the level at which water is considered safe would have major financial costs without the state’s ability to enforce those standards.

In Wisconsin, nitrates in drinking water have been a concern for decades largely because of agricultural runoff. In a forthcoming book, Belluck and his wife Sally Benjamin, who has a master’s degree in water resource management, and a law degree with a focus on environmental law, argue that the current federal drinking water standards, are too high because of the faulty underlying science which is decades old. The drinking water standard for nitrates at the EPA and DNR is 10 milligrams of nitrate per liter (mg/L of drinking water). Wisconsin sets its standard at the same level. Belluck says that when the standard was first established scientists tried to find the lowest concentration of nitrates that caused blue baby syndrome. Unfortunately, it’s been found that some infants had gotten sick at nitrate concentrations as low as 0.4 mg/L. Belluck states that none of the 1950s research serving as the bedrock of the scientific basis for current nitrate standards was ever been peer reviewed. Pointing back to fundamental science classes, students are taught that any science paper needs to note the materials and methods used to conduct the experiment. Belluck says the report, in which nitrate standards have been based on for decades “couldn’t get through junior high.” Belluck and Benjamin say the EPA or the Wisconsin DNR and DHS should impose a stricter standard because they believe the science clearly shows nitrates are more harmful than previously thought.

Steve Elmore, DNR drinking water and groundwater program director, says nitrates and bacteria are the two contaminants in drinking water that the DNR is most concerned about. Ellmore says that for drinking water standards, the DNR is “just a vehicle for the federal stand” but that the state could set lower standards for nitrates in groundwater. The problem, Ellmore says, is that ground water standards are difficult to enforce, in spite of the fact that ground water is the source of drinking water for 30% of Wisconsinites who use private wells. He says enforcement of the standard at 10 mg/L for large parts of the state is already difficult. “Nitrate, there isn’t a way to trace it, so to speak, we don’t know where it came from,” he says. “We’re not turning a blind eye, we recognize if we have a well with high nitrates in it, it’s likely coming from a farm source right around the well, or a septic system, or a natural material- like breakdown of things like leaves and organic matter. Those are the big sources. We know it’s coming from them, but we can’t tell, are the nitrates in the well coming from farmer A or farmer B?” Interestingly, Ellmore doesn’t directly say Belluck is incorrect in his assertions that the drinking water standard is too lax.

Chris Mechenich , who worked for 17 years at UW Stevens Point’s Central Wisconsin Groundwater Center, says “it’s a difficult situation with nitrate because 95% comes from agricultural practices, sometimes even with the best of practices it rains when you don’t expect it. I think Belluck, since he wrote the original standard for nitrate, I think it troubles him.” She believes the political blow back from the agricultural industry and Republicans opposed to the cost, and special interest groups with histories of fighting environmental regulations, likely filing lawsuits, would be severe. Mechenich says, “I understand his point, the standard is the standard, and that process is not being followed.”

Bulluck says, “The DNR and DHS should find what the standard should be and propose it, then allow the political process to play out. “Mixing in the non-science elements to influence the science number, that’s risk management, that’s not what we do as scientists. Agencies work in a political environment, sometimes they can ignore the non-science parts of the process, and other times they can’t.”

Submitted by Steve Eatough, DCEC President

This article was taken and adapted from an article written by Henry Redan and published July 23 in the Wisconsin Examiner.