Cutting Well Testing

Kate Cutting
Private Well Testing
In 2001, New Jersey signed the Private Well Testing Act, to become active in 2002. The goal of
the Private Well Testing Act is to ensure that those buying or renting properties served by private wells
are aware of the quality of their drinking water. The data collected is required to be available for free,
reported as a lumped summary of results by state, region, county, and municipality. No specifics
properties can be mentioned in the report as a result of confidentiality requirements (PWTA, 2008). Aside
from the Private Well Testing Act, private potable drinking wells are not required to be tested. This
should be changed so that those with private wells must test them regularly for contaminants that may
affect their health.
Types of Tests to be Conducted
As with the Private Well Testing Act, only contaminants that will have immediate or long-term
effects on human health should be tested for regularly. With that being said, out of those that failed (12%)
between 2001 and 2007, most failed tests based on levels of gross alpha particle activity, arsenic, nitrates,
fecal coliform or E. coli, VOCs, and mercury. Therefore, I believe with those being the most common
offenders, they should be held as top priorities to test.
Because we are only interested in New Jersey, which has a humid continental climate (Pidwirny,
2011), the testing of elements should also be focused on detection of copper, lead, radon gas, and zinc,
based on the USGS survey, Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States
(2011). Higher levels of these elements are present in areas with a lower groundwater pH and/or anoxic
conditions; therefore, testing for pH and oxygen levels may be good preliminary tests to see if the wells
are good candidates for further testing of these elements. These elements are commonly found as trace
elements in the pumps and piping used of drinking-water wells, so further testing should focus on these as
the sources of contamination (National Water-Quality, 2011).

Cutting Well Testing

Sediment surrounding the well may also impact the water in the well. Water that comes from
aquifers that had sediment predominantly composed of unconsolidated sand and gravel are at higher risk
of containing levels of arsenic, manganese, and uranium, high enough to exceed human-health
benchmarks (National Water-Quality, 2011). Based on this information, soil testing should be done to see
if further testing should be done for these elements.
Possible Frequency of Testing/ Who Should Conduct the Tests
General testing should be done every year for common contaminants such as fecal coliform and
E. coli, nitrates, pH, hardness, iron, sulfates, and manganese, because these are things that can be easily
influenced by outside factors and can change within a year (Connecticut, 2013). Contaminants such as
lead, arsenic, uranium, radon, and VOCs should be tested for based on pH conditions and oxygen levels.
If in an area with high pH and plenty of oxygen, tests should be done approximately every 5 years unless
conditions change. If in an area with low pH and anoxic conditions, tests should occur more frequently.
Of course based on the results of any test, if contaminants are found, further testing should be done to
investigate the problem.
There is currently a wide array of private testing labs available in New Jersey for well testing.
The homeowner should be able to choose whom they would like to conduct the tests, however, private
well testing labs should be certified under either The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation
Program or The New Jersey Environmental Laboratory Certification Program (Quality Assurance, 2014).
Accreditation ensures that the companys tests are reliable.
How Should the Tests be Funded
I have researched what private companies charge to sample pH, bacteria, and basic chemical
contentment (including mercury and arsenic), and the average cost is approximately $500. Assuming that
our State continues on its current financial path, I see the tests being funded by the homeowners
themselves. As a diverse state, I see this as being a big problem for some residents and barely anything

Cutting Well Testing

for others. The Environmental Protection Agency does have the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
which provides funding to ensure safe drinking water; however, its main purpose if for public water
supply improvements. The figures also show that the majority of its allotments go to Alaska and Native
American retreats. Perhaps they would need to set up a different act to supply funding for those that could
not afford the testing, never mind fixing any potential problems.
How to Sell the Idea
To start the public appeal of a requirement to have your personal drinking-well checked, the
success of the Private Well Testing Act should be publicized. Amendments should also be made if the
same standards are going to be set for the new act. With the current standards set by the Private Well
Testing Act, information about specific properties is not shared because of confidentiality requirements.
This information, in my opinion should be available to those who request it down to the property level,
for the reasoning that, if your neighbor is selling their home and discover they have high levels of lead
leaching in from the original piping and your home was made by the same builder and you have not
replaced your piping, there is good reason to believe that your well most likely will have the same
problem. The same goes for external factors such as pesticide contamination. In fact, I would go as far to
say surrounding homeowners should be notified if a problem is detected.
Another argument for regular testing may include that some mortgage lenders as well as some
local governments already require regular drinking-water testing (Drinking Water, 2011). If some
mortgage lenders and some local governments find this important enough to regulate, people may
question why they arent required to have testing done.
Of course the main argument for regular testing is the truth about the health impacts of
contaminated well water. People should be educated about the health effects of contaminants that are
common in their particular area, which may fuel agreement. If ideas such as bottled water can become so

Cutting Well Testing

popular so quickly with manipulated advertisement, advertisement for well water testing should do the
trick for having it catch on.

Cutting Well Testing

Citations
CT Department of Envrionmental Health (May 2013). Private Drinking Water in Connecticut.
Conneticut Department of Public Heath. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
(http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/24_residential_drinking_water_w
ell_testing.pdf
Drinking Water and Groundwater Bureau (April 2011). Water Quality Testing for Private Wells in New
Hampshire. N.H. Department of Environmental Services. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dwgb/well_testing/documents/well_testing.pdf
National Water-Quality Assessment Program (2011). Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across
the United States. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved June 19, 2014, from
https://bbweb.stockton.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-557647-dt-content-rid397511_1/courses/81190.201280/TraceElementsGW-USGS%20report.pdf
New Jersey Private Well Testing Act Program (July 2008). Well Test Results for September 2002-April
2007. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
file:///C:/Users/Katelyn/Documents/Environmental%20Quality/Assignement%202/PWTA_report
_final.pdf
Office of Quality Assurance (May 2014). Laboratory Certification Program. NJ Department of
Environmental Protection. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://www.nj.gov/dep/oqa/labcert.html
Pidwirny, M. (January 2011). Koppen Climate Classification System. NOAA. Retrieved June 20, 2014,
from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/162263/
(March 2014). Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/