Paul Kamin, General Manager of the Eastsound Water Users Association, wrote to add to the article “[intlink id=”eastsound-water-tests-bring-surprising-results” type=”post”]Eastsound Water Tests Bring Surprising Results[/intlink],” which appeared on April 19:
“There’s a logic to the assumption that the density of septic fields is responsible for the high nitrate levels recorded, but not yet the science to prove that.”
Kamin went on to quote from an email from Steve Swoop, hydrogeologist:
‘It [The non-detect finding for caffeine] doesn’t surprise me too much. If we had detected caffeine, it would have confirmed septic tanks as the source. Just because we didn’t detect it, doesn’t mean septic tanks aren’t the source though. It could be present below the detection limit. The septic tanks are probably not at sufficient density, or maybe you have a higher density of herbal tea drinkers on Orcas.’
In regards to the proper testing procedures being followed, Kamin wrote:
“I have confirmed with Edge Analytical manager that the sampling procedures were properly followed, that the proper test was performed in a timely fashion, and that the test’s sensitivity was sufficient to pick up the presence of caffeine down to 0.1 part per billion.”
Kamin clarified the growth on nitrate levels in well #13:
“Since Dec 2007 nitrate levels in this one well have been trending upward in monthly testing and are now over 6.0 mg/l. The EPA maximum contaminate level is 10.0 mg./l, at which time a water system would have to take steps to remove the nitrates through filtration or find another water source.”
Kamin explained the steps now being taken by the County and EWUA:
“SJC and EWUA are expanding the groundwater monitoring network in an attempt to further the understanding of this problem.
“We are planning efforts to determine if the elevated nitrate wells are being contaminated by near surface water, and will soon be monitoring a half dozen additional wells in the area. It is also possible that wells may have isolated problems that can be identified with additional research and testing.”
“I have been impressed by the homeowners’ concern over the community’s groundwater conditions, and the larger public benefits at risk.”
Kamin also spoke to the cost of ensuring uncontaminated well water with respect to the greater issue of continued access to groundwater supply:
“The loss of access to a productive portion of the groundwater supply would be very expensive to replace from other sources. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the cost of dealing with contaminated groundwater ranges from 30 to 200 times more than the cost of developing an effective wellhead protection plan; and the alternatives would raise other environmental concerns.”
