By
Tony Leys for KFF Health News.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the KFF Health News-Public News Service Collaboration

Allison Roderick has a warning and a pledge for rural residents of her county: The water from their wells could be contaminated, but the government can help make it safe.

Roderick is the environmental health officer for Webster County in north-central Iowa, where a few thousand rural residents live among sprawling corn and soybean fields. Many draw their water from private wells, which are exempt from most federal testing and purity regulations. Roderick spreads the word that they aren't exempt from danger.

More than 43 million Americans rely on private wells, which are subject to a patchwork of state and local regulations, including standards for new construction. But in most cases, residents are free to use outdated wells without having them tested or inspected. The practice is common despite concern about runoff from farms and industrial sites, plus cancer-causing minerals that can taint groundwater.

"You're cooking with it. You're cleaning with it. You're bathing in it - and, nowadays, there are so many things that can make you sick," Roderick said.

Federal experts estimate more than a fifth of private wells have concentrations of contaminants above levels considered safe.

Like many states, Iowa offers aid to homeowners who use well water. The state provides about $50,000 a year to each of its 99 counties to cover testing and help finance well repairs or treatment. The money comes from fees paid on agricultural chemical purchases, but about half goes unused every year, according to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

Roderick, who started her job in 2022, aims to spend every penny allotted to her county. Last spring, she snared an extra $40,000 that other counties hadn't used. She promotes the program online and by mailing piles of postcards. Traveling the countryside in a hand-me-down SUV from the sheriff's department, she collects water samples from outdoor spigots and sends them to a lab.

When she finds contamination, she can offer up to $1,000 of state grant money to help with repairs, or up to $500 to cap an abandoned well.

Experts urge all users of private wells to have them tested at least annually. Even if wells meet modern construction standards and have tested clean in the past, they can become contaminated as the water table rises or falls and conditions change above them. A faulty septic system or overapplication of fertilizer or pesticide can quickly taint groundwater.

Too many residents assume everything is fine "as long as the water is coming out of the tap and it doesn't smell funny," said Sydney Evans, a senior science analyst for the Environmental Working Group, a national advocacy organization that studies water pollution.

The main concerns vary, depending on an area's geology and industries.

In Midwestern farming regions, for example, primary contaminants include bacteria and nitrates, which can be present in agricultural runoff. In rural Nevada and Maine, arsenic and uranium often taint water. And, throughout the country, concerns are rising about the health effects of PFAS chemicals, widely used products also known as "forever chemicals." A recent federal study estimated at least 45% of U.S. tap water contains them.

Filters can help ensure safety, but only if they're selected to address the specific problem affecting a home's water supply, Evans said. The wrong filter can give a false sense of safety.

Evans said people who wonder about possible contaminants in their area can ask to see test results from wells supplying nearby community water systems. Those systems are required to test their water regularly, and the results should be public, she said: "It's a great place to start, and it's free and easy."

She also said people who rely on private water wells should ask local health officials about eligibility for help paying for testing and possible repairs or filters. Subsidies are often available but not publicized, she said.

A study by Emory University researchers published in 2019 found that all states have standards for new well construction, and most states require permits for them. However, the researchers wrote, "even in states with standards for water quality testing, testing is typically infrequent or not conducted at all."

Some longtime rural residents live in homes that have been in their families for generations. They often know little about their water source. "They'll say, 'This is the well my grandfather dug. We've used it ever since, and no one's had an issue,'" said David Cwiertny, director of the University of Iowa's Center for Health Effects of Environmental Contamination. They might not realize impure water can harm health over time, he said.

Some states require inspection and tests of private wells when properties are sold. Iowa doesn't mandate such measures, although Webster County does. It's a good idea for homebuyers anywhere to request them, said Erik Day, who oversees the private well program for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. He also recommends asking for a technician who can run a flexible scope down the well to visually inspect the inside.

Day estimated fewer than 10% of Iowa's private well owners have them tested annually, even though testing can be free under the state grant program.

In Webster County, Larry Jones recently took advantage of free well testing at a weathered ranch house he bought west of Fort Dodge, in a subdivision bordering a large soybean field. Jones lives next door to the 54-year-old home, and he is refurbishing it as a place for his relatives to stay.

Roderick, the county health official, sampled water from the well and found it was tainted with bacteria. She offered Jones $1,000 from the state grant to help get it fixed. He added a few thousand dollars of his own and hired a contractor.

"It's an investment for the future," he said. "You're talking about your family."

The old well was made with a 2-foot-diameter concrete casing sunk vertically in sections about 60 feet into the ground. A smaller plastic pipe ran down the middle of the casing to water at the bottom. A pump pulled water up through the smaller pipe and into the home.

Lynn Rosenquist, who owns a local well-repair business, told Jones the well probably was original to the house and likely met standards when it was built. But at least one chunk of concrete had broken off and fallen in.

Repairs took two days of heavy work by Rosenquist and his brother, Lanny, who are the third generation of their family to maintain wells. The brothers used a backhoe and small crane to remove much of the concrete casing. They replaced it with a narrower, PVC pipe, which they sealed with a cement mixture to prevent seepage from the surface. When finished, they "shocked" the system with a bleach solution, then flushed and tested again.

Such modern construction is less prone to becoming tainted, Roderick said. "If it's not sealed airtight, bacteria can get in there and it's just gross," she said.

Grossness is not the only thing Roderick considers. Besides E. coli and other bacteria, she tests for nitrates and sulfates, which can exist in farm or lawn runoff or come from natural sources, and for arsenic and manganese, which can occur in rock formations. She plans to add tests for PFAS chemicals soon.

She collects the water in small plastic bottles, which she mails to a lab. She enters information about each well into a state database. If the tests turn up contaminants, she advises homeowners of their options.

Roderick said she enjoys the routine. "I've met so many people - and I've met a lot of dogs," she said with a laugh. "I love the feeling that I'm really helping people."


Tony Leys wrote this article for KFF Health News.


get more stories like this via email

Arizona's primary election will take place in July, and a new Rural Democracy Initiative poll shows that likely voters from rural areas of the state are up for grabs.

Researcher Patrick Toomey, a partner with Breakthrough Campaigns, said the poll data show rural voters are what he calls "economic populists," and don't want the government calling the shots on certain issues, such as abortion.

"Rural voters do feel like things are getting worse for them and in their communities economically, but again, the vast majority of rural voters -- they are economic populists and their policy preferences align with many progressive goals," he said. "It is very clear that rural voters are not a cultural monolith either."

Toomey added that while rural America tends to be more conservative than its urban and suburban counterparts, certain conventionally progressive policy items -- such as focusing on retirement security and making taxes more fair -- aren't being associated with President Joe Biden or Democrats. He contended that the Democratic Party will need to "rebuild their brand."

The poll found 15% of rural voters in swing states are unsure for whom they will vote, or if they'll vote at all in the upcoming election, something Toomey contended could directly impact the outcome.

Toomey said half of rural voters consider Republicans to be more dedicated to prioritizing the needs of working families, compared with just 32% who shared those sentiments for the Democratic Party. While the increasing costs of housing, health care and child care are all important issues to rural voters, the data show that reproductive freedoms are also a top priority.

Toomey claimed Democrats can use that to their favor.

"Rural voters are opposed to abortion bans," he said. "They have nuanced views around abortion itself, but three-quarters either support it or don't want the government interfering in something that should be left up to women and their doctors."

More than 1,700 voters in 10 states participated in the poll, which found nearly half of rural voters would choose a "culturally aligned" rural Democrat over a Republican businessperson from a big city on the East Coast.


get more stories like this via email

Petitions are being circulated to get a marijuana legalization question on North Dakota's fall ballot.

Some local officials said marijuana laws could affect their small cities and towns in unique ways. A North Dakota group called New Economic Frontier is behind the ballot initiative. If put before voters, it would be the third time they'd consider the idea. Similar questions failed in 2018 and 2022.

Scott Decker, mayor of Dickinson, said if it wins this time, the state has to honor the will of the voters. Whether his area would see economic benefits or new residents, he pointed out energy jobs have a big presence and there is a potential conflict.

"Even if recreational marijuana is passed, individuals working in the energy sector are still gonna have to pass drug tests," Decker explained. "That's just a standard in the industry. Safety is paramount. "

He also wondered about local police having enough resources to secure technology for field sobriety tests, especially if revenues do not trickle down to his city of nearly 25,000 people. But Decker acknowledged other criminal justice aspects of legalization, noting there are too many people with low-level marijuana offenses who are incarcerated.

Tom Erdmann, mayor of Carrington, said his constituents are fairly conservative on the issue. He doubts his town would ever be a hotbed for marijuana retail sales but no matter the dynamics, he said any possible revenue would be a bonus.

"You know, any tax revenue that we get, whether it's from tobacco sales or highway use tax or any of those things that are not necessarily listed every year in our budget, we don't send it, that's for sure," Erdmann emphasized. "We keep it and use it in places where we need the funds to go."

He added Carrington has a solid economic base but his revenue sentiments illustrate the pros and cons communities have to wrestle with as legalization debates resurface. Petition organizers tout a range of economic boosts, while also stating their proposed policy is pretty restrictive compared to other states.


get more stories like this via email

Work is being done in rural areas across Texas to make sure students are prepared for the workforce even if they intend to stay put after graduation.

One new study showed only 31% of adults in non-metro areas have a degree from a junior college or university. The nonprofit Jobs for the Future creates opportunities for the education system and local businesses to work together in hopes of increasing the number.

Sarah Jenness, senior manager of the group, said there are three key changes leaders in rural areas could make to improve training for students.

"Strategy number one, build on your local strengths and contacts," Jenness outlined. "Strategy number two is thinking about how to prioritize inclusive economic development. And then finally, the third strategy was around embedding remote opportunities."

Jenness argued schools, local economic development agencies and businesses need to collaborate to create opportunities. A couple of options are dual enrollment, where high school students also earn college credits, and work-based learning, so they can hone their skills on the job.

The study found in the U.S., the benefits of economic systems are unevenly distributed and certain groups and communities suffer the most, particularly rural areas. Disparities are also seen across lines of race, ethnicity and gender.

Jenness stressed gaps can be closed if rural students receive training for the types of jobs available in their communities.

"What are the industries that employ the most rural workers? And the top three that we think tend to be -- you know, have good quality jobs -- are industries like government, manufacturing and health care," Jenness explained.

She added remote work is also a key strategy to ensure rural students have access to a variety of well-paid jobs.


get more stories like this via email