Cost of Nitrate Contamination ofPublic Water Supplies

A Report of Interviews with Water Suppliers

July 2007

By the University of Minnesota Department of Soil Water and Climate, in cooperation with theMinnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Rural Water Association. Special thanks go tothe city water managers and other city officials who provided information for this study.

Funding for this project was provided by The Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund asrecommended by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) (MN Laws 2005First Special Session, Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 11, Subd. 07i).

Table of Contents

• - •• • • I

.~, •._ I

‘-I I - —

Summary

Responding to groundwater nitratecontamination is costly and can be a significantburden on the budgets of small towns. For thisstudy, managers from seven Minnesota citieswere interviewed to learn how much they spentin response to nitrate contamination. Thepurpose was to help other towns anticipatepotential expenses and justilS’ wellheadprotection activities that prevent contamination.

Municipal nitrate removal systems increase thecost of water delivery by fourfold or more. Thistranslates into $100 to $200 more per customerper year. Even before a treatment system isinstalled, cities pay for elevated groundwaternitrate concentrations through increased costs ofsiting a new well, more frequent nitrate testing,and time spent blending water from multiplewells.

Cities with rising nitrate concentrations may beable to avoid spending the $400,000 or muchmore — needed to install a treatment system by

working now to protect their aquifer from nitratecontamination. Their challenge is to motivatenumerous stakeholders to take actions that willhave an uncertain result and may not pay off foryears. Because well capture areas (wellheadprotection areas) are generally outside of citylimits, cities have few tools to influence land useand to permanently protect the well capture area.Existing conservation programs were generallydesigned to protect surface water and are poorlysuited to protecting groundwater.

Treatment systems are only temporary solutionsto drinking water quality. Wellhead protectioncan prevent the need for a treatment system orreduce the cost of treatment if a system is in use.In addition, welihead protection prevents othertypes of contamination and protects anirreplaceable and essential natural resource.

2

Figure 1: Sandy glacial outwash regions of Minnesota and study cities

/-V :s~* .~ ~ ?

414 (2006) 15.6 (2005)

1030 (2006)

Nitrate management

42 Anion exchange system 3 sq mi.

Anion exchange % sq mlsystem, well blending

High nitrate wells go 7 sq minearly unused

30 Anion exchange system 5 sq. ml.

LincolnPipestone RuralWater-- Holland

Well Field

Melrose

Park Rapids

Perham

1062 (2004)

697 (2005)3091 (2003) (85% goes to

agr. industries)

3275 215

326 (2005)2726 (2006) (50% goes to

industries)

Reverse osmosissystem

Well blending

65 Well blending

120 Well blending

37 sq. mu.

2.9 sq mi

4 sq. mi.

18 sq mi

Park -

Per’

Edgerton

Ellsworth

Map shows areas with the attribute “Outwash — Undivided as to Moraine Association” from Hobbs and Goebel (1982).

Table 1: A sample of community water suppliers with elevated nitrate concentrations

Adrian

Clear Lake

Population Million gallonsserved supplied

annually1200 50

1000 gallonsiperson!year

Cold Spring (2~05)

Size ofDWsMAa

202

Edgerton

Ellsworth

32

55

44

540

45 (2005) Anion exchange system 1 sq mi

17

225

Costs of Responding to Contaminated Groundwater

Once a drinking water source is contaminatedwith excessive nitrate, a community watersupplier must either treat the water or findanother source. The following is a list ofpotential expenses and examples of costsincurred by Minnesota communities.

Short term management

If nitrate-N in the drinking water supply risesabove 10 ppm, the water supplier must notify allresidents and provide an alternative watersupply, such as bottled water.

$360 Clear Lake, notifications$250 Edgerton, postings and media

announcements

$4,000 Melrose, notifications andeducation

Other potential costs include remediation of acontaminated site, litigation or legal opinions,consulting and engineering fees, increasedinsurance costs, and decreased property values.None of the cities in this study reported any ofthese costs.

New well

When an aquifer is contaminated with nitrate,siting a new well becomes more expensivebecause multiple test wells must be dug to locatea clean aquifer.

Deep aquifers are often a preferred water supplybecause they are less susceptible to nitratecontamination. However, water from deepaquifers is more likely to require treatment toremove higher concentrations of iron,manganese, sulfate or naturally occurringcontaminants such as arsenic or radium.Removal systems for naturally occurring ions orcontaminants may initially cost about the sameas nitrate removal systems, but their life

expectancy is generally longer and operating andmaintenance costs are lower.

Examples of expenses associated with a newwell:

• Test wells to identify a site without excessnitrate.

$5,500 Park Rapids, two test wells(2005)

$16,000 to $19,000 eachClear Lake, three test wells (2003and 2004)

$3,000 Edgerton, test wells (2001)

• Land purchase• Drilling, pump installation, well housing

$162,000 Park Rapids, to drill a pair ofwells (2005 estimate)

$246,300 Clear Lake (2004)

• Treatment systems to remove iron, sulfur, orradon$2,010,000 Park Rapids, Fe and Mn removal

plant, including building (2005estimate)

$5,000,000 to $6,000,000Melrose, Fe and Mn removalplant, not associated with drillinga new well (2006 estimate)

• Sealing an old well00 Melrose

Background

Nitrate Contamination inMinnesotaOne of Minnesota’s most valuable resources arethe aquifers that supply drinking water to over70% of the state’s residents. Nearly all of thestate’s 954 community water supply systems usegroundwater’, and many have elevated nitrateconcentrations in their drinking water source.Between 1999 and 2004, nitrate-Nconcentrations were elevated (>3 mg/L or ppm)in 64 communities serving 226,000 people and24 non-municipal suppliers (e.g. mobile homeparks)2. Unless groundwater protection isundertaken, these communities may face risingnitrate concentrations in the future. In the sametime period, nitrate-N concentrations exceededhealth standards (>10 mglL) in 12 communitiesand 4 non-community suppliers delivering waterto 47,000 customers.

Nitrate (NO3) moves readily through the soiland is odorless and tasteless in water. Theprimary health concern of elevated nitrate indrinking water is “Blue Baby Syndrome”(methemoglobinemia) caused when nitrate-contaminated water is consumed by infantsunder 6 months of age. In the infants stomach,nitrate is converted to nitrite which binds tohemoglobin, preventing the blood from carryingoxygen. (In rare cases, adults have beenpoisoned by nitrate, but not by the amounts indrinking water.) In addition, some research hassuggested that long-term consumption of nitrateis associated with certain cancers, but evidence

Surface water is the thinking water source for 1800of the state’s population, including Minneapolis andSt. Paul.2 Data from the Minnesota Department of Health.

is unclear (Fewtrell, 2004; Rademacher, 1992).Nitrate is relatively easy to measure and canserve as an indicator that other components ofagricultural or human waste is leaching throughthe soil and into groundwater.

Nitrate SourcesIn Minnesota, natural background concentrationsof nitrate-N in groundwater are very low(<lmgIL or ppm). Higher concentrationsgenerally occur when nitrate from commercialfertilizer, manure, or human waste (sewage orseptage) leach from the surface through the soiland into groundwater. Contamination is morelikely in areas of deep sandy glacial outwashdeposits, sometimes found over loamy glacialtill or lake sediments, such as those in centralMinnesota, or in the river channel aquifers insouthwestern Minnesota. Wells in thesevulnerable areas often draw drinking water fromsurficial aquifers, i.e., aquifers above bedrockwith no clay or rock confining layer protectingthem from contaminants in surface rechargewater.

Estimating Costs of NitrateContaminationCosts of contamination include the costs ofusing the contaminated water (e.g., effects onhealth, crops, or industrial activities), and thecosts of responding to the contamination,including restoring the aquifer quality (generallynot feasible), containing a plume ofcontamination, or avoiding the contaminatedwater through treatment or an alternative watersource (Raucher, 1983). These costs can beestimated by calculating either the “avoidancecost”, that is, costs incurred to monitor, treat, orfind an alternative water source; or the

3

“contingent value” based on asking people whatthey are willing to pay for an uncontaminatedaquifer. Contingent value studies of the value ofgroundwater protection are discussed in Phillipset al. (1999) and Poe et al. (2000), but the resultsare not readily translated into an estimate ofcosts in Minnesota. The avoidance cost methoddoes not incorporate all ecological damages ornonuse values of water quality, so it can beconsidered a low-end estimate of people’swillingness to pay or of the total costs ofcontamination (Abdalla, 1994). Intrinsic or non-use benefits of groundwater include retaining theoption to have a clean aquifer at some time inthe future. The value of non-use benefits is nottrivial, given the irreversible nature ofgroundwater contamination (Raucher, 1983).

Estimating health costs is controversial becausethe nitrate standard is not based on a cost-benefitcalculus, but by choosing a level substantiallybelow clinically observable human healthimpacts. Thus, small or occasional exceedancesof the standard will likely have little observableimpact on health costs (Giraldez and Fox, 1995;Addiscott and Benjamin, 2004).

The Freshwater Foundation (1989) studied thecosts of groundwater contamination toMinnesota companies and cities. The study waslimited to industrial waste or hazardousmaterials, but the categories of potential costsidentified are also relevant to nitratecontamination. They include:

• New equipment, treatment, and directcleanupIncreased monitoring

• Increased energy usage

• Increased operation and maintenance costs• Staff time• Consulting and legal fees

• Increased water rates• Devalued real estate• Diminished home or commercial real estate

sales• Relocation of commercial development and

lost jobs• Loss to tax base

No one has attempted to summarize these costsin relation to groundwater nitrate contaminationin Minnesota.

Study Methods

The purpose of the study was to helpcommunities anticipate the costs they may faceas groundwater nitrate concentrations rise, andthus to quanti~’ the value of groundwaterprotection. The study only considered directeconomic costs and did not consider health orenvironmental effects of nitrate contamination.

In the summer of 2006, water supply managersin seven Minnesota communities (Fig. 1) wereinterviewed about the costs associated withmonitoring, treating, or avoiding groundwatercontaminated with nitrate. The communitieswere selected from among those in centralMinnesota with elevated nitrate concentrations.Only five communities in central Minnesotawere identified as currently incurring costsassociated with nitrate contamination, so twoadditional communities were interviewed wheregeologically sensitive aquifers are used insouthwestern Minnesota. Additional data wasused from a previous study of nitrate treatmentsystems (MDA and MDH) and from otherinterviews (Diego Bonta, personalcommunication). Characteristics of thecommunities are summarized in Table 1. Tohelp other communities assess the potential costsof their unique situation, costs are presented asexamples rather than averages.

Reverse osmosis (RO) treatment system Anion exchange treatment system

In an RO system, water is forced through asemi-permeable membrane leaving behind alarge proportion of high-nitrate waste water.Costs of running an RO system increase ifmineral concentrations are high. Only onemunicipal RO system is operating in Minnesota.

Expenses for Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water(LPRW) include:

• Initial construction. RO systems are

expected to last about 20 years.$1,706,650 (1999)

• Operating and maintenance costs includingelectrical power for the pumps andreplacement membranes$31,000 (maintenance including

membranes)$36,000 (energy)

• Waste water disposalLPRW disposes of 1 gallon of wastewater for every 5 gallons used.

Anion exchange (AE) systems remove nitrate byreplacing the negative nitrate ion (NO3~) with thenegative chloride ion (Cf) from salt. Watersofteners do not remove nitrate because theyreplace positive ions (e.g. Fe ) with thepositive sodium (Na ) ion from salt. Costs of AEsystems are shown in Error! Reference sourcenot found.. The initial construction costs dependpartly on the amount of water to be treated,whereas operating and maintenance costsdepend on the amount of nitrate removed whichdetermines the amount of salt required. Costscan be reduced by increasing the nitrateconcentration in the final treated water, or bylowering the nitrate concentration in untreatedwater through welihead protection activities. Forexample, the City of Edgerton estimates that saltusage could double if nitrate-N concentrations intheir untreated water rose from the current valueof 7-9 ppm up to 10-12 ppm, which was the

Table 2: Examples of annual costs for anion exchange treatment systems

Other operation andmaintenance costs

Total extra costs oftreatment (wlo labor)

Clear Lake

414 (2006)

15.6 (2005)

$412,390 (1995)

$9,200 to $1,600(2004 to 20~)b

$4,867, $7,924, $2,576(2004, 2005, 2006)

$900

$16,000 (2005).Manager estimates 60% to

65% of his time is spent on thetreatment system.

$5,400 (for general upkeep)

$1.82 to $2.25per 1000 gal.

$0.82per 1000 gal.

$600(maintenance

parts)

$1.68 $1.52per 1000 gal. per 1000 gal.

Population served

Million gallons supplied

Initial constructiona

NaCI purchases

Energy

Regular nitrate testing

Additional labor

Edgerton Ellsworth Adrian

1,030 (2006) 540 1,200

45 (2005) 17 50

$352,000 (2003) $362,000 (1994) $601,000 (1998;

$6,150 (2006) $3,000 (2006) $12,000

$2,600 (2005) $4,200 (2006) $4800 to $9600

$450 $500

$13,000

Anion exchange systems are expected to last 20 to 25 years.b Salt usage has gone down since a new well came on line in 2005.

nitrate-N concentration before land in the wellrecharge area was enrolled in agricultural set-aside programs. Salt usage in Clear Lakedropped after a new low-nitrate well came online in 2005.

Distillation treatment system

Water is boiled and steam is condensed to yieldwater with very few dissolved substances. NoMinnesota municipalities use distillationsystems.

Well blending

Some Minnesota cities blend water from lowand high nitrate wells to produce safe drinkingwater. At its simplest, blending is a matter ofusing low nitrate wells first and running the highnitrate wells last and only as needed. This

involves minimal costs except putting additionalwear on the pumps in the wells being used mostoften. In some cities, blending has costsassociated with managing pumps and testingwater to ensure the final water is safe. Blendingis only an option if a city has wells withdifferent nitrate concentrations that are pumpedinto a common area where the water can mixbefore going into the distribution system.

Annual costs of well blending include:

• Time associated with monitoring nitrateconcentrations and switching pumps.

$3,000 Meirose

• Frequent lab tests to monitor nitrateconcentrations

$1,000 Meirose$900 Clear Lake

Welihead Protection

Wellhead protection is the process of managingpotential sources of contamination within thecapture area (wellhead protection area) for thewell in an effort to reduce the risk ofcontamination at concentrations that present ahuman health concern. Wellhead protectionplans consider nitrate, industrial contaminants,and other potential contaminants. Moreinformation is available at the MinnesotaDepartment of Health web site (see Resources).Wellhead protection is the only cost-effectiveand long-term solution to aquifer contamination.

Wellhead protection plans (WHPPs)

Wellhead protection plans are required for 930community water systems and about 700noncommunity (schools, factories, etc.) publicwater systems in Minnesota. About 130 of thesesystems have approved WHPPs and another 180are preparing them. WHPPs describe the aquifer,capture zones (recharge zones for a well),current and future threats to groundwaterquality, and detailed activities that will beundertaken to reduce or prevent contamination.They must be updated after ten years.

costs of wellhead protection

Labor. The development of a wellheadprotection plan is ajoint effort between the city(or its contractor) and staff from the MinnesotaDepartment of Health and the Minnesota RuralWater Association. After development of theWHPP, maintenance and implementation of theplan generally requires 5% to 10% of the time ofa community water manager.

Some cities have hired people dedicated to WFIPimplementation. For example, the cities ofRockville, Richmond, and Cold Spring, andseveral Cold Spring private businesses havejoined together to hire a non-staff member to

implement their wellhead protection plans. Insouthwest Minnesota a proposal is underway tohire a person to work within five counties toimplement wellhead protection activities.

Implementation includes maintaining goodcommunication with county officials and otherlocal government units to ensure that decisionsabout zoning, licensing, and rules consider theeffect on the wellhead protection area. Time isalso spent on promoting best managementpractices by land owners and encouraging keyowners to take advantage of cost share programsto take land out of agricultural production. Othertime is spent implementing educational efforts.

Land purchases. Considering the cost of awater treatment plant and other approaches towellhead protection, the city of Perham decidedthe most effective use of resources would be topurchase irrigated agricultural land within theirwellhead protection zone. They began by buyingland adjacent to the city, reselling some of it forresidential development. They plan to graduallybuy other land within the 10-year recharge zoneand put it into conservation easements.

Cost share. Cities often encourage land ownersto participate in federal and state programs thatpay per acre support to remove land fromagricultural production. Some cities haveprovided additional financial incentives to landowners. Statewide in 2006, 20,283 of the acresin CRP, CREP2, and RIM were in wellheadprotection areas. If land is enrolled in CRP forthe purpose of wellhead protection, it must bewithin 2000 feet of the well. This has restrictedthe use of CRP. CREP2, on the other hand, doesnot have a radius limit.

9

Cities have also funded incentive programs toencourage upgrading of septic systems andsealing of unused wells.

Technical assistance is important to helplandowners implement best managementpractices related to nutrient management,irrigation, manure management, turfmanagement, and private well and septic systemmaintenance. This assistance is usually one-on-one work provided by partners including Soiland Water Conservation Districts, WatershedDistricts, Minnesota Extension Service, NaturalResources Conservation Service, CountyEnvironmental Services Departments,Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and cropconsultants.

Education. All wellhead protection plansinclude some education components to buildawareness and knowledge. Activities includeposting road signs to mark the boundaries of thewellhead protection area, exhibits at county fairsand similar events, pamphlets, public serviceannouncements, and direct mailings to peoplewithin the wellhead protection area.

Monitoring. Some cities have installedmonitoring wells or organized a network ofprivate wells to be tested regularly to monitornitrate concentrations in the aquifer. The MDHspends $1500 to $2000 per year for mandatoryquarterly testing of water supplies over 5.0 mg/Lnitrate-N.

Expenses associated with wellhead protectionplanning and implementation:

$15,000 to $40,000Melrose, WHP delineation by MDH

$100,620 Cold Spring, WHP plan developmentfunded by the MPCA Clean WaterPartnership Grant

$18,000 Park Rapids, WHP plan developmentby the Hubbard County Water Plan

$25Oiwell Cold Spring, cost share to seal wells

$300 Cold Spring, education about wellmaintenance

$250 Cold Spring, education about septicsystems

$1,000 Cold Spring, public educationthrough various media, festivals andpromotional itemsPark Rapids, itemized annual costsPark Rapids, itemized one-timecostsMelrose, educationMelrose, consultantMelrose, staff time

$4,000Iyr$2,500!yr$6,000iyr

$800Iyr

$1,250

Barriers to welihead protection

City water managers identified the followingbarriers to effective wellhead protection, as itrelates to nitrate contamination.

Uncertainty. Planners can predict thesource of nitrate contamination and the pathand timing of water movement from thesurface to the aquifer, but they are rarelycertain. Furthermore, in many places aquiferrecharge occurs over decades. If it tookyears for nitrate concentrations to rise, it willlikely take years for concentrations todecline in response to management changes.Expenditures can be difficult tojustitS’ whenthe benefit may not expected for years andthe magnitude of the benefit is uncertain.

• Competing priorities. Effective wellheadprotection depends on long-termcommitment from all decision-makerswithin the public water supplier, includingwater managers, city administrators, and citycouncil members. Additionally, local andstate officials, landowners, and the generalpublic must be committed. All thesestakeholders have competing concernsranging from short-term budgetary issues toother natural resource concerns such assurface water programs. Attention will beturned to where funding is available.

• Lack of authority. The wellhead protectionarea for a well is usually outside cityboundaries. Often, public water suppliershave no authority to control land use beyondtheirjurisdictional boundaries. They dependon local zoning authority to manageproposed land-use changes and on state andcounty enforcement of rules governingseptic systems, feedlots, and other nitratesources. Most importantly, they often relyon voluntary cooperation from farmers andhomeowners who apply fertilizer or manure.

• Ineffective policies for administeringconservation programs. In some places,the best way to reduce nitrate contaminationis to take a small amount of land in thewellhead protection area out of agriculturalproduction. Federal cost share programssuch as the Conservation Reserve Program(CRP) are designed primarily to protect soiland surface water and may not be aseffective for wellhead protection. Forexample, the CRP provides per-acreincentives to take key land out of row cropproduction. Land within a 2,000-foot radiusof a community well and within a wellheadprotection area can be automaticallyenrolled in CRP. However, this reduces thenumber of possible acres because much ofthe land within 2,000 feet of the well maynot actually be within its capture area. Usinga fixed radius or other simple method todelineate a well water protection area canresult in substantial over protection of landdown gradient from the well and underprotection of up-gradient land (Hodgson etal., 2006; Raymond et al. 2006). Anotherlimitation of existing conservation programsis that incentive payments may not beadequate to allow farmers to take highlyproductive farmland out of production,especially as prices of corn and othercommodities rise. Given the value ofdrinking water to human health, it may beappropriate to provide higher incentivepayments to set aside land in wellheadprotection areas that will protect aquifersfrom long term contamination.

• Diverse and unequal stakeholders. Thecosts and benefits of wellhead protection,and the power to influence land use andmanagement are held unevenly by the city,township, county, state, residential waterusers, industrial water users, developers,

farmers, homeowners, and other landowners. A successful solution requirescommunication and cooperation among allthe parties and acknowledgment of theunevenness of costs and benefits. Out offairness and expedience, planners may try tospread costs among many stakeholders bychoosing wellhead protection activities thatapply to everyone, such as promotingnutrient best management practices. Gettingall players to contribute to the solution isessential, but may be inadequate where it isnecessary to take a few key acres, owned byone or two producers, completely out ofagricultural production. Working withproducers to implement such “unfair”solutions is made more difficult by theuncertainty of the results.

• Inertia. Water suppliers may be hesitant tobegin WHP planning and implementation —

a task with an unknown time commitment.However, with the support of the MinnesotaDepartment of Health (MDH) and theMinnesota Rural Water Association(MRWA), most have found the process to bemanageable and successful.

• Technical support is not a barrier. Allcities interviewed agreed they received goodtechnical support from the MDH andMRWA. Every wellhead protection plandepended on extensive staff time from MDHand MRWA. Conservation Districts and theMinnesota Department of Agriculture haveprovided technical assistance with nutrientmanagement planning.

The Bottom Line

How much does water cost?The cost to supply water to a community variesgreatly (Table 3). Costs for municipalities withtreatment systems are several times higher thanthose without. Timely and effective wellheadprotection can reduce or completely preventnitrate treatment costs, as well as reduce thethreat of other types of contamination.

Table 3: Cost to supply water

Cost($11000 gal.) aleulation

Anion exchange system

Park Rapids $1.50 including sewer

Perham $1 to $2a Proposed iron treatment plant in

raise cost to $2.50 or $3.

Who pays?The costs of groundwater nitrate contaminationand wellhead protection are spread unevenlyacross many parties including the following.

• Public water suppliers and their fee-payingcustomers who pay for treatment systems,new wells, or other responses togroundwater contamination.

• Consumers who may suffer health effects.

• Land owners who implement measures toprevent nitrate leaching, such as taking landout of agricultural production or improving

nutrient management. Their costs may beoffset by cost share payments or reducedfertilizer expenses.

• Taxpayer-supported entities includingWatershed Districts, Soil and WaterConservation Districts, the MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture, the University ofMinnesota Extension Service, and othersthat provide technical assistance to landmanagers.

• The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) Clean Water Partnership Programwhich provides grants and loans to addresssurface and groundwater pollution problems.

• The Minnesota Rural Water Association(MRWA) which supports wellheadprotection planning. Their work is supportedby rural water suppliers and taxpayers.

• The Minnesota Department of Health(MDH) which supports wellhead protectionplanning and pays for quarterly monitoringof water suppliers who have elevated nitrateconcentrations.

• Federal conservation programs including theEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP), the Conservation Security Program(CSP), and the Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP), along with state programssuch as the Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program (CREP) and Reinvestin Minnesota (RIM).

City

Total waterClear Lake $7.23 supply cost

Total waterEllsworth $4.55 supply cost

No nitrate removal system

Cold Spring $1.40 User fee

Meirose $1.lsa User fee

User feeMelrose would

Resources and References

Abdalla, C.W. 1994. Groundwater values fromavoidance cost studies: Implications forpolicy and future research. AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics76:1062-1067.

Addiscott, T.M. and N. Benjamin. 2004. Nitrateand human health. Soil Use andManagement 20:98-104.

Fewtrell, L. 2004. Drinking-water nitrate,methemoglobinemia, and global burden ofdisease: A discussion. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 12(14): 1371-1374.

Freshwater Foundation. 1989. EconomicImplications of GroundwaterContamination to Companies and Cities.Wayzata MN: Freshwater Foundation.

Giraldez, C. and G. Fox. 1995. An economicanalysis of groundwater contaminationfrom agricultural nitrate emissions insouthern Ontario. Canadian Journal ofAgricultural Economics 43:387-402.

Hobbs, H.C. and J.E. Goebel. 1982. GeologicMap of Minnesota: Quaternary Geology.1:500,000. Minnesota Geological SurveyState Map Series Map S-I. Digitalcompilation by B.A. Lusardi, published bythe Land Management Information Center.Metadata at:http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/chouse/metadatalquatgeo.html.

Hodgson, J.Y.S., J.R. Stoll, and R.C. Stoll.2006. Evaluating the effectiveness of afixed wellhead delineation: regional casestudy. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 42:409-423.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)and the Minnesota Department of Health

(MDH). 2004. Nitrate Contamination: Whatis the Cost? Drinking water protectionseries fact sheet.http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/drinkingwater.htm

Minnesota Department of HealthSource Water Protection pagehttp://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/index.htm,

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)Ground Water in Minnesotahttp:/ www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/Clean Water Partnership Programhttp:/ www.pca.state.mn.us/water/cwp3 19.html

Minnesota Rural Water Association sourcewater protection pagehttp:/ www.mrwa.com/sourcewater.htm

Poe, G.L., K.J. Boyle, J.C. Bergstrom. 2000. Ameta analysis of contingent values forgroundwater quality in the United States[2144]. Selected Paper, AmericanAgricultural Economics Association.

Rademacher J.J., T.B. Young, and M.S.Kanarek. 1992. Gastric cancer mortalityand nitrate levels in Wisconsin drinkingwater. Archives of Environmental Health47:292-294

Raucher, R.L. 1983. A conceptual frameworkfor measuring the benefits of groundwaterprotection. Water Resources Research19:320-326.

Raymond, H.A., M. Bondoc, J. McGinnis, K.Metropulos, P. Heider, A. Reed, and S.Saines. 2006. Using analytic element

models to delineate drinking water sourceprotection areas. Groundwater 44:16-23.

Rinaudo JD, C. Arnal, R. Blanchin, P. Elsass, A.Meilhac, and S. Loubier. 2005. Assessingthe cost of groundwater pollution: the caseof diffuse agricultural pollution in theUpper Rhine valley aquifer. Water Scienceand Technology 52:153-162.

Glossary

Capture area — the surface and subsurface areathat provides water to a public water supplywell.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) — afederally funded program in which farmersare paid to take land out of agriculturalproduction for 10 to 15 years. Paymentsgenerally match local rental rates. Contactyour local Soil and Water ConservationDistrict for more information.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program(CREP2) — a state-funded program similarto CRP. Contact your local Soil and WaterConservation District for more information.

Drinking water supply management area(DWSMA) — the MDH-approved surfaceand subsurface area surrounding a publicwater supply well that completely containsthe scientifically calculated wellheadprotection area and is managed by theentity identified in a wellhead protectionplan. The boundaries of a DWSMAgenerally follow property and politicalboundaries, whereas the boundaries of theWHP area follow the estimated capture areafor the well(s).

MDA — Minnesota Department of Agriculture(www.mda.state.mn.us)

MDH — Minnesota Department of Health(www.health.state.mn.us)

MPCA — Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(www.pca.state.mn.us)

MRWA — Minnesota Rural Water Association(www.mrwa.com)

ppm — parts per million. With regard to nitrate-Nconcentrations, ppm is equal to milligramsper liter (mg/L)

Recharge area — the surface and subsurface areathat provides water to an aquifer (althoughsometimes the term is used to refer to thearea that supplies a well).

Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) — a state-fundedprogram that builds on CREP2 by adding aconservation easement that is eitherpermanent or adds 30 years beyond theCREP2 contract.

Wellhead protection area (WHP area) thedesignated area around a public watersupply well(s) that is to be protected fromcontaminants that may adversely affecthuman health. It includes the surface andsubsurface area through whichcontaminants are reasonably likely to movetoward and reach the well(s). Regulation ofWHP areas was established under thefederal Safe Drinking Water Act, and isimplemented through state governments.