MADISON (AP) — A new sampling of a batch of wells in southwestern Wisconsin found a majority contaminated with fecal matter from people, pigs and cows, according to results released Dec. 3 as part of a contentious regional pollution study.
Scientists sampled 34 private wells in Grant, Iowa and Lafayette counties in mid-August and found 25 wells, or 73%, were contaminated with fecal matter from humans and livestock, including cattle and swine, according to a news release from county officials and researchers.
Nineteen wells, or 56%, were contaminated with pathogens including salmonella and cryptosporidium. Salmonella is a common bacterial disease that affects the intestinal tract. Salmonella bacteria typically live in animal and human intestines and are shed through feces. Cryptosporidium is a parasite that can cause diarrheal disease. It’s also transmitted through feces.
The tests are part of a broader study of well contamination across the three counties conducted by county conservation officials, the University of Wisconsin-Extension and federal researchers.
The group sampled 840 wells in the counties in November 2018 and April 2019 and found evidence of bacterial or nitrate pollution in 42% of the wells tested in November and 27% of the wells tested in April. Nitrate originates from manure and fertilizer.
The researchers are conducting further tests on subsets of contaminated wells to learn more. They tested 35 wells in April and discovered 91% were contaminated with fecal matter from both humans and livestock. The results were from the second round of testing. Two more rounds are planned over the next year.
The state Department of Natural Resources has drafted manure and fertilizer restrictions for as yet undefined “sensitive areas.” The department has estimated the restrictions could come with an annual cost of $50,000 to $5 million for farmers and other stakeholders.
Tensions reached a head in November when Lafayette County officials accused media outlets of reporting that 91% of the entire region’s wells were contaminated. They were so outraged they tried to stifle discussion about further test results, drafting a resolution that declared journalists who reported further test results without quoting a county news release verbatim would be prosecuted, and that county board members who talked to reporters about the results without permission from a review board would be punished.
The county board ultimately tabled the resolution amid a firestorm of criticism. It’s still unclear who wrote the proposal; no one has acknowledged authorship.
County officials and state geologist Ken Bradbury, one of the study’s lead researchers, downplayed the health risks the wells might present in their news release.
They stressed that the results don’t show a region-wide contamination rate and said researchers haven’t calculated the health risk the wells might pose, saying risk levels are tied to the concentration of pathogens and the health of the person who drinks the water.
DNR board OKs drafting new manure rules
MADISON (AP) — The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources board granted the agency permission Dec. 10 to start drawing up contentious manure and fertilizer restrictions for areas prone to groundwater pollution.
The board gave the department the go-ahead on a 5-1 vote, despite concerns from the agricultural industry that the restrictions could cost farmers millions of dollars annually. It could be months before the department completes a draft. The final version of the regulations would be subject to legislative approval.
“This is going to be expensive,” board Chairman Fred Prehn said. “(But) the bottom line is, the public wants a solution.”
Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has said he wants to do more to address nitrates, which are found in fertilizer and manure. About 10% of the state’s private wells have nitrate levels exceeding 10 milligrams per liter, according to the DNR. State health officials recommend that people avoid long-term consumption of water with nitrate levels over that mark. The governor directed the DNR to establish nitrate standards for soils susceptible to contamination.
The department released a broad outline of the new restrictions in September. The proposal would impose restrictions similar to northeastern Wisconsin’s regulations on manure and fertilizer in as-yet undefined “sensitive areas” with highly permeable soil in other parts of the state.
DNR officials imposed restrictions last year on manure-spreading in 15 northeastern Wisconsin counties in response to drinking water contamination in Kewaunee County. Restrictions vary depending on the depth of individual farms’ topsoil.
“This (proposal) is much bigger than Kewaunee County,” Prehn said. “It’s a serious, long, expensive undertaking.”
Farmers fear the additional regulations could force them to buy or rent additional land to spread excess manure or to inject manure into the soil to prevent runoff, which is more costly than just spreading it. The DNR’s outline indicated that the prohibitions could cost stakeholders a combined $50,000 to $5 million annually.
Aaron Stauffacher, a lobbyist for the Dairy Business Association, tried to talk the board out of moving ahead on the regulations, saying the DNR hasn’t shown current statewide standards on nitrates are too lax.
“(Nitrate pollution) was created over generations through a variety of different land uses,” he said. “We cannot simply correct this problem by creating targeted performance standards that will only apply to a small percentage of farms and agricultural land.”
Scott Laeser, water program director for conservation group Clean Wisconsin, told the board the rules will be costly but the people are already spending millions on health problems caused by nitrate pollution.
“It’s time for a new approach, for new rules and new resources that aspire to reduce nitrate pollution in our wells and promise a future where safe drinking water flows into homes that don’t have it today,” he said.
Board member Bill Bruins cast the lone dissenting vote. He said the proposal has set the state’s agricultural community on edge and he doesn’t think it’s fair to characterize farmers as the main source of nitrates in groundwater.