A total of 37 individuals participated in four focus groups, with 20 participants in the Spanish focus groups and 17 in the English focus groups. Each focus group had 7 to 11 participants. Table 1 lists the participants’ demographics and well stewardship characteristics. All the Spanish focus group participants and 65% of English focus group participants were Latino. The remaining participants were non-Latino White. The mean age among the Spanish and English focus group participants was 43 and 54 years, respectively. The percentage of Spanish and English focus group participants who reported a household income in the top bracket (> $50,000) was 0% and 59%, respectively. The percentage of Spanish and English focus group participants who reported having pursued trade school, an associate’s degree, college, or graduate school was 11% and 65%, respectively. Half of the Spanish participants worked in agriculture compared to 7% of English participants. Forty-four percent of Spanish participants reported ever testing their well water compared to 70% of English participants. Bottled water was purchased for in-home use by 59% of English focus group participants and 78% of Spanish focus group participants. Only two participants reported using water treatment systems capable of removing nitrate; both reported using reverse osmosis systems.
[Table 1 located near here.]
Participants across all four focus groups had lively discussions about well stewardship. Eight themes emerged around the barriers and facilitators of well maintenance, treatment, and bottled water use in addition to testing, the study’s original focus. Barriers included limited actionable information, economic limitations, lack of technical support, and barriers related to landlords and neighbors. Facilitators of well stewardship included concerns about well water contamination, knowledge of agricultural sources of contamination, do-it-yourself (DIY) home repair experience, and responsibility to protect family.
Concerns about water contamination
Participants had extended and dynamic discussions about well water contamination in which many spoke with a sense of concern, worry, or suspicion. Many stated that they did not drink their well water, but did use it for cooking, cleaning, or gardening. Participants across all focus groups expressed concern about contamination from nearby agricultural activities or water that looked, tasted, or smell bad. Participants asked many questions and one male participant in a Spanish focus group explained, “I think we are here for the same purpose, because I also have no certainty that the water from the well is good […] and for that reason we’re here because we want to know.” At the end of the focus groups, several participants expressed gratitude for information they had received.
Knowledge of agricultural sources
Conversations between participants, particularly in the English focus groups, demonstrated a knowledge of agricultural practices as major source of well water contamination in the area. English focus group participants described the nuanced processes that transport nitrate through the environment, discussing manure lagoons at industrial dairies, the use of manure to fertilize crop fields, infiltration into groundwater, and the impact of well depth and water table height on water quality. When discussing potential sickness from well water, one English focus group participant relied on her knowledge of the sources and transport of contamination.
“Our water doesn’t taste horrible if we bypass the filter. However, we know that our water table is really high and we’re virtually surrounded by dairies. And so it crosses your mind. You think how much of what’s being sprayed right next door is infiltrating the ground around us and then seeping into the water table.”
Participants in both the English and Spanish focus groups also expressed concern about contamination from pesticide application on crop fields and stated that well water should be tested for pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. Spanish focus group participants shared concerns about pesticides more frequently than English focus group participants, who discussed dairies and manure fertilizer more frequently. For example, one Spanish focus group participant was more worried about pesticide use near her property than cattle:
“Where I live there is a property that only had some cows, but the neighbor rented it out to them, for the hops, and now I feel that they are going to use pesticides. Maybe they did not use them before, so I had no pesticide danger, but now I do.”
DIY home repair experience
Spanish focus group participants shared their experiences investigating well water issues and asked questions about how to make repairs on their own. Several Spanish focus group participants raised concerns about discolored or foul-smelling water and deposits left on faucets, pipes, and appliances, as did several English focus group participants. Several participants in the Spanish focus groups identified aging piping components as a potential source of contamination. Concerned about the look and smell of their water, these participants described the actions they had taken to address these issues: opening pipes, discovering extensive corrosion, consulting neighbors, flushing water lines with chlorine, and researching anti-corrosion pipes online. Additionally, one Spanish focus group participant shared detailed observations of his employer’s well renovation project:
“I saw when they took out the steel pipes […] [and] put in another type of material. Since then I was thinking, because if we [live] about half a mile from where he has his well and I could see the tubes that are about this thick, they are like 7 tubes deep and each is about 15 or 20 feet long. […] we can see that although they are made of steel they are falling apart, they are very rusty. That’s why I get the idea that it’s necessary to do that.”
Spanish focus group participants asked questions about how to replace corroded pipes and seek financial support for well renovations. Spanish focus group participants also discussed septic tanks as a potential source of contamination in their wells, reflecting on the proximity of their well to neighboring septic tanks and the need for regular maintenance.
Lack of actionable information
Throughout each focus group, participants raised questions about how to prevent and mitigate well water contamination. For example, one female participant in an English focus group described her need for general well stewardship education:
“My father, he is the one that did the maintenance on [the well], put whatever he had to do to make sure that the water was good. He passed away two years ago on [DATE]. Now, I’m new. I saw what he, you know, certain things that he used to do. I don’t know anything else, so how do I know if it’s good?”
Spanish focus group participants sought information to address the deposits, discoloration, and foul smells they observed in their well water. Some asked questions about basic well water treatment, describing situations that could be resolved with particle filters and water softeners. Participants across all focus groups often used the word “filter” to describe many types of water treatment systems and some expressed confusion about the purpose of different treatment systems.
Some participants shared that their wells had been tested once or twice in the past. Some reported satisfactory results and others learned that they had elevated nitrate levels or bacterial contamination. Those who had received satisfactory results still sought information about future contamination or contaminants that had not been tested. Before reading the fact sheet on testing, participants were asked specifics about the testing procedure, including recommended contaminants and testing frequency. Most participants across the four focus groups were unaware of government recommendations to test every year for nitrate and total coliform. One participant reported testing his well water for nitrate every year, but not for total coliform. Many participants did not know testing costs or who to contact for testing.Even participants who had tested their wells in the past admitted that they had little knowledge of these specifics. Many had their wells tested by government agencies during groundwater monitoring studies, and so had little knowledge of how to test on their own. One female participant in a Spanish focus group explained this when the moderator asked if participants knew how to test their well water:
“No. We do not know, and like when the lady, one day they were doing it for free. But it is to just to know and they said [the water] was fine, but no, we do not know how to do it.”
Lastly, participants who had not tested previously were unfamiliar with the testing process itself, asking if they could purchase a home testing kit or if an inspector would conduct the test at their house.
Participants reflected on the need for more well stewardship information in different ways. Several described their lack of knowledge as a deficit, while others emphasized it as an opportunity for community learning. For example, one male Spanish focus group participant expressed regret for not knowing more, stating, “I can send my family and myself to the hospital for not paying a little bit of attention.” One female participant responded to this participant with an alternate perspective:
"[…] I can say that maybe one in 100 people knows this about the water, so do not feel bad saying that you do not know much about water because I think […] that I do not know much either, so do not feel bad. We are all here to learn.”
Responsibility to protect family
Many participants expressed worry or fear of sickness from contaminated well water and discussed the need to protect children, pregnant women and older adults from contaminated well water. Many participants described testing, buying filters, being aware of contamination, and renovating wells as ways to protect their family’s health. Participants across all four focus groups discussed protecting their families with a sense of responsibility, but this theme was particularly strong in one Spanish focus group. When discussing the need for information on well water contamination, a female participant in this focus group said,
“The responsibility always ends with us. We are the owners of our family, of our children, and we are the ones who have to look for what we should do.”
Although participants correctly identified vulnerable family members, they rarely discussed specific health effects unprompted. This worry about sickness seemed to be based on what could happen, rather than knowledge of specific water-related health effects. An older male participant in an English focus group shared,
“I tried to monitor my health yet not be paranoid. I just went through a nasty gallbladder operation. Anything that happens to me, I wonder is it just getting old or is there something hurting me? […] I’m not sixteen anymore.”
In contrast, several participants stated their well water had positive or neutral effects on their health. Several said that when a family member gets sick, they drink more well water. These and several other participants reported that their water looked and tasted good. Despite positive perceptions of their well water, these participants described water contamination as a concern that “sits in the back of your mind” (from an English focus group) and emphasized the need to be aware of well contamination issues.
Economic limitations
After reading the fact sheet and learning about well water testing, participants were asked what makes it difficult to test well water. The most common response from participants across all focus groups was financial cost. Additionally, several English focus group participants described the installation and maintenance costs of water treatment systems as burdensome, particularly for community members with limited financial means. In contrast, two English focus group participants stated that the costs of yearly testing and reverse osmosis installation were worthwhile in order to protect their families. Participants in three focus groups stated that taking time off work is also a major barrier to testing. One female Spanish focus group participant described how substantial socioeconomic challenges take priority over water quality for community members who have immigrated from Mexico.
“When you arrive here all you do is to think about tomorrow: ‘Tomorrow I have to work, I have to do so much and what to eat,’ or ‘I only have so much,’ but [water] is the least you think about.”
Many participants stated that they drank bottled water, but few compared the value of testing and treatment to that of bottled water. One Spanish focus group participant stated that well water testing was important in areas where water is said to be good and residents drink their well water. Another participant described how his family tended to purchase bottled water because it was cheaper and more convenient than replacing the filters in his reverse osmosis system. Participants also mentioned other challenges with their treatment systems, including reduced pressure, changes in taste, and doubts about filter effectiveness.
Lack of technical support
Several English focus group participants described difficulties accessing adequate technical support and navigating services during well water testing and treatment. Participants who had tested their wells stated that it was difficult to understand their water quality test results, sharing that they did not know the water quality standards and whether those standards were protective of infants and children. After reading the fact sheet on nitrate and coliform bacterial testing, several participants asked how they could use contaminated water (e.g. cooking, bathing) and how to improve their water quality. Participants expressed that testing laboratories provided insufficient guidance on how to address contaminated well water and water treatment companies often recommended expensive treatment options. Others did not know who to contact for help on water treatment. Greatly frustrated, one English focus group participant described her difficulties treating E. coli in her well, “playing phone tag” with treatment companies, implementing various treatment methods, and still not being satisfied with the quality of her well water. She concluded, “I [am] literally thinking of selling my house and getting out of here.”
Landlords and neighbors
Finally, participants described significant barriers to good water quality that related to their landlords and neighbors. At the start of one Spanish focus group, a renter asked with great concern whether she or her landlord was responsible for ensuring the safety of her water. Another participant, one who knew the renter outside of the study, commented that the renter’s water smells terrible. The renter explained that her landlord “doesn’t want to help.” The renter was grateful to hear that she could test her well water quality independent of her landlord. An English focus group participant who shared her well with her neighbor asked whether her neighbor’s cattle, which he kept near the well, could contaminate the well water. She also described barriers to treating her well for bacterial contamination, explaining that she did not treat the well because her neighbor drank bottled water and was not interested in treatment. Recalling her thought process at the time, she said, “Well, I’m not doing anything if the neighbor’s not doing it.”