Why and how to test farm water
The high profile of water quality issues in the media these days has many responsible agricultural producers on the lookout for better ways to manage water sources on their farms and ranches. This concern over the various human and animal effects of contamination is reflected in the fact that Alberta producers who have completed an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) identify managing water sources as one of the top five environmental concerns.
Most would agree that water testing is a key tool for identifying potential water quality problems. However, preparation for a water test brings up the questions of choosing the appropriate kind of test and the process involved in carrying it out.
"The number one priority when it comes to water quality and safety is to make sure the level of water quality matches what you're going to use it for," says Ken Williamson, a water specialist with Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AAFRD) in Red Deer. "A safe concentration of nitrate for animals, for example, is not the same as what is considered safe for humans. An effective water test has to reflect those unique needs."
Other decisions landowners need to make when planning a water quality strategy include how often to test a given water source and taking preventative measures to address potential contamination. "Before-and-after tests, for example, should be conducted whenever an event occurs that might compromise water quality and safety," says Williamson.
One way to gain an understanding of the potential risks related to farm water is to develop an Environmental Farm Plan (EFP). An EFP is a free and confidential self-assessment of environmental risks on the farm that can act as a tool to help producers tackle water quality issues and many other on-farm environmental issues. Producers who complete EFPs are eligible to receive up to $30,000 in funding for a wide range of environmental farm projects, including water well management, through the Canada-Alberta Farm Stewardship Program.
Health Canada has set maximum acceptable concentrations (MACs) for most contaminants and aesthetic objectives (AOs) for others. The MAC for nitrate, which Williamson calls "the big one" when it comes to human health effects, is 10 mg per litre for human consumption and 100 mg per litre for animals. The AO for sulphate, which can act as a laxative to humans and livestock in high concentrations, is less than 500 mg per litre.
Other AOs deal primarily with nuisance issues. "Iron within reasonable levels, for example, isn't going to do a person any harm, but it can cause nuisance problems such as staining laundry," says Williamson.
Although it is not essential for private water supplies to meet these guidelines, they can provide a strong foundation for a water contaminant management plan, says Williamson. However, acceptable contaminant levels can mean different things to different people.
"If someone who lives on the land has hypertension, for example, there would have to be more consideration of sodium levels in a drinking water supply. It's important to keep the unique needs of the people living on the farm in mind."
Although MACs are flexible in some cases, one circumstance in which they are not is in the acceptable concentration of coliform bacteria such as E.coli. "The MAC for virulent strains of E.coli is zero — if detected, it's something that needs to be dealt with for the health of humans," says Williamson.
There are two basic kinds of water tests, says Williamson: routine chemical analysis and microbiological analysis. The routine chemical analysis covers a suite of about 20 parameters such as hardness, iron, sulphate, sodium and nitrate, with most identified in the Health Canada guidelines as having maximum acceptable concentrations. The microbiological test, meanwhile, tests for total coliform bacteria.
The testing process for household drinking water is relatively simple and inexpensive, he says. "Sample bottles can usually be obtained from local health region offices, which will typically provide instruction on how to take the sample and the timeline in which it has to be in to the lab. Cost-wise, it's usually free or next to free — they may charge a small amount for the paperwork."
The process can be a little more complicated when it comes to water for other purposes such as watering livestock, irrigation and conditions in real estate deals. "In those cases, it's best to look for private laboratories that have a close-as-possible drop-off point, make arrangements to receive whatever sample bottles they want to use and receive instructions on how to ship the sample to the laboratory."
As not everyone has convenient access to a private lab and delivery times can vary depending on circumstances, Williamson recommends following the time guidelines suggested by the lab. The cost of routine chemical analysis tests on water intended for purposes other than human consumption generally fall within the $120-$150 range, while microbiological tests are usually around $30-$50.
Under normal conditions, private water supplies generally do not need to test any more than once every one or two years, says Williamson. However, it's important to learn to identify changes in the water source and take appropriate preventative action.
"Surface water changes continually, but wells shouldn't change significantly between seasons or between rainstorms. If it does it's a red flag that something's wrong with the well and an indication that it's time to do a water test," he says.
Before-and-after tests can be useful when there is seismic or other oil activity going on in the area. "Oil and seismic companies will often conduct a routine chemical analysis as part of their agreement with landowners, but make sure they provide a copy when the results come back. It's still good to have your own documentation in case any water quality changes come about as a result of the activity," he says.
Although time of year is generally not a huge consideration when doing a test on stable water, spring runoff can play a role in contamination in the spring and early summer months. "Well problems can often come about as the result of a recharge event such as snow or rain, so it's not a bad idea to target April, May or June as a testing period," says Williamson.
The information on this website is available for reprint with credit to "The Alberta Environmental Farm Plan, www.albertaEFP.com".
Article development courtesy of The Alberta Environmental Farm Plan Company