National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1986. Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/649.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Pestici des and Groundwater Duality ISSUES AND PROBLEMS IN FOUR STATES Written by Patrick W. Holden for the Board on Agriculture National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D. C. 1986

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of~the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Coun- cil has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineenng in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. This project was initiated with program initiation funds provided by the National Research Coun- cil. Drawing on information gathered during the summer of 1984, a series of technical memoranda were prepared for the Board on Agriculture. Subsequently, the Board developed a proposal for an in- depth project assessing the interactions of soil erosion control efforts and water quality. Following the preparation of the proposal,the Board decided that a publication sunanarinng the information in the Tnenoranda would be timely and useful. Preparation of the publication was supported by funds from the ~ K. Kellogg Foundation and the FMC Corporation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 8~60349 ISBN ~30~0367~3 First Printing, March 1986 Second Printing, November 1986 Printed in the United States of America

Board on Agriculture WILLIAM L. BROWN (Chair), Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. JOHN A. PING Ice Chair), Inter-American Development Bank PERRY L. ADKISSON, Texas A&M University C. EUGENE ALLEN, University of Minnesota LAWRENCE BOGORAD, Harvard University ERIC L. ELLWOOD, North Carolina State University JOSEPH P. FONTENOT, Virginia Polytechruc Institute & State University RALPH Vat F. HARDY, Cornell University and BioTechnica International, Inc. ROGER L. MITCHELL, University of Missouri CHARLES C. MUSCOPLAT, Molecular Genetics, Inc. ELDOR A. PAUL, Michigan State University VERNON SU RUITAN, University of Minnesota JAMES G. TEER, Welder Wildlife Foundation JAN VAN SCHILFGAARDE, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture VIRGINIA WALBOT, Stanford University CHARLES M. BENBROOK, Executive Director Stay John E. Blodgett, Project Officer Carla Carlson, Editor · . .

Preface During the summer of 1984, the Board on Agriculture contracted with Patrick VY Holden, a graduate student in the Department of Hy- drology and Water Resources at the University of Arizona, to study and analyze the nature and scope of groundwater contamination by pesticides in California, New York, W~scor~sin, and Florida. Holden compiled detailed information by traveling to each state, where he con- ducted interviews in person and by telephone and collected literature. He also interviewed several federal officials in Washington, D.C., and a number of agrichemical company representatives. Subsequently, Holden reviewed the status of the problem in a series of six memoranda to Charles M. Benbrook, Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture. Because the memoranda present a unique pic- ture of pesticide/groundwater issues, which are on the agenda of agen- cies at all levels of government, the Board on Agriculture has concluded that the essence of Holden's findings should be made pub- licly available. This report, summarizing the memoranda, provides a rich resource for scientists and policymakers interested in the relationship of agri- culture to groundwater quality. Perhaps its most important contribu- tion lies in the diversity of the information it brings together. It contains quantitative data and the personal views of experts; jux- taposes four state case studies and summarizes federal agency and industry activities; and reviews the relevant scientific, technological, managerial, and regulatory contexts. Significantly, despite the site- specific nature of groundwater contamination problems and the di- verse views on needs and priorities expressed by those interviewed, similar themes and concerns emerge. These generalizations are high- lighted and discussed In the Executive Summary. At the same time, the nature of the issue and the focus on cases in four disparate states give rise to several questions concerning scope, v

terminology, and currentness. Terms defining primary data and ana- lytic protocols vary among states and localities. These variations ret fleet the difficulty of compiling information and comparing specific problems across the country. The following caveats indicate how these factors were addressed in preparing the report: 1. Scope. This report represents the substance of one individual's investigation. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the issue, nor Is it a comprehensive survey of nationwide contamination incidents. Rather, it presents anecdotal evidence of the problem in four states where pesticides have been detected in groundwater. Othe examples could have been found. For example, recent investigations by the Iowa Gem logical Survey in the Karst region of northeast Iowa suggest the move- ment to groundwater of residues from f~eld-applied pesticides, a prob- lem possibly associated with conservation tiliage practices but not investigated herein. 2. Attributions. Personal comments attributed to individuals have been recast in the report to protect confidentiality. However, a complete list of persons interviewed or consulted appears in the Appendix. Notes and documents, which are occasionally quoted from, are on file at the Board on Agriculture. A list of selected sources appears in the bibliography. 3. Contamination. The word ~contaminate" has two common mean- ings: (1) reducing native purity by intrusion from outside and (2) mak- ing unfit or unwholesome by the introduction of outside elements. The second meaning is more restrictive than the first and implies that the intruding substance is at a level that is biologically significant. In the course of this study, many technical experts, policymakers, and others used the term ~contaminate" in the broader (first) sense; but some be- lieved that the term should properly be restriced to the narrower sense specifically, only to cases in which residues of an intruding sub- stance exceed an established health standard. These individuals argue that because modern analytic techniques can detect residues at levels well below concentrations baring any known biological significance and because the word "contaminate" has for many people a highly negative connotation, its use to refer to any =detectable" residue may give rise to unjustified fears. However, since any level of residue may justify concerns about poten- tial hazards and no health standards have been set for many pesticides in water, and because of the widespread use of the term ~contaminate" to refer to the presence of an impurity, this report does not restrict the term only to circumstances where the concentration of pesticide resi- V1

dues exceeds health standards. Under this broader use, ~contaminate" denotes Undetectable residues." 4. Agricultural use. This report focuses on the relationship between the field application of pesticides and potential groundwater con- tamination. However, it is not always possible to discriminate between possible sources of residues, and certain activities such as mixing and loading pesticides may be more-or-less inseparable from field use. 5. Pesticide nomenclature. A pesticide can be referred to by any of three names: (1) the chemical name; (2) the trade namers), which may vary between companies and countries; Any (3) a common name, which may be the chemical or trade name or some other appellation. In writ- ing this report, some minimum level of consistency was sought, with common names often added for clarity. The Farm Chemicals Handbook 1985 was used as a guide. 6. Other agricultural chemicals. Pesticides are just one category of agricultural chemicals that might appear as residues in groundwater. Fertilizers, fuels, and wastes, for example, may involve analogous problems, but they have been excluded from this report to sharpen its focus, without regard for their relative importance. 7. Currentness. Knowledge about pesticide/groundwater rela- tionships Is evoInng rapidly. In a number of cases, information gathered during the research phase of the study—the summer end fall of 1984—had been superseded by the time of the writing phase - the winter and spring of 1984-1985. In preparing this report, information has been updated wher1 necessary to prevent misinterpretation. Never- theless, most of the report necessarily and appropriately remains based on the original data. Important new information is identified as such in context. VVllliam L. Brown, Chair Board on Agriculture . . V11

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Responses to Groundwater Contamination, 2 Needs and Problems, 4 Implications for Agriculture, 11 Conclusion, 12 1 CALIFOR>BLk 14 The Status of Efforts to Monitor Groundwater for Residues of Agricultural Pesticides, 15 Critical Problems and Needs, 19 Agricultural Management Strategies Available to Mitigate Pesticide/Groundwater Quality Problems, 25 Models to Predict the Transport and Environmental Fate of Pesticides, 28 2 NEW YORK ................................ The Status of Efforts to Monitor Groundwater for Residues of Agricultural Pesticides, 33 Critical Problems and Needs, 50 Agricultural Management Strategies Available to Mitigate Pesticide/Groundwater Quality Problems, 53 Models to Predict the Transport and Environmental Fate of Pesticides, 56 ....31 1X

3 WISCONSIN The Status of Efforts to Monitor Groundwater for Residues of Agricultural Pesticides, 59 Critical Problems and Needs, 74 Agricultural Management Strategies Available to Mitigate Pesticide/Groundwater Quality Problems, 78 58 4 FLORIDA 81 The Status of Efforts to Monitor Groundwater for Residues of Agricultural Pesticides, 83 Critical Problems and Needs, 94 Agricultural Management Strategies Available to Mitigate Pesticide/Groundwater Quality Problems, 96 5 FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 98 Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, 103 6 AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL COMPANIES Bade Association, 105 Comparnes, 107 APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY 98 ........ 105 x ........ 113 120

Pesticides and Groundwater Quality ISSUES AND PROBLEMS IN FOUR STATES

Next: Executive Summary »
Pesticides and Groundwater Quality: Issues and Problems in Four States Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Pesticides in groundwater can contaminate drinking water and threaten the health of communities. How does this contamination occur and what should be done about this pressing problem? This new book uses a case-study approach to describe the discovery of the problem in four major agricultural states, to summarize the most recent data on the problem, and to review the status of the problem from both technological and policy perspectives. It also addresses the controversial questions of what levels of residues are acceptable, who should bear the costs of drinking water that is already contaminated, and how federal scientific resources can best be used to aid state initiatives in addressing this problem.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!