Private Well Regulations Across the United States Open Access

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study is to characterize the potential vulnerabilities of private well users to contamination by describing the major themes in private well regulations and determining how states differ in their requirements.

Methods: From May to August 2016, two reviewers identified state regulations and categorized each statute according to how it applied to private wells. Results were obtained independently by each reviewer and discussed until consensus. Differences between states were summarized by a principal components analysis.

Results: Half of the variation in well regulations across states was explained by the first two principal components. The first principal component (PC1), explaining 34% of the total variation, distinguished states with less private well regulation from states with more regulation. The second principal component (PC2), explaining 16% of the total variation, distinguished between two sets of regulations. Regulations for design, drilling/construction, inspection, and abandonment increased a state's PC2 score, while regulations for permits, maintenance, water quality, selling a home or property, and rental properties decreased a state's PC2 score. States with a score of zero either had no regulations or had regulations in both categories. Florida and Connecticut had more private well regulations overall (PC1) than other states. Hawaii and Indiana had the highest scores for PC2, indicating the regulations encompass design, drilling/construction, inspection, and abandonment. New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Minnesota had the lowest scores for PC2 illustrating their regulations address permits, maintenance, water quality, selling a home or property, and rental properties.

Conclusion: States vary in the extent and nature of their private well regulations. This policy heterogeneity may leave consumers of private well water differentially vulnerable to water contamination and associated health hazards. The potential relevance of these policy differences for geographic health disparities merits further investigation.

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1-2

Methods……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3-5

Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5-7

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7-10

Conclusion and Recommendations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11-12

Figure 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Table 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..14

Figure 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15

Figure 3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………16-17

Supplemental Material.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18-22

About this Master's Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Rollins School of Public Health
Department	Environmental Health
Degree	MPH
Submission	Master's Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Environmental Law Environmental Health Health Sciences, Public Health
Keyword	Private wells Environmental health
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Gribble, Matthew, Emory University
Partnering Agencies	Emory University schools, faculty or affiliated programs

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	Private Well Regulations Across the United States ()	2018-08-28 16:22:49 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions