Re-active and proactive community engagement for water protection in fractured bedrock

In the region of Bruce Grey Simcoe, a new threat is emerging that endangers our rural lifestyle. This threat, largely invisible, comes from beneath the ground – the water we depend on for drinking, washing, cooking, and business operations. The threat is complicated, stemming from three interrelated issues: numerous severances with rural residential homes, a surge of speculative farmland purchases by large investors, and our fractured carbonate bedrock and Karst geology with minimal topsoil protection. Our aquifers resemble a Swiss cheese of conduits dissolved into the limestone covered by only a few feet of gravel or loam. When these factors combine – vulnerable aquifers, numerous residential homes on private wells, industrial-scale agriculture, and a lack of regulations around extremely susceptible aquifers – widespread contamination of our drinking water is inevitable.

This article provides examples where citizens faced this confluence of three risk factors organized to address  aquifer contamination – either re-actively after the fact or proactively once the first warning signals became apparent.

Reactive Citizen Action

Across North America, communities who depend on highly and/or extremely vulnerable aquifers often found their voice only after water contamination compromised their drinking water for decades. Examples include:

• Yakima Valley, Washington: Groundwater contamination from dairy Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) led to high nitrate levels in drinking water, linked to health issues like blue baby syndrome. Residents eventually took action, supported by organizations like the Community Association for Restoration of the Environment (CARE), leading to improved regulations.
• Cumberland County, Pennsylvania: Agricultural runoff from CAFOs caused significant aquifer pollution. The Cumberland County Concerned Citizens for Clean Water (C5W) focused on public education, water testing, and legal action to challenge CAFO developments and push for stricter regulations.
• Karst Regions of Kentucky: Significant groundwater contamination from agricultural activities led to the formation of Karst Environmental Education and Protection (KEEP). They used educational outreach, scientific research, lawsuits, and lobbying to push for better land-use practices and regulations.
• Walkerton, Ontario: The Walkerton tragedy, caused by grossly negligent behavior of municipal water operators combined with a lack of government oversight, killed seven people and hospitalized thousands. Public response led to new regulations for water operators and actions to protect municipal drinking water sources.
• Kewaunee County, Wisconsin: After dairy barns grew significantly in size, about a third of all wells in the county were contaminated with manure and nitrates. Citizen action led to Supreme Court lawsuits and the establishment of the Silurian Bedrock Agricultural Standard, which prohibits many forms of contamination.

These examples show that when industrial farming practices are used in Karst and fractured carbonate bedrock areas, “normal” regulatory requirements and agricultural BMPs for “normal” farmland are insufficient to protect vulnerable aquifers and private wells of homeowners. In all examples, citizens eventually took legal action and lobbied governments, often winning significant lawsuits against the agricultural industry. However, the harm to groundwater aquifers had already been done, and the community continues to carry the disruption of private well contamination.

Proactive Citizen Action

In other regions, proactive community activism prevented worst-case scenarios:

• Long Branch Community, Indiana

  • Action: Residents successfully opposed the construction of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). The community mobilized early to raise awareness about the potential risks of groundwater contamination from the proposed CAFO. They organized public meetings, distributed educational materials, and lobbied local government officials. The concerted effort included scientific presentations on the vulnerability of Karst aquifers and the likely environmental impact of large-scale livestock operations.
  • Outcome: The CAFO proposal was rejected, preserving the quality of local groundwater and maintaining the rural character of the area.

  Save the Ozarks, Missouri

  • Action: Formed to protect the Ozark Karst region from a proposed large feedlot operation. Save the Ozarks utilized a combination of grassroots activism and legal challenges to oppose the feedlot. The group conducted thorough environmental impact assessments, highlighting the potential for water contamination. They engaged with media outlets to raise public awareness and garnered support from environmental organizations.
  • Outcome: The feedlot operation was halted, safeguarding the delicate Karst landscape and its water resources.

  Protect Geauga Parks, Ohio

  • Action: Mobilized against a proposed CAFO in a Karst area. Protect Geauga Parks leveraged extensive community engagement and scientific evidence to demonstrate the dangers posed by the CAFO. The group organized protests, submitted petitions, and worked closely with environmental lawyers to challenge the project. They also educated local residents about the unique risks associated with Karst aquifers.
  • Outcome: The CAFO was not built, protecting the local water supply and preserving the natural environment.

  Rural Vermont and Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC)

  • Action: Focused on public advocacy and education, achieving stringent state regulations. The VNRC conducted widespread educational campaigns to inform the public and policymakers about the importance of protecting water resources. They hosted workshops, produced informational pamphlets, and utilized social media to spread their message. The organization also engaged in lobbying efforts to push for stronger state regulations on agricultural practices in Karst areas.
  • Outcome: Vermont implemented stringent regulations that significantly reduced the risk of groundwater contamination, setting a precedent for other states to follow.

  Long Island Pine Barrens Society, New York

  • Action: Launched campaigns to protect aquifers, focusing on legislative advocacy and public awareness.
  • Details: The society undertook a comprehensive approach to advocacy, including scientific research, public outreach, and legal action. They created detailed reports on the potential impacts of development on the Pine Barrens aquifers and presented their findings to state legislators. The society also ran public awareness campaigns to garner broad support for their cause.
  • Outcome: Protective legislation was passed, ensuring long-term safeguarding of the aquifers from harmful development practices.

  Assateague Coastal Trust, Maryland

  • Action: Addressed groundwater contamination from poultry farming through water quality testing, public awareness campaigns, and improved regulatory oversight. The trust implemented a robust water quality monitoring program to document contamination levels and identify sources. They shared their findings with the community through town hall meetings and educational materials. The organization also lobbied for stronger regulations on poultry farming to prevent future contamination.
  • Outcome: Regulatory changes were enacted, improving oversight of poultry farming practices and reducing the risk of groundwater contamination.

These proactive citizen actions share several common strategies. These include robust community mobilization and engagement through meetings, door-to-door campaigns, and leveraging social media to raise awareness and build support. Education and awareness campaigns are crucial, involving the distribution of informational materials, hosting workshops, and utilizing local media to inform the public about the risks of large-scale agricultural operations. Legislative advocacy plays a significant role, with efforts to draft and support protective legislation, as well as direct lobbying of policymakers. Legal action, supported by scientific data, is often employed to challenge permits and operations that pose environmental threats. Coalition building strengthened these efforts by forming alliances with environmental groups and involving diverse community stakeholders.

Communities also faced common challenges: overcoming public apathy and misinformation is a persistent issue, as initial lack of awareness and false claims about the economic benefits of harmful agricultural practices can hinder community support. Securing sufficient funding and resources for sustained campaigns and legal battles is another significant hurdle. Political and economic opposition from powerful agricultural interests and lobbying groups, coupled with state laws that limit local control, adds complexity to these efforts. Legal and regulatory hurdles, such as the burden of proof and the high costs of litigation, further complicate the process. Additionally, engaging diverse stakeholders and building consensus among varied groups, while overcoming cultural barriers within the community, require persistent and strategic efforts.

Conclusion

Regardless whether community action happened re-actively or proactively – communities eventually are forced to defend their right for clean drinking water. A look into other regions shows that the effort for communities dramatically increases when they behave re-actively: Not only will they have to manage a water contamination disaster and the financial impacts on residents, the tourism industry, and property values. They also have to fight the lobby groups that are responsible for the sources of contamination, stop continuing contamination, and find ways to access government funds to help vulnerable citizen groups. They also have to do that while accepting that drinking water is contaminated for many years or decades. While proactive efforts require to overcome significant inertia of citizens who feel safe and often are unwilling to see the risk factors in their full extent.