Briefing g roundwater is an importantsource of drinking water nationwide. Nitrate contamination has economic impacts on well owners who choose to treat their water or find another source, and on state and local governments working to prevent contamination. To better understand these costs, we asked two questions: (1) Can we develop a statistically sound and low-cost method to provide a regional representation of nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in private drinking water wells? (2) What is the economic impact of nitrate contamination on well owners?To answer these questions, we conducted a mail survey of private drinking water well owners in 11 central Minnesota counties with high proportions of sandy glacial outwash. The mailing list was based on county land parcel databases. From the final list, 600 addresses were randomly selected from the homesteaded parcels (owner address same as property address) and 200 from the nonhomesteaded parcels. A survey was sent to the 800 property owners with 25 questions about characteristics of their well, nitrate testing of the well, actions taken in response to elevated nitrate concentrations, costs of these actions, and respondents' concerns and perceptions about water quality. The 60% who returned surveys were sent a nitrate testing kit consisting of a water bottle, instructions, and return postage. More than three-fourths of those receiving kits returned water samples for nitrate testing.Based on the survey, two-thirds of the wells were drilled, and one-fifth were sand point wells. Three-quarters had nitratenitrogen concentrations below 1 mg L -1 and almost 6% tested greater than 10 mg L -1 . Surprisingly, nitrate concentrations did not differ among the well types, but the odds of elevated nitrate concentrations were significantly higher in wells where the principal land use within one-quarter mile was agricultural.Only 29% of respondents had tested their well water for nitrate within the past three years. Of the remainder who had not tested in the past three years, cost and inconvenience were not common barriers to testing. Rather, most respondents did not feel a need to test because they did not drink the water, the water was filtered, or they presumed the water was not contaminated. Some were not aware that their carbon filters and water softeners did not remove nitrate.Costs of treating or avoiding nitratecontaminated water can be substantial. Of people with contaminated wells, 22% had nitrate removal systems, 25% drank bottled water, and 25% had installed a new well. The average cost of a nitrate removal system was $800 to install and $100 per year to maintain, and the average cost of a new well was $7,200. If the nitrate-nitrogen concentration in an aquifer were to rise above 10 mg L -1 , the one-time average cost per well owner was estimated to be $1,927 plus $46 per year. If these costs were spread over the life span of the well or treatment system, the average long-term annual cost per well of elevated nitrate concentrations would be $89. Spending might be higher if ...

Farmer engagement is an integral component of conservation planning, with increased emphasis on precision placement of conservation practices. Conservation planners are increasingly turning to tools like the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF)-a decision support tool (DST) that provides a menu-driven approach to conservation planning. Scholarship on human dimensions of precision conservation, also known as conservation targeting, has either examined farmers' general attitudes toward targeting, or when farmers are active participants in generating targeted practice options. However, less is known about farmers' perceptions of targeting when they receive targeted conservation options for fields they farm. With the goal of filling this knowledge gap, we present findings from semistructured in-depth interviews conducted with farmers in four watersheds in the US Midwest. Results suggest that farmers are receptive toward conservation options for their farms. Several factors influenced farmers' receptiveness toward site-specific conservation targeting, such as farmers having autonomy in the targeting process, and perceiving that the process had benefits such as field-scale validation of their natural resource concerns and its potential to encourage watershed thinking. Results also highlight the potential of conservation targeting in motivating conservation behavior. Recommendations for future conservation targeting include being mindful of the scale of the map and the amount of information presented, having boots on the ground, and engaging farmers one-on-one to motivate conservation behavior.

No abstract