Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp e203–e208 | Cite as

Bacteriological testing of private well water: A trends and guidelines assessment using five years of submissions data from southeastern Ontario

  • Allison Maier
  • Julia Krolik
  • Kristi Randhawa
  • Anna MajuryEmail author
Quantitative Research


OBJECTIVE: Rural populations are at an elevated risk of gastrointestinal illness, as they are dependent on private groundwater sources, and water quality remains the responsibility of the owner. Previous research suggests that only a minority of well water owners test their wells for bacteriological contamination. The aim of this study was to use testing records, in conjunction with current provincial guidelines, to assess submission rates and temporal trends in southeastern Ontario.

METHODS: Using five years of data (2008-2012) from the Public Health Ontario Laboratory in Kingston, Ontario, submissions of well water samples from unique properties (identified through geocoding) were descriptively analyzed. Temporal trends in guideline compliance were tested using a Cochran Armitage test. Finally, correlations between time and submission numbers were investigated using a 10-year provincial dataset to identify longterm temporal trends.

RESULTS: There were 107,547 submissions in the five years studied, 84% of which were geocoded, culminating in 30,687 unique properties. Although 11%-12% of owners met the guidelines in any given year, only 0.3% met them every year in the five-year study. Statistically significant decreases were found temporally both in the number of properties that met current guidelines and in all samples tested.

CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to use submission records, rather than surveys, to definitively demonstrate that private well water submission guidelines are not being met in Ontario. However, there are no consistent guidelines across the country or continent, and limited supporting scientific literature is available. Significant research is required to develop evidence-based policies.

Key Words

Drinking water water wells water quality guidelines 


OBJECTIF: Les populations rurales ont un risque élevé de maladies gastrointestinales, car elles dépendent de sources d’eau souterraine privées; or, la qualité de cette eau est encore la responsabilité des propriétaires. Selon des études antérieures, seule une minorité de propriétaires de puits testent leur eau pour dépister une contamination bactérienne. Le but de notre étude était d’utiliser les dossiers de prélèvement d’échantillons d’eau, conjointement avec les directives provinciales en vigueur, pour évaluer les taux et les tendances temporelles des envois d’échantillons dans le Sud-Est de l’Ontario.

MÉTHODE: À l’aide de données compilées sur cinq ans (2008-2012) par le laboratoire de Santé publique Ontario à Kingston, en Ontario, nous avons fait l’analyse descriptive des envois d’échantillons d’eau de puits de propriétés uniques (identifiées par géocodage). Les tendances temporelles de conformité aux directives ont été évaluées à l’aide du test de Cochran-Armitage. Enfin, les corrélations entre le temps et le nombre d’envois ont été étudiées à l’aide d’un jeu de données provincial de 10 ans pour en dégager des tendances temporelles à long terme.

RÉSULTATS: Il y a eu 107 547 envois d’échantillons au cours des cinq années de l’étude, dont 84 % géocodés, ce qui donne 30 687 propriétés uniques. Bien qu’entre 11 et 12 % des propriétaires aient respecté les directives au cours d’une année donnée, à peine 0,3 % les ont respectées tous les ans au cours des cinq années de l’étude. Des baisses significatives dans le temps ont été observées, tant du nombre de propriétés conformes aux directives en vigueur que du nombre total d’échantillons testés.

CONCLUSIONS: Cette étude est la première à utiliser des dossiers d’envoi d’échantillons, plutôt que des enquêtes, pour faire la preuve définitive que les directives d’envoi d’échantillons d’eau de puits privés ne sont pas suivies en Ontario. Toutefois, ces directives ne sont pas uniformes à l’échelle du pays ou du continent, et les études scientifiques à l’appui sont limitées. Des recherches considérables sont nécessaires pour élaborer des politiques fondées sur les preuves.

Mots Clés

eau potable puits d’eau qualité de l’eau directives 


  1. 1.
    Statistics Canada. Households and the Environment, 2011. Available at: (Accessed June 1, 2013).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simpson H. Promoting the management and protection of private water wells. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2004;67:1679–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goss MJ, Barry DAJ, Rudolph, DL. Contamination in Ontario farmstead domestic wells and its association with agriculture: 1. Results from drinking water wells. J Contaminant Hydrology 1998;32:267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith A, Reacher M, Smerdon W, Adak GK, Nichols G, Chalmers RM. Outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease in England and Wales, 1992–2003. Epidemiol Infect 2006;134:1141–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uhlmann S, Galanis E, Takaro T, Mak S, Gustafson L, Embree G, et al. Where’s the pump? Associating sporadic enteric disease with drinking water using a geographic information system, in British Columbia, Canada, 1996–2005. J Water Health 2009;7:692–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Water Supply Wells–Requirements and Best Management Practices. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Public Health Ontario Laboratories. Bacteriological Analysis of Drinking Water for Private Citizen Requisition Form. Toronto, ON: Public Health Ontario, 2012.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones AQ, Dewey CE, Dore K, Majowicz SE, McEwan SA, Waltner-Toews D, et al. Public perceptions of drinking water: A postal survey of residents with private water supplies. BMC Public Health 2006;6:94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hexemer AM, Pintar K, Bird TM, Zentner SE, Garcia HP, Pallari F. An investigation of bacteriological and chemical water quality and the barriers to private well water sampling in a southwestern Ontario community. J Water Health 2008;6(4):521–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreutzwiser R, de Loë RC, Imgrund K. Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Private Water Well Stewardship in Ontario Report on the Findings of the Ontario Household Water Well Owner Survey. Waterloo, ON: Water Policy and Governance Group, University of Waterloo, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krolik J, Maier A, Evans G, Belanger P, Hall G, Joyce A, et al. A spatial analysis of private well water Escherichia coli contamination in southern Ontario. Geospatial Health 2013;8(1):65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Well Water Information System, 2013. Available at: (Accessed June 10, 2013).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Loë RC, Kreutzwiser, RD. Closing the groundwater protection implementation gap. Geoforum 2005;36:241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Statistics Canada. 2013 Health Profile. Ottawa, ON. Catalogue No. 82-228-XWE.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conservation Corps Newfoundland and Labrador: Well Aware. Well Maintenance: Water Testing, 2013. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Health Canada. Environment and Workplace Health: What’s in Your Well? A Guide to Well Water Treatment and Maintenance, 2008. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Government of Saskatchewan. Water Testing–Common Questions, 2012. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Government of Manitoba, Water Stewardship Division. Private Wells–Bacteriological Testing, 2013. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prince Edward Island Department of Environment, Labour and Justice. Water Testing for Homeowners, 2013. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs Québec. The Quality of My Well Water, 2002. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Government of New Brunswick. Well Water Testing, 2013. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nova Scotia Environment. Tips for Testing Your Well Water, 2013. Available at: (Accessed July 11, 2013).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    British Columbia Ministry of Health Services. Health File #5b: Should I Get My Well Water Tested? 2012. Available at: (Accessed July 11, 2013).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Regulated Drinking Water: Frequently Asked Questions, 2013. Available at: (Accessed July 11, 2013).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. Home Water Testing, 2005. Available at: (Accessed July 11, 2013).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knobeloch L, Gorski P, Christenson M, Anderson H. Private drinking water quality in rural Wisconsin. J Environ Health 2013;75(7):16–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Health Canada. Environment and Workplace Health: Guideline Technical Document Escherichia coli, 2012. Available at: (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Government of Ontario. Providing Safe Drinking Water to the Public, 2011. Available at: @ene/@resources/documents/resource/std01_079766.pdf (Accessed August 7, 2013).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonton A, Rouleau A, Bouchard C, Rodriguez, MJ. Assessment of groundwater quality and its variations in the capture zone of a pumping well in an agricultural area. Agricultural Water Management 2010;97:824–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kozuskanich J, Novakowski KS, Anderson, BC. Fecal indicator bacteria variability in samples pumped from monitoring wells. Groundwater 2011;49(1):43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Maier
    • 1
  • Julia Krolik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kristi Randhawa
    • 3
    • 4
  • Anna Majury
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Public Health OntarioKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Pathology and Molecular MedicineQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.Centre for the Study of Disability Prevention and RehabilitationUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyOshawaCanada
  4. 4.Division of Graduate Education and ResearchCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical and Molecular SciencesQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  6. 6.Department of Public Health SciencesQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations