By Zachary Shepherd and Kelsey Paulus for Kent State News Lab.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan reporting for the Kent State-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

In summer 2022, Garrett, Jenny and their young daughter Katie Betts had no potable water in their home in Vinton County, Ohio. The Betts family's house was on the community water line, but they lived about 250 feet up a hill, which is too far for the system's pumps to successfully push the water.

So several times a week, they made a two-hour-long trip to a local water pump to fill the tank in their trunk, which they used to fill a larger, underground storage tank. They've hauled water for more than a decade.

They're far from the only Ohioans struggling to get clean, potable drinking water, says Terri Fetherolf, who runs the department of development in Vinton County. "Some people have to ration water, have to go elsewhere to get water," Fetherolf said. "They haul it in tanks in the back of their pickup trucks and use [it] out of a 300-gallon tank. Depending on the size of their family, it may last them a few days or a week, and then they have to go haul it again."

Fetherolf said approximately 1,700 of about 5,000 households in Vinton County depend on wells or water from elsewhere for basic household tasks.

Getting water to Appalachian communities is challenging and expensive, said Joe Pheil, the executive director at the Ohio Rural Water Association. Residents are spread out in small communities among the hills and it's difficult to pump water up and down. The reason these people and communities are left without reliable drinking water? The cost.

"I've been to pretty large systems over on the western side of Ohio, where everything's really flat ... The whole system has one pressure [zone]," Pheil said. "I've been to other systems down in the Appalachian area that have 19 different pressure zones in order to pump through the hilly terrain."

Water providers "would love for everybody to have access to water," Pheil said, but the logistical challenges would probably lead to high water bills that aren't affordable for the average household. The median household income in Vinton County was about $45,000 in 2020, compared to about $58,000 statewide.

"They're having a hard time maintaining the infrastructure in those communities because the costs are going up," Pheil said. "The residents in those communities can't afford to pay more money." There's one other option - where the federal and state governments step in with funding for water infrastructure, he said.

Since 1987, the Ohio EPA has offered low or zero-interest loans to community water systems to help fund the development of drinking water infrastructure. The state spent $250 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds on wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects.

But broadly speaking, Pheil said it can be hard to drum up support for grants like this since it can seem like a lot of money for infrastructure that helps relatively few people.

In the meantime, people haul water. The Betts family used a water tank, held down on their flatbed trailer with parallel winch straps. Their storage tank, located on a short but steep gravel drive behind their house, has seen its fair share of problems. They were once left without water during winter for a month.

"It was the middle of winter and I ran out," Garrett said in 2022. "While I was trying to reprime the pump, my line ended up freezing right at the tank." After that winter, Garrett buried the tank underground and hasn't had any issues since, except a few times when the water tank emptied. In those situations, he has to reprime the pump, which takes a few hours.

By summer 2022, hauling water had become a normal part of everyday life, so much so they find themselves not having to keep track of the amount in the tank. Garrett said he typically hauls two to three loads of water every Saturday, which lasts the family a week.

"It's so close, yet so far" to the community water system down the hill in MacArthur, Garrett said. "They talked about [needing] a pump station or a water tower, and we've already offered to donate property to help with that."

In August, Ohio announced a $799,000 grant to connect 52 households in Garrett Ridge, a region of Vinton County near MacArthur, to drinking water. The project aims to extend Jackson County Water Company's service lines into Garrett Ridge.

Keith Solomon, deputy manager of Jackson County Water Company, said this grant money is reserved for the engineering and designing of the project, and any remaining funds afterward will be reserved for the actual construction of the project if it moves forward.

"When the engineering and design work is completed we will be able to present a complete project to the funding agencies," Solomon said via email. "This is a step in the right direction." The Bettses are holding off on making any permanent, expensive changes to their water system in the hopes these grants will soon lead to potable water in their homes.

Garrett said he heard about efforts to fix local water infrastructure over the years - but he's "not going to believe it until it's running through my faucet."

Zachary Shepherd and Kelsey Paulus wrote this article for Kent State News Lab. This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Supreme Court has gutted federal protections for much of the country's wetlands.

The court found that the Waters of the United States rule, part of the Clean Water Act, only applies to wetlands with a surface connection to a navigable body of water. Conservation groups have said that puts up to 80% of U.S. wetlands at risk for pollution and development, with ephemeral streams and headwaters in western states at particular risk.

Alex Funk, director of water resources and senior counsel for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, predicted the ruling will have widespread negative consequences.

"This is going to put major setbacks on our ability to adapt to climate change, respond to extreme weather events," he said. "So, anyone that hunts, fishes, or recreates - there was a big hit to that from the court."

The case was brought by a family in Idaho that was prevented from building on their land. The court unanimously decided that the EPA rule did not apply to their property, but then went much further, narrowing the authority of the agency nationwide.

Supporters cheered the ruling, saying the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule went too far and had been a burden to property owners.

Funk said pristine wetlands are the superstars of the natural infrastructure.

"Everything from mitigating downstream flooding impacts by absorbing runoff and precipitation to encouraging groundwater recharge, to improving water quality and capturing sediment, and other pollutants that might end up in drinking-water supplies," he said, "and, of course, the fish and wildlife impacts."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement that "California has adopted some of the strongest laws in this country to protect our waters and the environment, and we will continue enforcing our own laws vigorously."

Environmental advocates say the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to the Clean Water Act and to Maine's ability to protect some of its most pristine wetlands.

A 5-4 decision in Sackett v. EPA held wetlands can only be regulated under the Clean Water Act if they have a "continuous surface connection" to larger, regulated bodies of water.

Alex Funk, director of water resources and senior counsel for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said the ruling eliminates federal protections for nearly all wetlands in the country.

"Anyone that hunts, fishes, recreates or uses water, there was a big hit to that today from the court," Funk asserted.

The high court ruled in favor of an Idaho couple who had been prevented from building a home near a lake federal officials identified as also containing wetland property and required a special permit. About one-fourth of Maine's land area is wetlands, which is four times the wetland area of the other five New England states combined.

Maine's coastal waters, rivers and lakes all depend on wetlands to filter out pollutants. Wetlands also serve as vital habitat for wildlife and flood protection for communities.

John Rumpler, clean water program director for Environment Maine, called today's ruling a devastating blow to protecting the state's waterways, and a misguided interpretation of the Clean Water Act.

"If a vast number of acres of remaining wetlands in Maine are no longer protected by our federal Clean Water Act, then there's a risk that polluters and developers will run amok and put our water at risk," Rumpler contended.

Rumpler stressed it is now up to state agencies and lawmakers in Augusta to ensure all of Maine's waterways, especially its wetlands, are protected by state law. He argued Congress will eventually need to create greater federal protections for the nation's vital water resources.

From protecting and studying waterways to addressing chronic wasting disease, conservation voices say there are a lot of important items in Minnesota's environmental and energy spending bill. Supporters say it brings sharper focus to many long-standing requests.

With Democrats holding majorities, the Legislature approved a nearly $2 billion omnibus bill to cover environmental, climate and energy priorities.

Jeff Forester, executive director of Minnesota Lakes and Rivers Advocates, said investments like improving boat ramps will help stop the spread of aquatic invasive species.

"Where does it get into the lakes? It gets into the lakes at the boat ramps as equipment and watercraft are moved from one lake to another," Forester explained. "So making those investments in the boat ramps in signage and places to pull over, it really is an integrated package."

He also applauded provisions to rein in harmful PFAS chemicals and their connection to waterways and fish. Another item bans new deer farms in hopes of limiting the spread of chronic wasting disease.

Some fee hikes will be used to help cover the new spending, including higher boat registration fees. Republican lawmakers voiced opposition to those aspects of the plan.

Forester credits lawmakers for addressing many long-standing issues, while also looking ahead so agencies and conservation groups are not blindsided by other climate threats down the road. He added part of the forward thinking is a 50-year water study included in the bill.

"Given current conditions, what can we expect the quality and the quantity of water to be in Minnesota in 50 years? What's it going to look like?" Forester asked. "That's such a simple question, but it hasn't been studied yet."

The bill also wove in the issue of environmental justice, by adding regulations taking into account the cumulative effect of a development project might pose health risks to historically marginalized communities. However, the provision was watered down from the original proposal introduced earlier this session.


get more stories like this via email