U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Fact Sheet 2010–3120

January 2011

National Water-Quality Assessment Program

Organic Compounds in White River Water Used for Public 

Supply near Indianapolis, Indiana, 2002–05 

Printed on recycled paper

Introduction 

The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program of 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) characterized the occurrence of 

277 organic compounds in source water (stream water collected before 

treatment) and finished water (treated water before distribution) from 

the White River North treatment plant, one of several community water 

systems that use the White River as its primary water supply (fig. 1). 

Samples were collected at least monthly during 2002–05 and included 

30 source- and 13 finished-water samples. The samples were analyzed 

for pesticides and selected pesticide degradates (or “breakdown products), solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, disinfection by-products, personal-care and domestic-use products, and other organic compounds.

Community water systems are required to monitor for compounds 

regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Most of the compounds 

tested in this study are not regulated under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) federal drinking-water standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007a). The White River study is part of the 

ongoing Source Water-Quality Assessment (SWQA) investigation of 

community water systems that withdraw from rivers across the United 

States. More detailed information and references on the samplingdesign methodology, specific compounds monitored, and the national 

study are described by Carter and others (2007). 

Occurrence of Organic Compounds in Source Water

About one-third of the 277 compounds were detected at least 

once in source-water samples. These compounds represent many 

different sources and uses and include herbicides, insecticides, 

fungicides, manufacturing additives, disinfection by-products, 

solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, and personal-care products. Eleven 

compounds were detected year-round in source water, the majority of 

which are commonly used herbicides in the White River Basin. 

Organic compounds studied in this U.S. Geological Survey assessment generally are man-made, including, in part, pesticides, solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, personal-care and domestic-use products, disinfection by-products, and manufacturing additives. A total of 97 of 277 compounds 

were detected at least once among the 30 samples of source water collected approximately monthly during 2002–05 at the intake of the White River 

North treatment plant, one of several community water systems on the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana. The diversity of compounds detected 

indicated a variety of different practices (wastewater discharge, industrial, agricultural, domestic, and others) and pathways (treated-wastewater 

outfalls located upstream, overland runoff, and groundwater discharge) affecting the source-water supply. Eleven compounds were detected yearround in source-water samples, including atrazine, metolachlor, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, chloroform, other herbicides, and herbicide degradates 

commonly used in the White River Basin and in other agricultural basins across the United States. About two-thirds of the 46 compounds commonly 

detected in source water (in at least 20 percent of the samples) also were commonly detected in finished water (after treatment but before distribution). Although concentrations in source and finished water generally were below 0.1 microgram per liter, 37 compounds exceeded this threshold in 

at least 1 sample. About one-half of the detected compounds do not have human-health benchmarks or adequate toxicity information for evaluating 

results in a human-health context; however, two organic compounds—acetochlor and dieldrin—were detected in source-water samples at concentrations above human-health benchmarks. Additionally, atrazine was detected in source- and finished-water samples at concentrations above humanhealth benchmarks. 

Figure 1.  The White River Basin drains 1,164 square miles in central

Indiana upstream of Indianapolis. Major land-use categories include

agriculture (75 percent of the area), urban development (15 percent) and

forest (5 percent). Streams and reservoirs in the White River Basin are the

principal sources of drinking water. Approximately 86 thousand people use

15.8 million gallons of water per day from the White River North treatment

plant (Dale Pershing, Indianapolis Water Company, written commun., 2010).

!

!

!

! !! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

EXPLANATION

Open water

Urban

Forest

Shrub and grassland

Agriculture

! ! ! !

! ! !

Watershed boundary

0 5 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 5 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:100,000 1983,

Universal Transverse Mercator projection zone 16,

Standard parallel 0° (Equator), Central meridan 87° W,

North American Datum 1983

Land use from NLCD 2001

86 ̊

40 ̊15’ 85 ̊

40 ̊

White River

Morse Reservoir

Prairie Creek Reservoir

INDIANAPOLIS

MUNCIE

ANDERSON
Recent advances in laboratory analytical methods have led to 

detections of a wide variety of contaminants in the environment at 

lower concentrations than previously detectable (see inset). Ninetyseven of the 277 compounds tested were detected in at least 1 sourcewater sample from the White River; 180 compounds were not detected 

in any source-water sample (Carter and others, 2007; Kingsbury and 

others, 2008). 

Forty-six compounds were detected in at least 20 percent of the 

source-water samples (defined in this study as “commonly detected;” 

table 1). Compounds commonly detected in source-water samples from 

the White River correspond to those previously detected in water-quality assessments of the watershed (Carter and others, 1995) and across 

the Nation (Gilliom and others, 2006). 

Eleven compounds were detected year-round in more than 

95 percent of source-water samples. The continuous occurrence may 

be attributed to groundwater discharge and (or) treated-wastewater 

discharge from municipalities located upstream (Kingsbury and 

others, 2008). Nine of the 11 compounds detected year-round were 

herbicides (atrazine, metolachlor, prometon, and simazine) or herbicide degradates (acetochlor ESA, metolachlor ESA, metolachlor OA, 

2-hydroxyatrazine, and deethylatrazine (DIA)). Herbicides are used 

for weed control on row crops and in urban and residential areas in the 

White River Basin and across the Nation (Carter and others, 1995; Gilliom and others, 2006). The White River Basin, located in the corn-belt 

region of the Midwest and heavily used for row-crop agriculture, has 

some of the highest herbicide-application rates in the Nation (Gilliom 

and others, 2006). Correspondingly, the highest concentrations of 

atrazine from nine community water systems, sampled as part of the 

first phase of the SWQA study, were found in the White River Basin 

(Kingsbury and others, 2008). cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (a solvent) and 

chloroform (a disinfection by-product) also were detected in at least 

95 percent of samples.

Comparisons Between Source and Finished Water

About two-thirds of the compounds commonly detected in 

source water also were commonly detected in finished water, and 

generally at similar concentrations. 

Comparisons between source water and finished water are not 

intended to characterize treatment efficacy, but to provide a preliminary 

indication of the potential importance of compounds found in source 

water to the quality of finished water prior to distribution (see inset).

Thirty of the 46 compounds commonly detected in source water 

also were commonly detected in finished water, often at similar low 

concentrations (fig. 2). Seven herbicides and herbicide degradates 

(atrazine, 2-hydroxyatrazine, deethylatrazine, metolachlor, metolachlor 

ESA, metolachlor OA, and simazine), a solvent (cis-1,2,-dichloroethene), and a disinfection by-product (chloroform) were detected 

year-round in both source- and finished-water samples. Compounds 

commonly detected in source-water samples, but not in finished-water 

samples, likely were degraded or altered during water treatment as 

a result of transformation, volatilization, sorption, or sedimentation 

(Kingsbury and others, 2008). 

Table 1.  A total of 50 of the 277 organic compounds were detected in at least 20 percent of source water and (or) finished water samples.

[Black text, compounds detected in at least 20 percent of source- and finished-water samples; orange text, compounds detected in at least 20 percent of source-water samples only; blue text, 

compounds detected in at least 20 percent of finished-water samples only; ESA, ethane sulfonic acid; SAA, sulfynilacetic acid; OA, oxanilic acid; HHCB, hexadydrohexamethyl cyclopentabenzopyran]

Herbicides and 

herbicide degradates Disinfection by-products

2,4-D Metolachlor ESA Bromodichloromethane

2-Hydroxyatrazine Metolachlor OA Bromoform

3,4-Dichloroaniline Metribuzin Chloroform

Acetochlor Prometon Dibromochloromethane

Acetochlor ESA Simazine Solvents

Acetochlor SAA Terbuthylazine Carbon tetrachloride

Alachlor Triclopyr cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

Alachlor ESA Manufacturing additives Perchloroethene (PCE)

Alachlor OA FYROL CEF (Tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate) Trichloroethene (TCE)

Atrazine FYROL PCF (Tri(dichloroisopropyl) phosphate) Gasoline hydrocarbons and oxygenates

Bentazon Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate Benzene

Chlorimuron-ethyl Insecticides and insecticide degradates m- and p-Xylene

Deethylatrazine (DEA) Carbaryl Toluene

Deisopropylatrazine (DIA) Desulfinylfipronil Personal-care and domestic-use products

Dimethenamid Diazinon Acetyl-hexamethyl-tetrahydro-naphthalene (AHTN) 

Dimethenamid ESA Fipronil Caffeine

Flumetsulam Fungicides HHCB

Imazaquin Benomyl

Imazethapyr Metalaxyl

Metolachlor
What “Detections” Might Mean to Human Health

The analytical methods used in this study have detection levels often 100 to 1,000 times lower than Federal and State standards and guidelines 

for protecting water quality. Detections, therefore, do not necessarily indicate a concern to human health but rather assist in identifying the environmental presence of a wide variety of chemicals not commonly monitored in water resources and facilitate tracking changes in their occurrence and 

concentrations over time. These findings complement ongoing drinking-water monitoring of contaminants by water-supply facilities and regulated by 

USEPA in drinking water. Many compounds analyzed by the USGS are not included in other source-water and finished-water monitoring programs 

such as the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007b, c) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008).

Typically, compounds present in finished-water samples were 

detected somewhat less frequently and at lower concentrations than in 

source-water samples; however, four compounds (bromoform, dibromochloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, and m- and p-xylene) were 

commonly detected in finished water and not in source water. Higher 

detection frequencies and concentrations of disinfection by-products 

such as bromoform, dibromochloromethane, bromodichloromethane, 

and chloroform in finished-water samples is an expected outcome of 

the drinking-water disinfection process (Ivahnenko and Barbash, 2004; 

Ivahnenko and Zogorski, 2006). All paired samples collected at the 

White River North treatment plant exhibited higher detection frequencies and concentrations of disinfection by-products (often an order 

of magnitude greater) in finished-water samples than in source-water 

samples. Detection frequencies of carbon tetrachloride (a by-product 

of chemical plants and industrial activity) and m- and p-xylene (a byproduct of petroleum and chemical factories) were only slightly higher 

than those found in source water. 

A Closer Look at Agricultural Herbicides and 

Degradates

Detections and concentrations of commonly used herbicides 

and their degradates are similar in source water and finished water. 

The occurrence and concentrations of degradate compounds compared to their respective parent compounds varies by compound, as a 

result of differing chemical properties, use, and hydrologic pathways.

The herbicides atrazine and metolachlor and their respective 

degradates are highlighted here because of their frequent detection in 

this study as well as nationally. Both atrazine and metolachlor and their 

degradates (hydroxyatrazine, deethylatrazine, metolachlor ESA, and 

metolachlor OA) were detected in 100 percent of source- and finishedwater samples at the White River North treatment plant. Concentrations of herbicides often were lower in finished-water samples than in 

corresponding source-water samples (fig. 2). Concentrations of herbicide compounds were seasonally high during spring and early summer 

application periods, and highest concentrations were associated with 

runoff during this timeframe. 

Summed concentrations of degradate compounds often are 

similar to or greater than parent herbicide concentrations. Source- and 

finished-water samples collected at the White River North treatment 

plant consistently showed that summed concentrations of metolachlor 

degradates were an order of magnitude greater than the parent concentration. Conversely, summed concentrations of atrazine degradates 

were less than concentrations of atrazine. Atrazine is chemically more 

stable, allowing it to persist longer in the hydrologic system than 

metolachlor, which tends to break down more quickly in the soil zone 

(Gilliom and others, 2006). 

Transformation from parent herbicide to degradate compounds 

may result in conversion to less toxic compounds, but some degradates 

have toxicities that are similar to, or greater than, that of the parent 

pesticide (Gilliom and others, 2006). Therefore, understanding the 

occurrence of herbicide degradate compounds may be as important as 

characterizing the occurrence of the parent compound in sources of 

drinking water.

Figure 2.  Thirty of the 46 compounds

commonly detected in source water also

were commonly detected in finished

water, often at similar concentrations.

Some compounds commonly detected

in source water were removed or

transformed and therefore were not

detected in finished water (horizontal

x-axis). Other compounds were detected

only in finished water (vertical y-axis).

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

CONCENTRATIONS IN SOURCE WATER, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

CONCENTRATIONS IN FINISHED WATER, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER

Atrazine

Atrazine degradates

Metolachlor

Metolachlor degradates

Other detected compounds

chloroform,

bromodichloromethane

chloroform,

bromodichloromethane,

dibromochloromethane

bromoform,

carbon tetrachloride,

m- and p-xylene

chlorimuron, desulfinylfipronil, fipronil, metribuzin, flumetsulam,

imazethapyr, fyrol PCF, tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate, 3-4 dichloroaniline

100

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001
Finished-Water Sampling, Water Treatment, and Magnitude of Comparisons to Source Water

The White River North treatment plant uses conventional water treatment: coagulation using aluminum sulfate and a cationic polymer; flocculation and sedimentation; disinfection with chlorine; filtration; fluoridation and ammonia addition to form chloramines for the distribution system; 

chlorine or sodium permanganate are periodically used as a pre-oxidant; occasionally powdered activated carbon to remove organics and sodium 

hydroxide for pH adjustment; and intermittent blending with groundwater. The timing of finished-water samples was based on the treatment plant’s 

production rate to account for the residence time of the source water in the treatment facility. Some differences between source- and finished-water 

quality might be attributable to changes in source-water quality that are not represented by the finished-water samples because of sample timing and 

variations in retention time and potential analytic variability associated with concentrations at or near laboratory reporting levels (Kingsbury and 

others, 2008). Some compounds detected in source water may have been transformed during the treatment process into compounds that were not 

monitored as part of this study.

The sampling design and resulting comparisons in this study are not intended to characterize treatment efficacy, but to provide a preliminary 

indication of the potential importance of compounds detected in source water to the quality of finished water before distribution. In general, conventional treatment was not specifically designed to remove most of the organic compounds monitored in this study. 

Human-Health Benchmarks Used in this Study

Concentrations of regulated compounds were compared to 

USEPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and concentrations of 

unregulated compounds that have USEPA-published toxicity information were compared to USGS health-based screening levels (HBSLs) 

Results in a Human-Health Context

Although concentrations in source and finished water generally were below 0.1 microgram per liter, 37 compounds exceeded 

this threshold in at least 1 sample. Three compounds were detected 

at concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks in at 

least one source-water sample; however, human-health benchmarks 

are only available for about one-half of the detected compounds. 

Human-health standards in the finished water are based on average 

annual concentrations and were not exceeded. 

The type of conventional water treatment used by this community 

water system (typical of many systems across the Nation) is not specifically designed to remove most organic compounds found in the source 

water. However, concentrations found in the source water generally 

were less than 0.1 microgram per liter (μg/L). For perspective, reporting limits for public drinking water commonly are set through Federal 

regulations at 0.5 μg/L, and water utilities generally are not required to 

measure below this limit.

Concentrations of 37 compounds that were commonly detected in 

source or finished water, or both (table 1), were greater than 0.1 μg/L in 

at least one sample (table 2). Human-health benchmarks are not available for 16 of the 37 compounds commonly detected with concentrations greater than 0.1 μg/L. 

Three compounds were detected at concentrations greater than 

human-health benchmarks in at least one sample—atrazine, acetochlor, and dieldrin. Although instantaneous high concentrations of 

contaminants in source water and finished water indicate the potential 

for temporarily elevated concentrations of contaminants in drinking 

water, they do not represent a violation of human-health standards, 

which are based on the average annual concentration. Atrazine was 

detected in 100 percent of source- and finished-water samples. During 

this 2-year study, atrazine was detected in five source-water samples 

and one finished-water sample at concentrations exceeding the USEPA

MCL drinking-water standard, with maximum concentrations of 20.1 

and 5 μg/L, respectively, in source water during the first and second 

year of sampling. The average annual concentrations of atrazine in 

source water and finished water, 1.01 and 0.72 μg/L, respectively, were 

below human-health benchmarks. Acetochlor was detected in nearly 

all source-water samples and approximately 70 percent of finishedwater samples; however, most detections of acetochlor were less than 

0.1 μg/L. Only one detection of acetochlor in source water exceeded 

the USGS HBSL for drinking water. Dieldrin is a bioaccumulative contaminant (moves up the food chain), which was banned by the USEPA 

in 1987 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Dieldrin was 

detected at low concentrations in two source-water samples. In both 

samples, dieldrin exceeded the HBSL concentration of 0.002 μg/L 

(see inset). Dieldrin is not included in table 2 because it was not commonly detected. 

(Toccalino and others, 2007). About one-half of detected compounds do 

not have human-health benchmarks for evaluating results in a humanhealth context. Human-health benchmarks are developed for individual 

compounds and not mixtures. The screening-level assessment provides 

an initial perspective on the potential importance of man-made organic 

compounds in source water; it is not a substitute for a comprehensive 

risk assessment, which includes many more factors, such as additional 

avenues of exposure. 

Three compounds (simazine in source water and bromodichloromethane and chloroform in finished water) were detected at concentrations less than human-health benchmarks, but within a factor of 10 of 

the USEPA MCL or the USGS HBSL (table 2) in individual samples. 

While community water systems regularly monitor these compounds 

in the finished water, their detection in greater than 20 percent of 

source-water samples and at concentrations within a factor of 10 of 

human-health benchmarks may warrant their consideration in a low 

concentration, trends monitoring study. Human-health benchmarks 

are developed for individual compounds; however, mixtures of two or 

more compounds were present in most samples. The median number 

of compounds in source-water samples at the White River was 29. This 

result is similar to findings at comparable community water systems 

sampled as part of the SWQA study having a large amount of agricultural or urban land in the watershed (Kingsbury and others, 2008). The 

potential human-health effects of mixtures of co-occurring organic 

compounds are largely unknown and have not been extensively studied. Continued research is needed because human-health benchmarks 

are based on toxicity data for individual compounds, and the additive 

or synergistic effects of mixtures of compounds at low concentrations 

are not well understood (Gilliom and others, 2006). 

White River Findings in a National Context and 

Implications

Several of the compounds detected in the White River (tables 1 

and 2) are among the most commonly detected in ambient stream water 

and groundwater across the Nation (Gilliom and others, 2006; Zogorski 

and others, 2006). The occurrence and annual average concentrations 

of many compounds detected in source- and finished-water samples 

from the White River were considerably higher than those detected at 
Table 2.  Thirty-seven compounds that were commonly detected in source and (or) finished water had concentrations greater than 0.1 micrograms per liter.

One sample of atrazine had a concentration that exceeded human-health benchmarks in the finished water. Instantaneous high concentrations of atrazine in

the finished water do not represent a violation of the standard, which is based on the average annual concentration.

[μg/L, microgram per liter; MCL, maximum contaminant level; HSBL, health-based screening level; ESA, ethane sulfonic acid; OA, oxanilic acid, SAA, sulfynilacetic acid; ---, no data; 

ND, not detected]

Name of compound

Number of 

samples

Percent 

occurrence Reporting 

level 

(μg/L)

MCL1

or 

HBSL 

(μg/L)

Maximum 

concentration (μg/L)

Source 

water

Finished 

water

Source 

water

Finished 

water

Source 

water

Finished 

water

Disinfection by-products

Bromodichloromethane 30 13 37 100 0.028 80 0.11 17.8

Bromoform 29 12 0 83 .5 80 ND .1

Chloroform 30 13 90 100 .024 80 .3 65.6

Dibromochloromethane 30 13 3 100 .1 80 .1 3.4

Fungicides

Metalaxyl 28 13 21 23 0.01 600 0.12 0.02

Gasoline hydrocarbons

m- and p-Xylene 30 13 10 23 0.06 10,000 0.1 0.02

Toluene 27 11 67 73 .02 1,000 .22 .04

Herbicides and herbicide degradates

2,4-D 29 13 79 62 0.038 70 1.18 0.27

2-Hydroxyatrazine (OIET) 29 13 100 100 .032 70 1.65 .304

Aceotochlor SAA 12 12 33 42 .02 --- .28 .17

Acetochlor 29 13 93 69 .006 1 4.32 .14

Acetochlor ESA 29 12 97 92 .02 --- 1.42 .31

Alachlor ESA 29 12 93 92 .02 --- .27 .37

Alachlor OA 29 12 93 92 .02 --- .13 .1

Atrazine 29 13 100 100 .007 3 20.1 3.36

Bentazon 29 13 86 69 .024 200 .102 .02

Chlorimuron-ethyl 29 13 31 8 .032 600 .2 .006

Deethylatrazine (DEA) 30 13 100 100 .014 --- .541 .093

Deisopropylatrazine (DIA) 29 13 83 77 .08 --- .41 .08

Dimethnamid 12 12 25 8 .02 --- .89 .12

Dimethnamid ESA 29 12 28 0 .02 --- .11 ND

Imazaquin 26 13 27 15 .036 2,000 .15 .03

Imazethapyr 29 13 31 0 .038 2,000 .13 ND

Metolachlor 30 13 100 100 .006 700 2.93 .467

Metolachlor ESA 29 12 100 100 .02 --- 2.07 1.64

Metolachlor OA 29 12 100 100 .02 --- 1.47 .46

Prometon 30 13 97 38 .01 400 .19 .2

Simazine 29 13 100 100 .005 4 2.3 .1

Triclopyr 29 13 31 23 .026 400 .45 .35

Manufacturing additives

Fyrol cef (Tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate) 27 12 37 16 0.5 --- 0.1 0.1

Fyrol pcf (Tri(dichloroisopropyl) phosphate) 25 11 36 9 .5 --- .1 .1

Tri(2-butoxyethyl)phosphate 30 13 30 15 .5 --- .3 .1

Personal-care and domestic-use products

AHTN (Acetyl hexamethyl tetrahydronaphthalene) 16 9 50 11 0.5 --- 0.12 0.097

Caffeine 26 13 92 85 .018 --- .2 .126

HHCB (Hexahydrohexamethylcyclopentabenzopyran) 26 10 92 70 .5 --- .2 .1

Solvents

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 30 13 100 100 0.024 70 0.591 0.32

Perchloroethene (PCE) 30 13 83 69 .03 5 .16 .05

1MCLs are in bold text.

other community water systems sampled by the USGS SWQA of rivers 

that have upstream wastewater facilities and drain considerable agricultural and urban land (Kingsbury and others, 2008). Continued research 

of contaminant sources, transport mechanisms, trends, and fate in the 

environment is needed. 

The USGS will continue to collaborate with and complement the 

work of other Federal, State, and local organizations to better understand and communicate the relevance of organic compounds detected 

in untreated source water and treated finished water and possible implications for human health and the environment. 
Future needs include the following:

• Increased emphasis on watershed management and source-water 

protection strategies to help minimize the sources and transport of 

compounds to source water and ultimately to finished water.

• Continued research to enhance toxicity information for commonly occurring unregulated compounds and mixtures that are 

commonly detected in source and finished water.

• Current and future monitoring and assessment to identify compounds not typically monitored in source water but commonly 

present in finished water, which may ultimately identify or lead to 

the development of treatment technologies for their removal.

References Cited

Carter, D.S., Lydy, M.J., and Crawford, C.G., 1995, Water-quality 

assessment of the White River Basin, Indiana—Analysis of 

available information on pesticides, 1972–92: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4024, accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri944024. 

Carter, J.M., Delzer, G.C., Kingsbury, J.A., and Hopple, J.A., 2007, 

Concentration data for anthropogenic organic compounds in ground 

water, surface water, and finished water of selected community 

water systems in the United States, 2002–05: U.S. Geological 

Survey Data Series 268, 30 p., accessed October 2010 at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2007/268. 

Delzer, G.C., and Hamilton, P.A., 2007, National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program—Source Water-Quality Assessments: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2007–3069, 2 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.er.usgs. gov/usgspubs/fs/fs20073069. 

Gilliom, R.J., Barbash, J.E., Crawford, C.G., Hamilton, P.A., Martin, 

J.D., Nakagaki, Naomi, Nowell, L.H., Scott, J.C., Stackelberg, P.E., 

Thelin, G.P., and Wolock, D.M., 2006, The quality of our Nation’s 

waters—Pesticides in the Nation’s streams and ground water, 

1992–2001: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1291, 172 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http:// pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/cir/cir1291.

Ivahnenko, Tamara, and Barbash, J.E., 2004, Chloroform in the 

hydrologic system—Sources, transport, fate, occurrence, and 

effects on human health and aquatic organisms: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5137, 34 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5137/.

Ivahnenko, Tamara, and Zogorski, J.S., 2006, Sources and occurrence 

of chloroform and other trihalomethanes in drinking-water supply 

wells in the United States, 1986–2001: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5015, 13 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5015/.

Kingsbury, J.A., Delzer, G.C., and Hopple, J.A., 2008, Anthropogenic 

organic compounds in source water of nine community water 

systems that withdraw from streams, 2002–05: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5208, 66 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5208.

Toccalino, P.L., Norman, J.E., Booth, N.L., and Zogorski, J.S., 2007, 

Health-based screening levels—A tool for evaluating what waterquality data may mean to human health: U.S. Geological Survey, 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program, accessed April 15, 

2008, at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/HBSL/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008, Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS), Pesticide properties database, accessed March 6, 2008, at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007a, Setting standards for 

safe drinking water: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Ground Water and Drinking Water, accessed June 1, 2007, at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standard/setting.html.

NAWQA Conducts SWQAs across the Nation

Beginning in 2002, NAWQA initiated SWQAs at selected community water systems across the United States (Delzer and Hamilton, 

2007). The long-term goal is to complete as many as 30 SWQAs at 

systems that withdraw water from streams by 2010 using standard 

protocols and nationally consistent methods (U.S. Geological Survey, 

1997–2006).

This fact sheet highlights findings from the White River study, 

which is one of the first nine community water systems sampled. This 

fact sheet serves as a companion product to a USGS Data Series and a 

USGS Scientific Investigations Report that present findings for the nine 

systems across the United States (Carter and others, 2007; Kingsbury 

and others, 2008) (see http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/swqa). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007b, Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program, accessed January 4, 2007, at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ucmr/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007c, Unregulated 

Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water 

Systems—Revisions, Correction: Federal Register, January 26, 

2007, v. 72, no. 17, p. 3,916. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program, Aldrin/Dieldrin, accessed 

July 1, 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/aldrin.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997–2006, National field manual for the 

collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, available 

at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/ (chapters were originally published during 1997–99; updates and revisions are ongoing 

and are summarized at http://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/ 

mastererata.html). 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, NLCD 2001 Land Cover, accessed 

December 29, 2010, at http://geosemantics.umd.edu/socopdemo/

metadata/us_nlcd2001_30m_dd83.htm. 

Zogorski, J.S., Carter, J.M., Ivahnenko, Tamara, Lapham, W.W., 

Moran, M.J., Rowe, B.L., Squillace, P.J., and Toccalino, P.L., 

2006, The quality of our Nation’s waters—Volatile organic 

compounds in the Nation’s ground water and drinking-water supply 

wells: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1292, 101 p., accessed 

October 2010 at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ usgspubs/cir/cir1292. 

Written by Tim Lathrop and Dan Moran

USGS promotes public access to water-quality information. 

This fact sheet, additional data and investigations reports, and other 

information are available on the World Wide Web at http://water.usgs.

gov/nawqa/swqa. Included at this Web site are downloadable data 

on organic compound occurrence, information on sampling designs 

and methodology, background on data analyses, and frequently asked 

questions. 

For more information, contact: 

Tim Lathrop, U.S. Geological Survey, (317) 290-3333, ext. 182,

trlathro@usgs.gov

Dan Moran, Veolia Water North America, (317) 917-4652, 

dan.moran@veoliawaterna.com

Jeff Frey, U.S. Geological Survey, (317) 290-3333, ext. 151,

jwfrey@usgs.gov

Greg Delzer, U.S. Geological Survey, National Coordinator, 

(605) 394-3320, gcdelzer@usgs.gov