Indiana Water Quality Case Studies

Bluffs
Posted on | Posted on Katrinaoakley

Case Study 1: Treaty Creek PFAS Contamination — Wabash County, Indiana

Problem: Elevated levels of PFAS (“forever chemicals,” e.g. PFOA, PFOS) were detected in Treaty Creek and in raw water from public drinking water wells adjacent to the creek. (Indiana Government)

Actions Taken:

  • IDEM (Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management) initiated a “Drinking Water Well Testing Initiative” for around 65 private wells within ~300 feet of Treaty Creek to check for PFAS contamination. (Indiana Government)
  • For those private wells where PFAS exceeded the U.S. EPA Lifetime Health Advisory (70 parts per trillion, or ppt), filtration equipment (activated carbon or reverse osmosis) was being provided at no cost to the well owner. (Indiana Government)
  • IDEM is also conducting soil testing in properties possibly contributing to contamination, to try to identify sources. (Indiana Government)

Outcomes & Insights:

  • The detection & intervention show how updated testing and attention to emerging contaminants lead to direct health protection actions (e.g. filters).
  • The proximity to a creek emphasizes that surface water contamination can impact nearby groundwater wells, posing a risk even where wells are “private.”
  • It illustrates that even in rural or less densely populated areas, PFAS contamination is not academic — there are real risks to drinking water.

Case Study 2: Multiple Utilities in Indiana with PFAS in Treated Drinking Water

Problem:

  • In multiple rounds of testing (beginning around 2021–2022), Indiana identified many public water utilities (midsize and large) having PFAS levels above current or emerging federal health guidelines in their treated drinking water. Examples include utilities in Charlestown, Georgetown, Elkhart, Sellersburg, Watson Rural Water Co., etc. (wboi.org)
  • Also some small utilities (serving smaller populations) had PFAS exceeding guidelines. (Indiana Public Radio)

Actions Taken / Proposed:

  • IDEM retested midsize utilities in response to stricter or newly proposed federal health guidelines. (Indiana Public Media)
  • Statewide assessments are being done to map PFAS occurrences (raw & finished water) to understand how widespread the issue is, which utilities are affected, and what levels are found. (Purdue Agriculture)

Implications:

  • Utilities may need to upgrade treatment technologies (e.g. granular activated carbon, reverse osmosis) to bring PFAS below newer or more protective thresholds.
  • Smaller utilities (often with fewer resources) may struggle more with compliance, monitoring, cost burdens.
  • Public attention & regulatory pressure increases as more utilities are found to have elevated PFAS — can motivate changes in policy, funding, and standard-setting.

Case Study 3: School Branch / Upper White River Watershed, Indiana — Conservation Farming

Problem:

  • Nonpoint source pollution in the Upper White River Watershed, including agricultural runoff, threatens water quality in watersheds supplying drinking water and supporting aquatic life.

Intervention:

  • A long-term research project (spanning ~16 years) by Indiana NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) in partnership with IUPUI (Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis) focused on the School Branch portion of the watershed. (Natural Resources Conservation Service)
  • They implemented “conservation farming” practices: things like cover cropping, buffer strips, erosion control, better management of fertilizer application, etc. (Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Outcomes / Insights:

  • Over time, improvements were seen in water quality metrics in the study area: reductions in sediment loads, improved clarity, reduced nutrient runoff, etc. (While I don’t have every metric here, the long-term nature of the study showed that non-point interventions can work if they are sustained.) (Natural Resources Conservation Service)
  • Since the Upper White River supplies drinking water for major urban areas (Indianapolis, Muncie, Anderson), the benefits of improved watershed health ripple outward to many people. (Natural Resources Conservation Service)

Case Study 4: White River Basin — Biological Indices (1993–1995)

Problem:

  • The White River Basin was studied for habitat degradation, pollution, and how biological communities (fish) were responding. (USGS)

Analysis / Findings:

  • Sites were sampled in 1993 and 1995; fish assemblages were compared via indices like the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and habitat quality via Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). (U.S. Geological Survey)
  • Out of 11 sites, the habitat (QHEI) was “excellent” in six sites in 1995, indicating good physical habitat in many spots. But only three of the 11 were rated “good to excellent” using the IBI, meaning that although physical habitat was often in good shape, water‐quality stressors (pollution, habitat fragmentation, etc.) were affecting fish communities at many sites. (U.S. Geological Survey)
  • Eight sites were rated “fair,” “poor,” or “very poor” in terms of IBI, indicating fairly widespread impairment of biological life.

Lessons & Relevance:

  • Biological monitoring (fish, macroinvertebrates) can reveal effects of pollution and degradation not obvious from chemical or habitat assessments alone.
  • Even where habitat looks decent, water quality issues (pollutants, toxins, sediment, etc.) may be limiting aquatic life; suggests that improvements must be multi-faceted (pollution + habitat + connectivity).
  • Historical baseline information is valuable: shows what status was, allows tracking of whether newer standards/regulations/improvements are having impact.

What These Suggest for Future Standards & Water Quality

Putting together insights from those case studies, here are some take-aways that might be useful for anticipating how changes in Indiana’s pollution standards might affect water quality:

  • Emerging Contaminant Regulation (e.g. PFAS) is already forcing utilities and regulators to test, treat, and take action. As standards tighten, more areas/utilities will need to respond, and that could lead to measurable improvement in drinking water safety.
  • Watershed & Nonpoint Source Controls can make a large difference over time (conservation farming, buffer zones, erosion control). Standards need to set expectations but also support funding/implementation of practices in agricultural/land use sectors.
  • Monitoring Beyond Just Chemicals (biological indices, habitat measures) is important, because chemical compliance doesn’t always tell the full story of ecosystem health. Standards that include biological/ ecological criteria may drive more holistic improvements.
  • Resource Gaps and Time Lags are real. Many small or rural utilities may lack resources to implement advanced treatment quickly; also, legacy pollution (e.g. soil‐borne, sediment) will take time to flush out or remediate even after standards change.

Public Awareness, Transparency, and Enforcement help. Many of the PFAS cases came to light due to statewide sampling and public reporting. Without monitoring, rules are just theory.