The long awaited AWWA Foundation study of well rehabilitation, conducted by Leggette, Brashears and Graham (LBG), has reached my desk. For me, the most useful contribution is in the Appendix, which offers a collection of case histories -- some documented by the project itself and some submitted by others (including us). These provide a valuable record of well cleaning practices and outcomes in a wide range of North American settings. The report also provides additional documented experience in the use of the BART method as an evaluation and monitoring tool in well rehabilitation.

As the authors readily admit, the work offers no stone tablets coming down from Mt. Sinai saying "this is how you clean wells" that contradicts anything we and others have said for years. The world still needs more credible "side by side" comparisons than those provided here. Most of the  processes documented include multiple steps, such that it is difficult to distinguish the contribution of particular inputs (particular chemicals or development steps). For example, we finally get some independently documented Aquafreed CO2 case histories. However, these Aquafreed treatments also included multiple steps in addition to CO2 injection, such that it cannot be determined whether injection of CO2 itself has any effect itself, although I would assume it does. Based on the information presented here, as well as other reports I have reviewed, I still tend to think that mechanical cleaning is the crucial step (as it is in any well cleaning process).

The ability to project force into the well, especially if the well is not "too far gone" seems to be the deciding factor where comparisons can be made. It is important that well managers do not let wells become so badly clogged that they cannot recover. That experience is driven home in almost all of the case histories described - and those are important lessons to repeat. However, we knew these tidbits of wisdom prior to this work and the investment in it by AWWARF subscribers.

You should realize that this was a very difficult project to carry out and we are glad the project committee chose to support the work and the team perservered to get it out for use. It is indeed extraordinarily difficult to conduct a controlled experiment in real-world well cleaning. The project had some setbacks beyond their control that delayed the results, so if the result isn't perfectly clarifying and mind-altering, it is valuable information.  

It is affirming to the larger circle of people who have made original and inventive contributions to the well rehabilitation art that their prior contributions to the literature still hold up (including our CRC Press and out of print work for AWWARF from the early 1990s, the good British and other European work, that of the Corps of Engineers and the Canadian-Florida connection). AWWARF should make Borch et al. (1993) available to the general public again, since it is cited in the LBG report. If you haven't seen Houben and Treskatis' book on Water Well Rehabilitation and Reconstruction (McGraw-Hill), I highly recommend it. This work was previously available only in the original German (which was perfectly agreeable to them, of course).

In addition to our past printed work, I also invite you to look at articles elsewhere on this site (some of which - in essence - date from before the start of the AWWARF project) and our slowly growing collection of print manuals. Look for more in the years to come. We also train - check out our course schedule as it develops this year. Don't let good wells go bad.