On a cold Friday afternoon, Marcia Lyford is baking a batch of oatmeal-raisin-peanut butter-walnut cookies in her Dover home. The smell of fresh cookies, coupled with a scented candle burning on the kitchen table, gives Lyford's cozy abode a warm, comforting air.

But alongside the scent of cookies and candles are particles of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has invaded Lyford's house in toxic levels. A September 2004 test by the state Department of Environmental Services lists the level of MTBE in the water on Lyford's property at 10,000 parts per billion. Safe levels of MTBE are found at 13 parts per billion, according to state guidelines. There are no federal guidelines for MTBE in drinking water.

The source of contamination: a 1998 gas leak from a filling station a few blocks from Lyford's home. The MTBE-treated gasoline leaked into the ground and wormed its way into the local water table. When Lyford noticed rust-colored water seeping into her basement, she notified the state DES. The water was contaminated, and further tests found MTBE particles in the air as well.

MTBE contamination is just one of many water issues facing the state, and the Seacoast in particular. While recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey have found increased levels of MTBE in local wells, communities like Newmarket and Exeter are grappling with questions about water demand and quality. Meanwhile, residents of Barrington and Nottingham are fighting a proposed water bottling plant that could withdraw up to 310,000 gallons a day from a local aquifer.

Many agree there are definite problems with water quality and management of water in the state, but the solutions are slow in coming. As outside pressures like population growth and corporate development strain water resources, everyone, from state agencies to individuals like Lyford, is changing the way they think about water.

the trouble with MTBE

For Marcia Lyford, MTBE is a visible danger. It's in the air and groundwater on her property, and there are spots in her basement where contaminated water has left puddles the color of dried blood. Lyford's fight with MTBE is a microcosm of the state's battle with the gasoline additive.

MTBE was introduced to the state in the 1990s, as part of the federal Clean Air Act. The compound increases the octane rating and oxygen content of gasoline, which in turn cuts air pollution. By 2002, MTBE was found in many of the state's groundwater supplies. A 2003 study by the New Hampshire office of the U.S. Geological Survey looked at four New Hampshire counties and found the number of public water-supply wells with MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) levels at or above .5 micrograms per liter increased by almost 3 percent between 2000 and 2002. Rockingham County is particularly affected, with MTBE occurrence rates jumping from 20.3 percent to 23.1 percent during the two years.

"We didn't realize the frequency with which we found it in wells would be as high as it was, despite the fact that MTBE-containing gasoline is used in that region," said Joseph Ayotte, a hydrologist with the USGS.

In Rockingham County, 40 percent of public wells and 21 percent of private wells studied had MTBE levels at .2 micrograms per liter. While well below the state drinking-water standard of 13 micrograms per liter, the finds are still troubling because nearly 75 percent of the county's drinking water comes from these sources. The DES says that almost 16 percent of New Hampshire public water supplies have MTBE present at a level of .5 micrograms per liter, according to Fred McGarry, assistant director of the waste management division at the DES.

The USGS study yielded other surprising results, according to Ayotte. Concentrations of MTBE were often found to be highest in deep, low-yielding wells. MTBE contamination typically begins at the surface, and Ayotte said the conventional wisdom has been that MTBE affects the shallowest wells first.

"In this study, we found the exact opposite," he said. "However, having thought about it and really analyzed the data, it's fairly clear why that's happening. In many cases, the deeper wells are lower yielding wells, and given that fact, MTBE concentrations are highest...because of this simple dilution factor."

Increased gasoline use, the result of a booming population in the area, is believed to be one of the factors exacerbating MTBE contamination. In 2003, the state filed a lawsuit against 22 oil companies, including Shell and Exxon, claiming the oil companies added increasing amounts of MTBE to gasoline, despite knowing it would contaminate water supplies. A bill passed last year by the state Legislature calls for the elimination of MTBE from gasoline by 2007. Federal regulations still require reformulated gasoline in areas with increased air pollution problems; however, the Environmental Protection Agency urged Congress in 2000 to reduce or eliminate MTBE. So far, no action has been taken.

But that's too late for Lyford, who feels the effects of MTBE every day. Lyford runs her business, Custom Covers, out of her home. Since discovering the contamination in her basement in 2000, Lyford said she's lost about $10,000 in income. Her 13-year-old son, Sam, has fallen prey to a host of health problems, including respiratory and ear infections. And while there's no conclusive link between MTBE and her son's illnesses, Lyford suspects that the high concentration of MTBE is the culprit. Studies with animals have found that MTBE-contaminated water may cause liver and kidney damage, nervous system effects and stomach irritation. The state Bureau of Health Risk Assessment identifies the compound as a "possible human carcinogen."

The source of the MTBE is a Shell gas station located at 46 Central Ave. in Dover. The site experienced two gas leaks, one in 1998 and one in 2003. The site is currently under remediation by the DES. The difficulty of remediation depends on where the contamination is located, McGarry said. Contaminated soil is excavated and put through a "soil burner." The soil is heated, which drives off gasoline vapors and removes contaminants. Water remediation is more difficult, though. In general site remediation, the water is heavily oxygenated, which neutralizes some of the contamination. This also results in more bacteria in the water; these bacteria then attack the gasoline compounds, including MTBE.

The contamination has rendered her home worthless, she said. If there were no contamination, Lyford said her home would be valued at $160,000. Lyford has asked the DES to buy the property from her so she and her son can move out, but said she's received no response. Financial difficulties and her home business keep her from moving out, she said.

"If I could afford to go rent an apartment and still maintain my mortgage here, I'd go do it," she said. "I think if they pay me off, pay me to move out, other people will come forward."

The state installed a ventilation system in Lyford's basement in 2003 to combat the MTBE levels in the air. The state is currently installing a system of trenches and filters around the house, which will collect groundwater and send it to Dover's water treatment plant, she said.

Lyford has a tote bag full of documents relating to her case ("This is only half," she said. "My lawyer has the other half."). She's still deciding whether or not to take legal action against the state or Shell Oil, but all she really wants is someone to officially acknowledge that there's a problem with her home.

"I want someplace safe to live for me and my son. I'm not asking for a million dollars," she said.

No matter what, she said she will keep speaking out about MTBE contamination.

"MTBE is a big issue and everyone needs to be aware of how dangerous it is," she said.

the fight over USA Springs

As Lyford fights to keep the water around her home clean, a citizen activist group is fighting to keep local water supplies healthy.

Since 2001, the group Save Our Groundwater (SOG) has been challenging the DES and bottling company USA Springs in a battle over an 107,000-square-foot bottling plant the company wants to build off Route 4 in Nottingham. The plant would withdraw approximately 307,000 gallons of water per day to sell overseas. The DES denied USA Spring's first permit request in 2003 based on issues of water quality and quantity. A second permit filed by USA Springs was denied as well. USA Springs found success with their third application, however, and the DES granted the company a withdrawal permit in July 2004. SOG filed an appeal on the DES' decision with the state Supreme Court last September, and USA Springs still needs approval from the state Wetland's Bureau and the Nottingham Planning Board to build the plant. Critics of the plan, including SOG, believe the large groundwater withdrawal will drain local water supplies and adversely affect wetlands that abut the property.

"It really turns water into a commodity, instead of something that needs to be conserved and sustainably managed so we can all have what we need to live," said Denise Hart, a Barrington resident and member of SOG.

But USA Springs spokesperson Richard Killion said the plant will bring a host of benefits to the town, adding that other projects, such as housing developments, would have a far greater negative impact.

"This project is going to provide a reliable employer to the town, one that's going to have a positive impact on the tax base, one that's going to provide new jobs," Killion said. "I'm hoping as we go along, there's more heightened awareness on the many positive attributes of this project." The State Wetlands Bureau will hold its second permit hearing for USA Springs in Nottingham on Jan. 26.

USA Springs isn't alone, though. Two other bottled water companies-Sunapee Springs in Sunapee and Castle Springs in Moultonborough-have received large groundwater withdrawal permits from the DES since 2000, although Sunapee Springs is not in operation yet. Four other companies have filed groundwater withdrawal permits that are awaiting approval. The withdrawal amounts for each permit range from 79,200 gallons a day to more than 300,000 gallons. A state law passed in 1998 requires the DES to permit and monitor all groundwater withdrawals of more than 57,600 gallons a day.

There are 300 other large groundwater withdrawal operations in the state that aren't monitored by the DES, said Brandon Kernan, a hydrologist with the agency. Among the 300 are golf clubs, bottled water companies and municipal water supplies that were in operation before the new permitting law took effect in 2000.

While those numbers seem massive, Kernan said bottled water withdrawals make up a small amount of water usage.

"Bottled water is actually insignificant if you're concerned about water quantity in the state," he said. "People have this idea that bottled water is really bad, that you pump it out, put it on a truck and move it away, but what do you think happens when you spray a golf course with water? That's consumptive use of water."

The DES has granted three large groundwater withdrawal permits to golf clubs in the last five years. The Golf Club of New England in Stratham can withdraw up to 265,000 gallons per day; the Breakfast Hill Golf Club in Greenland can withdraw up to 201,600 gallons, and the Granite Field Golf Course in Kingston has a permit to take out 131,040 gallons a day.

Another source of heavy consumptive water use are new housing communities, Kernan said.

"During the summertime, water use in new communities can increase up to 200 percent, simply to grow grass," he said, adding that not only is water consumed, but contaminants like weed killers are introduced to the water supply.

"Maybe domestic use doesn't add up to be much, but irrigation adds up to be quite a bit," he said. "People... need to think about those things, too."

As a result of the USA Springs case, Rep. Harriet Cady (R-Deerfield) is sponsoring HB69 this year, which would allow municipalities veto power over large groundwater permits granted by the DES.

"My constituents in Nottingham wanted something done that they felt wasn't being done, which was (having) someone to listen to them, so that a business couldn't just come in and set up shop and take a resource out of their community," Cady said.

Though the bill stemmed from the USA Springs case, Cady said she has nothing against the company and is not affiliated with SOG. The bill is a measure to protect future water needs, she said.

"If New Hampshire is the fastest growing state of the New England states, aren't we going to need that water?" she posited.

Cady said there are still some unanswered questions about the USA Springs plant. She said potential pollution from trucks parked on the site, as well as plowing and salting operations during the winter, could contaminate the aquifer.

The biggest opposition to the bill has been the DES, which troubles her, she said.

"I think agencies should not be promoting one side or the other," Cady said. "They should just simply get the facts as to why the bill would be detrimental and why it would be good."

In a letter to the House Resources, Recreation and Development Committee, DES Commissioner Michael Nolin said the agency opposes HB69 because "the current large groundwater withdrawal permitting process adequately protects property owners' rights."

The USA Springs case is not unique, according to Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona. Glennon is well acquainted with groundwater issues-his 2002 book, "Water Follies," was one of the first studies of the use and misuse of groundwater supplies across the country.

"There's nothing wrong with drinking bottled water...and nothing wrong with going into the business of providing bottled water," he said. "The problem comes in that these resources are already under stress."

Glennon compares underground aquifers to large milkshake glasses. Most states have "incredibly permissive" water withdrawal laws, which result in "a limitless number of straws in a single glass," he said. Withdraw too much water and the aquifer becomes empty. The soil above dries out, and it becomes harder for the aquifer to recharge and fill with water.

"It was once thought that groundwater was ubiquitous as the air we breathe," Glennon said. "We now know, thanks to the science of hydrology, that nothing could be further from the truth. The earth is a closed hydrologic cycle. We cannot create any more water."

One solution to the problem is to end unfettered access to groundwater resources and promote more responsible use.

"If you want to put in a new straw, you need to pinch someone else's straw. The company should be required to purchase and retire an existing water user's right to put a new straw in the glass," he said.

supply and demand

Keeping that glass full has become increasingly important to communities in the Seacoast region. The population here has increased 36 percent in the last 20 years, leading to a 50 percent increase in the use of ground and surface water resources, according to a study by the USGS and state DES.

Newmarket has been struggling with a supply and demand tug-of-war for the last few years. The town's drinking water supply comes from two sources: two wells that tap into bedrock aquifers, pumping a half-million gallons of water in about 16 hours per day, and a water treatment plant located off Packers Falls Road. However, the water treatment plant, which treats water from the Lamprey River, is used sparingly-despite a $2.3 million renovation in 1990, the cost of running the plant is high, and a high amount of organic material in the river makes the water difficult to clean.

Town officials have debated what to do with the plant for the last decade. After its renovation in 1990, the plant was mothballed because of high operating costs. Since 2000, the plant has gone on line intermittently.

"It's more efficient to run continuously, but we can't make the quality we need, so we can't run it," said George Laney, assistant director of Newmarket's public works department.

Newmarket is taking steps to conserve water use, including an outside-use ban. Newmarket Town Administrator Al Dixon said well levels are stable right now, and the town has no trouble meeting water users' demands; however, the town is still looking at ways to improve water quantity and quality.

Newmarket's water has come strictly from the two wells since last summer, when treated water from the plant was found to have elevated levels of trihalomethanes (THMs), a byproduct from the water treatment process that's a combination of chlorine and organic matter like decaying vegetation. The treatment plant takes its water from a part of the Lamprey River where large amounts of organics collect, Laney said. The THM levels were at 335 parts per billion, far above the federal guideline of 80 parts per billion. Since then, levels have gone down. However, the town is still pushing for a new water treatment plant. Voters last spring rejected a measure for a $15.5 million plant; however, the issue will be back on the ballot this March.

"We're trying to expedite the process of dealing with water issues that have caused us this problem," Dixon said. "We made the determination to run the wells until we're in compliance."

Those solutions could be expensive for taxpayers, though. A study by Metcalf & Eddy, a consulting firm specializing in water and wastewater projects, revealed the town has a number of water treatment options available, many of which could cost millions of dollars.

A full-scale renovation and upgrade of the current treatment plant, which was originally built in 1924, could cost about $8 million, Dixon said. Another option is to build a new plant at a location where organics are less likely to collect. This would cost approximately $15 million, Dixon said, a cost that doesn't include purchasing land for the plant.

The $2.3 million for the plant's 1990 renovation was a "huge issue" in the town, Dixon said, adding that the cost for a new or upgraded plant would be "a tremendous burden."

"It's absolutely mandatory (that) every stone is turned to find the most reasonable, affordable option," he said.

But keeping the water clean isn't the town's only problem. Though the town has no problem meeting water demands right now, a dry season, like the one in 1998, could strain resources already taxed by a growing population.

Another option is to recharge the town's two existing aquifers with water treated from the plant. Dixon said the town has recharged the aquifers with treated water once, and monitoring wells showed positive results. Raw water pumped from the Lamprey could also be used to recharge the water supply, but Dixon said this could potentially pollute the aquifer. Dixon also said the town may purchase a private well from a local landowner. Bringing a new well on line could cost as much as $100,000, Dixon said. He added that other requirements, like maintaining a 400-foot radius of undeveloped land around the well, make adding new wells difficult.

"Many people feel it's as simple as buying a piece of ground, drilling a well, and 20, 30, 40 years ago, it was," Dixon said. "Today, there's a tremendous amount of testing and data collection to bring a well online."

Newmarket isn't the only town with these issues. Next door, Exeter faced similar problems when they recently and temporarily experienced high organics levels. For now, the town is still considering its options. But whatever choice the Town Council makes, town residents will ultimately vote on the matter, leading Dixon to believe that a high-priced project may not pass.

"A lot of people just want the issue resolved, certainly as cheaply as possible," he said.

a deluge of data

While various communities and individuals grapple with a myriad of water concerns, the state DES is trying to get a lock on the general health of the Seacoast's groundwater supply.

The Seacoast Groundwater Availability Study, a joint venture between the DES and the N.H. office of the USGS, is in its second year. The project aims to compile a groundwater database and create a groundwater model that can be used to keep track of water resources. The study is the first of its kind, said Lindsay Anderson of the New Hampshire Coastal Program, a participant in the project.

"There's so little info on New Hampshire groundwater," she said.

The project is focusing strictly on water quantity, not quality, and is still in a data-gathering phase, Anderson said. She expects a report to be issued this summer. Anderson said data from the project is being drawn from a variety of sources, including stream flow gauges, monitoring wells, and water use surveys distributed throughout the region's middle schools.

The agencies will "give the data to towns to use on their own, as tools to make their own decisions," she said.

This means the data won't tell towns like Nottingham not to put in a bottled water plant, or force towns like Newmarket to build new treatment plants. Instead, the data will quantify the region's water supplies and map out the potential impact various types of water use will have.

As for MTBE, the results of the USGS study on Rockingham County wells have prompted a statewide look at MTBE.

"What it's done is sort of given us cause for concern scientifically about what's going on in the state," said Ayotte.

There are still a lot of questions about the overall supply and future management of the region's water resources. The water availability study may answer many of those questions, but Doug Bogen of New Hampshire Clean Water Action said keeping an eye on the future is important.

"A lot of the issue is looking down the road at the next 10, 20 years," he said. As the Seacoast's population increases, planners have to make sure water demand doesn't exceed supply, he said, pointing to ancient cultures that collapsed due to vanished water resources.

"That's how civilizations fall apart," Bogen said.