Belief: Agricultural land use in Garland County directly predicts 1,2,3-TCP levels in household water
It is commonly thought that historical agricultural practices determine 1,2,3-trichloropropane (often called TCP) presence in water supplies. Garland County’s surface water source has a background linked to past land use where soil fumigants containing TCP were once applied. However, government data from Hot Springs Utilities, serving over 75,000 people here, show no detection of 1,2,3-TCP above a threshold of 0.03 micrograms per liter (parts per billion). This federal occurrence survey from 2013-2015 indicates that while agricultural history may inform potential risk areas, it does not confirm that this chlorinated solvent contaminates the water delivered to homes at measurable levels.
Belief: The legacy of soil fumigants from the mid-20th century should mean current groundwater contamination
Some assume that residues of certain soil fumigants used from the 1950s to the 1980s inevitably leach into deep groundwater and thus household water. TCP, a known impurity in those fumigants, can travel slowly through soil layers. Yet, Hot Springs Utilities’ public water system samples did not detect 1,2,3-trichloropropane above the reporting limit during federal monitoring. This evidence suggests that while contamination pathways exist in theory, the surface water supply in Garland County does not currently show measurable TCP penetration at levels tracked by environmental regulations.
Belief: Public water system data directly predicts individual household water quality for 1,2,3-TCP
The municipal water record provides a system-wide overview, but it cannot guarantee the specific concentration of 1,2,3-TCP in an individual home’s water. Private well owners or residents with aging internal plumbing might still face different conditions. Since 1,2,3-trichloropropane was not detected in Hot Springs Utilities’ testing above 0.03 micrograms per liter, determination of TCP levels in your household water requires a direct test. System-wide data help understand the probable range but cannot substitute for your own water quality analysis.
Belief: Laboratory testing for 1,2,3-TCP is the first and only step after water equipment failure
Faced with failed water treatment equipment, it is tempting to rush to specialized lab tests immediately. However, a sequence of checks is more cost-effective: verify basic water quality parameters first, check for common aesthetic factors, and then proceed to targeted 1,2,3-trichloropropane testing if needed. Since federal monitoring shows no measured TCP above 0.03 micrograms per liter in the Garland County system, the process of elimination helps isolate the problem efficiently.
Belief: Any detection near the reporting level is a health concern or violation of federal standards
Federal monitoring for 1,2,3-trichloropropane uses a reporting level of 0.03 micrograms per liter, but no enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) currently exists. In Garland County’s Hot Springs Utilities system, zero samples exceeded the reporting limit during monitoring. This means there is no violation or health-based exceedance recorded. A detection does not automatically imply an unsafe condition. Understanding differences between reporting levels, secondary standards, and enforceable health limits is essential in interpreting water quality records accurately.
Closing: What you should NOT conclude from Garland County public system data
The absence of 1,2,3-TCP detections above reporting levels in Hot Springs Utilities’ data does not guarantee your household water is free of the chlorinated solvent. Neither does it imply that this contaminant poses a health risk in the system. The area-wide record provides indication but not a definitive measure for individual properties. If your existing water treatment equipment has failed and you are concerned about 1,2,3-trichloropropane, targeted testing of your home’s water is essential. After testing, the C-Series 1,2,3-TCP Filter ships ready to configure and can help address the presence of this compound should it be detected in your water supply.
Where this information comes from
Source: EPA SDWIS public water system record. Sampled 2014-05-12. These figures describe the public water system's record, not the plumbing inside any individual building.
On record: EPA UCMR3 monitoring (2013-2015) for Hot Springs Utilities (AR0000209), AR: 8 results across 1 listed contaminants, 0 detections above the reporting level; nothing detected above the method reporting level