Grantee Research Project Results
2019 Progress Report: Community-level Management of Human Health Risks from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) with Defensive Natural Capital Investments
EPA Grant Number: R836942Title: Community-level Management of Human Health Risks from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) with Defensive Natural Capital Investments
Investigators: Hochard, Jacob P , Etheridge, Randall , Peralta, Ariane , Sims, Charles
Institution: East Carolina University , University of Tennessee
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Project Period: August 1, 2017 through July 31, 2019 (Extended to July 31, 2021)
Project Period Covered by this Report: August 1, 2018 through July 31,2019
Project Amount: $399,226
RFA: Integrating Human Health and Well-Being with Ecosystem Services (2016) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Human Health
Objective:
Our multidisciplinary social-ecological (economics/econometrics, ecological engineering, soil ecology) modeling and empirical investigation seeks to (i) identify and measure the effect of swine production operations on local human health, (ii) examine if land cover, soil types, hydrographic relationships and public institutions mediate health outcomes and (iii) construct neighborhood-specific recommendations to inform community-level management of human health risks. We hypothesize that CAFO-linked contaminants cause downstream adverse health outcomes, which are attenuated by natural capital between source contaminants and households. We also hypothesize that natural capital is more valuable to those communities lacking public services, which buffer communities from upstream contaminants.
Specifically, our Year 2 project timeline for research activities included –
- Construction of project website
- Ground verification of land use data where necessary.
- Hydrological analysis
- Econometric investigation
- Policy simulations
I am delighted to report that we are on track with our anticipated timeline and have completed Year 2 research activities without change to our stated project goals. We are also on budget. At this point, our planned expenses should match closely our current expenses.
Progress Summary:
The second phase of our project (Year 2) focused on hydrological modeling and econometric analysis. Our preliminary findings suggest that contamination of private wells downstream of CAFOs is occurring during times of intensive precipitation and high temperatures. However, this contamination is mediated by a risk management response of rural homeowners who tend to drill deeper wells in closer proximity to a CAFO. Understanding this risk response is instructive for better understanding the social cost of groundwater pollution, which encompasses human health effects in addition to private expenditures on short-term risk avoidance and long-term risk adaptation. Further, births occurring downwind of nearby sprayfields appear to be impaired relative to births occurring upwind of sprayfields. A series of robust empirical tests conclude that animal agriculture and associated waste management strategies are the most likely underlying mechanism. To date, we have not seen the same evidence for waterborne exposures leading to impaired birth outcomes. However, this analysis is ongoing as we consider precipitation and temperature as stressors in areas with varying types of soils. Together, these results suggest that waterborne contaminants stemming from CAFOs are easier to avoid than airborne contaminants, which could explain the presence of birth impairments downwind but not downstream of a CAFO.
Our project website is live atwww.ourncwater.org,which has been advertised through county health offices and using social media (@ourncwater) to our study area counties. The website advertises current sampling activities and efforts by the research team and recognizes U.S. EPA support of our research activities in the study area. Soil datasets have been processed and cleaned to integrate with our custom hydrological analysis that is tailored to our study area in eastern North Carolina but generalizable for the State of North Carolina. Soil layers provide an indicator of relative filtration capacity of soil that may generate protection from upstream sources of pollution linked to animal agriculture operations.
Hydrologically, we use these filtration indicators to weight the distance of rural households’ private wells to their nearest upstream animal agriculture operation. Such a weighting enables an explicit valuation of various soils’ ability to improve downstream groundwater quality and birth outcomes. This relationship is being investigated using a custom econometric analysis that links upstream pollution sources with downstream health outcomes through waterborne and airborne mechanisms.
A collaborating PhD student at North Carolina State University has successfully completed her dissertation under Dr. Hochard’s co-supervision. A chapter in her dissertation leverages our modeling and datasets to test the impact of airborne pollutants, stemming from swine and poultry confined agriculture operations in our study area, on birth outcomes. Evidence suggests that being located downwind and within 3 miles of an animal agriculture operation impairs birth outcomes by increasing the likelihood of preterm births and low birth weight outcomes. This finding is robust to a variety of tests and is exacerbated when gestation periods overlap with the spraying season, which suggests airborne exposures from nearby sprayfields are likely to be the underlying mechanism of exposure. A policy simulation from these airborne exposures reveals that the hospitalization cost of such exposures is likely to exceed $15 million annually for the State of North Carolina.
Our examination of well water results across our study area revealed that less than 2% of homeowners test their wells annually for inorganic chemicals or microbiological contamination. We adopted several approaches to encourage broader testing of private wells and to ensure that our water quality dataset is representative of the rural and underserved population in our study area. First, we implemented a citizen science campaign, facilitated through our dedicated project website, that recruited East Carolina University students who reside in our study area counties. Students were recruited to sample water from their homes and return the samples to our project team for analysis.
In addition, we launched a fully randomized control trial that communicated the location of wells in the area that tested positive for total coliform. Here, we randomized the information that was communicated to households that lived near a contaminated well. A baseline group of homeowners who did not receive a risk communication was constructed and compared against homeowners that were informed that a drinking water well (i) within 1 mile of their home, (ii) within 5 miles of their home, (iii) nearby in the past 7 days or (iv) nearby in the past 30 days tested present for total coliform. We then communicated the location and contact information for their county health office and instructions for testing their own well. Wells that were tested were documented in the North Carolina State Laboratory database allowing us to measure the effectiveness of the intervention. Currently, over 1,500 notifications have been mailed and our analysis of the intervention is ongoing. Preliminary results show that such risk notifications are effective at encouraging, or “nudging”, private well monitoring.
Our econometric analysis has focused on linking these water quality results from the NC State Laboratory database and our own sampling to upstream CAFO sources. Preliminary results show that water quality indicators are sensitive to local precipitation and temperature trends, which appear to increase the likelihood of bacterial or chemical contamination of wells downstream of animal agriculture operations. We have also discovered a strong propensity for rural homeowners to respond to perceived risk of water contamination represented by proximity to CAFOs. Examination of well construction records in our study area reveals that households nearest animal agriculture operations drill deeper wells when
controlling for income. This prior undocumented form of risk avoidance costs rural homeowners between $500,000 to $1.5 million annually but appears to be an effective adaptation strategy for securing clean groundwater in areas with intensive animal agriculture, porous soils and shallow aquifers. This analysis is ongoing as we integrate our hydrological modeling with soil models to determine the extent to which local wetlands and soils mediate groundwater contamination risks, the need for rural homeowners to drill deeper wells to reach clean water and the extent to which CAFO proximity translates into human health impairments.
The quality assurance statement governing the collection and storage of these secondary datasets has not changed and remains accurate for our project. These data are currently being stored on ECU’s secure faculty servers. Further, PI Hochard is controlling all datasets and overseeing quality assurance. We intend to uploaded desensitized datasets to our dedicated project website once the merging of soil, water, hydrological and human health datasets is complete in spring 2019. We expect these to be aggregated to protect the sensitive nature of our human health variables.The PI understands and will abide by the Research Misconduct requirements of the award terms and conditions.
Through the second year of our project, we have had extensive meetings with North Carolina’s Division of Water Resources and the NC Department of Human Health and Services’ contacts in both the Environmental Epidemiology and Vital Statistics divisions. We have continued to maintain contact with each of our county, state and federal partners as the project has progressed and analysis is conducted. We intend to present our preliminary findings to each of our contacts before finalizing our project’s report. These contacts are restated below:
At the county level, we engaged in a total of seven separate meetings with the following stakeholders:
Johnny Summerlin (Duplin County Environmental Health Supervisor)
Greg Martin (Bladen County Manager)
Perry Solice (Sampson County Environmental Health Supervisor)
Vence Dodge (Pender County Environmental Health Supervisor)
Kory Hair (Bladen County Environmental Health Specialist)
At the state level, we engaged in three meetings with
Crystal Lee-Pow Jackson (NC Department of Health and Human Services Env. Epidemiologist)
Craig Caldwell (NC Division of Water Resources Program Consultant and Geologist)
Robin Tutor-Marcom (NC Agromedicine Institute)
and had frequent correspondence with
Cindy Price (NC State Laboratory of Public Health Evaluation Officer)
Sidney Evans (NC Department of Health and Human Services Statistician)
At the federal level, we engaged in one meeting with
Val Garcia (Environmental Protection Agency)
At this point we have completed most of our Year 2 target activities and are finalizing our econometric analysis and integration of datasets. We expect to complete analysis in the next 3 months and will begin constructing final reports and outreach material in spring 2020.
Future Activities:
March 2020:
| Completion of econometric analysis. |
April 2020:
| Presentation of findings to local, county, state and federal partners. |
May 2020:
| Drafting and delivery of reports, begin scheduling community meetings. |
June-July 2020:
| Conduct a series of community meetings |
July 2020: | Final project meeting and manuscript submissions. |
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 22 publications | 5 publications in selected types | All 5 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Kruse J, Hochard J. Economics, insurance, and flood hazards. Southern Economic Journal 2019;85(4):1027-1031. |
R836942 (2019) R836942 (2020) |
Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
averting behavior, ecosystem services, health externalitiesRelevant Websites:
Project Website Our NC Water Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.