Keith Diaz Moore is both the Interim Chief Sustainability Officer and the Dean of the College of Architecture and Planning. In this Humans of the U profile, he tells about his motivations related to health and sustainability, his belief in education, and his hopes for the U of U. Read it here.
Bill Johnson, professor in Geology & Geophysics and director of the William P. Johnson Contaminant Transport Group, is a GCSC faculty affiliate conducting research related to water. Bill came to the UU in 1995. As a hydrogeochemist, he researches transport and cycling – the fate and transport of things in water. In this installment of our regular research spotlight series, Bill answers our questions about his research, his role as an expert witness in a court case, and his pedagogy.
When you say “transport of things in water”, what kind of things are you talking about?
I focus on contaminants such as trace elements of all different kinds, like selenium or mercury, and theories to predict how long it will take for them to get from point A to point B or how much of the element will get from point A to point B. (The theories and the behaviors are different depending on the kind of contaminant.) I also do a lot of work on particles and understanding how to improve theories for transport of pathogens. My research program is split between these two areas; where half of it is about how particles transport and improving theory to predict that, and the other half is about trace elements in systems predominantly in Utah, but also a little international stuff, such as in Ecuador.
Can you say a bit more about the particles portion? What’s an example of a kind of particle that you study?
Every so often there are disease outbreaks in communities from organisms like cryptosporidium. A vast majority of these disease outbreaks come from groundwater and are typically associated with heavy rain. There’s a number of reasons why heavy rainfall would drive the transport of pathogens in the subsurface. We can make these predictions under particular conditions where we have control over the chemistry, and that’s what we do in water treatment plants where we use granular filtration to remove pathogens. The problem is that in the environment we don’t have control over the chemistry so the existing theories fail.
Beyond how far these particles are going to be transported during a heavy rain, what are other areas where these theories might be applicable?
Yes, heavy rain is just one example of why we care about pathogens in groundwater. There are lots of other contexts and practical engineered processes where having a guiding theory would help in design. For example, there are contaminated sites that are still a major challenge for clean-up. People are using nanosized zero valent iron to clean up different organic contaminates and reductively dechlorinate them. They’re using activated carbon particles injected into the groundwater to enhance attenuation and biodegradation of organic contaminants. And these practices have no design theory for how fast the particles should be pumped to optimize transport. So you have consultants doing this work without any useful tools to guide them on how best to do it. Having a theory to guide in these and other areas is valuable for doing these processes efficiently.
In another vein of your research, you were involved in a case against the proposed tar sands mine on the Tavaputs Plateau, battling against the U.S. Oil Sands company. What’s happened with that?
It’s idle! Between now and then, oil and gas prices crashed, so nobody’s trying to develop the site right now.
What aspect of your research did your work on that project fall under and how did you get involved?
It’s about the molecules and contaminant partitioning, exploring how organic contaminants behave in the environment. U.S. Oil Sands was using organic solvents to extract hydrocarbons from the ground and they were granted a permit by the State of Utah to dispose of those onsite with no liners and no monitoring. Western Resource Advocates asked me to weigh in on whether the solvent they were using was toxic. That solvent is called d-Limonene. It’s a citrus extract. In itself, it’s not all that toxic, at least at reasonably expected concentrations in groundwater. The hydrocarbons that U.S. Oil Sands were extracting from the tar sands with that solvent are more toxic than the solvent. They’ve been there for eons and the reason they’ve been there for eons – the tar sands in all the rocks – is that they don’t dissolve into water readily. But when you add this solvent to them and then leave this mixture of solvent and nitrogen compounds laying on the land surface, now you’ve made these compounds much more soluble. And I showed that that’s the problem. I did all these detailed thermodynamic calculations so that the expert witness for U.S. Oil Sands and I were battling over the thermodynamics of it all and our respective calculations, and the judge on the case punted. She just said “well, there’s no water at the site anyway”, which was a claim made by the State. And I thought it was over.
How did you get move from working on this issue of toxicity to addressing the overall hydrology of the area?
I thought it was over and then one of the leaders of the citizen action group called Living Rivers invited me to visit the site. I felt like I owed it to the process to actually see the area since I hadn’t seen it. And in fact, what’s so weird about that court case is I don’t think anybody who’d been arguing that court case had been to the site. U.S. Oil Sands was pointing to documents about the site made in the 1960s and 1970s that weren’t developed to address the hydrology of this specific place they were talking about. There are documents to address the whole region, and these regional-scale documents said there was no local water at the site. The whole court case rested on statements made in documents that clearly weren’t expressing scales appropriate to the problems at hand. So I went to the site and I was astounded.
It was lush. You get off the top of that plateau where it is dry and scraggily, and get down into the canyons adjacent and they have springs feeding these wonderful meadows that the local ranchers depend on. These ranchers steward the land down there and they depend on these springs for their own water as well as the livestock and the wildlife. Then I got mad because the State’s saying there’s no water and there’s no mention of the interest of the ranchers in these locations. It was just amazing to me. That’s when I started working for free and developed a research project out of it.
We put together a bunch of money to do an analysis and I pulled in some colleagues to help and a mixture of graduate and undergraduate students – a community effort. We ended up publishing a paper showing that the water in these springs comes from the ridges where U.S. Oil Sands was dumping this material. So you can’t rule out an impact. And I couldn’t say that there would definitely be an impact, nobody knows, but I could say there’s no way you can rule it out based on the data. And that was the argument I made. It ended up being a really fun thing to work on because we learned something interesting. It all culminated in a hearing that I thought was just going to be me and a lawyer and a Division of Oil Gas and Mining chief, and instead there were 100-200 expert people there, a mixture of activists, reporters, and so on. It was really interesting because the State kept making these statements about the area that were just flatly untrue and I was able to knock it down and the Chief of the Division of Oil Gas and Mining recognized that. He saw the data that we’d collected refuted what the State was saying. Then they required a monitor for the site. So that was a pretty satisfying outcome for that little project.
What was it like for your students to work on something that was so applied and urgent?
I think they really enjoyed that. I think they find it a satisfying extension of the nitty gritty, puzzle-solving research that we do.
What’s happening for you and your group right now related to the ‘nitty gritty’ stuff?
I just had a breakthrough on the particle transport theory. Existing theories for predicting the transport of particles fail because in the environment, the particles tend to be similarly charged, negatively, and so is the sediment. When things are charged the same way they repel each other. Basically, the theory fails because of that repulsion – particles and sediment shouldn’t attach, but yet they do and the particles get removed from the water. What it comes down to is that no surface is homogenous. There’s nanoscale heterogeneity that provides little zones where things are attracted and attach. What we’ve been doing for the past two years is backing up what that nanoscale heterogeneity should look like on surfaces through doing a bunch of attachment experiments. And that’s very puzzle solve-y. It’s something that when I was a master’s student working on the Himalayas in Pakistan, if you’d asked me what I was going to work on later in my life, I would have said you were crazy. But I love it because you have control over the system and we’re basically decorating Easter eggs with little heterogeneity dots on these little sand grains in our hypothetical models in our simulation trying to capture the data. We’ve been able to do that and now we’ve found that that representation predicts all these weird transport behaviors that you see under environmental conditions. We just submitted the manuscript.
We haven’t gotten it accepted yet, but I’m excited about it because it actually brings together this research that we’ve been doing for 15 years. I love the mix — I love this stuff where you really get into the mechanisms and I love the stuff where you get out in the field and measure things. So it’s really fun to have those aspects of my research program operating all at the same time. It’s good for the students because they all mix with each other. I get a critical mass of students going and they’re all teaching each other too, and that brings a lot of energy to the group.
What drew you to the GCSC?
I like to think I helped to make it. Before the GCSC existed, I was bringing together groups from Geology & Geophysics, Atmospheric Sciences, ecological people, Biology, environmental engineers, and the geographers. This was back probably in 1997, something like that, maybe 2000. I was bringing them together to say ‘hey, we should be developing work towards a big proposal.” Jim Ehleringer [GCSC director emeritus] was a part of that and some other people who helped lead included Craig Forster. This was before Brenda Bowen was even a grad student. We actually developed a precursor to GCSC called CWECS, the Center for Water and Ecosystem Climate… something or other, I can’t remember. But the point is, I was barely tenured at that point and didn’t really have a grand vision for the kind of thing that would become, like Jim Ehleringer did. So I dissolved CWECS and he developed GCSC. And what I focused on was developing work on the Great Salt Lake, because none was going on at that time from the University of Utah. That’s what I focused my efforts on while Jim Ehleringer built the GCSC, but I still feel like I had a hand in creating it.
How do you feel that GCSC support or programming has positively impacted your research or your teaching?
I can tell you that the Tar Sands work wouldn’t have happened without Logan Fredrick being a GCSC Fellow. She helped with the logistics of getting the field sampling done in a big way. Out of that fellowship, we had multiple papers. Obviously there was other support brought in to help with all that, but the GCSC was a critical piece. I think that’s a fundamentally important aspect of the GCSC — funding students to allow them to explore something that maybe isn’t so formulaic. You can explore a bit. And I really value that a lot.
Thank you, Bill!
By Liz Ivkovich, Global Change & Sustainability Center, originally published on April 9, 2018.
Water uptake in plants, the neurocognitive underpinnings of certain personality traits and food as a cultural process. How are these starkly different areas connected?
Each topic relates to environmental change. And each topic is the thrust of a new interdisciplinary research collaboration. These projects and six others have received funding through the Global Change & Sustainability Center (GCSC) and the Society, Water, & Climate Research Group’s (SWC) new seed grant initiative.
“The GCSC is thrilled that we were able to partner with SWC to support interdisciplinary faculty seed grants to help catalyze new collaborations between U faculty from different disciplines as they pursue sustainability research,” said Brenda Bowen, director of the center. “These grants were specifically targeted to help bring new faculty into existing interdisciplinary projects and to facilitate new research that will lead to future external funding opportunities.”
In total, $132,000 in grant funds has been awarded to nine different collaborations.
Funded projects include research being pursued by faculty from anthropology, atmospheric sciences, biology, cognition and neural science, environmental and sustainability studies, environmental humanities, family and consumer studies, geography, geology and geophysics, law, neuroradiology, pediatrics, psychology and sociology.
Here are three examples of funded research:
- For the project, “Leveraging the Wasatch Environmental Observatory to Improve Prediction of Western U.S. Forest Carbon and Water Cycling,” investigators will gather data about how plants take in water and use it to build better models for predicting how Intermountain forests will change in the future.Utah’s mountain forests provide highly valuable ecosystem goods and services to local communities, including timber, tourism and recreation, water purification, and carbon sequestration. These forests fundamentally affect carbon and water cycling, thus influencing water resources upon which Utah’s communities and economy rely. Climate change is projected to increase stress on mountain forests through more frequent and severe droughts, more and larger wildfires and other disturbances like insect outbreaks. The complicated scale of these changes requires new kinds of models that can predict the future of U.S. forests.One fundamental data gap currently limits researchers’ ability to develop rigorous models for ecosystems in the Wasatch Mountains. Data required to model drought stress in mountainous forests, such as the plant traits that comprise water transport via xylem, are not yet available. Through this funding, the team will be able to begin collecting these data.Researchers on this project include William Anderegg, biology; Paul Brooks, geology and geophysics; John Lin, atmospheric sciences; and David Bowling, biology.
- In a project entitled “Individual Differences in Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: Examination of Personality, Neurocognitive Mechanisms, and Malleability,” faculty investigators will explore the neurocognitive underpinnings of the personality trait “openness to experience.” Openness to Experience — the breadth, depth and permeability of consciousness, and the recurrent need to enlarge and engage experience — is the personality factor most consistently associated with pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Behaviors associated with this trait include reducing emissions to address climate change, belief in human behavior-driven climate change and a sense of connection to humanity and nature.There has been scant research examining the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Understanding this personality trait may inform how programs and policies can be tailored to create social change in environmental attitudes and behavior. The team will also examine the extent to which environmental attitudes and behaviors can be changed through exposure to nature/aesthetic experiences.Faculty investigators on this project are Paula Williams, psychology; Jeff Anderson, neuroradiology; Jeanine Stefanucci, cognition and neural science; Yana Suchy, neuropsychology; David Strayer, cognition and neural science.
- The project, “Exploring Indigenous Lifestyles for Justice, Sustainability, and Health: Native Food Knowledge and Practice,” will explore the livelihoods of Great-Basin Shoshone tribal members and evaluate whether participation in traditional diets and land management and use of native language are correlated with positive health outcomes. With the loss of indigenous languages comes the loss of traditional cultural practices. This project is unique in that while much traditional knowledge has disappeared with the loss of language, the traditional knowledge of the Shoshone community partners exists in untranslated ethnographic data in the University of Utah’s possession. While many health interventions in local indigenous communities are based in Westernized approaches to health, including a focus on exercise and nutrient consumption, this research team, including tribal partners, share the perspective that food and health are cultural processes and products. They are committed to working toward increased food sovereignty — the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.Researchers on this project include Adrienne Cachelin, environmental and sustainability studies; Brian Codding, anthropology; Lillian Tom-Orme, epidemiology; and Marianna Di Paolo, anthropology
“These kinds of interdisciplinary research endeavors are crucial to addressing today’s urgent social and environmental challenges,” said Andrea Brunelle, chair of the Society, Water, & Climate Research Group executive committee. “The diverse range of projects supported by the seed grants is a testament to the importance of multiple perspectives on climate, society and water. The work doesn’t stop with these grants. Through other ongoing collaborations between GCSC and SWC, as well as with partners such as Red Butte Garden, we will continue to support this relevant research.”
The seed grants were awarded through a competitive interdisciplinary peer-review process that considered impact of the research in terms of new publications and future external grant funding. Funding for some projects was supplemented with financial support from Red Butte Garden specifically aimed at supporting student and postdoctoral research linked to plants.