Judges’ comments:
This wasn’t necessarily the most sophisticated entry we read, but it was so beautifully conceived and executed that we quickly decided to make it our winner. The writers had a clear mission – help local people understand that wood-burning stoves pollute the air – and were smart enough to know that their readers would be more likely to absorb that message in small chunks than in the lengthy pieces that usually win contests. All the key information was there, but in easily digestible form. This is local journalism at its best. (The series was so compelling, in fact, that when I remodel my California home I’m going to remove the fireplace. Honestly.)
1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
“A Burning Issue” by Steve Schoonover, Larry Mitchell and Deborah Schoch.
(Published as a result of a partnership between the California HealthCare Foundation Center for Health Reporting and the Chico Enterprise-Record).
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
May 13-16, 2010, in the Chico Enterprise-Record.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
As they’ve done each winter for generations, residents of Chico, Calif., a small city tucked into an agricultural valley 90 miles north of Sacramento, fire up their wood-burning stoves to stave off the cold. During certain days, however, the smoke from the more than 7,000 stoves and fireplaces in the city conspire to darken skies and foul the air. The stoves, and the smoke they produce, have come under fire from local air quality officials, doctors and pollution experts. They say that the smoke can have serious health consequences for children, the elderly and those with respiratory conditions and point to statistics showing the county with among the state’s worst rankings in lung cancer deaths and death from chronic lower respiratory disease.
“The amount of lung disease around here is just terrible,” said one local pulmonologist, a reflection of sentiment in the physician community that stove use must be regulated.
The debate over wood smoke has divided the community in many ways: by financial status, family tradition and suspicions about the cause and extent of the pollution. Many residents dispute the health evidence and insist that any attempt to limit their freedom to heat with wood is an unwarranted intrusion by government.
“It’s just like global warming. I don’t believe any of it,” one long-time local said. For others, it was a simple economic decision. “I can’t afford not to burn wood,” said one elderly resident.
The Center partnered with a group of Chico Enterprise-Record reporters to produce a four-day series that examined the fiery mix of politics, economics, local culture and science behind the debate. In a county with a long history of heavy dependence on stoves as a source of heat and a bountiful supply of inexpensive wood, this is a heated question.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required?
How did this affect the work? Reporters pored over air quality district documents, pollution charts and graphs and county board and city council minutes. They looked at EPA rules and standards. They also looked at documents from other jurisdictions that had dealt with the wood smoke issue, both in-state and across the country. And they examined numerous research studies and other academic papers on wood stove pollution, as well as looking into the mechanics of how the new, EPA-approved stoves produced substantially lower pollution levels. The online team used information gathered from state and regional air quality resources to construct an interactive map.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Reporters interviewed more than two dozen physicians, researchers and other specialists nationwide. They spoke to at least 30 local and state air district officials, plus officials from other California air districts and those from other states whose communities had dealt with the burn restriction issue. Reporters also interviewed more than a dozen local business people including farmers and woodcutters on the economics of wood and wood stoves and talked to more than 30 local residents about their health issues and their views of wood smoke and health.
6. Results (if any).
The 29-story, 4-day project chronicled the state’s fragmented regulatory approach to controlling wood smoke pollution with the state air board delegating stove smoke matters to beleaguered local air districts. The project significantly increased public understanding of the issue, according to local leaders, including Butte County Air Quality Management District officer Jim Wagoner and planner Gail Williams. It also brought to light the failure of the state of California Energy Commission to consider wood stoves an energy source — the effect of which was to deny use any of its $225 million in federal stimulus money to help state residents buy new, less polluting wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. In contrast, the series reported, Oregon’s energy and environmental agencies have teamed up to win $2 million for stove trade-outs. That news led to talks between local air districts and the commission staff to find ways to free up funds for cleaner stoves, said commission adviser Sarah Michael. The series provided an authoritative baseline for any further community discussion of the issue.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
N/a.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
This particular issue and the geographical location involved produced enormous amounts of heat, with many people simply unwilling to consider the scientific/medical evidence on the harm that wood smoke could visit on people. The reporters and editors quickly realized that this was as much a cultural story as an environmental health story. It made the story a sensitive one, and one where you could not simply present the latest scientific evidence and see people accept it. In fact, the response often was, well, my dad and his dad and his dad before him burned wood and they each lived well into their 80s. Their anecdotal evidence trumped the scientific evidence – to them, anyway.