Table 1. Demographic Characterization Using our Index Analysis for the Well and Well Testing Populations and Urban and Rural Well Populations at the Block Group Leveld.
| BIPOC
& |
White
& |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total well population | High-poverty | Low-poverty | High-poverty | Low-poverty | |
| Statewide | |||||
| Well populationa | |||||
| # of well-using households | 1,604,750 | 145,119 | 88,788 | 460,978 | 909,865 |
| Distribution of well population | - | 9.0% | 5.5% | 28.7% | 56.7% |
| # of BG with well-using households | 4,997 | 801 | 309 | 1,391 | 2,496 |
| Distribution of BGs with well-using households | - | 16.0% | 6.2% | 27.8% | 49.9% |
| Well testing populationb | |||||
| # of well-using households that tested | 93,877 | 4,853 | 1,694 | 29,561 | 57,769 |
| Distribution of well testing population | - | 5.2% | 1.8% | 31.5% | 61.5% |
| % of well-using households that tested | 5.8% | 3.3% | 1.9% | 6.4% | 6.3% |
| # of BG with well-using households that tested | 4,648 | 691 | 255 | 1,360 | 2,342 |
| % of BGs with well-using households that tested | 93.0% | 86.3% | 82.5% | 97.8% | 93.8% |
| Arsenic testingc | |||||
| # of well-using households that tested for arsenic | 57,602 | 2,876 | 872 | 18,818 | 35,036 |
| # of well-using households that had >5 ppb arsenic | 1,805 | 46 | 11 | 452 | 1,296 |
| % well-using household that had >5 ppb arsenic | 3.1% | 1.6% | 1.3% | 2.4% | 3.7% |
| # of BG with well-using households that tested for arsenic | 3,950 | 488 | 193 | 1,200 | 2,069 |
| % of BGs with well-using households that tested for arsenic | 79.0% | 60.9% | 62.5% | 86.3% | 82.9% |
| Urban areas | |||||
| Urban well populationa | |||||
| # of well-using households in urban areas | 604,962 | 42,425 | 67,021 | 101,625 | 393,891 |
| Distribution of urban well population | - | 7.0% | 11.1% | 16.8% | 65.1% |
| # of BG with well-using households in urban areasc | 2,640 | 463 | 239 | 547 | 1,391 |
| Distribution of BGs with well-using households in urban areas | - | 17.5% | 9.1% | 20.7% | 52.7% |
| Urban well testing populationb | |||||
| # of urban well-using households that tested | 23,988 | 1,041 | 806 | 4,946 | 17,195 |
| Distribution of urban well testing population | - | 4.3% | 3.4% | 20.6% | 71.7% |
| % of urban well-using households that tested | 4.0% | 2.5% | 1.2% | 4.9% | 4.4% |
| # of urban BG with well-using households that testedc | 2,354 | 374 | 184 | 530 | 1,266 |
| % of urban BGs with well-using households that tested | 89.2% | 80.8% | 77.0% | 96.9% | 91.0% |
| Rural areas | |||||
| Rural well populationa | |||||
| # of well-using households in rural areas | 999,788 | 102,694 | 21,767 | 359,353 | 515,974 |
| Distribution of rural well population | - | 10.3% | 2.2% | 35.9% | 51.6% |
| # of BG with well-using households in rural areasc | 2,357 | 338 | 70 | 844 | 1,105 |
| Distribution of BGs with well-using households in rural areas | - | 14.3% | 3.0% | 35.8% | 46.9% |
| Rural well testing populationb | |||||
| # of rural well-using households that tested | 69,889 | 3,812 | 888 | 24,615 | 40,574 |
| Distribution of rural well testing population | - | 5.5% | 1.3% | 35.2% | 58.1% |
| % of rural well-using households that tested | 7.0% | 3.7% | 4.1% | 6.8% | 7.9% |
| # of rural BG with well-using households that testedc | 2,294 | 317 | 71 | 830 | 1,076 |
| % of rural BGs with well-using households that tested | 97.3% | 93.8% | 100% | 98.3% | 97.4% |
a
Data on number of well-using households was retrieved by Murray et al. (2021).7 Urban and rural boundaries were delineated using the NC DOT urban boundaries.29 We removed the 8 well-using households with missing Census data.
b
Data on number of well-using households that tested was from NCWELLs.22 Removed the 8 well-using households that tested with missing Census data.
c
There were 681 well-using households with a testing record in BGs with no predicted wells based using the method described in Murray et al. (2021).7
d
Testing since February 2009 in NCWELLs. Removed the 5 well-using households that tested for arsenic with missing Census data.