Advertisement

Environmental Engineering and Policy

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 161–170 | Cite as

Watershed-based pollution trading development and current trading programs

  • S. L. McGinnis
Article

Abstract

Watershed-based pollution trading is a very recent water quality management development — preliminary guidance for its use was issued by the EPA in 1996 and final trading guidelines were expected to be published in late 1999. As innovative and flexible methods of maintaining water quality in unique water-sheds, the few existing watershed-based pollution trading programs are extremely distinct in terms of development, implementation, and outcome. The diversity of the existing trading programs exemplifies the flexibility that exists to conform trading programs to manage nearly any site-specific watershed pollution problem. Although the use of watershed-based pollution trading is relatively unproven, observation of the existing trading programs indicates that trading has the potential to improve water quality in heavily impaired watersheds.

Keywords

United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Management Waste Water Treatment Plant Total Maximum Daily Load Trading Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackerman F, Moomaw W (1997) SO2 emissions trading: does it work? Electr J 10: 61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohi DR, Burtraw D (1997) SO2 allowance trading: how do expectations and experience measure up? Electr J 10: 67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady DJ (1996) The watershed protection approach. Water Sci Technol 33: 17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burtraw D (1996) The SO2 emissions trading program: cost savings without allowance trades. Contemp Econ Policy 14: 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canning K (1999) Effluent trading: making it work. Poll Eng February: 21–24Google Scholar
  6. Clinton B, Gore A (1995) Reinventing Environmental Regulation. United States Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbis (1999) Internet home page. http://www.corbis.com. Accessed March 5, 1999
  8. Cushman J (1997) Million wetland acres lost in 1985–1995. New York Times, September 18, 1997Google Scholar
  9. Davenport TE, Phillips NJ, Kirschner BA, Kirschner LT (1996) The watershed protection approach: a framework for ecosystem protection. Water Sci Technol 33: 23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David MH, David EL (1983) Cost-effective regulatory options for water quality limited streams. Water Resour Bull 19: 421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downing D, Sessions S (1985) Innovative water quality-based permitting: a policy perspective. J WPCF 57: 358–365Google Scholar
  12. Ellerman AD, Joskow PL, Schmalensee R (1998) 1996 Update on compliance and emissions trading under the U.S. acid rain program. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson P (1998) EDF Believes market forces can protect Texas’ environment. Environmental defense fund. Electronic newsletter. http://www.edf.org
  14. Griffin R (1998) The case for tradable emission permits. Tex Water Resour 23: 1–3Google Scholar
  15. Hall JC, Howett CM (1994) Trading in the Tar-Pamlico. Water Environ Technol July: 58–61Google Scholar
  16. Hersch P (1997) Minnesota issues first-of-a-kind discharge permit. Pollution Online Industry News, February 28, 1997Google Scholar
  17. McGinnis S (1999) A case study of watershed-based pollution trading in the Assabet river basin. Master of Engineering Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Merrifield J (1998) Implementing emission allowance markets. Tex Water Resour 23: 1–2Google Scholar
  19. Morris DP and Lewis WM (1992) Nutrient limitation of bacterioplankton growth in Lake Dillon, Colorado. Limnol Oceanog 37: 1179–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy J (1997) PVSC kicks off effluent trading pilot project. NJ Discharger 5(1)Google Scholar
  21. Murphy J (1998) Update on effluent trading. NJ Discharger 6(1)Google Scholar
  22. O’Brien P (1998) Nitrogen trading — a New York perspective. Long Island Sound study update. Summer/Fall 1998. US EPA Long Island Sound Office, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Neil WB (1983) Transferable discharge permit trading under varying stream conditions: a simulation of multiperiod permit market performance on the Fox River, Wisconsin. Water Resour Res 19: 608–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Overton MS (1998) Watershed-based nitrogen trading: the cost-effective solution for Long Island Sound - an enthusiast’s perspective. Long Island Sound study update. Summer/Fall 1998. US EPA Long Island Sound Office, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Passi P (1998) Pollution trading program takes shape. American Rivers Organization. http://www.amrivers.org/mm/pollu-tion198.html
  26. Pelley J (1996) Effluent trading framework issued by EPA tackles nonpoint sources. Environ Sci Technol 30: 386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Percival R, Miller A, Schroeder C, Leape J (1992) Environ-mental regulation: law, science, policy. Wetlands protection and the Section 404 permit program. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, pp 965–984Google Scholar
  28. Ridley M and Low BS (1993) Can selfishness save the environ-ment? The Atlantic Monthly, September 1993: 76–86Google Scholar
  29. Ruff LE (1970) The economic common sense of pollution. Public Inter 19: 69–85Google Scholar
  30. Smith AE and Ellerman AD (1998) The costs of reducing utility so2 emissions — not as low as you might think. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Stacey P (1998) Nitrogen trading — a Connecticut perspective. Long Island Sound study update. Summer/fall 1998. US EPA Long Island Sound Office, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart R, Krier J (1978) Environmental law and policy, 2nd edition. pp 68–75Google Scholar
  33. Texas Water Resources Institute (1998) Using market-based approaches to protect the environment. Tex Water Resour 23: 1Google Scholar
  34. United States Environmental Protection Agency 1999. Internet home page. http//www.epa.gov
  35. United States Environmental Protection Agency Long Island Sound Office (1997) Long Island Sound study. EPA 840-R-97-001. US EPA, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. (1998) Sharing the load: effluent trading for indirect dischargers. EPA 231-R-98-003. US EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1996) Draft framework for watershed-based trading. National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  38. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1994) President Clinton’s Clean Water Initiative. EPA 800-R-94-001. US EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1992) Administrator’s point/nonpoint source trading initiative meeting: a summary. EPA 841-S-92-001. US EPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1996) Draft trading update - Lake Dillon, Colorado. National Center for Environmental Publications and Informa-tion, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1996). Draft trading update - Cherry Creek Basin, Colorado. National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (1996) Draft trading update - Boulder Creek, Colorado. National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  43. Wallace S, Sparks C, Micheletti B (1997) Nonpoint source trading creates new discharge opportunities. Water Environ Technol 9: 18–22Google Scholar
  44. Wenning RJ, Bonnevie NJ, and Huntley SL (1994) Accumulation of metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments from the lower Passaic River, New Jersey. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 27: 64–81Google Scholar
  45. Zander B (1991a) Innovations at Boulder Creek. EPA J 17: 50Google Scholar
  46. Zander B (1991b) Nutrient trading — in the wings. EPA J 17: 47–49Google Scholar
  47. Zander B (1993) TMDL case study: Boulder Creek, Colorado. EPA 841-F-93-006. US EPA Region VIII Water Division, DenverGoogle Scholar
  48. Zorpette G (1994) A slow start for emissions trading. IEEE Spectrum 31: 49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. L. McGinnis
    • 1
  1. 1.ArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations