A Pollution Offset System for Trading Non-Point Source Water Pollution Permits
- 415 Downloads
- 18 Citations
Abstract
Water pollution from non-point sources is a global environmental concern. Economists propose tradable permit systems as a solution, but they are difficult to implement due to the nature of non-point sources. We present a pollution offset system for trading non-point source water pollution permits. Conventional pollution offset systems suffer from thin markets and transaction costs. In this paper, we show how to overcome these problems with a centrally managed common-pool market. We define permits as allowable nitrate loading to a groundwater aquifer. This trading system utilizes estimates of potential nitrate leaching from land uses, a set of transport coefficients generated from a simulation of nitrate transport in groundwater, an online trading system, and a linear program to clear the market. We illustrate the concept using a hypothetical case study.
Keywords
Nitrate Non-point sources Linear program Trading Water pollution permitsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3(1): 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dales JH (1968) Land, water and ownership. Can J Econ 1(4): 791–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eheart JW, Brill ED, Lence BJ, Kilgore JD, Uber JG (1987) Cost efficiency of time-varying discharge permit programs for water quality management. Water Resour Res 23(2): 245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Environment Waikato (2008) Nitrate contamination of groundwater. Retrieved 26 December 2008, from http://www.ew.govt.nz/Environmental-information/groundwater/Monitoring-groundwater-quality/Nitrate-contamination-of-groundwater/
- Ermoliev Y, Michalevich M, Nentjes A (2000) Markets for tradable emission and ambient permits: a dynamic approach. Environ Resour Econ 15(1): 39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harbaugh BAW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000: The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Groundwater Model. U.S. Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
- Hogan WW, Read EG, Ring BJ (1996) Using mathematical programming for electricity spot pricing. Int Trans Oper Res 3: 243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Horan RD, Shortle JS, Abler DG (2002) Point-nonpoint nutrient trading in the susquehanna river Basin. Water Resour Res 38(5):8:1–8:12Google Scholar
- Hung MF, Shaw D (2005) A trading-ratio system for trading water pollution discharge permits. J Environ Econ Manage 49(1): 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kerr S, Rutherford K, Lock K (2007) Nutrient trading in Lake Rotorua: goals and trading caps. Motu Economic and Public Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
- King DM, Kuch PJ (2003) Will Nutrient Credit Trading Ever Work? An assessment of supply and demand problems and institutional obstacles. Environmental Law Reporter. News and Analysis, 5-2003Google Scholar
- Krupnick A, Oates W, Verg EVD (1983) On marketable air pollution permits: the case for a system of pollution offset. J Environ Econ Manage 10: 233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leston D (1992) Simulation of a two-pollutant, two-season pollution offset system for the Colorado river of Texas below Austin. Water Resour Res 28(5): 1311–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lock K, Kerr S (2007) Nutrient trading in Lake Rotorua: where are we now. Motu Economic and Public Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
- Martin KC, Joskow PL, Ellerman AD (2007) Time and location differentiated NOx control in competitive electricity markets using cap-and-trade mechanisms. Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
- McGartland A (1988) A comparison of two marketable discharge permit systems. J Environ Econ Manage 15: 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGartlend AM, Oates WE (1985) Marketable permits for prevention of environmental deterioration. J Environ Econ Manage 12: 207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montero JP (2008) A simple auction mechanism for the optimal allocation of the commons. Am Econ Rev 98(1): 496–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montgomery WD (1972) Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J Econ Theory 5(3): 395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morgan DS, Everett R (2005) Application of simulation-optimization methods for management of nitrate loading to groundwater from decentralized wastewater treatment systems near La Pine, Oregon. US Geological Survey Oregon Water Science CentreGoogle Scholar
- Morgan CL, Coggins JS, Eidman VR (2000) Tradable permits for controlling nitrates in groundwater at the farm level: a conceptual model. J Agric Appl Econ 32(2): 249–258Google Scholar
- Neil WO, David M, Moore C, Joeres E (1983) Transferable discharge permits and economic efficiency: the Fox River. J Environ Econ Manage 10(4): 346–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O’Shea L (2002) An economic approach to reducing water pollution: point and diffuse sources. Sci Total Environ 282(283): 49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Revenga C, Mock G (2000) Dirty water: pollution problems persist. World Resources InstituteGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Geological Survey (1999) The quality of our nation’s waters: nutrients and pesticides. U.S. Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Geological Survey (2006) Data input instructions for groundwater transport process (GWT). Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
- Weber ML (2001) Markets for water rights under environmental constraints. J Environ Econ Manage 42: 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zheng C (1990) MT3D—a modular three-dimensional transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reaction of contaminants in groundwater systems. The United States Environmental Protection Agency-Robert S. Kerr Enivronmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OklahomaGoogle Scholar