Abstract
According to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), nutrient pollution was viewed as America’s most “widespread, costly and challenging environmental problem” (USEPA 2020a, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/facts_about_nutrient_pollution_what_is_hypoxia.pdf). The economic damages accruing to nutrient pollution are extensive and substantial. Not only do such “spillovers” affect tourism but also recreational and commercial fishing. Property values are impacted as drinking water is often tapped from aquifers, etc., when groundwater is either not available or its quality has been compromised by the sort of nutrient spillovers we analyze in our paper. The EPA estimates that home prices are up to 25% higher when clean water is available and waterfront property values can decline because of the many problems associated with algal blooms. The costs of treating water that has been polluted from nutrients are substantial. An example is the case of Minnesota where nitrate and algal blooms required nitrate-removal systems that increased the drinking water costs from 5 to 10 cents per 1000 gallons to over $4 per 1000 gallons (USEPA 2020b, https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-economy). Although the notion that “spillovers” from nutrient pollution exist is intuitive, such externalities have not been evaluated empirically using recent advances in spatial panel econometrics, especially in the context of how such externalities spillover into the supply of drinking water supplied by local water utilities. Such an analysis requires a substantial understanding of how water management decisions are made, the technologies in play, and how various environmental policies, regulations, and directives interact with the generation of clean drinking water when contagion caused by nutrient runoff and poor or illegal pollution abatement strategies by firms pollute our country’s drinking water. Although our study does not formally imbed such factors into a structural model, they do inform our modeling approach and motivate our discussion of sometimes arcane issues surrounding environmental policy, the science of nutrient generation, and how nutrient pollution impacts water quality spatially. Our study explores the spatial effects of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution and drinking water production patterns in agriculture. Two important examples are that water utilities that deliver and treat drinking water in agricultural areas have to deal with excess nitrogen and phosphorus released to the environment by crop and livestock operations, an externality created by the agricultural sector; also, the drinking water production sector in rural areas is highly fragmented, with a multitude of enterprise sizes, organizational forms and network densities that have spatial components. We analyze nutrient pollution based on data collected via the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 to estimate how water bodies and sub-basins impaired by nutrient pollution to spatially affect drinking water utilities based on input distance functions that address varying productive efficiencies of water utilities as well as their scale and scope of operations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As noted by Tsionas et al. (2015), the use of an input distance function (IDF) is often justified when firms are cost minimizers and outputs are assumed to be exogenous. When the linear homogeneity assumption is imposed and the inputs appear as right-hand-side ratios such an assumption may be tenuous. A solution is to allow for allocative inefficiencies in the inputs, in which case inefficiencies modeled in a stochastic frontier paradigm will be correlated with the input ratios. Tsionas et al. (2015) pursue this in their fiml estimation procedure of a translog distance function augmented with the first-order conditions implied by cost minimization. Such an approach, although applauded, is an extension that we do not consider in this paper, which focuses on generalizing the usual IDF model itself. Thus, we assume that allocations of inputs are correct and therefore not correlated with the inefficiency term and not endogenous via this mechanism in our econometric specification. Generalizations to allow for such allocative inefficiency and thus endogeneity are left for future research.
For more detail on the procedure see STATA (2019, pp.210–211).
The calculation of Eq. (18) results in four quadrants of size \((114 \times 114).\) The upper right quadrant and the lower left quadrant involve cross derivatives between the two outputs. We constrained these cross derivatives to be equal. We calculated the analytical derivatives of the distance functions following Hajargashat et al. (2006, p.17).
References
AWWA (2015) 2015 Compensation survey (small, medium and large). American Water Works Association, Denver
AWWA (2016a) Benchmarking and performance indicators for water and wastewater: 2016 edition: survey data and analyses report. American Water Works Association, Denver
AWWA (2016b) 2015 Water and wastewater rate survey update, interactive database, CD. American Water Works Association and Raftelis Financial Consultants, Denver
AWWA (2016c) 2016 Compensation survey (small, medium and large). American Water Works Association. Denver: CO
AWWA (2016d) 2016 Water and wastewater rate survey update interactive database, CD. American Water Works Association and Raftelis Financial Consultants. Denver
AWWA (2018) AWWA Articles, AWWA commends Congress for including drinking water protection measures in Farm Bill, December 12, 2018, https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/awwa-commends-congress-for-including-drinking-water-protection-measures-in-farm-bill. Accessed January 29 2020
Baltagi B (ed) (2015) Oxford handbook of panel data. Oxford University Press, New York
BEA (2019) Regional price parities by state and metro area, years 2015 and 2016. Bureau of Economic Analysis. https://www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/regional-price-parities-state-and-metro-area. Accessed 29 January 2019
Bernosky J (2011) Overview of environmental laws and regulations: navigating the green maze. American Water Works Association, Denver
BLS (2019) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, PPI industry data, Series Id, PCUOMFG-OMFG—https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/PCUOMFG-OMFG. Accessed 29 January 2020
Chiang A, Wainwright K (2005) Fundamental methods of mathematical economics, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New York
Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Coelli T, Perelman S (2000) Technical efficiency of European railways: a distance function approach. Appl Econ 32:1967–1976
Dubrovsky NM, Hamilton PA (2010) Nutrients in the nation’s streams and groundwater national findings and implications. Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3078/. Accessed 17 December 2020
Elhorst JP (2020) Spatial econometrics the basics. https://www.diw.de/sixcms/media.php/17/gc_ws1819_Elhorst_presentation.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2020
Garcia S, Thomas A (2001) The structure of municipal water supply costs: application to a panel of French local communities. J Prod Anal 16:5–29
Gaudin-Hultberg S, Griffin R, Sickles RC (2001) Municipal water demand estimation: evaluation of the Stone Geary form using panel data. Land Econ 77:399–422
Glass AJ, Kenjegalieva K, Sickles RC, Weyman-Jones T (2018) The spatial efficiency multiplier and common correlated effects in a spatial autoregressive stochastic frontier model. Working Paper 18-003, Department of Economics, Rice University
Hajargashat G, Coelli T, Rao DSP (2006) A dual measure of economies of scope. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Working Paper Series No. 03/2006 School of Economics University of Queensland
Herndon C, Hemming S (2013) Environmental compliance guidebook: beyond US water quality regulations. American Water Works Association, Denver
Inanoglu H, Jacobs M, Liu J, Sickles RC (2016) Analyzing bank efficiency: are “too-big-to-fail” banks efficient? In: Haven E, Molyneux P, Wilson JOS, Fedotov S, Duygun M (eds) The handbook of post crisis financial modeling. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 110–145
Keiser D, Shapiro J (2019) US water pollution regulation over the past half century: burning waters to crystal springs? J Econ Perspect 33(4):51–75
Kelejian HH, Prucha IR (2010) Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. J Econom 157(1):53–67
Kumbhakar SC, Lovell CAK (2000) Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kumbhakar SC, Orea L, Rodríguez A, Tsionas E (2007) Do we estimate an input or an output distance function? An application of the mixture approach to European railways. J Prod Anal 27:87–100
LeSage J, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York
Lee LF, Yu J (2010a) Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. J Econom 154:165–185
Lee LF, Yu J (2010b) Some recent developments in spatial panel data models. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(5):255–271
Lovell CAK, Travers P, Richardson S, Wood L (1994) Resources and functionings: a new view of inequality in Australia. In: Eichhorn W (ed) Models and measurement of welfare and inequality. Springer, Berlin
Meinch T (2015) Water works requests damages in federal suit. Des Moines Register March 16
Mosheim R, Ribaudo M (2017) Costs of Nitrogen runoff for rural water utilities: a shadow cost approach. Land Econ 931:12–39
Nemoto J, Furumatsu N (2014) Scale and scope economies of Japanese private universities revisited with an input distance function approach. J Prod Anal 41:213–226
Mundlak Y (1978) On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46:69–85
Price JI, Heberling MT (2018) The effects of source water quality on drinking water treatment costs: a review and synthesis of empirical literature. Ecol Econ 151:195–209
Rungsuriyawiboon S, O’Donnell C (2004) Curvature-constrained estimates of technical efficiency and returns to scale for U.S. electric utilities, Centre for efficiency and productivity analysis. Working paper series no. 07/2004. School of Economics, University of Queensland
Shepard R (1970) Theory of cost and production functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Sickles RC, Good D, Getachew L (2002) Specification of distance functions using semi- and nonparametric methods with an application to the dynamic performance of eastern and western European air carriers. J Prod Anal 17(1):133–155
Sickles RC, Zelenyuk V (2019) Measurement of productivity and efficiency: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Snider A (2020) Trump erodes water protections: 6 things to know. Politico, January 23
Simon CP, Blume L (1994) Mathematics for economists. W.W. Norton, New York
STATA (2019) STATA spatial autoregressive models reference manual. Release 16 STATA College Station, TX
Tsionas EG, Kumbhakar SC, Malikov E (2015) Estimation of input distance functions: a system approach. Am J Agr Econ 97(5):1478–1493
USDA-ERS (2020) Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural-urban continuum codes. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/#!topicid=14838&subtopicid=14910.Accessed 4 March 2020
USDA-FS (2020) Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Forests to faucets. https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml
USEPA (2020a) United States Environmental Protection Agency, The Facts about Nutrient Pollution. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-03/documents/facts_about_nutrient_pollution_what_is_hypoxia.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020b) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Nutrient pollution. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-economy. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020c) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Navigable waters protection rule. https://www.epa.gov/nwpr/about-waters-united-states. Accessed 29 January 2020
USEPA (2020d) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Ground water and drinking water. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020e) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Guidance for Nuisance Chemicals. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020f) United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). https://www.epa.gov/npdes. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020g) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Impaired Waters and TMDLs.https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/reports-and-resources-about-impaired-waters-and-tmdls. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020h) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Polluted Runoff: Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution. https://www.epa.gov/nps/basic-information-about-nonpoint-source-nps-pollution. Accessed 14 December 2020
USEPA (2020i) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Characteristics by HUC-8 are summarized in https://gispub2.epa.gov/NPDAT/DataDownloads.html. Accessed 29 January 2020
USEPA (2020j) United States Environmental Protection Agency, ECHO, https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the-data. Accessed 18 December 2020
USGS (2019) United States Geological Survey. https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. Accessed December 30 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Both authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mosheim, R., Sickles, R.C. Spatial effects of nutrient pollution on drinking water production. Empir Econ 60, 2741–2764 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-021-02019-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-021-02019-1
Keywords
- Water utilities
- Nutrient pollution
- Clean water production
- Productivity
- Efficiency
- Spatial effects
- Scale and scope economies