Climate Policies as Water Policies

  • Kazim KonyarEmail author
  • George Frisvold
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 50)


This study uses an updated version of the U.S. Agricultural Resource Model (USARM)—a multi-region U.S. agricultural sector programming model—to examine effects of climate change mitigation policies on U.S. water resources. One scenario considers effects of increasing prices of energy and energy-intensive inputs (primarily fertilizers) through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. A second scenario combines the first scenario with an agricultural offset program where farmers are paid to retire cropland for carbon sequestration. The consequences of climate mitigation policies for agricultural water use and pollution control have received relatively little attention in part because—unlike USARM—many national agricultural sector models do not explicitly include water as an input. USARM also allows for input substitution among seven inputs in a CES framework, while accounting for all major crops as well most specialty crops, federal commodity programs, and crop exports. Major results are as follows. First, climate mitigation policies have scope to significantly reduce agricultural water use. Whether domestic offsets are included has little effect on the total amount of water conserved, but has a large effect on which parts of the country the conservation takes place. Second, either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade combined with domestic offsets combines two policies often modeled as potential solutions to the hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico—increased fertilizer prices and land retirement. Climate policies may have unanticipated, near-term, environmental benefits by addressing the hypoxia problem. Third, while domestic offsets reduce total fertilizer and agricultural chemical use, they increase their use per acre. Particularly in watersheds with significant land retirement, there could be unintended intensive margin effects where fertilizer and chemical use are increased. Despite this last, cautionary finding, a key insight into decision makers is that climate policies can have unanticipated, near-term benefits of water pollution control and water conservation that could be included in benefit-cost analyses of climate policy proposals.



This work was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Program Office through grant NA07OAR4310382 with the Climate Assessment for the Southwest Program at the University of Arizona.


  1. Baker, J. S., McCarl, B. A., Murray, B. C., Rose, S. K., Alig, R. J., Adams, D., et al. (2009). The effects of low-carbon policies on net farm income. Working Paper 09–04, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, J. S., & Murray, B. C. (2009). Groundwater management in the presence of greenhouse gas mitigation: Incentives for agriculture. In Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, AAEA and ACCI Joint Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26–29, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, L., & Kelly, M. (2003). Irrigation demand in Texas: An analysis of methodologies to predict irrigation trends. Austin, TX: Environmental Defense.Google Scholar
  4. Bohac, C. E., & Bowen, A. K. (2012). Water use in the Tennessee Valley for 2010 and projected use in 2035. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Valley Authority, River Operations and Renewables.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T. C. (1999). Past and future freshwater use in the United States: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA forest service RPA assessment (General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-39). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, CO: Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, T., Elobeid, A., Dumortier, J., & Hayes, D. J. (2010). Market impact of domestic offset programs. CARD Working Paper 10-WP 502, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  7. Claassen, R., Heimlich, R. E., House, R. M., & Wiebe, K. D. (1998). Estimating the effects of relaxing agricultural land use restrictions: Wetland delineation in the Swampbuster program. Review of Agricultural Economics, 20(2), 390–405.Google Scholar
  8. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (2009). American clean energy and security act of 2009: Cost estimate. June 5, 2009, As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. De la Torre Ugarte, D., English, B. C., Hellwinckel, C., West, T. O., Jensen, K. L., Clark, C. D., et al. (2009). Implications of climate change and energy legislation to the agricultural sector. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
  10. Dodds, W. K., Bouska, W. W., Eitzmann, J. L., Pilger, T. J., Pitts, K. L., Riley, A. J., et al. (2009). Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic damages. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dymond, J. R., Ausseil, A.-G., Ekanayake, J., & Kirschbaum, M. U. F. (2012). Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon: A nationalscale analysis from New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 95(1), 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, T. W., Leguėdois, S., Hairsine, P., & Tongway, D. (2006). Capture of overland flow by a tree belt on a Pastured Hillslope in South-Eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 44(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng, H., Kling, C. L., & Gassman, P. W. (2003). Carbon sequestration, co-benefits, and conservation programs. In Choices 3rd Quarter (pp. 19–23).Google Scholar
  14. Field, B. G., & Field, M. K. (2009). Environmental economics: An introduction (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher-Vanden, K., & Olmstead, S. (2013). Moving pollution trading from air to water: Potential, problems, and prognosis. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Florida (State of) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). (2010). Sustaining our water resources: Annual report on regional water supply planning 2010. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  17. Florida (State of) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). (2011). Regional water supply planning annual status report 2011. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  18. Food and Agricultural Policy Institute (FAPRI). (2010). Impacts of climate change legislation on US agricultural markets: Sources of uncertainty FAPRI-MU report #06-10. Columbia, MO: FAPRI, University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  19. Frisvold, G. B., & Konyar, K. (2012). Less water: How will agriculture in southern mountain states adapt? Water Resources Research, 48, W05534. Scholar
  20. Gale, W., Brown, S., & Saltiel, F. (2013). Carbon taxes as part of the Fiscal solution. Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.Google Scholar
  21. Gleick, P. H., Cooley, H., & Groves, D. (2005). California water 2030: An efficient future. Oakland, CA: The Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Golden, B., Bergtold, J., Boland, M., Dhuyvetter, K., Kastens, T., Peterson, J., & Staggenborg, S. (2009, December). A comparison of select cost-benefit studies on the impacts of H.R. 2454 on the agriculture sector of the economy. In Manhattan, KS: Department of Agriculture Economics, Kansas State University.Google Scholar
  23. Gorte, R. W. (2009, May). U.S. tree planting for carbon sequestration (CRS Report for Congress R40562). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  24. Goulder, L. H. (2013). Markets for pollution allowances: What are the (new) lessons? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gramig, B. M. (2012). Some unaddressed issues in proposed cap-and-trade legislation involving agricultural soil carbon sequestration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(2), 360–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Groves, D. G., Matyac, S., & Hawkins, T. (2005). Quantified scenarios of 2030 California water demand (California Water Plan Update 2005). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources.Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, L., & Ribaudo, M. (2008). Economic measures of soil conservation benefits: Regional values for policy assessment, TB-1922. In USDA, Economic Research Service, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Heimlich, R. (2005). The policy-related transactions costs of land conservation in the United States: Evolution and comparison between programs. Paper presented at the OECD Workshop on Policy-Related Transaction Costs, Paris, January 20–21, 2005. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  29. Houston, L. L., Kline, J. D., & Alig, R. J. (2003). Economics research supporting water resource stewardship. In General Technical Report PNW-GTR-550. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
  30. Howitt, R. E. (1991). Water policy effects on crop production and vice versa: An empirical approach. In R. E. Just & N. Bockstael (Eds.), Commodity and resource policies in agricultural systems (pp. 234–253). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howitt, R. E. (1995a). Positive mathematical programming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(2), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howitt, R. E. (1995b). A calibration method for agricultural economic production models. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(2), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huang, W. (2007). Impact of rising natural gas prices on U.S. ammonia supply (Outlook Report No. WRS-0702). Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
  34. Hutson, S., Barber, N., Kenny, J., Linsey, K., Lumia, D., & Maupin, M. (2005). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. In USGS Circular 1268. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  35. Hutson, S. S., Koroa, M. C., & Murphree, C. M. (2004). Estimated use of water in the Tennessee River watershed in 2000 and projections of water use in 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4302). Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  36. Jackson, R. B., Jobbagy, E. G., Avissar, R., Roy, S. B., Barrett, D. J., et al. (2005). Trading water for carbon with biological sequestration. Science, 310, 1944–1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, R., Ramseur, J. L., Gorte, R.W., & Stubbs, M. (2010). Potential implications of a carbon offset program to farmers and landowners (CRS Report R41086). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  38. Kenny, J. F., Barber, N. L., Hutson, S. S., Linsey, K. S., Lovelace, J. K., & Maupin, M. A. (2009). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005 (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  39. Kim, H., Konyar, K., & Sargent, K. (2002). Economic viability of Bt-corn in the U.S. Selected paper, presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, CA, July 28–31, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. Konyar, K. (2001). Assessing the role of US agriculture in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and generating additional environmental benefits. Ecological Economics, 38(1), 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Konyar, K., & Howitt, R. E. (2000). The cost of the Kyoto protocol to U.S. crop production: Measuring crop price, regional acreage, welfare, and input substitution effects. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 25(2), 347–367.Google Scholar
  42. McNulty, S., Sun, G., Myers, J., Cohen, E., & Caldwell, P. (2011). Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Tradeoffs between ecosystem carbon sequestration and water yield. In K. W. Potter & D. K. Frevert (Eds.), Watershed management 2010: Innovations in watershed management under land use and climate change (pp. 103–114). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  43. Metcalf, G. E. (2010). Submission on the use of carbon fees to achieve fiscal sustainability in the federal budget. Boston, MA: Tufts University.
  44. Moore, M. R., & Dinar, A. (1995). Water and land as quantity rationed inputs in California agriculture: Empirical tests and water policy implications. Land Economics, 74, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore, M. R., Mulville, A., & Weinberg, M. (1996). Water allocation in the American West: Endangered fish versus irrigated agriculture. Natural Resources Journal, 36, 319–357.Google Scholar
  46. Newell, R. G., Pizer, W. A., & Raimi, D. (2013). Carbon markets 15 Years after Kyoto: Lessons learned, new challenges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nordblom, T. L., Finlayson, J. D., & Hume, I. H. (2012). Upstream demand for water use by new tree plantations imposes externalities on downstream irrigated agriculture and wetlands. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(4), 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pan, S., Hudson, D., & Mutuc, M. (2011). The effects of domestic offset programs on the cotton market. Selected paper, Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Corpus Christi, TX, February 5–8, 2011.Google Scholar
  49. Pattanayak, S. K., Sommer, A., Murray, B. C., Bondelid, T., McCarl, B. A., & Gillig, D. (2002). Water quality co-benefits of Greenhouse gas reduction incentives in U.S. agriculture (Final Report). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  50. Rabotyagov, S. S., Campbell, T., Jha, M., Gassman, P. W., Arnold, J., Kurkalova, L., et al. (2010). Least cost control of agricultural nutrient contributions to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic zone. Ecological Applications, 20(6), 1542–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rabotyagov, S. S., Kling, C. L., Gassman, P. W., Rabalais, N. N., & Turner, R. E. (2012). The economics of dead zones: Linking externalities from the land to their consequences in the sea. Working Paper 12-WP 534. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  52. Rausch, S., & Reilly, J. (2012). Carbon tax revenue and the budget deficit: A Win-Win-Win solution? (MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 228). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  53. Ribaudo, M., Delgado, J., Hansen, L., Livingston, M., Mosheim, R., & Williamson, J. (2011). Nitrogen in agricultural systems: Implications for conservation policy (Economic Research Report 127). Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service.Google Scholar
  54. Ribaudo, M., Osborn, C., & Konyar, K. (1994). Land retirement as a tool for reducing agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Land Economics, 70(1), 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ribaudo, M. O., Heimlich, R., Claassen, R., & Peters, M. (2001). Least-cost management of nonpoint source pollution: Source reduction versus interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in the Mississippi basin. Ecological Economics, 37(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2013). The SO2 allowance trading system: The ironic history of a grand policy experiment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwartz, C. (2011). Concentrated solar thermal power and the value of water for electricity. In D. S. Kenney & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), The water energy Nexus in the American West (pp. 71–83). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  58. Texas Water Development Board. (2012). Water for Texas: 2012 state water plan. Austin, TX: TWDB.Google Scholar
  59. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency (USDA-FSA). (2013, February). Conservation reserve program: Monthly summary.Google Scholar
  60. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist (USDA, OCE). (2009a). A Preliminary analysis of the effects of HR 2454 on U.S. agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA-OCE. July 22, 2009.Google Scholar
  61. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of the Chief Economist (USDA, OCE). (2009b). The impacts of the American clean energy and security act of 2009 on U.S. agriculture. Washington, DC: USDA-OCE. December 18, 2009.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Agency (EIA). (2009). Energy market and economic impacts of H.R. 2454, the American clean energy and security act of 2009. Washington, DC: EIA.Google Scholar
  63. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2004). National water quality inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 reporting cycle. Washington, DC: USEPA.Google Scholar
  64. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009, June). Analysis of H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress: The American clean energy and security act of 2009. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in U.S. forestry and agriculture. EPA 430-R-05-006. Washington, DC: USEPA.Google Scholar
  66. van Dijk, A. I. J. M., & Keenan, R. J. (2007). Planted forests and water in perspective. Forest Ecology and Management, 251(1–2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsCalifornia State University at San BernardinoSan BernardinoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations