IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cudarb/122999.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Bioeconomics Of Regulating Nitrates In Groundwater From Agricultural Production Through Taxes, Quantity Restrictions, And Pollution Permits

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Arthur C.
  • Boisvert, Richard N.

Abstract

Agricultural production in the United States, through its intensive use of nitrogen fertilizer, has contributed to nitrate accumulation in groundwater. Concern over this contamination has led to increased public interest in schemes designed to reduce nitrate leachate from agricultural lands. This research compares the costs of alternative regulatory policies in an area of the Com Belt with those for an area of the Northeast. The bioeconomic models of agricultural production and nitrate leaching are used to compare alternative policy instruments. They include soil-specific leaching and productivity characteristics, variables for management response, the dynamic nature of nitrogen movement through the soil, and the stochastic influence of precipitation on both net farm revenue and nitrate leaching. The models include state variables for nitrogen levels in the crop root zone and control variables for nitrogen fertilizer application and crop rotations. Nitrate leaching is restricted using a chance constraint, thus in some sense minimizing the probability of worst-case leaching scenarios. Six alternative regulatory policies are compared empirically in two specific regions: Boone County in Iowa and Genesee and Wyoming Counties in New York. The policies, which are designed to reduce expected annual leachate by 10% and 25% in each region, include a tax on nitrogen fertilizer, quantity restrictions on both fertilizer and leachate, and three forms of leachate permits. The three permit schemes are permits sold by a regulatory agency at a fixed price, permits auctioned by a regulatory agency, and tradable permits initially allocated at no cost to farmers with the initial distribution based on historic leachate levels. The empirical analysis shows that costs of achieving a regional reduction in leachate are greater in Iowa than in New York. Within a region, the net cost of reducing regional leachate (the net cost being the cost to farmers less any public revenues generated) is the least under the three permit schemes, although the costs of other policies are generally not substantially greater. The ranking of the net costs of these other policies differs by region and by the percent reduction in leachate. While net costs are the least under all three permit schemes, two of the three schemes result in substantial transfers of money from the farming community to the public treasury. In addition, a case is made for using a tradable permit scheme in targeted areas in and around major groundwater sources that are highly susceptible to contamination.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Arthur C. & Boisvert, Richard N., 1995. "The Bioeconomics Of Regulating Nitrates In Groundwater From Agricultural Production Through Taxes, Quantity Restrictions, And Pollution Permits," Research Bulletins 122999, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cudarb:122999
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.122999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/122999/files/Cornell_Dyson_rb9506.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.122999?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    2. Krupnick, Alan J. & Oates, Wallace E. & Van De Verg, Eric, 1983. "On marketable air-pollution permits: The case for a system of pollution offsets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-247, September.
    3. Buchanan, James M & Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls Versus Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 139-147, March.
    4. Scott L. Johnson & Richard M. Adams & Gregory M. Perry, 1991. "The On-Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1063-1073.
    5. Besanko, David, 1987. "Performance versus design standards in the regulation of pollution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 19-44, October.
    6. Nielsen, Elizabeth G. & Lee, Linda K., 1987. "The Magnitude And Costs Of Groundwater Contamination From Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective," Staff Reports 277938, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. C. S. Kim & John E. Hostetler, 1991. "Policy Implications of a Water Quality-constrained Dynamic Model of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 39(4), pages 781-791, December.
    8. Thomas, Vinod, 1980. "Welfare cost of pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 90-102, June.
    9. Edwards, Steven F., 1988. "Option prices for groundwater protection," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 475-487, December.
    10. McGartland, Albert M. & Oates, Wallace E., 1985. "Marketable permits for the prevention of environmental deterioration," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 207-228, September.
    11. C. Robert Taylor & Klaus K. Frohberg, 1977. "The Welfare Effects of Erosion Controls, Banning Pesticides, and Limiting Fertilizer Application in the Corn Belt," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 59(1), pages 25-36.
    12. Sun, Henglun & Bergstrom, John C. & Dorfman, Jeffrey H., 1992. "Estimating the Benefits of Groundwater Contamination Control," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 63-71, December.
    13. Reed, William J., 1984. "The effects of the risk of fire on the optimal rotation of a forest," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 180-190, June.
    14. Nielsen, Elizabeth G. & Lee, Linda K., 1987. "The Magnitude and Costs of Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals: A National Perspective," Agricultural Economic Reports 308032, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Jon D. Harford & Gordon Karp, 1983. "The Effects and Efficiencies of Different Pollution Standards," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 79-89, Apr-Jun.
    16. Richard B. Standiford & Richard E. Howitt, 1992. "Solving Empirical Bioeconomic Models: A Rangeland Management Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 421-433.
    17. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Lambert, David K., 1990. "Risk Considerations In The Reduction Of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use In Agricultural Production," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Qi Dai & Jerald J. Fletcher & John G. Lee, 1993. "Incorporating Stochastic Variables in Crop Response Models: Implications for Fertilization Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(2), pages 377-386.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Boisvert, Richard N. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 2001. "Control Of Nonpoint Source Pollution Through Voluntary Incentive-Based Policies: An Application To Nitrate Contamination In New York," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Boisvert, Richard N. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 1996. "Conditions for Requiring Separate Green Payments Policies Under Asymmetric Information," Working Papers 127934, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 1998. "Optimal Voluntary "Green" Payment Programs To Limit Nitrate Contamination Under Price and Yield Risk," Research Bulletins 122687, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    4. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 2001. "Designing Nonpoint Source Policies With Limited Information About Both Risk Attitudes and Production Technology," Working Papers 127661, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Blandford, David & Boisvert, Richard N., 2002. "Non-Trade Concerns And Domestic/International Policy Choice," Working Papers 14615, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    6. Patterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 2002. "An Incentive Compatible Self-Compliant Pollution Policy and Asymmetric Information on Both Risk Attitudes and Technology," Working Papers 127318, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    7. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 2001. "Designing Nonpoint Source Pollution Policies With Limited Information About Both Risk Attitudes And Production Technology," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20720, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Boisvert, Richard N., 1998. "Optimal Voluntary "Green" Payment Programs To Limit Nitrate Contamination Under Price and Yield Risk," Research Bulletins 122687, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    2. Helfand, Gloria E, 1991. "Standards versus Standards: The Effects of Different Pollution Restrictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 622-634, June.
    3. Carriker, Gordon L., 1993. "Factor Input Demand Subject to Economic and Environmental Risk: The Case of Nitrogen Fertilizer in Corn Production," Staff Papers 118154, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. Poe, Gregory, 1997. ""Maximizing the Environmental Benefits per Dollar Expended" An Economic Interpretation and Review of Agricultural Environmental Benefits and Costs," EB Series 186405, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    5. Chowdhury, Manzoor E. & Lacewell, Ronald D., 1996. "Implications Of Alternative Policies On Nitrate Contamination Of Groundwater," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-14, July.
    6. Helfand, Gloria E., 1989. "The Effects on Production and Profits of Different Pollution Control Standards," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270506, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Verhoef, Erik T. & Nijkamp, Peter, 1999. "Second-best energy policies for heterogeneous firms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 111-134, April.
    8. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    9. Jay S. Coggins & Andrew L. Goodkind & Jason Nguyen & Zhiyu Wang, 2019. "Price Effects, Inefficient Environmental Policy, and Windfall Profits," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 637-656, March.
    10. Poe, Gregory L. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Bergstrom, John C., 2000. "A Meta Analysis Of Contingent Values For Groundwater Quality In The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21871, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. John C. Whitehead & George Van Houtven, "undated". "Methods for Valuing the Benefits of the Safe Drinking Water Act: Review and Assessment," Working Papers 9705, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    12. Parveen Setia & Bengt Hyberg & Daniel Ugarte & Daryll Ray, 1997. "Planting flexibility: Implications for agricultural sustainability," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 3(3), pages 299-311, August.
    13. Helfand, Gloria, 1988. "The Effects on Production and Profits of Different Forms of Pollution Control Standards," CUDARE Working Papers 198477, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Swinton, Scott M. & King, Robert P. & Lybecker, Donald W., 1992. "The Effect of Triazine Restriction Policies on Recommended Weed Management in Corn," Staff Paper Series 201160, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. JunJie Wu & Richard M. Adams & Catherine L. Kling & Katsuya Tanaka, 2004. "From Microlevel Decisions to Landscape Changes: An Assessment of Agricultural Conservation Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 26-41.
    16. Lambert, David K., 1990. "Risk Considerations In The Reduction Of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use In Agricultural Production," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Lehmann, Paul, 2008. "Using a policy mix for pollution control: A review of economic literature," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    18. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Relative standards: A positive and normative analysis," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 17-38, February.
    19. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2002. "Agriculture and the environment," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 23, pages 1249-1313, Elsevier.
    20. Juan Carlos Bárcena‐Ruiz & María Begoña Garzón, 2022. "Environmental policy instruments and ownership of firms," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 90(4), pages 385-408, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cudarb:122999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dacorus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.