IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v6y2014i5p2392-2412d35520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Point Source of a Different Color: Identifying a Gap in United States Regulatory Policy for “Green” CSO Treatment Using Constructed Wetlands

Author

Listed:
  • Zeno F. Levy

    (Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, 204 Geology Laboratory, Syracuse, NY 13244-1070, USA)

  • Richard C. Smardon

    (Department of Environmental Studies, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA)

  • James S. Bays

    (CH2M HILL, 4350 Cypress St., Tampa, FL 33607, USA)

  • Daniel Meyer

    (IRSTEA Lyon (National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture, former CEMAGREF), 5 rue de la Doua, CS70077, Villeurbanne 69626, France)

Abstract

Up to 850 billion gallons of untreated combined sewer overflow (CSO) is discharged into waters of the United States each year. Recent changes in CSO management policy support green infrastructure (GI) technologies as “front of the pipe” approaches to discharge mitigation by detention/reduction of urban stormwater runoff. Constructed wetlands for CSO treatment have been considered among suites of GI solutions. However, these wetlands differ fundamentally from other GI technologies in that they are “end of the pipe” treatment systems that discharge from a point source, and are therefore regulated in the U.S. under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). We use a comparative regulatory analysis to examine the U.S. policy framework for CSO treatment wetlands. We find in all cases that permitting authorities have used best professional judgment to determine effluent limits and compliance monitoring requirements, referencing technology and water quality-based standards originally developed for traditional “grey” treatment systems. A qualitative comparison with Europe shows less stringent regulatory requirements, perhaps due to institutionalized design parameters. We recommend that permitting authorities develop technical guidance documents for evaluation of “green” CSO treatment systems that account for their unique operational concerns and benefits with respect to sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeno F. Levy & Richard C. Smardon & James S. Bays & Daniel Meyer, 2014. "A Point Source of a Different Color: Identifying a Gap in United States Regulatory Policy for “Green” CSO Treatment Using Constructed Wetlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:5:p:2392-2412:d:35520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/5/2392/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/5/2392/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hazilla, Michael & Kopp, Raymond J, 1990. "Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 853-873, August.
    2. Pargal, Sheoli & Hettige, Hemamala & Singh, Manjula & Wheeler, David, 1997. "Formal and informal regulation of industrial pollution : comparative evidence from Indonesia and the United States," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1797, The World Bank.
    3. Pargal, Sheoli, et al, 1997. "Formal and Informal Regulation of Industrial Pollution: Comparative Evidence from Indonesia and the United States," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 11(3), pages 433-450, September.
    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. Chad Staddon & Sarah Ward & Laura Vito & Adriana Zuniga-Teran & Andrea K. Gerlak & Yolandi Schoeman & Aimee Hart & Giles Booth, 2018. "Contributions of green infrastructure to enhancing urban resilience," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 330-338, September.

    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. Yanli Ji & Jie Xue & Kaiyang Zhong, 2022. "Does Environmental Regulation Promote Industrial Green Technology Progress? Empirical Evidence from China with a Heterogeneity Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, January.
    2. Hettige, Hemamala & Mani, Muthukumara & Wheeler, David, 2000. "Industrial pollution in economic development: the environmental Kuznets curve revisited," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 445-476, August.
    3. Hua Wang, 2000. "Pollution charges, community pressure, and abatement cost of industrial pollution in China," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2337, The World Bank.
    4. Gangadharan, Lata, 2006. "Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 477-486, October.
    5. Runa Sarkar, 2008. "Public policy and corporate environmental behaviour: a broader view," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 281-297, September.
    6. Kathuria, Vinish, 2007. "Informal regulation of pollution in a developing country: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 403-417, August.
    7. Xie, Rong-hui & Yuan, Yi-jun & Huang, Jing-jing, 2017. "Different Types of Environmental Regulations and Heterogeneous Influence on “Green” Productivity: Evidence from China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 104-112.
    8. Jia Xu & Jiuchang Wei & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2019. "Strategic responses of stigmatized Chinese manufacturing firms to formal and informal environmental regulative pressures through enhanced corporate social responsibility effort," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1235-1260, November.
    9. Bin Fan & Mingyang Li, 2022. "The Effect of Heterogeneous Environmental Regulations on Carbon Emission Efficiency of the Grain Production Industry: Evidence from China’s Inter-Provincial Panel Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    10. Wang, Hua & Wheeler, David, 2005. "Financial incentives and endogenous enforcement in China's pollution levy system," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 174-196, January.
    11. Heyes, Anthony & Kapur, Sandeep, 2012. "Community pressure for green behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 427-441.
    12. Timo Goeschl & Ole Jürgens, 2012. "Environmental quality and welfare effects of improving the reporting capability of citizen monitoring schemes," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 264-286, December.
    13. Zheng, Qiaoqiao & Wan, Liang & Wang, Shanyong & Chen, Zexian & Li, Jun & Wu, Jie & Song, Malin, 2023. "Will informal environmental regulation induce residents to form a green lifestyle? Evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    14. Anabela Botelho & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Isabel Rodrigues, 2005. "How To Comply With Environmental Regulations? The Role Of Information," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(4), pages 568-577, October.
    15. Bei Xiong & Ruimei Wang, 2020. "Effect of Environmental Regulation on Industrial Solid Waste Pollution in China: From the Perspective of Formal Environmental Regulation and Informal Environmental Regulation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-17, October.
    16. Natalie Stoeckl, 2004. "The private costs and benefits of environmental self‐regulation: which firms have most to gain?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 135-155, May.
    17. Wang,Hua*Ming Chen, 1999. "How the Chinese system of charges and subsidies affects pollution control efforts by China's top industrial polluters," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2198, The World Bank.
    18. Zhao, Congyu & Dong, Kangyin & Wang, Kun & Dong, Xiucheng, 2022. "How does energy trilemma eradication reduce carbon emissions? The role of dual environmental regulation for China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Vinish Kathuria, 2004. "INFORMAL REGULATION OF POLLUTION IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY ; Empirical Evidence from Gujarat, India A," Working Papers 2004-02, Madras School of Economics,Chennai,India.
    20. Francesco Trebbi & Miao Ben Zhang, 2022. "The Cost of Regulatory Compliance in the United States," NBER Working Papers 30691, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:6:y:2014:i:5:p:2392-2412:d:35520. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.