Does Ambient Water Quality Affect the Stringency of Regulations? Plant-Level Evidence of the Clean Water Act
This paper provides evidence that the Clean Water Act implemented through effluent limits responded to local water quality. We choose biological oxygen demand as the pollutant and dissolved oxygen as a water quality indicator. We use a panel of permits for 100 plants in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania for 1990 to 2004. We estimate that decline in water quality by 1 mg/L lowers permits by 5 mg/L. This finding demonstrates greater flexibility than might be expected in an effluent standards–based approach. It suggests efficient resource use, with permits relaxed with water quality improvements and tightened with water quality declines.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 2002.
"Optimal Pollution Abatement - Whose Benefits Matter, and How Much?,"
NBER Working Papers
9125, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gray, Wayne B. & Shadbegian, R.J.Ronald J., 2004. "'Optimal' pollution abatement--whose benefits matter, and how much?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 510-534, May.
- Wayne B. Gray & Ronald J. Shadbegian, 2002. "‘Optimal’ Pollution Abatement – Whose Benefits Matter, and How Much?," NCEE Working Paper Series 200205, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2002.
- Michael R. Moore & Elizabeth B. Maclin & David W. Kershner, 2001. "Testing Theories of Agency Behavior: Evidence from Hydropower Project Relicensing Decisions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 423-442.
- McConnell, Virginia D. & Schwarz, Gregory E., 1992. "The supply and demand for pollution control: Evidence from wastewater treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 54-77, July.
- Dietrich Earnhart, 2004. "Panel Data Analysis of Regulatory Factors Shaping Environmental Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 391-401, February.
- John D. McClelland & John K. Horowitz, 1999. "The Costs of Water Pollution Regulation in the Pulp and Paper Industry," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 220-232.
- James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1010-1027, September.
- Earnhart, Dietrich, 2004. "Regulatory factors shaping environmental performance at publicly-owned treatment plants," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 655-681, July.
- Freeman, A. Myrick, III, 2002. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Do We Know About the Benefits and Costs?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages -, April.
- Bandyopadhyay Sushenjit & Horowitz John, 2006. "Do Plants Overcomply with Water Pollution Regulations? The Role of Discharge Variability," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-32, January.
- A. Myrick Freeman III, 2002. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Have We Gained?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-146, Winter.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:88:y:2012:iii:1:p:518-535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.