IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt2qq4d7vn.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Low but Uncertain Measured Benefits of US Water Quality Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Shapiro, Joseph S

Abstract

U.S. investment to decrease pollution in rivers, lakes, and other surface waters has exceeded $1.9 trillion since 1960, and has also exceeded the cost of most other U.S. environmental initiatives. These investments come both from the 1972 Clean Water Act and the largely voluntary efforts to control pollution from agriculture and urban runoff. This paper reviews the methods and conclusions of about 20 recent evaluations of these policies. Surprisingly, most analyses estimate that these policies’ benefits are much smaller than their costs; the benefit/cost ratio from the median study is 0.37. Yet existing evidence is limited and undercounts many types of benefits. We conclude that it is unclear whether many of these regulations truly fail a benefit/cost test or whether existing evidence understates their net benefits; we also describe specific questions that when answered would help eliminate this uncertainty.

Suggested Citation

  • Shapiro, Joseph S, 2018. "The Low but Uncertain Measured Benefits of US Water Quality Policy," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt2qq4d7vn, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt2qq4d7vn
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/2qq4d7vn.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert W. Hahn & Patrick M. Dudley, 2007. "How Well Does the U.S. Government Do Benefit-Cost Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 192-211, Summer.
    2. McGartland, Al, 2013. "Thirty Years of Economics at the Environmental Protection Agency," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Sheila M. Olmstead, 2010. "The Economics of Water Quality," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 44-62, Winter.
    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. Melstrom, Richard T., 2022. "Residential demand for sediment remediation to restore water quality: Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    2. Flynn, Patrick & Smith, Tucker, 2022. "Rivers, lakes and revenue streams: The heterogeneous effects of Clean Water Act grants on local spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Kuwayama, Yusuke & Olmstead, Sheila & Zheng, Jiameng, 2022. "A more comprehensive estimate of the value of water quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    4. Ren, Qianping & West, Jeremy, 2023. "Cleaner waters and urbanization," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    5. Shr, Yau-Huo Jimmy & Zhang, Wendong, 2021. "Does Omitting Downstream Water Quality Change the Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reduction Programs: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313927, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Jerch, Rhiannon L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2024. "Cities and water quality," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Cassidy, Alecia & Meeks, Robyn C. & Moore, Michael R., 2023. "Cleaning up the Great Lakes: Housing market impacts of removing legacy pollutants," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    8. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2021. "Does Omitting Downstream Water Quality Change the Economic Benefits of Nutrient Reduction? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," ISU General Staff Papers 202101010800001067, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    9. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    10. Xu, Yuelu & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Integrated assessment of N runoff in the Gulf of Mexico: an application of spatially explicit partial equilibrium and HAWQS models," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313917, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Lopamudra Chakraborti, 2021. "Impact of upstream plant level pollution on downstream water quality: evidence from the clean water act," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(3), pages 517-535, February.
    12. Hill, Elaine L. & Ma, Lala, 2022. "Drinking water, fracking, and infant health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    13. Weng, Weizhe & Cobourn, Kelly M. & Kemanian, Armen R. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Shi, Yuning & Stachelek, Joseph & White, Charles, 2020. "Quantifying Co-Benefits of Water Quality Policies: An Integrated Assessment Model of Nitrogen Management," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304667, 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. Daniel R. Petrolia & Dennis Guignet & John Whitehead & Cannon Kent & Clay Caulder & Kelvin Amon, 2021. "Nonmarket Valuation in the Environmental Protection Agency's Regulatory Process," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 952-969, September.
    2. Alvarez, Sergio & Asci, Serhat, 2015. "Water Quality Improvements in Florida: A Benefits Transfer Valuation Approach," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205615, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. E. Agliardi & M. Pinar & T. Stengos, 2014. "Assessing temporal trends and industry contributions to air and water pollution using stochastic dominance," Working Papers wp981, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    4. James Shortle & Richard D. Horan, 2017. "Nutrient Pollution: A Wicked Challenge for Economic Instruments," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(02), pages 1-39, April.
    5. McGartland, Al, 2013. "Thirty Years of Economics at the Environmental Protection Agency," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Amy Sinden & Douglas A. Kysar & David M. Driesen, 2009. "Cost–benefit analysis: New foundations on shifting sand," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 48-71, March.
    7. Cohen, Alex & Keiser, David A., 2017. "The effectiveness of incomplete and overlapping pollution regulation: Evidence from bans on phosphate in automatic dishwasher detergent," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 53-74.
    8. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    9. Keeler, Bonnie L. & Wood, Spencer A. & Polasky, Stephen & Kling, Catherine L. & Filstrup, Christopher T. & Downing, John A., 2015. "Recreational demand for clean water: evidence from geotagged photographs by visitors to lakes," ISU General Staff Papers 201501290800001557, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Pu-Yan Nie, 2013. "Innovation considering Pollution Emission and Energy Input," Energy & Environment, , vol. 24(6), pages 953-964, October.
    11. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.
    12. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.
    13. Scott Farrow, 2008. "Improving the Regulatory Analysis of the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule: What Does an Economist Want?," UMBC Economics Department Working Papers 09-102, UMBC Department of Economics.
    14. Valcu, Adriana Mihaela, 2013. "Agricultural nonpoint source pollution and water quality trading: empirical analysis under imperfect cost information and measurement error," ISU General Staff Papers 201301010800004451, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. Kahn, Matthew E. & Walsh, Randall, 2015. "Cities and the Environment," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 405-465, Elsevier.
    16. Shortle, James, 2013. "Economics and Environmental Markets: Lessons from Water-Quality Trading," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-18, April.
    17. Scott Farrow, 2011. "Incorporating Equity in Regulatory and Benefit‐Cost Analysis Using Risk‐Based Preferences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 902-907, June.
    18. Catherine L. Kling, 2011. "Economic Incentives to Improve Water Quality in Agricultural Landscapes: Some New Variations on Old Ideas," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 297-309.
    19. Ren, Qianping & West, Jeremy, 2023. "Cleaner waters and urbanization," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    20. Harrington, Winston & Morgenstern, Richard & Velez-Lopez. Daniel, 2012. "Tools for assessing the costs and benefits of green growth : the U.S. and Mexico," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6242, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; Water pollution; Clean Water Act; cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness analysis; environmental regulation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:agrebk:qt2qq4d7vn. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.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.