The On‐Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution

Johnson, Scott Lee; Adams, Richard M.; Perry, Gregory M.

doi:10.2307/1242434

Cited by 131 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that fertilizer application could be decreased-in some cases significantly-without adversely affecting crop yields indicated both the substantial amounts of P and potassium in the soil of many farms from past applications as well as inefficient use of fertilizer nutrients. This crop yield result is consistent with past studies, which have found that reduction in nitrogen fertilizer application can be accomplished without negative economic consequences (Johnson et al 1991;Randhir and Lee 1997). One of the outcomes of the MAEAP for Michigan livestock producers was more awareness of the importance of efficient manure utilization consistent with other studies (e.g., Ribaudo et al 2004).…”

Section: Programsupporting

confidence: 89%

Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan

Vollmer-Sanders¹,

Wolf²,

Batie

2011

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program is a voluntary environmental management program for Michigan farms. The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program encourages farm managers to become better environmental stewards through writing Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and incorporating changes to comply with regulations as well as generally accepted management practices and recommendations. Early-adopting livestock producers with verified operations were interviewed to identify and measure costs incurred, environmental outcomes achieved, and producer attitudes and perceptions as a result of verification. The average total cost to become verified was $120,600 per farm, of which the average producer paid $104,423, with the remaining $16,177 provided through cost-share funds. Much of this cost was for long-term investments such as manure storage and facilities improvements. Producers realized an average postverification annual cost savings of $2,792 by curtailing unnecessary use of commercial fertilizer. The financial values had large amounts of variation in every case. The per animal unit costs of verification were generally in the same range as the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates for cost of compliance with similar (but mandatory) proposed regulations. With respect to environmental outcome, after verification, average operation mass balance improved. The primary motivation to participate in the program stemmed from existing or potential environmental regulations.

show abstract

Section: Programsupporting

confidence: 89%

Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan

Vollmer-Sanders¹,

Wolf²,

Batie

2011

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Land use regulation or voluntary arrangements within buffer zones could offer health and environmental benefits of reduced groundwater nitrate concentrations along with net revenue gains. Land use buffer policies, accompanied by model informed land use planning, could integrate improved management practices, low-or no-input crop types, and/or alternative treatment or prevention options that would serve to decrease NO3 leaching rates within buffer zones while still providing economic benefit [57].…”

Section: Beneficial Agricultural Management Practices In Buffer Zonesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources

Mayzelle

Viers

Medellín–Azuara

et al. 2014

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural irrigation leachate is often the largest source for aquifer recharge in semi-arid groundwater basins, but contamination from fertilizers and other agro-chemicals may degrade the quality of groundwater. Affected communities are frequently economically disadvantaged, and water supply alternatives may be too costly. This study aimed to demonstrate that, when addressing these issues, environmental sustainability and market profitability are not incompatible. We investigated the viability of two low impact crops, alfalfa and vineyards, and new recharge basins as an alternative land use in recharge buffer zones around affected communities using an integrated hydrologic, socio-geographic, and economic analysis. In the southern Central Valley, California, study area, alfalfa and vineyards currently constitute 30% of all buffer zone cropland. Economic analyses of alternative land use scenarios indicate a wide range of revenue outcomes. Sector output gains and potential cost saving through land use conversion and resulting flood control result in gains of at least $2.3 billion, as compared to costs of $0.3 to $0.7 billion for treatment options over a 20 year period. Buffer zones would maintain the economic integrity of the region and concur with prevailing OPEN ACCESSWater 2015, 7 13 policy options. Thus, managed agricultural recharge buffer zones are a potentially attractive option for communities facing financial constraint and needing to diversify their portfolio of policy and infrastructure approaches to meet drinking water quality objectives.

show abstract

“…Farm economic models such as WFM (Beukes 2005) can estimate the potential profits from different land use and management options. Rather than independent agroecological and agro-economic models, integrated agro-ecological and agroeconomic models which can predict both the nitrate losses and potential profits from alternative land uses (Johnson, 1991;Mohamed et al, 2000) would better help the farms in optimizing their bids. But, the assessment of potential profit is a private matter and the farms will have to be responsible for their own judgments irrespective of the model used.…”

Section: Farm Profit Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

LP models for pricing diffuse nitrate discharge permits

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitrate discharges from diffuse agricultural sources significantly contribute to groundwater and surface water pollution. Tradable permit programs have been proposed as a means of controlling nitrate emissions efficiently, but trading is complicated by the dispersed and delayed effects of the diffuse pollution. Hence, markets in nitrate discharge permits should be carefully designed to account for the underlying spatial and temporal interactions. Nitrate permit markets can be designed similar to the modern electricity markets which use LPs to find the equilibrium prices because the two trading problems have close analogy.In this paper, we propose alternative LP models to find efficient permit prices for year-ahead markets. The model structure varies depending on the catchment hydro-geology and long-term goals of the community. We show how the market price structures are driven by the constraint structure under different environmental conditions. We discuss the physical and economic conditions required to assure consistent prices, the modeling of essential and optional constraints in an LP, and the problem of balancing resource allocation over time among delayed-response discharge units. We then extend the LP model to balance resource allocation over time and to improve the market performance.

show abstract

The On‐Farm Costs of Reducing Groundwater Pollution

Cited by 131 publications

References 12 publications

Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan

Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan

Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources

LP models for pricing diffuse nitrate discharge permits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About