Water Pollution Lecture Notes Fall 2034 PDF

Water Pollution EC 434/534 Univesity of Oregon Emmett Reynier Fall 2034 Any news you'd like to discuss? 2 / 34 Introduction 3 / 34 Water pollution There are a few distinguishing factors from other types of pollutants we have already covered (e.g...

Water Pollution EC 434/534 Univesity of Oregon Emmett Reynier Fall 2034 Any news you'd like to discuss? 2 / 34 Introduction 3 / 34 Water pollution There are a few distinguishing factors from other types of pollutants we have already covered (e.g. air pollution and GHG's) Recreational benefits are much more important Lage economies of scale in treatment of sewage and other wastes Difficult to trace to a source, could be runoff from streets or farms or atmospheric distribution of pollutants (i.e. acid rain) Bottom line: Need a different policy approach than air pollution 4 / 34 Nature of water polluttion problems 5 / 34 Types of waste-receiving water 1. Surface water: Rivers, lakes, oceans covering most of earth's surface Historical focus of policy Serves as drinking water, but also has recreational benefits (swimming, fishing, etc.) 2. Groundwater: beneath earth's surface in soils, rocks, or fully saturated geological surfaces. Once thought to be a pristine resource Now known to be subject to considerable chemical contamination Used for irrigation and drinking water 6 / 34 Sources of contamination Point sources Discharge into surface waters at a particular location though a pipe, outfall, or ditch For example, a municipal wastewater treatment plant or factory Nonpoint sources Affect water in a more indirect, diffuse way Fertilizer and pesticide runoff from lawns or farms after rainstorms Difficult to regulate because source and timing are hard to predict 7 / 34 Other types of water pollution Groundwater contamination Happens when pollutants leach into water-saturated region Potentially removed as water filters through soils/rock Replenishment rate is lower, so same amount of pollutant can cause more contamination as compared to surface water Ocean pollution Oil spills: Becoming less frequent, but still happening Ocean dumping: sewage, sludge, unwanted chemicals (DDT), radioactive materials Trash: such as plastic runoff 8 / 34 Pollutant Decomposition An important characteristic of pollutants is how long they live in the environment before decomposing into non-harmful substances Fund pollutants: Environment has some assimilative capacity Stock pollutants: Never degrade, remain in environment unless removed Really, we should think of it as a spectrum 9 / 34 Types of pollutants Organic materials Degradable, but require oxygen to do so High loads of organic waste in water can decrease available oxygen to other organisms Nitrogen and Phosphorous Runoff from agriculture leads water to become "eutrophic" Stimulate growth of aquatic plant life → algal blooms Agae decomposes, depleting oxygen in water These can combine to create dead zones 10 / 34 Types of pollutants Thermal pollutants Injecting heat into water course Could be from electric utility that uses steam to power turbines Data centers locate near water to cool servers (i.e. Google in Dalles, OR) Potentially disturbs ecosystem that has evolved according to certain water temperatures Heavy metals Don't decompose! Can be taken up by various organisms Mercury can bio-accumulate in fish and cause human health issues from eating the fish Japanese had an issue with cadmium contaminating some crops 11 / 34 Water pollution control policy 12 / 34 Early US legislation 1899 Refuse Act: Prohibited dumping of "refuse" except by permit. Designed primarily to protect navigation, but unenforced. Resurrected in the 70s, but legal challenges struck it down 1948 Water Pollution Control Act: Left most authority with states, but the federal gov't could conduct investigations, research, and surveys. Federal support for waste treatment plants Direct regulation of waste discharges through discretionary "enforcement conference" 1965 Water Quality Act: Established effluent quality standards by requiring states to file implementation plans Similar to air pollution control! But...vague and didn't link to ambient water quality standards 13 / 34 Subsequent legislation Clean Water Act (1972 Amendments to Water Pollution Control Act): All discharges of pollutants into navigable rivers to be eliminated by 1985. That wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by June 1, 1983. Very stringent standards! Permits with strict technology standards required of all dischargers Uniformly imposed, did not depend on ambient water quality But...enforcement delayed, no authority to regulate non-point sources 14 / 34 Examples of recent CWA rules Waters of the US (WOTUS) The CWA applies to "Waters of the US", which was not formally defined. There has been a long legal battle (several Supreme Court decisions) over exactly what is regulated by the CWA. Controversy surrounds ephemeral streams and disconnected wetlands EPA was not able to determine the broad implications of the different interpretations of CWA protections Greenhill et al (2024) used machine learning to map CWA protections in different scenarios Most recent case, Sackett 2023, significantly limits CWA jurisdiction 15 / 34 What's protected under CWA A: Waters protected under 2006 Rapanos Supreme court case B: Waters protected under 2015 Trump Admin rule C: Change in protected waters, Rapanos vs Trump D: Waters protected under Obama Admin rule E: Change in protected waters, Obama vs Trump From Greenhill et al (2024) 16 / 34 Examples of recent CWA rules Steam Electric Effluent Limitations EPA has strengthened rules for steam-powered electricity generators Coal/oil/natural gas power plants work by boiling water to make steam, which spins a turbine that generates electricity Generate water pollution from that heated water and ash ponds Tradeoff between air and water pollution: Scrubbers that clean air pollutants from smoke stacks do so using water New rule sets stricter standards on contaminants in wastewater from these plants 17 / 34 Source of Steam Electric Effluent 18 / 34 Stricter rules for drinking water 1972 The Safe Drinking Water Act: Created stricter standards for community water systems relative to other surface water. Maximum allowable concentrations for bacterial, muddiness, and chemicals in drinking water EPA to set standards based on best available technology (BAT) EPA monitors public water systems for both regulated and unregulated contaminants 19 / 34 Examples of recent SDWA rules Lead and Copper Rule Improvements Rule summary: No safe level of lead exposure, both metals enter drinking water through plumbing 100% replacement of lead pipes within a decade Strengthened standards and monitoring requirements Quantified benefits exceed costs by 13x PFAS Rule summary: Established maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS in drinking water Water systems must monitor and report PFAS levels Quantified benefits and costs of 1.5 Billion annually 20 / 34 Ocean pollution Oil Spills CWA banned any discharges of oil and made firms liable for cleanup and damages No limit on liability if deemed "willful negligence or misconduct", otherwise costs limited to $50 million Liability includes damages to "natural resources" Ocean dumping Covered by Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 Bans industrial waste or sewage dumping Ocean trash Not governed by laws, nearly impossible to attribute to particular locations 21 / 34 Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness 22 / 34 Efficiency recap What must be true of an efficient water pollution policy? What about a cost-effective water pollution policy? 23 / 34 The CWA and zero discharge The CWA set a goal of no pollutants by 1985, planned to get there using technology standards on polluter's effluent. What's wrong with that plan? Likely to be very expensive to get to zero 85-90% removal: Costs estimated to be $62 Billion 100% removal: Costs estimated to be $317 Billion No distinction between pollutant types Some pollutants justified to bring to zero Others do little to no damage in low quantities No distinction between pollutant location Effluent standards are uniformly imposed on all polluters Damages are heterogeneous across watersheds Effluent standards are not linked to ambient water quality Bottom line: Marginal costs likely to far exceed marginal benefits, marginal costs not equalized across polluters ⇒ not efficient or cost effective. 24 / 34 National Effluent Standards Had to choose standard for each of 60,000 sources EPA supposed to make them "relatively uniform" => not efficient Not necessarily large costs of water pollution control as there are with air pollution control 25 / 34 Wastewater Treatment Subsidies CWA subsidized construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. What are the issues with this policy? No incentive to operate and maintain the plants properly. 1977 audit by EPA found only half of plants performed adequately No subsequent change in behavior Capital costs were high since communities were not actually paying Originally funds were allocated as first come first serve. Not projects with the greatest impact Concentrated on smaller suburban communities rather than big cities with most serious pollution problems Fixed in 1977, set priorities to target places most in need Bottom Line: Not efficient or cost effective 26 / 34 Watershed based trading There are 51 examples of watershed based trading programs in the US Chesapeake Bay, Snake River, Long Island Sound Involves point source polluters meet standards by purchasing reductions from other sources (point or nonpoint) Focus on nitrogen or phosphorous, too new to evaluate effects 27 / 34 Oil Spills Is forcing owners to pay for cleanup and damages of oil spills efficient? If penalty equals actual damage and owner has to pay with certainty, this is efficient External costs are internalized Limited liability has a different outcome! Less precautions than optimal 28 / 34 Effects of the Clean Water Act 29 / 34 Effects of CWA Keiser and Shapiro (2019), estimate the costs and benefits of the CWA Comprehensive set of water quality data: 50 million pollution readings from 240,000 monitoring sites with network model of all U.S. rivers Find that pollution concentrations have fallen substantially Total costs exceed $1 trillion, unclear whether benefits are higher/lower 30 / 34 Effects of CWA Keiser and Shapiro (2019), estimate the costs and benefits of the CWA Comprehensive set of water quality data: 50 million pollution readings from 240,000 monitoring sites with network model of all U.S. rivers Find that pollution concentrations have fallen substantially Total costs exceed $1 trillion, unclear whether benefits are higher/lower 31 / 34 Effects of CWA Keiser and Shapiro (2019), estimate the costs and benefits of the CWA Comprehensive set of water quality data: 50 million pollution readings from 240,000 monitoring sites with network model of all U.S. rivers Find that pollution concentrations have fallen substantially Total costs exceed $1 trillion, unclear whether benefits are higher/lower 32 / 34 Conclusion 33 / 34 Conclusion US water pollution regulation is based on mandatory technology standards on point sources Less clear that benefits of additional water cleanup exceed costs (as compared to air quality) Can achieve benefits with lower costs using cost-effective strategies (balance nonpoint and point source marginal costs) 34 / 34