Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:23:31.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulated Trading for Maryland's Nitrogen Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

James C. Hanson  and
K. E. McConnell
James C. Hanson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland
K. E. McConnell
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate nutrient trading for point and non-point sources for the Bay Restoration Fund in Maryland. We demonstrate how to use the proceeds from the tax revenue to mimic a market by trading high-cost upgrades of sewage treatment plants for low-cost winter cover crops. Under an optimistic assumption about costs for non-point sources and naïve assumptions about the lag from planting cover crops to changes in nitrogen load, we calculate that 100 percent of abatement could be achieved at 56 percent of total costs, while in a pessimistic scenario, 100 percent of abatement could be could be achieved at 83 percent of total costs.

Keywords

Chesapeake Baycover cropsnitrogen abatementnutrient tradingsewage treatment plantstrading ratioswater pollution
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , October 2008 , pp. 211 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breetz, H., Fisher-Vanden, K., Garzon, L., Jacobs, H., Kroetz, K., and Terry, R. 2004. “Water Quality Trading and Offset Initiatives in the U. S.: A Comprehensive Survey.” The Rockefeller Center for Public Policy and the Social Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH (report prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency).Google Scholar
Gayer, T., and Horowitz, J. 2005. “Market-Based Approaches to Environmental Regulation.” Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics 1(4): 201–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennessy, D., and Feng, H. 2008. “When Should Uncertain Nonpoint Sources Be Penalized in a Trading Program?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1): 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, R. D. 2001. “Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Non-point Trading Ratios.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(4): 934–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D., and Kuch, P. 2003. “Will Nutrient Credit Trading Ever Work?” The Environmental Law Reporter 33(5): 10352–10368.Google Scholar
Levelev, M. 2004. Maryland Department of the Environment. Personal communication (October 7).Google Scholar
Malik, A., Letson, D., and Crutchfield, S. 1993. “Point/Non-point Source Trading of Pollution Abatement: Choosing the Right Trading Ratio.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(4): 959–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maryland Tributary Teams. 2006. “Statewide Implementation Plan, Point Source Strategy” (Part 1). In Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Statewide Implementation Plan. Available at http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/tribstrat/implementation_plan.pdf.Google Scholar
Phillips, S. W., and Lindsey, B. D. 2003. “The Influence of Ground Water on Nitrogen Delivery to the Chesapeake Bay.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USGS Fact Sheet No. FS-091-03, U. S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
Schmalensee, R., Joskow, P. L., Ellerman, A. D., Montero, J. P., and Bailey, E. M. 1998. “An Interim Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trading.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3): 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shortle, J. S. 1987. “Allocative Implications of Comparisons between the Marginal Costs of Point and Nonpoint Source Abatement.” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 16(1): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, R. M. 2005. “Maryland's Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the Bay Restoration Fund.” Presented at the Rural Maryland Conference, Oakland, MD (October 28).Google Scholar