Topic: hypoxia

China Needs Comprehensive and Cost-effective Strategies to Address Water Pollution

Lijin Zhong — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:38:12 -0400

This post originally appeared on The Asia Water Project website, and is reposted with permission.

China has become famous in recent years for its double-digit annual economic growth and rapid urbanization. Unfortunately, this economic success story is paired with serious environmental degradation, especially the pollution of China’s streams, rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. China suffers from growing shortages of fresh water resources and can ill-afford to have its lakes and rivers rendered unavailable for use because they are too polluted. Water pollution takes an economic toll as well; the World Bank has estimated that the overall cost of water scarcity caused by water pollution amounts to about one percent of Gross Domestic Product.¹ Water pollution is a multi-faceted problem that must be addressed with comprehensive strategies. While China has made great progress in controlling some forms of water pollution, it is now at the point where new, more holistic strategies are needed.

Water Pollution Control Strategies in China

Water pollution is not a simple problem. There are different types of pollutants and a variety of sources. The most important pollutants that affect water quality can be divided into five main categories. These categories, and their impacts on water quality, are:

Oxygen-demanding substances — Untreated sewage contains high concentrations of organic matter and when it is discharged to a stream or a lake, the natural processes of decay use oxygen and can deplete the oxygen levels in the water body, threatening fish and other aquatic organisms that need oxygen to survive.
Toxic substances — Heavy metals such as mercury and lead are toxic to aquatic organisms, as are a wide variety of chemical compounds. The discharge of toxic substances to surface waters can not only harm stream life, but also humans who use the water for drinking or as a source of fish or other aquatic organisms. Untreated industrial wastewater frequently contains high levels of toxic substances.
Bacteria and pathogens — Municipal sewage and runoff from agriculture can contain high levels of bacteria, viruses, and other organisms that cause human diseases. Lakes contaminated with the pathogens can cause widespread and serious outbreaks of deadly water-borne diseases such as cholera.
Nitrogen and phosphorus — Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that all living things need. When excess nitrogen and phosphorus pollution enters surface water bodies, it can result in greatly increased algae growth. These algae blooms, such as the ones that occurred in Tai Lake in 2007² and Jiaozhou Bay in Qingdao in 2008³, have many harmful effects. The most serious one is that when the masses of algae die, their subsequent decay consumes large quantities of oxygen, causing oxygen levels to fall to levels that are harmful to fish and other organisms. This nutrient enrichment can also promote the growth of algae species such as Cyanobacteria that are toxic to other organisms, sometimes including humans. Water bodies that are over-enriched with nutrients and suffer algae blooms are characterized as “eutrophic.”
Sediment and suspended solids — The discharge of sediments to streams can have a number of adverse effects, including covering stream and lake bottoms with silt and sand and smothering benthic organisms. In addition, sediments washed into water bodies can also contain organic matter, phosphorus, and toxic substances.

China’s strategy for controlling water pollution focused first on reducing the discharge of oxygen-demanding substances. The 11th Five Year Plan (FYP), adopted in 2006 contained binding targets for reducing these discharges. A water quality parameter known as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) that measures the oxygen demand of the organic matter present in a water sample is used to quantify these discharges and the 11th FYP targets are expressed in terms of reducing COD discharges to receiving waters. Reducing the discharge of untreated municipal and industrial wastewater is the best way to reduce COD levels and China has made great progress in collecting and treating municipal wastewater over the past decades.⁴ To achieve the mandatory COD reduction targets, both Central and local governments have adopted a variety of measures, including closing heavily polluting companies, accelerating the construction of new wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and upgrading existing WWTP to meet stricter effluent standards (Class I-A).⁵ These actions also served to greatly reduce the discharge of pathogens to surface waters.

While upgrading additional WWTPs to meet the higher effluent standards would result in additional reductions in COD discharges, it might be better to instead focus on increasing the rate of sewage collection and treatment. There is still a significant amount of uncollected and untreated wastewater being discharged by Chinese cities, and reducing the amount may be more cost-effective than upgrading existing WWTPs.

The Need for New Strategies to Improve Water Quality

Controlling COD and pathogens is not enough. The discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments are now the most serious sources of water pollution. These emissions must be reduced in order to improve water quality to acceptable levels. The central government has recognized this and has taken the first step by including ammonia reduction targets in the 12th Five Year Plan. Ammonia is a form of nitrogen that is mainly discharged from agricultural runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater, and emissions to the air from agricultural operations and factories. It exerts an oxygen demand and it can also be toxic to aquatic life, so reducing ammonia discharges will have many benefits. While it is an important first step, setting targets for ammonia reductions must be followed by reducing total nitrogen and total phosphorus discharges, as well as sediment discharges. Otherwise, few water bodies in China will meet the desired water quality standards.

Reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment discharges will require new strategies and cannot be achieved merely through building or upgrading wastewater treatment plants or closing polluting factories. The main sources of nutrient pollution are nonpoint in nature, with agriculture being the biggest source. The costs of controlling nutrient pollution can be high and attention must be paid to the cost-effectiveness of all proposed measures. Comprehensive strategies that address all sources and sectors, and that consider cost-effectiveness in selecting reduction mechanisms, are needed.

Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Analysis

In order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various nutrient pollutant reduction opportunities, the World Resources Institute (WRI) is working with Tsinghua University, supported by ADM Capital Foundation, and other partners to carry out a specific project in municipalities within the Tai Lake basin. The goals are to develop an analytical approach and decision-support tool to help Chinese decision-makers select the cost-effective options to reduce ammonia, nitrogen and nutrient discharges into the water environment, thus helping to improve the water quality of lakes and rivers in China at lower cost and more effectively.

To do so, the team is creating a database of all available options for reducing ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus discharges; analyzing the reduction potential and cost of various options; identifying the key sources which also have the most potential for reductions; and prioritizing reductions by sources (sectors) and/or by reduction measures.

The pollution reduction opportunity analysis can provide a tool that can be used at both the local and national level to select cost-effective nutrient-reduction strategies. The Chinese governments need such a tool in order to make wise investment allocation decisions for nutrient reduction in the 12th FYP.

World Bank, 2007.Cost of Pollution in China, February 2007, Washington D.C.: the World Bank. ↩
In the summer of 2007, Wuxi Municipality shut down the municipal water supply due to a massive outbreak of blue-green algae in Tai Lake. Source: http://www.china.com.cn/city/txt/2007-06/05/content_8345713.htm ↩
In June 2008, the coastal zone of Qingdao was covered by green algae. This algae bloom threatened the sailing events of the Olympic Games. Source: http://cn.reuters.com/article/chinaNews/idCNChina-1532420080630 ↩
16 times as many WWTPs were constructed from 2000 to 2009 than were constructed in the previous ten year period. Source: Zhong L., 2010. Development of Chinese Wastewater Sector and Financial Mechanism for Water Environment Improvement, Post-doc Report, Beijing: Tsinghua University ↩
According to the National Standards on Pollutant Discharge from Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants (GB18918-2002), Class I-A effluent limits for ammonia and total nitrogen are 5 mg/L and 20 mg/L respectively, and 8 mg/L and 15 mg/L respectively for Class I-B. ↩

Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Maggie Barron — Wed, 18 May 2011 14:43:50 -0400

Over the last ten years, four Chesapeake Bay states—Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—introduced nutrient trading programs to provide wastewater treatment plants with flexible options for meeting and maintaining permitted nutrient load limits. At least one other bay state, Delaware, also convened a work group to discuss developing such a program. Through these programs, wastewater treatment plants may purchase credits or offsets generated by other wastewater treatment plants or farms that reduce the nutrients they release to impaired water bodies. States are also exploring options for construction and urban stormwater programs to buy and sell credits and offsets.

To date, most credit transactions have occurred between buyers and sellers in the same state. Efforts to enact the recent Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), however, could provide more opportunities for interaction by trading partners from different states. For example, regulated entities could seek credits or offsets from other states when the supply in their own state has been exhausted. In addition, entities in states that do not have a trading program could seek credits or offsets from entities in states that do have such a program.

Although the elements of many of the trading programs are identical or very similar, such as calculation platforms, included pollutants, and allowable participants, there are several differences as well. Examples are the time period that defines the life of a credit or offset and the varying types and values of trading ratios. States may need to address these and other differences before permitting more cross-state transactions. Regardless of how these differences are resolved, government regulations require credit transactions to be documented in the public record.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has compiled into comparison tables the key design elements of the four state trading programs. The tables comprise a reference document for policymakers and others addressing the programs’ differences. These design elements are grouped into twelve categories based on their common characteristics. All the information is current as of May 2011; was paraphrased directly from the statute, regulation, policy, or guidance documents; and has been reviewed by trading experts. Nonetheless, this information will undoubtedly change as the states refine their strategies for implementing the TMDLs.

List of Tables

Legal Authorities and Guidance Documents
Pollutants and General Eligibility Requirements
Point Source Participation Requirements
Market Functionality
Baseline Requirements
Trading Ratios
Credit or Offset Restrictions
Certification and Verification Processes
Septic Hookup Provisions
Compliance and Enforcement Provisions
Risk Management Provisions
Registry Vehicles and Oversight Agencies

World Water Day: How Cities Cause “Dead Zones”

Mindy Selman — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:54:03 -0400

WRI identifies 13 new eutrophic areas around the world.

World Water Day this year focuses on “Water for Cities,” but what about water from cities? Urban runoff is one of the biggest threats to water quality around the world, with serious impacts on economies and people. However, it’s a problem that most cities are only starting to address.

Nutrient Pollution and Urban Runoff

Eutrophication occurs when water bodies are polluted with nutrients (for example, chemicals from fertilizer and sewage) that wash into surface waters from farms and urban areas that can cause oxygen depletion, fish kills, and ecosystem collapse. These are often called “dead zones” – because of the impact on fish and other sea life.

These issues can be especially problematic in urban areas. When it rains, nutrient pollution from lawns, pet waste, and vehicle exhaust washes into nearby waterways. This sewage (sometimes treated, sometimes not) is often discharged into nearby bodies of water.

Eutrophic Areas Around the World

In January, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) identified 534 low-oxygen “dead zones” and an additional 228 sites worldwide exhibiting signs of marine eutrophication. Thanks to responses from readers, WRI has since discovered 13 additional sites that are already eutrophic and in danger of becoming dead zones, bringing the total number of coastal areas around the world known to be suffering from nutrient pollution to 775.

Explore our Interactive Map of Eutrophication & Hypoxia

Some of the newly recorded sites have symptoms caused by urban runoff:

Halifax, Canada: Due to the growth of urban populations, Halifax Harbour and Bedford Basin receive high concentrations of urban waste that are high in nitrogen, phosphorus and other organic matter. Compounding the problem, municipal sewage is entering Bedford Basin from neighboring Bedford and Sackville, and a recent failure of the Halifax treatment plant resulted in high levels of fecal coliform pollution in the Inner Harbor. As a result, people can no longer safely swim or fish in certain areas. As the urban area around Halifax has grown since with 1960s, there have been more severe symptoms of eutrophication, including phytoplankton blooms and fish-kills.
Algeciras, Spain: The nearby Palmones River Estuary is located in a small area with a high population and a mixture of agricultural, urban and industrial land. Symptoms of eutrophication in the estuary have been observed since the early 1990’s, caused by high phosphorous concentrations from urban runoff, organic sewage from nearby towns, and waste from both a paper mill and nearby industrial park. Recent reports indicate the system is highly eutrophic and already many shellfish species have been diminished or depleted.

Development in the City of Algeciras exerts tremendous pressure on the bay. Photo credit: Wikimedia/Falconaumanni

In addition to sea water, fresh water sources often suffer eutrophication. In some extreme cases, local rivers and lakes can become so polluted by urban runoff that they are unsuitable for drinking water or even industrial uses. One striking example of this is Tai Lake in China, where urban runoff, combined with sewage and industrial discharge, led to a massive toxic blue-green algae bloom in May 2007. The bloom rendered the water in the lake too polluted for human, agricultural or industrial uses, and residents were forced to import water from other locations.

States and Cities Taking Action

Some regions are starting to take steps to reduce urban runoff and address wastewater issues:

In New Jersey, in an effort to reduce the nutrient load to Barnegat Bay, a bill was recently passed that will limit the nutrient content of lawn fertilizers in the state.
In Maryland, a June 2000 bill imposed strict standards for enhanced nutrient removal on all major wastewater treatment plants, in an effort to control pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay.
Around the Great Lakes, where eutrophication is a growing problem, New York, Michigan and other surrounding states have enacted phosphorus bans for detergents.
Some cities, like Portland, OR, have begun to manage urban runoff through the use of “green infrastructure” such as forest lands, rooftop gardens, rain gardens, wetlands, ponds and trees planted along stream banks to intercept runoff and cycle nutrients before it can reach surface waters.

WRI has also released the full data set (Excel, 975 Kb) available for 775 eutrophic sites worldwide. We hope that by making this data set widely available, we can help advance the critically important research and policy discussions to address the problems associated with eutrophication.

New Web-Based Map Tracks Marine "Dead Zones" Worldwide

Michael Oko — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:58:20 -0500

Research Identifies 530 Coastal “Dead Zones” and 228 Marine Eutrophic Sites

New research by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) identifies more than 530 low-oxygen “dead zones” and an additional 228 sites worldwide exhibiting signs of marine “eutrophication.” Eutrophication occurs when water bodies are over-fertilized by nutrients that are washed into surface waters from farms and urban areas.

Analysts at WRI and VIMS have compiled the information into a web-based “one-stop shop” that provides a global database and interactive map of affected areas, as well as links to articles, photos, and other resources. The website—“Eutrophication and Hypoxia: Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters”— is at www.wri.org/eutrophication.

“Until now, a lack of information and monitoring has been a major impediment to understanding the extent and impacts of ‘dead zones’ and eutrophication in coastal ecosystems,” said Mindy Selman, senior water quality analyst at WRI. “This website is an important step forward because it compiles the current information into a central location to raise awareness and offer solutions for controlling nutrient pollution.”

An important feature of the site is a comments section to solicit feedback from visitors, who will be encouraged to provide updates to the maps and databases drawing on their knowledge of local conditions.

The 530 areas and 228 sites together encompass more than 95,000 square miles, about the size of New Zealand. The largest dead zone in the United States, at the mouth of the Mississippi, covers more than 8,500 square miles, roughly the size of New Jersey. A large dead zone also underlies much of the main-stem of Chesapeake Bay, occupying about 40 percent of the Bay’s area and up to five percent of its volume each summer.

Professor Bob Diaz, who led the compilation of data at VIMS, said: “Over the last 50 years, problems related to over-fertilization of the sea and low dissolved oxygen have expanded to the point where large areas devoid of fish, shrimp, and crabs are common occurrences. These dead zones, or oxygen deserts, are very damaging to the environment and also to people that rely on the sea for their livelihood.”

Eutrophication and hypoxia— a scientific term for low-oxygen dead zones– often go hand-in-hand, as excessive nutrients fuel blooms of algae that, when they die and sink, provide a rich food source for bacteria. The bacteria, in turn, consume dissolved oxygen from surrounding waters, creating dead zones where fish cannot survive. Other impacts of eutrophication include damage to coral reefs, harmful algal blooms, and loss of biodiversity.

The partnership between WRI and VIMS stems from a 2007 WRI study of the main obstacles to effectively addressing eutrophication. The study concluded that a key obstacle is a lack of public awareness and understanding of the phenomenon and its impacts, causes, and extent. Eutrophication and dead zones are now a key stressor of marine ecosystems and rank with over-fishing, habitat loss, and harmful algal blooms as global environmental problems for marine life.

Diaz, who began monitoring the worldwide extent of eutrophication and dead zones in the mid-1990s, has published an ongoing list of hypoxic areas worldwide. He and WRI worked together on the new website to expand the list of dead zones as well as include coastal areas where symptoms of eutrophication (e.g., algal blooms) have been observed, but which lack the monitoring data to classify the system as hypoxic.

# # # #

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an environmental think tank whose mission is to find practical ways to protect the earth andimprove people’s lives.

Chartered in 1940, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science is now among the largest marine research and education centers in the United States. VIMS has a three-part mission to conduct interdisciplinary research in coastal ocean and estuarine science, educate students and citizens, and provide advisory service to policy makers, industry, and the public. The School of Marine Science (SMS) at VIMS is the graduate school in marine science for the College of William & Mary.

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Pennsylvania Farms

Maggie Barron — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:11:33 -0400

Summary

Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States, is a vital economic, cultural, and ecological resource for both the region and the nation. But the water quality and the overall ecology of the bay have been harmed by excess runoff and discharges of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, from farms, pavement, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and other sources responsible for creating excess algal growth.

In response, Congress is considering proposals to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.. The “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009” (S. 1816, H.R. 3852) would provide significant new resources and tools to help restore the bay, including a baywide (interstate and interbasin) nutrient trading program. With nutrient trading, entities that can reduce below target levels the runoff of nutrients like nitrogen would be able to sell their surplus reductions as “credits” to entities with higher nutrient reduction costs. Nutrient trading thus offers a cost-effective, market-based mechanism for accelerating the achievement of the baywide cleanup goals.

Agricultural sources typically have lower nutrient reduction costs per pound than do other sources of nutrients, such as wastewater treatment plants and municipal stormwater systems.1 This cost advantage opens a window of economic opportunity for farms to sell nutrient credits to those sources facing more expensive nutrient control options. The combination of the government’s cost-sharing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) and the proposed baywide nutrient trading market could benefit Pennsylvania’s farms. First, these cost-sharing programs and conservation payments would cover many of the expenses of the practices that are required before trading can begin. Second, nutrient trading could be a source of new revenue and profit for many (but not all) farms, with the benefits likely varying according to location, preexisting implementation of BMPs, and other factors. Third, a baywide nutrient trading program could increase the demand for credits generated from Pennsylvania farms beyond that of a nutrient trading program restricted to Pennsylvania.

Additional Information

How Nutrient Trading Could Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Maryland Farms

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Virginia Farms

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Maryland Farms

Maggie Barron — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:36:14 -0400

Congress is considering proposals to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009” (S. 1816, H.R. 3852) would provide significant new resources and tools to help restore the bay, including a baywide (interstate and inter-basin) nutrient trading program. Nutrient trading provides a cost effective market-based mechanism for accelerating achievement of the upcoming baywide clean-up goals. With nutrient trading, entities that are able to reduce runoff of nutrients such as nitrogen below target levels are able to sell their surplus reductions as “credits” to entities facing higher nutrient reduction costs.

Agricultural sources typically have lower nutrient reduction costs per pound than other sources of nutrients such as wastewater treatment plants and municipal stormwater systems. This cost advantage opens a window of economic opportunity for farms—selling nutrient credits to sources facing more expensive nutrient control options.

The combination of existing government agricultural best management practice cost-share programs and the proposed baywide nutrient trading market could yield benefits to Maryland farms.

First, existing government cost-share programs and conservation payments could cover many of the costs associated with practices that are required before trading can occur.
Second, nutrient trading could be a source of new revenue and profit for many (but not all) farms, with the benefits likely varying among farms based on location, pre-existing implementation of best management practices (BMPs), and other factors.
Third, a baywide nutrient trading program could increase demand for credits generated from Maryland farms beyond the demand from a nutrient trading program restricted only to Maryland.

Additional Information

How Nutrient Trading Could Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Virginia Farms

How Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Pennsylvania Farms

Obama Administration Releases New Strategy to Clean Up Chesapeake Bay

Evan Branosky — Fri, 14 May 2010 09:33:54 -0400

The federal commitment to develop and support environmental markets could have national significance.

The most apparent challenge to restoring the Chesapeake Bay involves a balance between the competing needs of ecosystems and humans. Kingman and Heritage Islands Park, a tract of 50-forested acres along the Anacostia River in the District of Columbia, appeared to balance those needs pretty well on Wednesday morning. Great blue herons fed within walking distance of Metro’s Orange Line as the Chairperson of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secretary of Agriculture, and other senior officials unveiled President Obama’s new Bay clean-up strategy.

The Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed kicks-off the most comprehensive Bay restoration effort ever, and it does it in part though unprecedented support for environmental markets.

A New Federal Strategy for Bay Cleanup

The Bay is in bad shape, with just 12 percent of its waters having met Clean Water Act standards for dissolved oxygen between 2007 and 2009. Partially for this reason, President Obama issued an Executive Order on May 12, 2009 that required EPA and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, and Transportation to launch a new restoration effort based on collaborative action. The guiding strategy has four priorities: restoring clean water, recovering habitat, sustaining fish and wildlife, and conserving land and increasing public access.

The priorities will be achieved, in part, through four cross-cutting strategies, one of which is the development of environmental markets.

Environmental Markets and Nutrient Trading

The emphasis on environmental markets was welcome news for me and my colleagues on the Water Quality Team at WRI. Our team has worked on nutrient trading, a type of environmental market, for over ten years. With nutrient trading, regulated point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants, can comply with Clean Water Act regulations at the lowest possible cost.

Nutrient pollution has been a huge problem for the Chesapeake Bay in recent decades. When nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus (from sources like wastewater treatment plants, farms, and cement surfaces) run off into the Bay, they can cause algal blooms and hurt water quality.

Pollution controls can be expensive, which is where nutrient trading can provide a welcome solution. EPA policy shows how entities such as wastewater treatment plants that face high costs to reduce their nutrient discharge could purchase reductions from other sources in the form of “credits.” Farms, for example, can often reduce their runoff at a lower cost than wastewater treatment plants, so they can be a source of credits. The flexibility of market exchanges also lets new wastewater treatment plants and stormwater programs expand as more people demand the services they provide. Credit purchases reduce the impacts of additional discharges on water quality.

WRI works with states to develop nutrient trading guidance and regulations. We are also building support for linking those programs into a bay-wide trading program by forecasting the financial benefits of producing and acquiring nutrient credits from the agriculture, wastewater, stormwater, and additional sectors. Our most recent analysis found that a representative 200-acre farm in Virginia could realize $8,200 per year from participating in a bay-wide nutrient trading market under a modeled scenario.

A Template for Environmental Markets Nationwide

The strategy requires the Department of Agriculture to lead an “Environmental Markets Team” of seven agencies and the EPA. The Team will establish infrastructure for environmental markets in the Bay watershed, which includes developing tools that measure ecosystem benefits from land management practices; establishing “baseline” requirements that a farmer would need to meet before participating in a market; and establishing a platform for registering, reporting, and tracking practices to generate credits; among other tasks.

The federal commitment to develop and support environmental markets could have national significance. The strategy notes that:

Successful environmental markets in the Bay watershed might be used as a template for environmental markets nationwide.

Nutrient trading markets, of which 23 exist in various stages of development throughout the United States, could be used to achieve cost-effective reductions in nutrient pollution in other regions beyond the Chesapeake Bay watershed. WRI, for example, is evaluating the potential for markets to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in the Gulf of Mexico (which each year suffers from a nutrient-induced “dead zone” the size of Massachusetts).

The federal effort will have the greatest impact if it involves as many stakeholders as possible. The Team should consult throughout the process—and not just at the end through public comment—with: a) the state environment agencies that ultimately decide whether or not credits count toward complying with discharge limits, b) the buyers and sellers in the markets that will provide real-world insight into the most cost-effective market designs, c) the finance community that will leverage market exchanges to achieve maximum savings, and d) the non-governmental organizations who can share their experience in market-development and analysis.

If stakeholders beyond the federal government are included during the development phase, the resulting bay-wide trading program is more likely to become the cost-effective policy mechanism we all are hoping for to help restore the Bay. In addition, it will serve as a model for impaired water bodies throughout the United States.

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Virginia Farms

Maggie Barron — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:28:30 -0400

Summary

Congress is considering proposals to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009” (S. 1816, H.R. 3852) would provide significant new resources and tools to help restore the bay, including a baywide (interstate and inter-basin) nutrient trading program. Nutrient trading provides a cost effective market-based mechanism for accelerating achievement of the upcoming baywide clean-up goals. With nutrient trading, entities that are able to reduce runoff of nutrients such as nitrogen below target levels are able to sell their surplus reductions as “credits” to entities facing higher nutrient reduction costs.

Agricultural sources typically have lower nutrient reduction costs per pound than other sources of nutrients such as wastewater treatment plants and municipal stormwater systems.1 This cost advantage opens a window of economic opportunity for farms—selling nutrient credits to sources facing more expensive nutrient control options.

The combination of existing government agricultural best management practice cost-share programs and the proposed baywide nutrient trading market could yield benefits to Virginia farms. First, existing government cost-share programs and conservation payments could cover many of the costs associated with practices that are required before trading can occur.

Second, nutrient trading could be a source of new revenue and profit for many (but not all) farms, with the benefits likely varying among farms based on location, pre-existing implementation of best management practices (BMPs), and other factors. Third, a baywide nutrient trading program could increase demand for credits generated from Virginia farms beyond the demand from a nutrient trading program restricted only to Virginia.

Additional Information

How Nutrient Trading Could Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

How Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Maryland Farms

How Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Pennsylvania Farms

How Nutrient Trading Could Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

Cy Jones — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:58:20 -0500

Summary

The largest estuary in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay is a vital economic, cultural, and ecological resource for the region and the nation. Excess runoff and discharges of nutrients—particularly nitrogen and phosphorus—from farms, pavement, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and other sources have placed the bay on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) List of Impaired Waters. This nutrient pollution is responsible for creating large algal blooms that lead to “dead zones” in the bay. Despite decades of restoration efforts, progress has been slow, and the rivers and streams that drain into the Bay remain polluted.

The proposed “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009” (H.R. 3852/S. 1816) would provide signifi cant new resources and new approaches to help restore the bay. Nutrient trading is one such approach. In a nutrient trading market, sources that reduce their nutrient runoff or discharges below target levels can sell their surplus reductions or “credits” to other sources. This approach allows those that can reduce nutrients at low cost to sell credits to those facing higher-cost nutrient reduction options. Nutrient trading, therefore, could allow sources of pollution such as WWTPs and municipal stormwater programs to meet their pollution targets in a cost-effective manner and could create new revenue opportunities for farmers, entrepreneurs, and others who implement low-cost pollution reduction practices.

The bill would establish a baywide nutrient trading market for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, allowing credits to be exchanged across state lines and among the watershed’s nine major river basins. A baywide nutrient trading market would build on the existing and pending state-level nutrient trading programs in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. A baywide nutrient trading market could help states and sectors more cost-effectively achieve courtordered nutrient pollution limits called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that are being developed by the EPA. These TMDLs will set limits on nutrient loads to the bay and its tributaries for the agricultural, wastewater, municipal stormwater, and other sectors.

Preliminary analyses indicate that the economic benefits of a baywide nutrient trading market for nitrogen could be signifi cant for the agricultural, wastewater, and municipal stormwater sectors in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Depending on credit prices, trading potentially could:

Generate new revenue for the agricultural sector and other credit generators at an amount comparable to current levels of annual public funding for agriculture conservation cost-share programs for the bay;
Reduce nitrogen removal costs for some in the wastewater sector by as much as 60 percent; and
Save the municipal stormwater sector hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

Additional Information

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Virginia Farms

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Maryland Farms

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Pennsylvania Farms

Protecting Waterways from a Deadly Problem

Mindy Selman — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:12:58 -0500

Nutrient pollution emerges as one of the greatest threats to water quality.

In the Chesapeake Bay, large schools of jellyfish scare away swimmers. In the Gulf of Mexico, a 3,000 square mile “dead zone” threatens a multi-billion dollar fishing industry. In Qindao, Beijing Olympics officials had to scoop large masses of green algae out of the water before sailing races could take place. These are all effects of eutrophication—pollution caused when nitrogen, phosphorus and other nutrients enter the water in massive amounts. And it’s a problem with which people in both the developed and developing world are becoming frighteningly familiar.

What is eutrophication?

While “nutrients” are usually seen as a good thing, eutrophication is really a matter of “too much of a good thing.” Nutrients entering waterways can come from a variety of sources, such as chemical fertilizers, vehicle emissions, treated wastewater, manure, and septic systems.

Over the past fifty years, eutrophication has increasingly become one of the greatest risks to our water quality. A new set of WRI policy notes provide a global assessment of areas at risk, a description of eutrophication sources and drivers, and a review of policies, actions, and strategies to address this deadly problem.

When too many of these nutrients run off into waterways, they upset the natural balance of aquatic ecosystems. Too many nutrients act like too much fertilizer – the nutrients feed booming algae populations, which can overrun waterways, block sunlight, and sap the water of its oxygen, creating hypoxic or “dead” zones, fish kills, and ecosystem collapse. Today, over 500 coastal areas are suffering from eutrophication, and 405 of those experience hypoxia, where oxygen levels in the water dip so low that they cannot sustain life.

Nutrient pollution is devastating to communities that depend on ecosystem services like tourism, recreation, and fisheries. For people living alongside eutrophic water, the decaying smell and the toxins released by the algae can irritate eyes, throats, and skin. Recently, Wisconsin state officials had to advise residents near algae-covered lakes across the state to close their windows, avoid walking near the shorelines, and to keep pets away too, as several dogs had died from drinking the water. “It is like living in the sewer for three weeks,” said one resident. “You gag. You cannot go outside. We have pictures of squirrels that are dead underneath the scum and fish that are dead…It has gotten out of control.”

What are the sources and drivers of nutrient pollution?

Most of these chemicals come from agricultural, urban, and industrial sources, and from the burning of fossil fuels. Over-applied synthetic fertilizers run off agricultural fields and leach into groundwater, and animal waste from concentrated livestock operations and fish farms (aquaculture) also find their way into water systems. Municipal wastewater treatment plants, industrial wastewater discharges, septic tanks, raw sewage, and storm runoff are other contributors. Pollutants can also enter waterways through the air. When fossil fuels are burned, they release nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the air which can then redeposit into the water.

The world’s growing population and economy are increasing the demand for food, land, energy, and natural resources, ultimately leading to greater agricultural production, more sewage, an use of fossil fuels. These activities in turn lead to the destruction of “nutrient sinks” like forests and wetlands that traditionally filter excess nutrients out of waterways. The rapid increase in meat consumption is one example – in China, meat production rose by 127 percent between 1990 and 2002, but fewer than 10 percent of an estimated 14,000 intensive livestock operations have installed pollution controls.

In the United States and European Union, the primary sources of nutrient pollution are typically agricultural sources, while in Asia and Africa the primary source is often urban wastewater. Developing countries have a problem with “point sources” of nutrient pollution: pipes or other outlets that discharge chemicals and sewage. North America treats 90 percent of its sewage, but Asia treats only 35 percent, Latin America and the Caribbean 14 percent, and Africa less than one percent.¹

What can be done?

Designing an effective response to eutrophication is a challenge. Pollutant sources are often miles away from the areas they affect, and many different players can share the same watershed. For example, the Chesapeake Bay watershed covers parts of six states, and the Mississippi River watershed includes 31 different states. Preventing nutrient runoff in Corn Belt state can help address the recurring dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, over one thousand miles away. This fall, a task force dedicated to restoring ecosystems in the Gulf actually met in Iowa.

Despite the geographic challenges, the good news is that these areas can recover. Boston Harbor and the Mersey Estuary in the UK are both showing improved water quality because of better industrial and wastewater controls. The Black Seaonce had recurring hypoxic areas, but has slowly moved into a state of recovery with the reduction of fertilizer use. And New York City still gets its drinking water from the largest unfiltered water supply in the U.S., in the Catskills Mountains, since officials realized it would be cheaper to protect the watershed ecosystem than to pay to purify the water. Today, there is more sensitive land in conservation, better sewage treatment, and more sustainable forestry and farming practices in the area.

In developing countries, basic sewage treatment and improved governance can help immensely. Point sources (pipes and waste outlets) are typically the most controllable sources of nutrient pollution. Strong governance is the greater challenge. Without strong institutional authority, adequate funding, and properly trained personnel to enforce the rules already on the books, there’s only so much that good regulations and policies can achieve.

Policymakers in developed countries must look broadly at agricultural, energy, land use, and public health policies to address the diverse sources of nutrient pollution and design policies to mitigate them. Policies cannot be limited to traditional command-control approaches such as regulatory standards, nor can they focus on one single sector.

Eutrophication, like climate change, is a big picture issue. Its causes stem from our very way of life. We know the policies that would help, but the challenge is in implementation. In the end, it’s really about sustainable lifestyles.

For more information, see the full policy notes:

Part 1: Eutrophication and Hypoxia in Coastal Areas: A Global Assessment of the State of Knowledge
Part 2: Eutrophication: Sources and Drivers of Nutrient Pollution
Part 3: Eutrophication: Policies, Action, and Strategies to Address Nutrient Pollution

Martinelli, L.A. 2003. “Element interactions as influenced by human intervention.” In J.M. Melillo, C.B. Field, and B. Moldan, eds. Element Interactions: Rapid Assessment Project of SCOPE. Washington, DC: Island Press. As cited in Howarth, R. and K. Ramakrishna. “Chapter 9: Nutrient Management.” In K. Chopra, R. Leemans, P. Kumar, and H. Simons, eds. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Washington, DC: Island Press. ↩

Fact Sheet: How Nutrient Trading Can Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay

Cy Jones — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:42:53 -0500

A new Fact Sheet on nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay region covers issues such as potential costs and revenues, and how farmers and other stakeholders can benefit.

Note: This fact sheet has been updated as a working paper, available here.

Congress is considering proposals to revise and strengthen the Clean Water Act for the Chesapeake Bay region and improve the health of the region’s streams, rivers, and wetlands. Senator Cardin’s and Representative Cummings’s proposed legislation, The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, provides significant new resources and tools to help restore the Bay. Water quality trading for nutrients, or “nutrient trading”, is one such tool. It could make it possible to achieve Bay restoration goals faster and at lower cost. It also could create an additional source of revenue for farmers.

Download the PDF (PDF, 331 Kb)

Eutrophication: Policies, Action, and Strategies to Address Nutrient Pollution

Maggie Barron — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:58:51 -0400

Nutrient overenrichment of freshwater and coastal ecosystems—or eutrophication—is a rapidly growing environmental crisis. Worldwide, the number of coastal areas impacted by eutrophication stands at over 500. In coastal areas, occurrences of dead zones, which are caused by eutrophic conditions, have increased from 10 documented cases in 1960 to 405 documented cases in 2008. In addition, many of the world’s freshwater lakes, streams, and reservoirs suffer from eutrophication; in the United States, eutrophication is considered the primary cause of freshwater impairment.

In order to reverse eutrophication trends and mitigate nutrient losses to aquatic ecosystems, policymakers should:

Implement research and monitoring programs to characterize the effects of eutrophication, collect water quality data, and inform adaptive management strategies. Information is a key element in the development of robust strategies to reduce eutrophication.
Raise awareness of eutrophication. Eutrophication and its effects are not well understood by the public or policymakers. Public awareness campaigns, school environmental education programs, and targeted outreach and technical assistance are all important components of raising the profile of eutrophication within communities and building a foundation and support for effective actions to reduce nutrient losses and eutrophication.
Implement regulations to mitigate nutrient losses, such as standards, technology requirements, or pollution caps for various sectors.
Create fiscal and economic incentives to encourage nutrient reducing actions using taxes and fees, subsidies, or environmental markets.
Preserve and restore natural ecosystems that capture and cycle nutrients.
Establish strong, engaged, and coordinated institutions to address eutrophication. Effective institutions to implement and enforce policies are important to the success of any eutrophication strategy, especially where multiple jurisdictions are involved.
Capitalize on environmental synergies when designing comprehensive policies to address eutrophication. Many policies and activities associated with reducing nutrient pollution have synergies with other environmental problems such as climate change, smog, and acid rain. Policies selected and implemented should seek to maximize environmental benefits.

Additional Links

This policy note is third in a series. Click below to read the other two:

Eutrophication: Sources and Drivers of Nutrient Pollution

Tim Herzog — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Nutrient over-enrichment of freshwater and coastal ecosystems, or eutrophication, is a rapidly growing environmental crisis. Worldwide, the number of coastal areas impacted by eutrophication stands at over 500. In coastal areas, occurrences of dead zones, which are caused by eutrophic conditions, have increased from 10 documented cases in 1960 to 405 documented cases in 2008. In addition, many of the world’s freshwater lakes, streams, and reservoirs suffer from eutrophication; in the United States, eutrophication is thought to be the primary cause of freshwater impairment. Many of our largest freshwater lakes are entrophic, including Lake Erie (United States), Lake Victoria (Tanzania/Uganda/Kenya), and Tai Lake (China).

The increase in eutrophication is the result of human activities. Major sources of nutrients to freshwater and coastal ecosystems include wastewater, agriculture, and atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from burning fossil fuels. The drivers of eutrophication are expected to increase for the foreseeable future. Specifically:

World population will continue to grow, reaching an estimated 9.2 billion by 2050, which will increase pressures on the productive capacity of agriculture and industry.
Intensive agriculture and land use conversion—for crops, livestock, and aquaculture—will increase, especially in the developing world. In addition to population growth, intensifi cation is driven by changing dietary patterns. For example, over the period from 2002 to 2030, global meat consumption is expected to increase by 54 percent.
Energy consumption is expected to grow 50 percent from 2005 to 2030. Fossil fuels, which release nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the environment when burned, will continue to be the dominant fuel source in this century.

As a result of these increasing global trends in population growth, energy use, and agricultural production, we expect that coastal and freshwater systems impacted by eutrophication and hypoxia will continue to increase, especially in the developing world.

Additional Links

This policy note is second in a series. Click below to read the other two:

EPA Partners With WRI to Heighten Awareness of Ecosystem Services

Paul Mackie — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:13:15 -0400

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a collaboration to deliver improved science and practical tools to help companies and governments protect ecosystems and address climate change.

“This is an important collaboration in bringing research on ecosystem services into the mainstream of science, business and public policy,” said Rick Linthurst, national program director of the EPA’s Ecological Research Program.

WRI’s ecosystem services brochure

Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems. A forest, for example, not only provides wood for timber and paper but also controls erosion, purifies water, stores carbon dioxide, and offers recreation.

The partnership will bring a greater recognition and understanding of the importance of ecosystems to economic development and human well-being. It will also help planners better determine development options that allow affected natural resources to continue to produce services that meet the needs of current and future generations. Craig Hanson, acting director of WRI’s People and Ecosystems Program, added, “This collaboration will link EPA’s quality scientific research on ecosystem services with WRI’s work to help private- and public-sector leaders make the connection between healthy ecosystems and the attainment of their economic goals. This partnership will make our Corporate Ecosystem Services Review, mapping of ecosystem services, and economic valuation efforts even more powerful.” Businesses, local and state governments, researchers, and international organizations - which are increasingly retooling their environmental-management systems to address ecosystem services - will benefit from the partnership. As part of the collaboration, Dr. Suzanne Marcy, lead for outreach and education in the Ecological Research Program of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, will be based at WRI’s headquarters. She will focus on linking emerging scientific data about the health and economic value of ecosystem services with WRI’s various projects on water quality, biofuels, coral reefs, and business sustainability, among others.

In addition, WRI’s research will inform the EPA Ecological Research Program’s initiatives in the Coastal Carolinas, the Willamette Valley in Oregon, Tampa Bay, the upper-Midwest, and the Southwest.

A Better Way for the U.S. Government to Clean Our Water

Mindy Selman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:09:45 -0400

When it comes to allocating money for conservation, reverse auctions can help governments get the biggest bang for their buck.

Reverse auctions are auctions with many sellers but only one buyer. They are often used in the private-sector to procure services inexpensively, but reverse auctions can also be used to cost-effectively allocate public conservation dollars.

In 2005, WRI, together with the Pennsylvania Environmental Council and other partners, conducted a pilot reverse auction in the agriculture-heavy Conestoga watershed of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The goal was to pay farmers to implement best-management practices that reduce phosphorus, a leading cause of water pollution in the watershed.

The Conestoga Watershed

We held two reverse auctions that resulted in allocations of $486,000 to farmers who showed that they reduced the most phosphorus for the least amount of money. Farmers first selected the best management practices that they wished to propose. Next, phosphorus reductions from each proposal were estimated using WRI’s NutrientNet software. Farmers then placed competitive bids indicating the payment they would accept to implement each proposal. Bids with the lowest prices per pound of phosphorus reduced were funded; those with the highest prices were not.

As a result, an estimated 92,000 pounds of phosphorus are expected to be reduced over the lifespan of the best-management practices implemented through the reverse auction. Results showed that the allocation method resulted in seven times more phosphorus reductions per program dollar spent than traditional government-subsidy allocation methods within the watershed.

The federal government even has an in-house example of this method of award allocation. In July 2006, a wetlands reserve program pilot used reverse auctions to reduce the acquisition costs of program easements in several areas across the country. It was a huge success, enrolling 3,500 acres and reducing acquisition costs by 14 percent, or $820,000.

Reverse auctions can maximize the effectiveness of federal and state dollars because they combine performance measures with cost. Many conservation programs do not currently consider cost as a factor when allocating funding. Furthermore, reverse auctions allow for competitive bidding—which encourages applicants to reveal the “true cost” of adoption—and do not rely on fixed payment schedules.

In the face of rising concerns about climate change and water quality, it is critical that governments become more effective at allocating money to achieve environmental objectives. One way for them to do it is to formally adopt reverse auctions for agricultural conservation programs, but also for programs that aim to protect and restore wetlands, species, and habitats.