|
|
- Info
Targeting the conservation reserve program to maximize water quality benefits
| Author: |
Ribaudo, Marc O. |
| Date: |
1989 |
| Periodical: |
Land Economics |
| Abstract: |
There is a growing desire on the part of environmental and conservation groups to see agricultural programs that remove cropland from production, or that require soil and input conservation, be used to protect or improve water quality. Such programs could become powerful tools for addressing an important source of water pollution. One such program is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Many environmental groups are looking upon the CRP as a way of retiring from production cropland which is contributing to water quality problems. Senators Robert Dole and Wyche Fowler have each proposed expansions of the CRP specifically to address water quality issues. The Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging states either to incorporate the CRP into their plans to meet the nonpoint source pollution requirements of the 1987 Water Quality Act, or to develop their own CRP-like programs. Most discussions of how to approach the problem of nonpoint source pollution involve targeting programs to problem watersheds. For example, Section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act requires states to identify priority watersheds for treatment of nonpoint source pollution problems. Such targeting implies there exist criteria upon which areas can be ranked for the purpose of implementing water quality improvement measures. The criteria selected are extremely important from the point of view of maximizing net economic benefits (Ribaudo 1986). Some targeting schemes do a better job of meeting this goal than others. In this paper, three schemes for targeting a soil conservation program for the purpose of improving water quality are examined, using the CRP as an example. One approach is based on physical measures of water quality and two on economic dam. ages to water users. These targeting approaches were chosen because they use data likely to be available to agencies making targeting decisions. Differences in geographic location of targeted cropland will be examined. Economic benefits to water users from removing cropland from production will then be estimated and compared. The analysis was performed at a very large regional level. Any targeting scheme for an actual program would necessarily have to be at a much smaller regional scale. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the economic efficiency of a program might be increased, rather than to assess the actual magnitude of improved efficiency. |
|
