Grants and population are both skewed, so large shares of both are in the top decile. First "water pollution control" legislation. Panel B includes the local copayment, and finds pass-through rates of 0.84 to 0.93 in real terms or 1.09 in nominal terms. Most recent cost-benefit analyses of the Clean Water Act estimate that a substantial share of benefits come from recreation and aesthetics channels (Lyon and Farrow 1995; Freeman 2000; USEPA 2000a). A city may spend a grant in years after it is received, so real pass-through may be lower than nominal pass-through. How the Clean Water Act Protects Your Rivers - American Rivers Analysis includes homes within a given distance of downstream river segments. Standard errors are clustered by watershed. The Clean Air Act: Successes and Challenges Since 1970 The Clean Water Act Flashcards | Quizlet 33 U.S.C. But if local governments ultimately pay these costs, they could depress home values. All values in billions (|${\$}$|2014). If approved, it will protect clean drinking water, upgrade water infrastructure, preserve open space and family farms, fight climate change, and keep communities safe from extreme weather,. The Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Bond Act will: We emphasize a few caveats in interpreting TableIV. Moreover, the share of industrial water discharge that was treated by some abatement technology grew substantially in the 1960s (U.S. Census Bureau 1971). Another test comes from the fact that the 19802000 gross rent data reported in the census include utilities costs. Contact: joseph.shapiro@berkeley.edu, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, (510) 642-3345, Fax (510) 643-8911. Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020, the Second - US EPA "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972. It is possible that areas with more pollution data may be of greater interest; for example, FigureI, Panel C shows more monitoring sites in more populated areas. Iowa State and Center for Agricultural Research and Development. The main regression estimates in TableII reflect the change in the share of pollution readings that are fishable and do not distinguish between cases where the share of readings that are fishable moved from 20% to 21%, or where it changed from 80% to 81%. Connected dots show yearly values, dashed lines show 95% confidence interval. The positives of the Lacey Act it is one of . Year-by-year trends for the other pollutants in the main analysisthe share of waters that are not swimmable, BOD, fecal coliforms, and TSSshow similar patterns (Online Appendix FigureIII). These graphs also suggest that existing evaluations of the Clean Water Act, which typically consist of national trend reports based on data from after 1972, may reflect forces other than the Clean Water Act. These effects grow in magnitude over the first 10 years, are statistically significant in this period, and remain negative for about 30years after a grant. Keiser thanks the USDA for funding through the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project number IOW03909. Most of the economic benefits (about 85 percent) are attributable to reductions in premature mortality associated with reductions in ambient particulate matter. Muehlenbachs, Spiller, and Timmins (2015) relate fracking to home values and drinking water. Third, this analysis is different from the question of what municipal spending (and pollution and home values) would be in a world without the Clean Water Act. Estimates appear in Online Appendix TableVIII and discussion appears in Online Appendix E.3. Temperature is increasing by about 1F per 40years, which is consistent with effects from climate change. This literature also finds that federal grants that require local matching funds and specify the grants purpose, both characteristics of the Clean Water Act grants, tend to have higher pass-through rates. Calculations include grants given in 19622000. These regressions are described in equation (4) from the text. State Clean Water Administrators Release Clean Water Act Success Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Section 812 of the 1990 Amendments (Public Law 101-549) requires EPA conduct scientifically reviewed studies of the impact of the Clean Air Act on the public health, economy and environment of the United States. Considering all owner-occupied homes within 25 miles of the river, the estimated ratio of the grants aggregate effects on home values to the grants costs is 0.26. We also explored estimates controlling for city-year population or city-year municipal revenue. Agricultural Sediment Control, Environmental Regulations, Air and Water Pollution, and Infant Mortality in India. Fecal coliforms had the fastest rate of decrease, at 2.5% a year. They give similar qualitative conclusions as the main results, though exact point estimates vary. The only econometric analysis we know of such policies tests how the French policy of jointly taxing industrial air pollution and subsidizing abatement technologies affected emissions, using data from 226 plants (Millock and Nauges 2006). We thank the editor, Larry Katz, along with four referees, Joe Altonji, Josh Angrist, David Autor, Richard Carson, Lucas Davis, Esther Duflo, Eli Fenichel, Michael Greenstone, Catherine Kling, Arik Levinson, Matt Kotchen, Amanda Kowalski, Rose Kwok, Drew Laughland, Neal Mahone, Enrico Moretti, Bill Nordhaus, Sheila Olmstead, Jordan Peccia, Nick Ryan, Daniel Sheehan, Kerry Smith, Richard Smith, Rich Sweeney, Reed Walker, and participants in many seminars for excellent comments; Randy Becker, Olivier Deschenes, Michael Greenstone, and Jon Harcum for sharing data; Elyse Adamic, Todd Campbell, Adrian Fernandez, Ryan Manucha, Xianjun Qiu, Patrick Reed, Vivek Sampathkumar, Daisy Sun, Trevor Williams, and Katherine Wong for excellent research assistance; and Bob Bastian and Andy Stoddard for explaining details of the Clean Water Act. Dollar values in |${\$}$|2014 millions. Q_{icy}=\sum _{\tau =1963}^{\tau =2001}\alpha _{\tau }1[y_{y}=\tau ]+X_{icy}^{^{\,\,\prime }}\beta +\delta _{i}+\epsilon _{icy}. The estimates in TableIV are generally consistent with near complete pass-through, that is, little or no crowding out or in beyond the required municipal capital copayment. Because no reference category is required in this kind of event study setting, where one observation can receive multiple treatments, for ease of interpretation, we recenter the graph line so the coefficient for the year before treatment ( = 1) equals 0. Pros And Cons Of The Clean Water Act - 277 Words | Bartleby Each observation in the data is a pollution reading. As we approach the formal 50 th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) next month, the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), which represents state clean water regulatory agencies, has partnered with EPA's Office of Water to create a " Clean Water Act Success Stories Map ." Current policy debates center on the uncertainty around wetland benefits. Others relate drinking water quality directly to health (Currie etal. We find similar trends for the pollutant they study in lakes, though we show that other pollutants are declining in lakes and that most pollutants are declining in other types of waters. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. Taking a Look at the Clean Water Act | Civic Issues: Environment A lock (LockA locked padlock) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. Clean Water Act Pros And Cons - 1085 Words | Cram Data cover 19622001. We use the following equation to assess year-by-year changes in water pollution: \begin{equation} Part I: State Pollution Control Programs, The Role of Water Quality Perceptions in Modelling Lake Recreation Demand, The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation, The Displacement of Local Spending for Pollution Control by Federal Construction Grants, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, Water Pollution Progress at Borders: The Role of Changes in Chinas Political Promotion Incentives, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, The Missing Benefits of Clean Water and the Role of Mismeasured Pollution Data, The Low but Uncertain Measured Benefits of US Water Quality Policy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Replication Data for Consequences of the Clean Water Act and the Demand for Water Quality, Evaluating Public Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of Head Start. Flint potentially could have prevented these problems by adding corrosion inhibitors (like orthophosphate), which are used in many cities (including the Detroit water) that Flint previously used, at low cost. For this reason, our preferred methodology in Section IV.B to assess how Clean Water Act grants affect water pollution uses a triple-difference estimator comparing upstream and downstream areas. BOD, dissolved oxygen deficits, and total suspended solids all declined at 1% to 2% a year. They conclude that nothing has changed since 1975. The cost-effectiveness estimates for fishable regressions are based on Online Appendix TableVI, row 13. Wetlands, Flooding, and the Clean Water Act - Resources for the Future The point estimates imply that the benefits of the Clean Water Acts municipal grants exceed their costs if these unmeasured components of willingness to pay are three or more times the components of willingness to pay that we measure. The Clean Air Act covers essentially all major polluting sectors. Column (2) includes plants in the continental United States with latitude and longitude data. Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act of 2022 Online Appendix TableVII investigates heterogeneity in measured benefits and costs; Online Appendix E.3 discusses the results. We analyze all these physical pollutants in levels, though Online Appendix Tables III and VI show results also in logs. Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act | US EPA The annual cost to make a river-mile fishable ranges from |${\$}$|1.5 to |${\$}$|1.9 million.19, Cost-Effectiveness of Clean Water Act Grants (|${\$}$|2014 MN). Data cover the years 19622001. Online Appendix TableIII shows these results and Online Appendix E.1 explains each. Implemented in response to growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution in the U.S., the Clean Water Act followed the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, and preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973, making it part of a period of landmark . Clean Water Act Grants and Water Pollution, Steinwender, Gundacker, and Wittmann 2008, Muehlenbachs, Spiller, and Timmins (2015), U.S. Government Accountability Office 1994, https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control, https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic, 6. Market-based instruments are believed to be more cost-effective than alternatives.