« Back to Results

Water Economics and Policy

Paper Session

Friday, Jan. 3, 2025 10:15 AM - 12:15 PM (PST)

Parc 55, Divisadero
Hosted By: Association of Environmental and Resource Economists
  • Chair: Sheila Olmstead, Cornell University

Benefits of Surface Irrigation Project for Groundwater Conservation in India

Prashikdivya Gajbhiye
,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Nilesh Shinde
,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Matt Woerman
,
Colorado State University

Abstract

India’s groundwater aquifers are being critically overdrafted, largely because 60% of agricultural water demand is supplied by groundwater. To reverse this unsustainable aquifer use, India has invested billions of dollars in large canal irrigation systems. These canals provide surface water that both serves as a substitute for groundwater and provides water to recharge aquifers. Recent studies have explored local agricultural and economic consequences of such projects, yet the extent to which these investments improve groundwater aquifer levels remains unclear. To address this gap, we use a geographic regression discontinuity design (RDD) to study the effects of India’s multi-billion-dollar Narmada Main Canal (NMC) project in Gujarat. Because of the hydrogeologic features of this gravity-fed canal, surface water is accessible only on one side of the canal. As a result, our estimation strategy effectively compares units on the side of the canal with surface water to the nearly identical units on the other side that lack this resource. We use observed groundwater levels, village-level data, and highly-granular satellite imagery to estimate the effects of this large canal irrigation project on a wide range of outcomes. We estimate the canal surface water causes aquifer levels to rise by 14.56 meters—55% of baseline aquifer levels—indicating the irrigation canal project is effective at reversing the overuse of important groundwater resources. We further find that surface water access reduces the costs of constructing groundwater wells and other water structures, saving each village roughly $14,000 over the years 2007 to 2014, which corresponds to a total savings of at least $44 million during this period. Looking at agricultural outcomes, we find that this surface water access causes a 10% increase in irrigated area, a 12% decrease in the planting of drought-resistant crops, and a 12% increase in the planting of high-value cash crops.

Marine Microplastics and Infant Health

Xinming Du
,
National University of Singapore

Abstract

A century of plastic usage has led to an accumulation of plastic waste in waterways and oceans.
Over time, these wastes break down into particles smaller than 5 microns – or ”microplastics” –
which can infiltrate human biological systems. Despite decades of research into this emerging
source of environmental pollution, there is a paucity of direct evidence on the health impacts of
microplastics exposure at a population scale. This paper reports the first empirical link between
in-utero microplastic exposure and adverse birth outcomes. Our analysis is based on a compiled
dataset of 3 million births that occurred in coastal areas of 15 countries spanning four continents,
which we merge with a novel remote-sensing measurement of marine microplastic
concentrations. We show that in-utero exposure to microplastics, particularly during the third
trimester of pregnancy, leads to a significant increase in the likelihood of low birth weight. A
doubling of exposure increases low birth weight hazard by 0.37 per 1,000 births, which implies
over 205,000 cases per year globally can be attributed to microplastic exposure. We further show
that aerosolization – whereby microplastic particles become airborne and inhalable due to
seawater evaporation – is an important pathway for health impact, a challenge that is likely to
escalate as ocean temperatures continue to rise.

Assessing the Impact of PFAS Water Regulation

Laura Alcocer Quinones
,
University of California-Davis

Abstract

Certain unregulated and harmful contaminants have become prevalent in the United States’ drinking water systems. These are known as PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances), a family of man-made chemicals primarily used in production processes. Appropriately nicknamed “Forever Chemicals”, these substances are difficult and costly to remove. While these chemicals remain federally unregulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, states like California regulate them. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the impact of the reduction of Notification Levels for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in California in 2019. Anecdotally, this low-cost policy led to improvements in water quality. A key challenge of this analysis is the wide prevalence of partial censoring in PFAS reporting. I first show that applying standard approaches, such as difference-in-differences or changes-in-changes, ignoring this partial censoring, would lead to biased estimates of the causal impact of the regulation. To overcome this bias, I use a parametric approximation to recover the cumulative distribution function (CDF) under partial censoring focusing on the PFAS context in California. I implement a changes-in-changes approach using the recovered distribution of PFAS concentration to estimate the impact of tightening standards for the regulated pollutants on water quality. Using PFAS concentration data at the source-test level from the California Department of Drinking Water and the EPA, paired with socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, weather data, and other variables, I quantify the effect of this policy on water quality. This paper provides evidence on how different regulatory instruments can curb our exposure to pollution. Furthermore, the methods implemented will allow for policy evaluation under partial censoring of data in a variety of contexts.

Behavioral Responses to Two-Part Tariffs: Evidence from the Introduction of Volumetric Water Pricing

Praharsh M. Patel
,
Pennsylvania State University
Daniel A. Brent
,
Pennsylvania State University
Casey Wichman
,
Georgia Institute of Technology

Abstract

Climate change, population growth, and competing demands for scarce water are straining water resources globally. With growing urbanization, urban utilities face challenges as they struggle to meet growing water demand, update outdated infrastructure, and balance strained water resources on top of pushing the conservation agenda. Economists advocate using price signals to encourage water conservation (Olmstead, REEP 2010); however, there are often political constraints and challenges to using prices for conservation. Furthermore, an ongoing debate persists regarding whether consumers respond to marginal or average prices when facing nonlinear tariffs. Understanding consumers’ responses to prices is important for estimating demand and setting rates to encourage conservation. This paper exploits a wide-scale policy that installs water meters and switches consumers from flat rates to volumetric rates. In 2004, California passed Assembly Bill 2572 to require all urban water suppliers to meter and charge customers for the water they use by 2025. This generates a large and salient increase in the marginal cost of water and provides quasi-experimental data to understand if consumers respond to the price mechanism. This setup allows us to address two primary research questions: 1) how do consumers respond to the introduction of volumetric water rates? and 2) what can we learn about consumer behavior based on heterogeneous responses? The results show heterogeneity among the consumers. The consumers seeing a reduction in total bills after switching to volumetric pricing, and the low-consumption households increase their consumption. On the contrary, the high-water consuming households reduce their consumption. These results are consistent with consumers using heuristics to respond to complicated rate schedules, also termed as “schmeduling” (Liebman and Zeckhauser, 2004), instead of optimizing concerning the correct marginal incentives. This leads to understanding that the changes in marginal incentives may have a limited impact on conservation without large changes in total bills, which

Discussant(s)
Katrina Jessoe
,
University of California-Davis
David Keiser
,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Wes Austin
,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sheila Olmstead
,
Cornell University
JEL Classifications
  • Q2 - Renewable Resources and Conservation
  • Q5 - Environmental Economics