User:JMcDaniel8/sandbox/sandbox

Executive Summary (1 page)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) in the United State has been around since 1972 after the creation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. The main purpose of these laws was to address the rising concerns of water pollution. Actions that took under the CWA include, but weren't limited to regulating pollutants discharged by point source polluters through permits, maintaining clean water quality standards, funding and construction of sewage treatment plants, and setting standards of wastewater. However, there are still many unanswered problems. Negative externalities that are affecting indirect players due to the lack of regulatory factors. Nonpoint sources of pollution are being investigated, but not all of the public concerns are being met. Recycled water systems are not being utilized properly in both rural and urban areas. Social Environmental health problems are occurring due to uneven allocation of funding and lack of proper pollution education. Our goal today is to address these pollution concerns through a variety of new policies that take action directly in each affected area. Policy A addresses the Nonpoint sources of pollution that alter habitat. Policy B considers the effects of recycled water systems and their technology and Policy C looks at the nonpoint social-environmental sources of pollution in and around urban areas.

Market Failure Where does the issue arise from?
One of the biggest problems that arise as a society is the universal necessity of water. Water is a common good because it is a natural resource, but at the same time, we are experiencing the degradation and depletion of freshwater due to the lack of proper policy. This rivalrous and nonexcludable resource is being over consumed and overused by both public and private owners while at the same time being polluted by agricultural growers gaining from government subsidies. With regulatory vagueness, underinvestment, and information asymmetry government officials are currently lacking political momentum in preserving the stock of clean water sources.

Government Failures Why do we need policy intervention?
When it comes to passing these clean water policies it's important to ask, “How much is clean water regulation worth?” The cost of pollution to human health and the environment is high. Severe health effects caused by polluted water include reproductive, developmental, respiratory, and neurological harm. In the United States, nitrogen pollution impacts the fishing, business, and tourism industries. The number of fish species is declining because only 2.8 percent of the ocean is being protected. Intervention is needed to mitigate future damage and this can be accomplished through new policies addressed below.

Nonpoint sources of pollution Habitat Alteration:
Due to the CWA, point sources or direct sources of pollution such as industrial, government, and agricultural facilities are addressed, but often underrepresents nonpoint sources such as municipal storm drains, abandoned mines, and old septic tanks. From 1978 to 1981 nonpoint agricultural source pollution accounted for 93.5 percent of total nitrogen added to the environment.

new edits
2.2 Government Failure - Recycled Water Systems:

Although water is a public natural resource it seems that wasting water is a big ongoing problem in California. Water is both being overused and wasted in California with an estimated 18 trillion gallons of water being dropped in California in February of 2019 alone, most of that water drains directly into our oceans. At the same time, we use water for our various industries and in our public and private lives that come from out of state. California water-wasting is an ongoing process that carries negative externalities to unknowing people and our environment that often are disassociated or feel disconnected from the problem.

2.3 Government Failure - Nonpoint Source Urban Water Pollution:

Social environmental issues are often overlooked. Nonpoint source pollution in urban areas includes contaminants from motor vehicles such as oil and grease but extends to garden chemicals, septic tanks, and impervious surfaces such as roads. Because of this addressing social environmental water pollution is complicated. Pollution disproportionally affects low-income families distal from the point source locations of pollution. This occurs because nonpoint sources are located in secondary locations and pollution concentrations vary depending on the location downstream. A localized effort may not be enough to control water pollution because watersheds cross borders beyond the reach of local funding and are therefore inconsistently enforced.

3.0 Evaluative Criteria/Policy Goals

3.1 The Goals of water pollution reduction policy

It’s clear that in order to address the issue of clean water we must look at the problems inherent in decentralization. The various government entities must be able to work together and be economically efficient or in short be open to flexibility. In this case, evaluations will be made based on substantive and instrumental goals. Substantive goals will be evaluated by each policy’s efficiency. This is referring to the policy’s cost vs social productivity or getting the most bang for your buck ratio. The Equity or distribution of fairness is the second substantive goal.

Instrumental goals are viewed for political feasibility (the likelihood of policy adoption) and the practicality of multijurisdiction implementation. Each policy is evaluated for efficiency while taking into consideration the resolution of prior government failures.

3.2  Substantive  Goals:  Efficiency (value)

The objective of this substantive goal is to ensure that the policy’s cost does not exceed the benefit. In short, costs associated with preventing and treating pollution must provide enough of a benefit for the process to be deemed a financial success or processing at the Pareto efficiency level. The alternative goal of the cost-benefit analysis is to provide information on whether or not the cost now is better than the cost later and is the incurring cost is leading to social benefit.

3.3  Substantive  Goals:  Equity (value)

The goal of equity is to assess if the policy is addressing the failures that public goods accrue, a public good such as water needs to be defined and viewed to whether or not pollution prevention services are being addressed equally among all social groups. This portion of the policy goal should acknowledge the overall outcomes that each policy brings including financial cost, financial benefit, health, and social well-being across all social-environmental involved parties.

3.4  Instrumental  Goals:  Political  Feasibility (Information of substantive goals)

Feasibility goals for each alternative policy must show that there is potential for the policy to pass or to be adopted. In some cities such as Brea CA, a five-member city council must have a public hearing, a set voting process, and public transparency to address the feasibility of policy issues. The better or more favorable the alternative policy is to public and private parties the higher chance of it being accepted. It is possible to send out or get a public census to help receive and identify the demographic, economic, and social data that could give more information on the likelihood of a policy passing.

3.5  Instrumental  Goals:  Implementation (Information of substantive goals)

Feasibility goals and implementation goals are connected in the same sense that the more support an alternative policy has the easier it is to execute and process those goals. The alternate policy on pollution goals must show that the alternative implementation doesn't just sound good, but in fact, proves it can be more efficiently administered. Does it clearly address who will be running or enforcing the policy to make it work?

4.0 Overview of Alternatives

Now that we have an information base for evaluating the policy’s criteria we can now take a deeper look into each policy goal and identify the strategies within. The objective is to address each policy in a way that shows successful reductions in water pollution are possible

while meeting or exceeding existing policy.

Policy A: Habitat Alteration and Rural Water Pollution: Increasing Budget/Revenue

The first alternative is Policy A. Policy A’s objective is rural pollution prevention at the source. Increasing the budget will give pollution management services the ability to increase staff and in turn enforce laws already in place. Increased enforcement will provide pollution deterrence while recovering some revenue through fines from rule breakers. Based on previously provisions knowingly or unknowingly discharging hazardous substances accrues fines between $2,500 to $100,000 per day depending on the type and circumstances of the violation. This policy alternative requires a detailed analysis of funds going in and out in order to identify which areas could and will be requiring more funds in the future. The budget cost to taxpayers is expected to vary depending on the successful application.

Policy B: Recycled Water Systems: Watering Restrictions

The second policy alternative is Policy B. Alternative B addresses the issue of pollution by using recycled water for irrigation in agriculture. This alternative policy restricts and addresses the issues of pollution that affects municipal water supplies such as concrete mixing, factories, golf courses, landscapes, and environmental restoration projects. The idea is to control and revamp current and future projects and incorporate a reuse policy to mitigate pollution at pollution sources.

Policy C: Stormwater Runoff Prevention / Urban Water Pollution: Increasing Taxation

The third policy alternative is Policy C. Policy C’s objective is to mitigate pollution on the urban level. Taxation is needed in order to organize and defuse complicated multiagency and jurisdictional differences associated with urban stormwater runoff pollution. This policy addresses the issue of pollution moving from one area to another and brings to focus the negative externality affected player's concerns. This taxation also pools funds to lessen the burden on those most affected by urban pollution. Participating jurisdiction's economies could benefit from pooling both money and resources.

5.0 Evaluate Alternatives

5.1 Policy A:  Habitat Alteration and Rural Water Pollution.

Efficiency: It is important to note that there is the cost of acting and the cost of not acting. The overall cost to control non-point water pollution alone in 1972, when the CWA was created, cost the United States $567 Million. The price has increased to $959 Million in the year 2000. Damage due to the lack of prevention varies by locality, but a single nutrient-polluted lake in Ohio lost a calculated average of $42 million in tourism revenue over the course of only two years. This shows the complexity of cost over time with the importance of knowing we may benefit more if an action takes place now rather than later. However, It must be taken into consideration that the actual current cost may be unmeasurable. Rural runoff is difficult to detect or interpret due to the limited ability to gather and understand data in rural areas. Natural disturbances and pollution recovery rates are not well understood.

Equity:  The dynamics between rural and urban areas are ongoing and growing due to the necessity and expansion of road building services. Road systems are connecting current social, environmental, and economic needs with the growing population. The benefits outway the risks, but there are reasonable differences in effectiveness due to population size between rural and urban areas.

Political Feasibility: The adoption of this policy program would involve raising taxes or the reallocation of funds from other programs. Environmental organizations may support the policy, but there will be challenges in policy execution from industrial lobbyists and the general public because support may be difficult due to its complexity and overall cost. The adoption of this policy is not recommended in comparison to smaller cheaper options of pollution protection that could have easier oversite.

Implementation: It is important to mention that past agencies have been hesitant to adopt dynamic watershed management measures due to the lack of personnel and this cumulative effect on analysis duties. The tasks of compiling and tracking pollutants and excess sediment is limited. Natural variables such as seasonal weather may interfere with prediction and detection cumulatively. Environmental evaluations and data need to be acquired over a long time scale to access results. Multiagency and jurisdictional may have conflicting interests. The biodiversity of rural areas is not identical and there may not be adequate knowledge of the ecological area. Damages and cost of repair to waterways by the building of roads and/or deforestation may take years to become apparent. Building new and upgrading old roads may become more difficult due to new pollution Policy A guidelines. Policy B and Policy C both give better execution management oversite than Policy A.

5.2 Policy B: Recycled Water System Restrictions

Efficiency: The costs and benefits associated with recycled water system restrictions are compared to find the optimal working ratio. The cost of this project pushes the burden onto industrial and private consumers. The initial costs placed on the industrial companies may also trickle down to the consumers. The overall benefit could greatly improve health, living, and working conditions, but those effects wouldn’t be taken into consideration until reaching the feasibility level. The overall cost vs benefit level may not be optimally reached due to the uneven distribution of wealth which could force certain businesses to close if unable to comply. The remaining businesses may raise prices to meet the rising demand of new consumers. This alternative is more efficient than Policy A.

Equity: If passed, this policy could improve the quality of life for prior negative externality entities and at the same time improve the quality of life for those directly involved in the pollution prevention process by using recycled water. This policy could make people feel more connected and more informed about how they are indirectly connected to the environment. This policy gives more social freedom than Policy A and shares the benefits that Policy C creates.

Political Feasibility: Political opposition would come primarily from business owners that would be carrying the original brunt of the cost. The political backlash would include the rising cost of goods and/or the decreasing number of goods on the market. This would make Policy A and Policy B less feasible than that of Policy C.

Implementation: The implementation of regulating and enforcing reusable water sources to reduce pollution is complicated. This would require government agencies to work together but at the same time enforce the policy on the private level. This would require more personnel and staff to make sure that companies are complying with the new regulations. It may also be hard to acquire the data to seee how much of a difference in pollution there is if any. The overall process may consist of an uneven distribution of enforcement due to the difference in budget allocation by various local governments.

5.3 Policy C: Pollution in Urban Areas: Taxation

Efficiency: The costs and benefits associated with this taxation may lack efficiency. The cost of organizing multiple jurisdictions that must overview funds and analyze the success of how much pollution is mitigated could exceed the cost of addressing urban water pollution through taxation on a local level depending on location. However, the overall health and societal benefit are very high. Urban water pollution has a negative impact on human health. In orange county gastrointestinal illnesses alone accounted for over $36 dollars per visit $76 for respiratory-related disease and $37 for ear-related urban water pollution-related illnesses. This equals an overall cumulative health cost of $3.3 million per year.

Equity: This taxation is used to increase the chance of redistributing wealth more evenly while increasing communication across local governments. This policy also makes it possible to lessen the burden of pollution on those that are more affected by the pollution that otherwise wouldn't have the proper funds to deal with the problems associated. Policy C is an excellent policy choice as it is a more equitable choice over policy A.

Political  Feasibility: It’s possible that this policy will be favorable to the general public because they are directly associated with the problem of urban pollution. Special interest groups would have no reason to object to this policy because taxation as funds are pooled. Although an increase in taxation may not be favorable to those that aren't directly being affected by the polluters it seems feasible that this policy would be adopted. This policy is more political feasibility than “Policy A” because this policy is addressed by multiagency and across local governments.

Implementation: The implementation of this policy is possible due to the fact that every municipality is having similar health and social issues associated with urban water pollution runoff. Many government agencies are already connected by federal laws. This means that the difficulty of organizing movement around this policy should be similar and straightforward. This policy should be accepted over the implementation of both Policy A and Policy B.

6.0 Conclusion/Recommendation

Current policy failures are defined and analyzed. Alternative policy goals to prior policy failures are identified and possible solutions are addressed. After evaluating each policy and taking into consideration the efficiency, equity, political feasibility, and implementation. The best policy alternative will be Policy C. Policy already has the proper infrastructure set up in order to make a smooth transition in adopting this policy making it more feasible and more cost-effective than any other alternative listed. Both Policy A and Policy B could have more overall benefits, but the cost would greatly exceed the benefit, offsetting the current equilibrium. Policy B and Policy C both have the same amount of governmental organization ability. However, Policy C doesn’t necessarily affect only private owners as Policy B does. Policy B affects the water system that will be using the recycled water process giving Policy C more feasibility.

Considering our goal of reducing water pollution while keeping costs down and attempting to achieve social equality. I suggest that the best alternative is alternative Policy C. Policy C meets most of our goal requirements while also reaching a preferred optimal level of equilibrium. This Alternative will make an excellent addition to our goals of reducing water pollution.