Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T13:18:31.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal Crop Mix for Land Application of Municipal Wastewater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

C. Edwin Young ,
Edward B. Bradley  and
Donald J. Epp
C. Edwin Young
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, USDA, University Park, Pa
Edward B. Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wyoming
Donald J. Epp
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Abstract

Least cost solutions for a three million gallon a day land application of municipal wastewater system are estimated for three levels of capital cost subsidy: no subsidy, 75 percent, and 85 percent. Irrigation of reed canarygrass is superior of alfalfa, corn, forests, and natural vegetation (weeds). The cost of a full year irrigation of reed canarygrass ranges from $493,000 to $565,000 depending upon the assumed value of reed canarygrass. If the local municipality minimizes its costs while receiving subsidies, inefficiencies result. Total costs to society can increase in excess of 65 percent of the minimum cost solution.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , April 1978 , pp. 35 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authorized for publication as paper No. 5427 in the journal series of the Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Bradley, Edward. “Impact of Crop Selection on the Costs of Land Treatment,” Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, unpublished paper presented at the 1976 annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, 1976.Google Scholar
Bradley, Edward. “Optimal Utilization of Land in Municipal Wastewater Land Treatment Systems: An Economic Analysis.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, in process.Google Scholar
Kardos, Louis, Sopper, William, Meyers, Earl, Parizek, Richard, and Nesbitt, John. “Renovation of Secondary Effluent for Reuse as a Water Resource,” Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-660/2-74-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.Google Scholar
Marshall, Harold, and Ruegg, Rosalie. “Cost Sharing to Induce Efficient Techniques of Abating Wastewater and Pollution.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2(1975): 107–119.Google Scholar
Pound, Charles, Crites, Ronald, and Griffes, Douglas. “Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application.” Technical Report, EPA-430/9-75-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.Google Scholar
Pound, Charles, Crites, Ronald, and Smith, Robert. “Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application and Advanced Wastewater Treatment.” Technical Report, EPA-430/9-76-016, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.Google Scholar
Rose, Marshall. “A Note on Cost Sharing of Municipal Wastewater Pollution Abatement Projects,” Land Economics, 52(1976): 554–558.Google Scholar
Whiting, Dick. “Use of Climatic Data in Estimating Storage Days for Soils Treatment Systems,” Environmental Protection Technology Series, EPA-600/2-76-250, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.Google Scholar
Young, Edwin. “The Cost of Land Application of Wastewater: A Simulation Analysis.” Technical Bulletin No. 1555, Economic Research Service, USDA, 1976.Google Scholar