Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Impoundments: Research-based Alternative Management Concepts. Ed Hanlon , Soil & Water Concepts Sanjay Shukla , Hydrology and Water Quality Concepts Marty Main , Wildlife Research Pam Roberts , Plant Pathology Research Tatiana Borisova , Water Economics and Policy.
Managing the Land to Manage the Water
Permitted (1 inch)
~1/3 have functional wetlands
~2/3 have additional uplands
All of them leak!
Evapotranspiration (4 to 32%)
Rain (4 to 29%)
71 to 96%
31 – 39%
35 to 61%
Weeks of irrigation based on average weekly use in the grove during the irrigation season
Shukla and Jaber (2006, 2005, 2004) – EDIS, ASCE Hydrol. Engg, ASCE Irrig. and Drain. Engg, and ASAE Transact.
Retain Stormwater (1 inch=2 feet depth)
Improve Water Quality
Increase retention (store more than 1 inch)
Control water level in wetlands and ephemeral zone (berms, for example)
Re-use water at beginning of dry season
ASR: Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Recyclable Water Containment Area (RWCA)
RWCAs: Recycle nutrients; Store water; Release water slowly; Decrease flows to the coast
Co-precipitation of P and organics is possible (Hanlon et al., 2007)
Treatment by-products may be returned to crop land safely
Innovative mechanism proposed to address surface water quality
Reduce the overall cost of meeting water quality goals in a basin
Allow individual entities flexibility in choosing pollution abatement technologies
Provide individual entities with incentives to innovate in the pollution abatement sphere
Address future growth in the basin while meeting water quality goals
Pollution control costs can differ from source to source.
Overall costs of achieving pollution reduction goals in a Basin can be minimized by allowing sources to reallocate reductions according to their pollution-abatement costs.
Well-designed trading programs can achieve this allocation by harnessing the forces of the market.
Two separate entities within a basin
Each have a water discharge that contributes to phosphorus (P) loading.
WWTP would pay the farmer to remove an extra unit of phosphorus at the lower cost.
Payment that the WWTP makes to the farmer is negotiated between them.
Setting pollution cap / baseline for individual entities
Measuring pollution reduction credits
High transaction costs of finding trading partner and negotiating agreement
Enforcing trading contract and liability issues
Source: US EPA 2008. http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/tradingmap.html
2003: Final Water Quality Trading Policy. (http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/finalpolicy2003.html )
2004: Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook (http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/handbook/ )
2007: Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/wqbasedpermitting/wspermitting.cfm )
2006: Water Quality Credit Trading Agreement with US EPA (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/releases/2006/usdaepawqagreement.html )
FDEP. 2006. Water Quality Credit Trading: A Report to the Governor and Legislature. (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/WQ_CreditTradingReport_final_December2006.pdf )
CS/HB 547: Water Pollution Control (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/sections/bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=37955 )
Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee. 2008. Lower St Johns River Basin Management Action Plan (Draft) (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/northeast/stjohns/TMDL/tmdl_announcements.htm )