Dataset Information

The Effects of Agricultural and Urban Land Use on Drinking Water Treatment Costs: An Analysis of United States Community Water Systems.

ABSTRACT: For community water providers, safeguarding source waters from contamination offers an additional barrier of protection and a potential means of avoiding in-plant treatment costs. Whether source water protection efforts are cost-effective relative to in-plant treatment requires hydrologic, geologic, and climatologic knowledge of source watersheds, as well as an understanding of how changes in source water quality affect treatment costs. Quantitative evidence on the latter relationship is limited. This study estimates separate hedonic cost functions for water systems that primarily use surface water sources and those that primarily use groundwater sources using a database of United States (US) Community Water Systems. Cost functions relate annual variable treatment cost to production, factor input prices, capital stock, and source water quality, as proxied by land use within various ex-ante defined contributing areas (i.e., surrounding land areas affecting source water quality). For surface water systems, a 1% increase in urban land relative to forestland is correlated with a 0.13% increase in annual variable treatment costs. In this analysis, the relationship between costs and agricultural land is not statistically significant. Conversely, for groundwater systems, a 1% increase in agricultural land relative to forestland is correlated with a 0.24% increase in costs, whereas in this analysis the relationship between costs and urban land is not statistically significant. The cost-effectiveness of forestland preservation, based on sample means, varies considerably with the size of the contributing area, with no clear indication as to whether preservation is more likely to be cost-effective for surface water or groundwater systems.

SUBMITTER: Price JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340599 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUrban organic waste diverted from landfills for use as compost feedstock may help mitigate and adapt to the effects of our changing climate. Yet, compost produced from urban food and yard waste is often a source of contaminants harmful to human and environmental health. Efforts by multiple municipalities are increasing residential and commercial food and yard waste collection; however, finished, tested compost is typically unavailable to those contributing the waste and whose gardens would benefit.ObjectivesThis commentary evaluates the relative equity and safety of U.S. organic waste cycles in relation to urban and peri-urban agriculture (UA) and waste stewardship. We a) explore historical structures that have led to siloed food and waste systems and b) provide recommendations to promote safer compost production from urban organic waste inputs. The engagement of intersectional partners in the creation of equitable policies and contracts that integrate food and waste justice is crucial to this work.MethodsA 15-y relationship between community, academic, and government partners in Boston, Massachusetts, has increased access to health-promoting community gardens. Historical concerns raised by gardeners resulted in improvement to the quality of compost sourced from municipal organic waste and motivated a case study of Boston and three other cities (Seattle, Washington; San Francisco, California; New York, New York). This case study provides the approaches used to source, collect, process, test, and deliver urban organic waste as compost for UA. It informed recommendations to improve the safety and equity of organic waste-to-compost cycles.DiscussionStrict feedstock regulation and required compost safety testing are essential to produce safe, city-sourced compost. Balancing the needs of landfill diversion with equitable distribution to all contributors, particularly low-income and food-insecure people, will help concentrate UA benefits within marginalized communities. Adoption of a public health lens may help ensure the safety of nutrient-rich compost available for urban growers through legislation at state and local levels, along with explicit industry contracts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12921.

Project description:Background: In the United States, nationwide estimates of public drinking water arsenic exposure are not readily available. We used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Six-Year Review contaminant occurrence data set to estimate public water arsenic exposure. We compared community water system (CWS) arsenic concentrations during 2006-2008 vs. after 2009-2011, the initial monitoring period for compliance with the U.S. EPA's 10??g/L arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL).Objective: Our objective was to characterize potential inequalities in CWS arsenic exposure over time and across sociodemographic subgroups.Methods: We estimated 3-y average arsenic concentrations for 36,406 CWSs (98%) and 2,740 counties (87%) and compared differences in means and quantiles of water arsenic (via quantile regression) between both 3-y periods for U.S. regions and sociodemographic subgroups. We assigned CWSs and counties MCL compliance categories (High if above the MCL; Low if below) for each 3-y period.Results: From 2006-2008 to 2009-2011, mean and 95th percentile CWS arsenic (in micrograms per liter) declined by 10.3% (95% CI: 6.5%, 14.1%) and 11.5% (8.3%, 14.8%) nationwide, by 11.4% (4.7%, 18.1%) and 16.3% (8.1%, 24.5%) for the Southwest, and by 36.8% (7.4%, 66.1%) and 26.5% (12.1%, 40.8%) for New England, respectively. CWSs in the High/High compliance category (not MCL compliant) were more likely in the Southwest (61.1%), served by groundwater (94.7%), serving smaller populations (mean 1,102 persons), and serving Hispanic communities (38.3%).Discussion: Larger absolute declines in CWS arsenic concentrations at higher water arsenic quantiles indicate declines are related to MCL implementation. CWSs reliant on groundwater, serving smaller populations, located in the Southwest, and serving Hispanic communities were more likely to continue exceeding the arsenic MCL, raising environmental justice concerns. These estimates of public drinking water arsenic exposure can enable further surveillance and epidemiologic research, including assessing whether differential declines in water arsenic exposure resulted in differential declines in arsenic-associated disease. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7313.

Project description:Excess nitrate in drinking water is a human health concern, especially for young children. Public drinking water systems in violation of the 10 mg nitrate-N/L maximum contaminant level (MCL) must be reported in EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). We used SDWIS data with random forest modeling to examine the drivers of nitrate violations across the conterminous U.S. and to predict where public water systems are at risk of exceeding the nitrate MCL. As explanatory variables, we used land cover, nitrogen inputs, soil/hydrogeology, and climate variables. While we looked at the role of nitrate treatment in separate analyses, we did not include treatment as a factor in the final models, due to incomplete information in SDWIS. For groundwater (GW) systems, a classification model correctly classified 79% of catchments in violation and a regression model explained 43% of the variation in nitrate concentrations above the MCL. The most important variables in the GW classification model were % cropland, agricultural drainage, irrigation-to-precipitation ratio, nitrogen surplus, and surplus precipitation. Regions predicted to have risk for nitrate violations in GW were the Central California Valley, parts of Washington, Idaho, the Great Plains, Piedmont of Pennsylvania and Coastal Plains of Delaware, and regions of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. For surface water (SW) systems, a classification model correctly classified 90% of catchments and a regression model explained 52% of the variation in nitrate concentration. The variables most important for the SW classification model were largely hydroclimatic variables including surplus precipitation, irrigation-to-precipitation ratio, and % shrubland. Areas at greatest risk for SW nitrate violations were generally in the non-mountainous west and southwest. Identifying the areas with possible risk for future violations and potential drivers of nitrate violations across U.S. can inform decisions on how source water protection and other management options could best protect drinking water.

Dataset Information

The Effects of Agricultural and Urban Land Use on Drinking Water Treatment Costs: An Analysis of United States Community Water Systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets