Em4885 irrigation management practices to protect ground water

Water Quality as an Economic Issue
3
CHAPTER 2
Degradation of water quality has an economic impact. If the degraded quality of a waterbody
prevents a beneficial use, the economic value of that use is lost. For example, if stream or lake
quality is impaired to such a degree that fisheries are not supported, the economic value of fishing
as both recreation and a food supply is lost. Frequently the values of lost beneficial uses are difficult
to estimate accurately; however, they must be considered when formulating policy or determining
required actions.
The cost of degradation of domestic or industrial water supplies is more easily identified,
especially if that supply is ground water. The minimum cost of individual household nitrate removal
systems is in the $300 range. New domestic wells that might be required to reach a cleaner aquifer
currently cost from $20-$30 a foot to drill. Note also that areas with contaminated ground water are
not as attractive to new businesses that might want to relocate. And, in the worst case, home and
land values may be reduced if located in an area with known water quality problems.
The assessment of economic impacts of ground water pollution, including both lost benefits and
the (appropriate) cost of remediation and control, are complicated by several factors. As identified
in WSU Cooperative Extension publication EB1751, Economic Issues in Protecting Ground Water
Quality, these include:
1. Irreversibility - It may be difficult, if not impossible, and certainly takes substantial time
and effort, to clean up a contaminated aquifer. As the costs of aquifer cleanup are more
accurately identified (especially with the experience at Superfund sites), it becomes clearer
that it is much less expensive to prevent pollution rather than have to clean up pollution.
2. Uniqueness - There may not be a substitute supply in areas where aquifers are a primary
water supply. Then the cost of pollution prevention and cleanup are necessary requirements.
An aquifer may be designated as a “sole-source” aquifer by the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency. A sole-source aquifer is one that supplies 50% or more of an area’s
drinking water and to which contamination would create a significant health hazard.
There are seven sole-source aquifers in Washington:
1) Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie,
2) Camano Island,
3) Whidbey Island,
4) Cross Valley,
5) Newberg Area,
6) Lewiston Basin,
7) Cedar Valley.
3. Indivisibility - Aquifers serve many uses and many users. Different parts of aquifers cannot
be “fenced off” like real property. If one user pollutes the aquifer, it is generally polluted
for all users. Note that some contamination can be accommodated for some types of uses.
Nitrate concentrations in water that preclude its use as drinking water do not adversely
affect its use as an irrigation supply.