Costs and benefits of urban erosion and sediment control: The North Carolina experience

Abstract

/ The EPA's new nonpoint source pollution control requirements will soon institutionalize urban erosion and sediment pollution control practices nationwide. The public and private sector costs and social benefits associated with North Carolina's program (one of the strongest programs in the country in terms of implementation authority, staffing levels, and comprehensiveness of coverage) are examined to provide general policy guidance on questions relating to the likely burden the new best management practices will have on the development industry, the likely costs and benefits of such a program, and the feasibility of running a program on a cost recovery basis. We found that urban erosion and sediment control requirements were not particularly burdensome to the development industry (adding about 4% on average to development costs). Public-sector program costs ranged between $2.4 and $4.8 million in fiscal year 1989. Our contingent valuation survey suggests that urban households in North Carolina are willing to pay somewhere between $7.1 and $14.2 million a year to maintain current levels of sediment pollution control. Our benefit-cost analysis suggests that the overall ratio is likely to be positive, although a definitive figure is elusive. Lastly, we found that several North Carolina localities have cost recovery fee systems that are at least partially self-financing.Approximately six billion tons of soil erode from the nation's lands each year. As much as one-third of that load is deposited in waterbodies, making sediment the United States' largest water pollutant in terms of volume (Clark and others, 1985). That sedimentation is costly; Clark and others (1985) and Colacicco and others (1989) estimate that sediment and sediment-related pollution cause anywhere from $3.7 to $14 billion in damages each year in the United States, including lost farm productivity due to soil erosion, i

Spatial Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Flood Risks in Aging-Dam Management in China: A Framework and Case Study

“…These sites are non-sealed, bare lands that have unit-soil loss rates that are much higher than comparable rates for undisturbed areas [26,27]. The urban road network is also a major source of sediments in urbanized river basins [28].…”

Montezuma Creek Stability Evaluation at Site of Former Monticello Tailings Pile

“…Clark et al (1985) and Colacicco et al (1989) estimate that the sediment and sediment-related pollution cause $3.7 to $14 billion in damages each year in the United States, including loss of farm productivity. Sediment loads from construction projects can be 2000 times those from wooded land, 200 times greater than pasture and 10 to 20 times greater than cultivated land (Paterson et al 1993). 34 b 6.…”

Adaptive Management of the Water Cycle on the Urban Fringe: Three Australian Case Studies

“…Proposals to provide new housing in the region were restricted in the early 1990s because of community concerns about the level of pollution in the rivers of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. Potential cost of increased environmental management (Paterson et al 1993) to future buyers was a central challenge.…”