Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Agricultural Water, Nitrogen Use, and Groundwater Nitrate Impacts
1.2. Groundwater Nitrate Treatment, Non-Treatment, and Prevention Options
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Study Area Characterization
2.2. Determining Recharge Buffer Zone Area
2.3. Beneficial Agricultural Management Practices in Buffer Zones
2.4. Identification of Developing Communities
2.5. Data Sources, Aggregation, and Analysis
2.6. Economic Analysis of Land Buffers Conversion
Impact Type | Description | Role/Impact |
---|---|---|
Direct effects | The set of expenditures applied to the predictive model (i.e., I/O multipliers) for impact analysis. It is one (or a series of) production change(s) or expenditure(s) made by producers/consumers as a result of an activity or policy | These initial changes are determined by an analyst to be a result of this activity or policy. Applying these initial changes to the multipliers in an IMPLAN model will then display how the region will economically respond to these initial changes. |
Indirect effects | The impact of local industries buying goods and services from other local industries. | The cycle of spending works its way backward through the supply chain until all money leaks from the local economy, either through imports or by payments to value added. |
Induced effects | The response by an economy to an initial change (direct effect) that occurs through re-spending of income received by a component of value added. | IMPLAN’s default multiplier recognizes that labor income (employee compensation and proprietor income components of value added) is not leaked to the regional economy. This money is recirculated through household spending patterns, causing further local economic activity. |
3. Results
3.1. Developing Communities and Current Water Quality
Community type | Household Income | Population Density | Population | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median | Min | Max | Median | Min | Max | Median | Min | Max | Total | |
DC | $26,379 | $19,838 | $37,684 | 410 | 47 | 2462 | 1951 | 106 | 32,684 | 154,500 |
NDAC | $46,797 | $38,594 | $76,277 | 160 | 17 | 2368 | 799 | 115 | 17,560 | 48,125 |
3.2. Buffer Effects on Fertilizer, Leaching Loss, and Revenue Rates
Land Use | 500 m Buffer Zone | 1000 m Buffer Zone | 2000 m Buffer Zone | 4000 m Buffer Zone |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cropland | 11,263 | 27,230 | 73,040 | 209,699 |
Natural land and pasture | 2888 | 6190 | 15,546 | 49,259 |
Urban | 11,387 | 14,095 | 19,718 | 33,083 |
Dairy Facilities and other farmsteads | 257 | 617 | 1717 | 5458 |
Area of cropland receiving manure | 680 | 1542 | 4587 | 17,277 |
Total | 25,794 | 48,132 | 110,021 | 297,499 |
Crop Groups | Gross Agricultural Crop Annual Revenues by Buffer Size (Millions $ 2007) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
500 m | 1000 m | 2000 m | 4000 m | |
Field crops and grain | 9.1 | 22.9 | 61.7 | 178.7 |
Subtropical fruit and vineyards 1 | 17.4 | 39.7 | 100.8 | 275.2 |
Tree Fruits and Nuts | 53.1 | 130.9 | 362.0 | 1,021.2 |
Pasture and Forages | 4.4 | 10.4 | 26.3 | 75.5 |
Vegetables and berry crops | 6.2 | 15.0 | 44.2 | 115.8 |
Total | 90.2 | 218.9 | 595.0 | 1,666.5 |
Agricultural Land Use | Area | Synthetic Fertilizer N | Harvested N | Ground-Water Leaching N | Area | Synthetic Fertilizer N | Harvested N | Ground-Water Leaching N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- | ha | kg N ha−1·yr−1 | - | |||||
Subtropical | 3455 | 103 | 55 | 57 | 13% | 11% | 6% | 9% |
Tree fruit | 2436 | 114 | 25 | 92 | 9% | 8% | 2% | 10% |
Nuts | 2398 | 177 | 94 | 81 | 9% | 12% | 7% | 9% |
Cotton | 3579 | 191 | 86 | 101 | 13% | 20% | 9% | 17% |
Corn | 2381 | 235 | 221 | 6 | 9% | 16% | 16% | 1% |
Field, grain, and hay crops (w/o cotton, corn, alfalfa) | 3487 | 175 | 143 | 41 | 13% | 18% | 15% | 6% |
Alfalfa | 3060 | 12 | 436 | 30 | 11% | 1% | 40% | 4% |
Vegetables and berries | 1254 | 205 | 84 | 115 | 5% | 8% | 3% | 7% |
Vineyards | 5181 | 37 | 17 | 31 | 19% | 6% | 3% | 7% |
Additional manure N on dairy cropland (corn) | 1542 | - | - | 400 | - | - | - | 28% |
Dairy facilities w/corrals and lagoons | 210 | - | - | 183 | - | - | - | 2% |
Farmstead (not including dairy) | 407 | - | - | 20 | - | - | - | 0% |
3.3. Estimated Costs of Land Use Buffers
Recharge Basins (% of Buffer Zone) | Alfalfa/Vineyard split (% of Remaining Buffer Zone Area) Annual Direct Revenue (Sector Output) Gains (in Million $ 2007) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0/100 | 10/90 | 33.6/66.6 | 50/50 | 66.7/33.3 | 90/10 | 100/0 | |
1% | 279.2 | 259.9 | 214.7 | 182.5 | 150.3 | 105.1 | 85.8 |
3% | 273.6 | 254.6 | 210.4 | 178.8 | 147.2 | 103.0 | 84.1 |
10% | 253.8 | 236.2 | 195.2 | 165.9 | 136.6 | 95.6 | 78.0 |
Effects | % Recharge Basins | 0/100 | 10/90 | 33.3/66.7 | 50/50 | 66.7/33.3 | 90/10 | 100/0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Net direct effects (million $ 2007) | 1% | 73.0 | 53.6 | 8.5 | −23.7 | −56.0 | −101.1 | −120.4 |
3% | 67.4 | 48.4 | 4.2 | −27.4 | −59.0 | −103.2 | −122.2 | |
10% | 47.6 | 30.0 | −11.0 | −40.3 | −69.6 | −110.6 | −128.2 | |
Net total effects (million $ 2007) | 1% | 125.7 | 92.4 | 14.7 | −40.8 | −96.3 | −174.0 | −207.3 |
3% | 115.9 | 83.3 | 7.2 | −47.2 | −101.6 | −177.7 | −210.3 | |
10% | 82.0 | 51.7 | −18.9 | −69.4 | −119.8 | −190.5 | −220.7 |
Effects | % Recharge Basins | 0/100 | 10/90 | 33.3/66.7 | 50/50 | 66.7/33.3 | 90/10 | 100/0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Net direct effects (jobs) | 1% | 423 | 311 | 49 | −138 | −325 | −586 | −698 |
3% | 391 | 281 | 24 | −159 | −342 | −599 | −709 | |
10% | 276 | 174 | −64 | −234 | −404 | −642 | −744 | |
Net total effects (jobs) | 1% | 971 | 714 | 113 | −315 | −744 | −1344 | −1602 |
3% | 896 | 644 | 56 | −365 | −785 | −1373 | −1625 | |
10% | 633 | 399 | −146 | −536 | −926 | −1472 | −1705 |
Effects | % Recharge Basins | 0/100 | 10/90 | 33.3/66.7 | 50/50 | 66.7/33.3 | 90/10 | 100/0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Net direct effects (million $ 2007) | 1% | 16.0 | 11.8 | 1.9 | −5.2 | −12.3 | −22.1 | −26.4 |
3% | 14.8 | 10.6 | 0.9 | −6.0 | −12.9 | −22.6 | −26.8 | |
10% | 10.4 | 6.6 | −2.4 | −8.8 | −15.3 | −24.2 | −28.1 | |
Net total effects (million $ 2007) | 1% | 33.6 | 24.7 | 3.9 | −10.9 | −25.7 | −46.5 | −55.4 |
3% | 31.0 | 22.3 | 1.9 | −12.6 | −27.1 | −47.5 | −56.2 | |
10% | 21.9 | 13.8 | −5.1 | −18.5 | −32.0 | −50.9 | −59.0 |
3.4. Estimated Cost of Conversion
Recharge Basins (% of Buffer Zone) | Alfalfa/Vineyard Split (% of Remaining Buffer Zone Area) Cost of Conversion (Billion $) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0/100 | 10/90 | 33.6/66.6 | 50/50 | 66.7/33.3 | 90/10 | 100/0 | |
1% | 2.73 | 2.44 | 1.80 | 1.34 | 0.87 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
3% | 2.68 | 2.40 | 1.76 | 1.31 | 0.86 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
10% | 2.48 | 2.21 | 1.63 | 1.21 | 0.79 | 0.21 | 0.23 |
4. Discussion
4.1. Determining Local Appropriateness of Application
4.2. Complementary Policy Options
4.3. Additional Planning and Design Considerations
4.4. Limitations and Further Study
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Foley, J.A. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gleick, P. Basic water requirements for human activities: Meeting basic needs. Water Int. 1996, 21, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faunt, C.C. Groundwater Availability in the Central Valley Aquifer, California; US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766; United States Geological Survey (USGS): Reston, VA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wada, Y.; van Beek, L.P.H.; van Kempen, C.M.; Reckman, J.W.T.M.; Vasak, S.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galloway, J.N.; Townsend, A.R.; Erisman, J.W.; Bekunda, M.; Cai, Z.; Freney, J.R.; Martinelli, L.A.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Sutton, M.A. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 2008, 320, 889–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drecht, G.V.; Bouwman, A.F.; Knoop, J.M.; Beusen, A.H.W.; Meinardi, C.R. Global modeling of the fate of nitrogen from point and nonpoint sources in soils, groundwater, and surface water. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2003, 17, 1115–1135. [Google Scholar]
- Galloway, J.N.; Dentener, F.J.; Capone, D.G.; Boyer, E.W.; Howarth, R.W.; Seitzinger, S.P.; Asner, G.P.; Cleveland, C.C.; Green, P.A.; Holland, E.A.; et al. Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 2004, 70, 153–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natural Resources Conservation Service. Nitrogen Fertilizer Guide Technical Handbook; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Townsend, A.R.; Howarth, R.W.; Bazzaz, F.A.; Booth, M.S.; Cleveland, C.C. Human health effects of a changing global nitrogen cycle. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 5, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nolan, B.T.; Hitt, K.J. Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged ground waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 36, 2138–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smil, V. Nitrogen in crop production: An account of global flows. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1999, 13, 647–662. [Google Scholar]
- McLay, C.D.A.; Dragten, R.; Sparling, G.; Selvarajah, N. Predicting groundwater nitrate concentrations in a region of mixed agricultural land use: A comparison of three approaches. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 115, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nolan, B.T. Relating nitrogen sources and aquifer susceptibility to nitrate in shallow ground waters of the United States. Ground Water 2001, 39, 290–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lockhart, K.M.; King, A.M.; Harter, T. Identifying sources of groundwater nitrate contamination in a large alluvial groundwater basin with highly diversified intensive agricultural production. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2013, 151, 140–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nolan, B.T.; Hitt, K.J. Vulnerability of shallow groundwater and drinking-water wells to nitrate in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 7834–7840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schröder, J.J.; Scholefield, D.; Cabral, F.; Hofman, G. The effects of nutrient losses from agriculture on ground and surface water quality: The position of science in developing indicators for regulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2004, 7, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubrovsky, N.M.; Burow, K.R.; Clark, G.M.; Gronberg, J.M.; Hamilton, P.A.; Hitt, K.J.; Mueller, D.K.; Munn, M.D.; Nolan, B.T.; Puckett, L.J.; et al. Nutrients in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater, 1992–2004; USGS Circular 1350; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 2009.
- Rabalais, N.N. Nitrogen in aquatic ecosystems. AMBIO 2002, 31, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Vitousek, P.M.; Aber, J.D.; Howarth, R.W.; Likens, G.E.; Matson, P.A.; Schindler, D.W.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Tilman, D.G. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: Sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 1997, 7, 737–750. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfe, A.H.; Patz, J.A. Reactive nitrogen and human health: Acute and long-term implications. AMBIO 2002, 31, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Jackson, R.B.; Carpenter, S.R.; Dahm, C.N.; McKnight, D.M.; Naiman, R.J.; Postel, S.L.; Running, S.W. Water in a changing world. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 1027–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oki, T.; Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 2006, 313, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nitrate and Nitrite Human Health Fact Sheet; Argonne National Laboratory: DuPage County, IL, USA, 2005.
- Nitrates/Nitrites Chemical Fact Sheet; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water. Available online: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm (accessed on 13 July 2011).
- Jensen, V.B.; Darby, J.L.; Seidel, C.; Gorman, C. Technical Report 6 of Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature: Drinking Water Treatment for Nitrate; University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Science: Davis, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Harter, T.; Lund, J.; Darby, J.; Fogg, G.; Howitt, R.; Jessoe, K.; Pettygrove, S.; Quinn, J.; Viers, J. Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature; University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Science: Davis, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N. The economics of nitrate pollution. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 1990, 17, 129–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döll, P.; Fiedler, K. Global-scale modeling of groundwater recharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 12, 863–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frind, E.O.; Molson, J.W.; Rudolph, D.L. Well vulnerability: A quantitative approach for source water protection. Groundwater 2006, 44, 732–742. [Google Scholar]
- Rudolph, D. Quantifying the Performance of Regional Scale Reductions in Nutrient Applications for Source Water Protection through Vadose Zone Monitoring; Toward Sustainable Groundwater in Agriculture: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Boyle, D.; King, A.; Kourakos, G.; Lockhart, K.; Mayzelle, M.; Fogg, G.E.; Harter, T. Technical Report 4 of Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature; Groundwater Nitrate Occurrence; University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Science: Davis, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Almasri, M.N.; Kaluarachchi, J.J. Assessment and management of long-term nitrate pollution of ground water in agriculture-dominated watersheds. J. Hydrol. 2004, 295, 225–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- California Agricultural Statistics; United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS): Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Sevice (USDA ERS), California Fact Sheet. 2010. Available online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/CA.htm (accessed on 20 July 2011).
- Tadlock, C. California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region of Transition; Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Water & Health in the Valley: Nitrate Contamination of Drinking Water and the Health of San Joaquin Valley Residents; Health and Drinking Water Series; Community Water Center: Visalia, CA, USA, 2011.
- Bianchi, M.; Harter, T. Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Irrigated Agriculture; ANR Publication 8055; University of California, Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Dubrovsky, N.M.; Kratzer, C.R.; Brown, L.R.; Gronberg, J.M.; Burow, K.R. Water Quality in the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California, 1992–95; Circular 1159; USGS: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA): Domestic Well Project Groundwater Quality Data Report Tulare County Focus Area; California State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Protection Section: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2010.
- Moore, E.; Matalon, E.; Balazs, C.; Clary, J. The Human Costs of Nitrate-contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley; Pacific Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Balazs, C.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Hubbard, A.; Ray, I. Social disparities in nitrate contaminated drinking water in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1272–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reed, D. California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles; Public Policy Institute of California: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
- Cantatore, A. United Nations Takes Issue with Water Quality in Central Valley. Available online: http://www.turlockjournal.com/section/12/article/11293/ (accessed on 20 September 2011).
- UN News Centre. Rich Countries Fall Short on Providing Safe Water, Sanitation for All—UN Expert. Available online: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39590&Cr=sanitation&Cr1= (accessed on 20 September 2011).
- Harter, T.; Rollins, L. Watersheds, Groundwater and Drinking Water: A Practical Guide; Publication 3497 Vols; University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources: Davis, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- California Department of Public Health. Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program, Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program. 2007. Available online: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/pages/dwsap.aspx (accessed on 6 October 2013). [Google Scholar]
- Cooley, H.; Christian-Smith, J.; Gleick, P.H.; Cohen, M.; Allen, L. Understanding and Reducing the Risks of Climate Change for Transboundary Waters; Pacific Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Public Policy Institute of California, Per Capita Urban Water Use: 1960–2005. 2012. Available online: http://www.ppic.org/main/mapdetail.asp?pp=988 (accessed on 11 October 2012).
- Kunstmann, H.; Kastens, M. Determination of stochastic well head protection zones by direct propagation of uncertainties of particle tracks. J. Hydrol. 2006, 323, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Posen, P.; Hutchins, M.; Lovett, A.; Davies, H. Identifying the catchment size at which robust estimations of agricultural land use can be made, and implications for diffuse pollution modelling. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 919–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremer, J.; Harter, T. Domestic wells have high probability of pumping septic tank leachate. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 2453–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esling, S.P.; Keller, J.E.; Miller, K.J. Reducing capture zone uncertainty with a systematic sensitivity analysis. Groundwater 2008, 46, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, S.L.; Adams, R.M.; Perry, G.M. The on-farm costs of reducing groundwater pollution. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1991, 73, 1063–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenstock, T.S.; Liptzin, D.; Dzurella, K.N.; Fryjoff-Hung, A.; Hollander, A.; Jensen, V.; King, A.; Kourakos, G.; McNally, A.; Pettygrove, S.; et al. Agriculture’s contribution to nitrate contamination of Californian groundwater (1945 to 2005). J. Environ. Q. 2013, 43, 895–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viers, J.H.; Liptzin, D.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Jensen, V.B.; Hollander, A.D.; McNally, A.; King, A.M.; Kourakos, G.; Lopez, E.M.; de La Mora, N.; et al. Technical Report 2 of Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water with a Focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley Groundwater Report for the State Water Resources Control Board Report to the Legislature: Nitrogen Sources and Loading to Ground Water; University of California, Davis, Center for Watershed Science: Davis, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Burow, K.R.; Shelton, J.L.; Dubrovsky, N.M. Occurrence of Nitrate and Pesticides in Groundwater Beneath Three Agricultural Land-Use Settings in the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California, 1993–1995; Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4284; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Rosenstock, T.S.; Liptzin, D.; Six, J.; Tomich, T.P. Nitrogen fertilizer use in California: Assessing the data, trends and a way forward. Calif. Agric. 2013, 67, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Letey, J.; Blair, J.W.; Devitt, D.; Lund, L.J.; Nash, P. Final Report to the National Science Foundation for Grant Nos. GI34733X, GI43664, AEN74-11136 A01, ENV76-10283 and PFR76-10283 Nitrate in Effluents from Irrigated Lands; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Nolan, B.T.; Hitt, K.J.; Ruddy, B.C. Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States. Environ. Sci. Policy 2002, 36, 2138–2145. [Google Scholar]
- Delgado, J.A.; Shaffer, M.; Hu, C.; Lavado, R.S.; Wong, J.C.; Joosse, P.; Li, X.; Rimski-Korsakov, H.; Follett, R.; Colon, W.; et al. A decade of change in nutrient management: A new nitrogen index. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 61, 62A–71A. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, L.; Letey, J.; French, C.; Wood, Y.; Birkle, D. Nitrate leaching hazard index developed for irrigated agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2005, 60, 90A–95A. [Google Scholar]
- Reeves, D.W. The role of soil organic matter in matintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 1997, 43, 131–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bachand, P.A.M.; Horwath, W.R.; Roy, S.B.; Choperena, J.; Cameron, D. Implications of Using On-Farm Flood Flow Capture to Recharge Groundwater and Mitigate Flood Risks Along the Kings River, CA; United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bachand and Associates: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Water Resources & Information and Management Engineering, Inc. Kings Basin Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model (IGSM) Model Development and Calibration; Upper Kings Basin Water Forum Kings River Conservation District and City of Fresno: Fresno, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kadlec, R.H.; Sujoy, B.R.; Munson, R.K.; Charlton, S.; Brownlie, W. Water quality performance of treatment wetlands in the Impreial Valley, California. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 1093–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalcic, M.; Chaubey, I.; Frankenberger, J.; Kladivko, E. A geospatial approach to targeting constructed wetlands for nitrate removal in agricultural watersheds. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2012, 28, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts. 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06019.html (accessed on 21 September 2011).
- Census Designated Place (CDP) Program for the 2010 Census—Final Criteria; Federal Registered Document E8–2667; United States Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2008.
- State of California; CAL; PRC. CODE § 4799.09: California Code—Section 4799.09. Available online: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PRC/1/d4/2.5/2/s4799.09 (accessed on 15 July 2011).
- Hollander, A.D. California Augmented Multisource Landcover Map; Information Center for the Environment, Technical Report; University of California, Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- California State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program. California Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Available online: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/geotracker_gama.shtml (accessed on 13 July 2011). [Google Scholar]
- Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. R5–2007–0035 General Order for Existing Milk Cow Dairies; California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2007.
- Howitt, R.; Medellin-Azuara, J.; MacEwan, D.; Lund, J. The California Statewide Agricultural Production Model. UC Davis. 2012. Available online: http://swap.ucdavis.edu/ (accessed on 1 July 2013).
- Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS v. 10. Available online: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/new (accessed on 1 July 2013).
- Day, F. Principles of Impact Analysis and IMPLAN Applications; Minnesota IMPLAN group: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Minnesota IMPLAN group. Corp. IMPLAN. 2012. Available online: http://implan.com/V4/Index.php (accessed on 21 July 2013).
- NAICS Sector 11—Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting; United States Census Bureau: Suitland, MD, USA, 2007.
- California Agricultural Resource Directory; United States Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service California Field Office: Reston, VA, USA, 2009.
- Frate, C.; Mueller, S.; Campbell-Mathews, M.; Canevari, M.; Klonsky, K.; de Moura, R. Sample Costs to Establish and Produce Alfalfa; University of California Cooperative Extension: Davis, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Verdegaal, P.; Klonsky, K.; de Moura, R. Sample Costs to Establish a Vineyard and Produce Winegrapes; University of California Cooperative Extension: Davis, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Narayanan, A.; Pitt, R. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control Practices; Department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama: Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bachand, P.A.M.; Horwath, W.R.; Roy, S.B.; Choperena, J.; Cameron, D. On-Farm Flood Flow Capture-Addressing Flood Risks and Groundwater Overdraft in the Kings Basin; Natural Resources Conservation District and Kings River Conservation District: Fresno, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- California Department of Water Resources. Central Valley Flood Protection Program. 2012. Available online: http://www.water.ca.gov/cvfmp/ (accessed on 1 July 2013). [Google Scholar]
- Kourakos, G.; Klein, F.; Cortis, A.; Harter, T. A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long-term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations. Water Resourc. Res. 2012, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mayzelle, M.M.; Viers, J.H.; Medellín-Azuara, J.; Harter, T. Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources. Water 2015, 7, 12-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010012
Mayzelle MM, Viers JH, Medellín-Azuara J, Harter T. Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources. Water. 2015; 7(1):12-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010012
Chicago/Turabian StyleMayzelle, Megan M., Joshua H. Viers, Josué Medellín-Azuara, and Thomas Harter. 2015. "Economic Feasibility of Irrigated Agricultural Land Use Buffers to Reduce Groundwater Nitrate in Rural Drinking Water Sources" Water 7, no. 1: 12-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/w7010012