Enhancing Efficacy of Water Quality Trading with Automation: A Case Study in Virginia’s Nutrient Trading Program

The complexity of water quality trading (WQT) policy can lead to the promulgation of regulations that are challenging to comply with and to enforce. As a result, transaction costs may be high and administrators have limited ability to monitor the program outcomes. These concerns can be alleviated in part through increased automation of trading compliance procedures. We present a case study of a pilot system designed for the Virginia Department of Transportation that automates compliance and streamlines brokering processes that are a part of the Virginia nonpoint source WQT program. Outcomes of this work reveal opportunities and challenges for implementing automated systems in WQT and suggest a framework for developing automated programs. We conclude that use of automated procedures to facilitate compliance with WQT rules can help identify gaps in data reporting and availability, amend inconsistency in rule interpretation, and reduce transaction costs for credit purchasers by enabling efficient analysis of trading opportunities. Persistent limitations to automation exist, including lack of standardized, machine accessible, and open data sources. Potential long‐term benefits of automating WQT processes include minimizing transaction costs, enabling new environmental data collection and policy analysis, and ultimately yielding improved WQT program efficacy and water resources outcomes.

[1]  Kristin Falk,et al.  Systems Engineering Principles to Enable Supplier-Led Solutions , 2019, Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019.

[2]  J. Shortle,et al.  Water quality trading , 2018, The Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Economics.

[3]  Kim McEligot,et al.  System Engineering Strategies for Coastal Flooding Mitigation , 2018, INCOSE International Symposium.

[4]  Matthew T. Heberling,et al.  Exploring Nontraditional Participation as an Approach to Make Water Quality Trading Markets More Effective , 2018, Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

[5]  Cecilia Haskins,et al.  Application of systems engineering to structuring acquisition decisions for marine emission reduction technologies , 2018, Syst. Eng..

[6]  L. Shabman,et al.  Where Did the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Trades Go? Lessons from Virginia Water Quality Trading Programs , 2017 .

[7]  M. Arabi,et al.  Policy Utopias for Nutrient Credit Trading Programs with Nonpoint Sources , 2017 .

[8]  L. Epstein,et al.  Nutrient Trading By Municipal Stormwater Programs In Maryland And Virginia: Three Case Studies , 2017 .

[9]  J. Goodall,et al.  Comparing Costs of Onsite Best Management Practices to Nutrient Credits for Stormwater Management: A Case Study in Virginia , 2017 .

[10]  Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou,et al.  Understanding governance, risk and compliance information systems (GRC IS): The experts view , 2016, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[11]  Kurt Stephenson,et al.  Transactions costs of expanding nutrient trading to agricultural working lands: A Virginia case study , 2016 .

[12]  Robert L. Glicksman,et al.  Next Generation Compliance , 2015 .

[13]  A. Saleh,et al.  Evaluating Nutrient Tracking Tool and simulated conservation practices , 2015, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[14]  R. Duncan,et al.  Regulating agricultural land use to manage water quality: the challenges for science and policy in enforcing limits on non-point source pollution in New Zealand , 2014 .

[15]  R. Rivero,et al.  WATER QUALITY TRADING PROGRAMS TOWARDS SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS , 2013 .

[16]  L. Band,et al.  Local comprehensive plan quality and regional ecosystem protection: The case of the Jordan Lake watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A. , 2013 .

[17]  Karen Fisher-Vanden,et al.  Moving Pollution Trading from Air to Water: Potential, Problems, and Prognosis , 2013 .

[18]  Tom Butler,et al.  A conceptual model and IS framework for the design and adoption of environmental compliance management systems , 2012, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[19]  Edward Osei,et al.  Nutrient Tracking Tool—a user-friendly tool for calculating nutrient reductions for water quality trading , 2011, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[20]  J. Delgado,et al.  Nitrogen in Agricultural Systems: Implications for Conservation Policy , 2011 .

[21]  M. Selman,et al.  Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed , 2011 .

[22]  Richard D. Horan,et al.  Economic and Ecological Rules for Water Quality Trading 1 , 2011 .

[23]  Venkat Venkatasubramanian,et al.  An ontological framework for automated regulatory compliance in pharmaceutical manufacturing , 2010, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[24]  Todd BenDor,et al.  Landscape characteristics of a stream and wetland mitigation banking program. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[25]  K. Bamberger,et al.  Technologies of Compliance: Risk and Regulation in a Digital Age , 2009 .

[26]  R. Horan,et al.  The Economics of Water Quality Trading , 2008 .

[27]  K. Fisher-Vanden,et al.  A New Approach to Water Quality Trading: Applying Lessons from the Acid Rain Program to the Lower Boise River Watershed , 2004 .

[28]  Bradley C. Karkkainen,et al.  Information as Environmental Regulation: TRI and Performance Benchmarking, Precursor to a New Paradigm? , 2000, Environmental Law.

[29]  D. Hoag,et al.  Theory and Practice of Pollution Credit Trading in Water Quality Management , 1997 .

[30]  David D. Walden,et al.  Systems engineering handbook : a guide for system life cycle processes and activities , 2015 .

[31]  S. Walker,et al.  Addressing Risk and Uncertainty in Water Quality Trading Markets , 2014 .

[32]  C. Abdalla,et al.  Water Quality Credit Trading and Agriculture : Recognizing the Challenges and Policy Issues Ahead , 2010 .

[33]  Morgan M. Robertson,et al.  Water Quality Trading: What Can We Learn From 10 Years of Wetland Mitigation Banking? , 2005 .

[34]  U. Epa,et al.  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance , 1997 .