Developing agricultural pest management strategies with reduced-risks to surface water: An economic case study of California's Central Coast region
Brian Gress,Yanan Zheng,Rachael Goodhue,Michael Grieneisen,Hanlin Wei,Alejandro Del Pozo-Valdivia,Ian Grettenberger,Frank Zalom,John Steggall,Kevi Mace
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121022
Abstract:Pesticides are critical for protecting agricultural crops, but the off-site transport of these materials via spray drift and runoff poses risks to surface waters and aquatic life. California's Central Coast region is a major agricultural hub in the United States characterized by year-round production and intensive use of pesticides and other chemical inputs. As a result, the quality of many waterbodies in the region has been degraded. A recent regulatory program enacted by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board set new pesticide limits for waterways and imposed enhanced enforcement mechanisms to help ensure that water quality targets are met by specific dates. This regulatory program, however, does not mandate specific changes to pest management programs. In this study, we evaluate the economic, environmental, and pest management impacts of adopting two alternative pest management programs with reduced risks to surface water: 1) replacing currently used insecticide active ingredients (AIs) that pose the greatest risk to surface water with lower-risk alternatives and 2) converting conventional arthropod pest management programs to organic ones. We utilize pesticide use and toxicity data from California's Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop our baseline and two alternative scenarios. We focus on three crop groups (cole crops, lettuce and strawberry) due to their economic importance to the Central Coast and use of high-risk AIs. For Scenario 1, we estimate that implementing the alternative program in the years 2017-2019 would have reduced annual net returns on average by $90.26 - $190.54/ha, depending on the crop. Increased material costs accounted for the greatest share of this effect (71.9%-95.6%). In contrast, Scenario 2 would have reduced annual net returns on average by $5,628.12 - $18,708.28/ha during the study period, with yield loss accounting for the greatest share (92.8-97.9%). Both alternative programs would have reduced the associated toxic units by at least 98.1% compared to the baseline scenario. Our analysis provides important guidance for policymakers and agricultural producers looking to achieve environmental protection goals while minimizing economic impacts.