Question A: Harmful algal blooms result in significant economic loss for Ohio.
Question B: Taxing fertilizer use would be an efficient way to reduce improve the quality of Ohio's surface water.
Question A: Harmful algal blooms result in significant economic loss for Ohio.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Agree | 10 | |
| David Brasington | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 6 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Agree | 10 | It harms fisheries and tourism and also local recreational opportunities as citizens visit the beach less and fish/boat less in the area. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Uncertain | 6 | |
| Will Georgic | Ohio Wesleyan University | Strongly Agree | 10 | There is an abundance of peer reviewed evidence indicating that Ohio suffers significant economic losses each year attributable to harmful algal blooms. Harmful algal blooms cause a decrease in property values (Wolf, Gopalakrishnan, and Klaiber 2022), a fall in fishing license sales and associated economic activity (Wolf, Georgic, and Klaiber 2017), and changes in recreational behavior such as swimming at the lake (Wolf et al. 2019; Zhang and Sohngen 2018). |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Agree | 7 | |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Uncertain | 6 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Uncertain | 10 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Agree | 6 | |
| Kay Strong | Independent | Strongly Agree | 10 | |
| Iryna Topolyan | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 10 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Agree | 8 |
Question B: Taxing fertilizer use would be an efficient way to reduce improve the quality of Ohio's surface water.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Agree | 3 | I'm not sure this is the MOST efficient way to address the problem because farmers (golf courses etc) already have a financial incentive to avoid wasting fertilizer that runs off into waterways and yet many do it anyhow, so the cost of fertilizer isn't a big disincentive right now and a modest increase in the cost of wasted fertilizer might not have much effect. Plus, this wouldn't address the runoff that comes from poorly managed sewage (both from the millions of humans in the watershed and many more millions of livestock). I think we need more data collection to see who is really causing the problem. My wife recently wrote a grant to use commercial drones to sample waterways and soils across the region and it is worth trying that project to see where the problem is really coming from. Probably there are many responsible farmers who manage their fertilizer efficiently and it is unfortunate to punish them with a blunt tax instead of fining the real polluters. Also, anhydrous ammonia leaches very little compared with other forms, so the proposed tax should avoid anhydrous. |
| David Brasington | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 8 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Agree | 10 | The agricultural demand for fertilizer will decrease some with a large price increase due to a large corrective tax on fertilizer. But even if a smaller corrective fee is used this will lead to new government revenue that can be used to subsidize farmers to use practices that will directly reduce fertilizer use such as direct injection application. Moreover, it is efficient for more laws farmers must follow such as mandatory soil testing and they must do variable rate application that follows the soil testing. No industry wants regulations. But efficient regulations are there to limit pollution and fertilizer runoff is polluting our water. Once efficient regulations are put in place all farmers must follow them so there is no disadvantage for any one farmer. Their cost to grow corn/soybeans may increase a little and then part of that cost increase is passed on to consumers. This is how all markets work. Unfortunately when the Clean Water Act passed in the 1970s farmers where exempt and that is why we have the harmful algal blooms today. It is time to fix this loophole. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Agree | 8 | |
| Will Georgic | Ohio Wesleyan University | Agree | 7 | Theoretically, taxing fertilizer would be an efficient way to reduce fertilizer application in the Lake Erie watershed. Subsidizing farmers to forego fertilizer application on a per acre basis would also be efficient and perhaps more politically feasible. Subsidizing the planting of buffer crops could also be helpful. As I am an economist and not a physical scientist, I have some reservation about stating that the relationship between phosphorous loading and harmful algal bloom proliferation is unambiguously positive, all else equal (Hellweger et al 2022). However, the most efficient way to reduce nutrient loading into Lake Erie would certainly be through market based instruments such as taxes and subsidies (payments to farmers). |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Agree | 7 | |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Agree | 8 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Kay Strong | Independent | Strongly Agree | 5 | Taxing will likely raise end product prices if farmers can pass along the added cost. |
| Iryna Topolyan | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 6 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Agree | 8 |
