Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />o <br />O~ <br />U\ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />and impose restrictions on. Diffuse sources, however, are not easily <br /> <br />locatable, nor can they be monitored effectively for the most part. <br /> <br />Imposing restrictions on such sources is difficult, particularly if sever- <br /> <br />al activities or individuals (or firms) are located near or within a dif- <br /> <br />fuse source area. Imposition may be inequitable in that activities which <br /> <br />do not significantly contribute pollution may have their activity reduced <br /> <br />(conversely, no action may be possible against a particular polluter). <br /> <br />The implementation of controls on water pollution will be accom- <br /> <br />plished in one of three ways: (1) economic incentives for pollution con- <br /> <br />trol by polluters; (2) legal or institutional constraints on pollution- <br /> <br />producing activities; or (3) investment in pollution removal technology <br /> <br />by users or by the public sector. These ways are not mutually exc1u- <br /> <br />sive and, in fact, each will likely effect changes in the other activities. <br /> <br />Assume, however, that each is independent of the other for analytical <br /> <br />purposes. <br /> <br />Economic Incentives <br /> <br />Economic incentives to pollution reduction from point sources <br /> <br />polluters may take the form of imposing costs for utilization of the wa- <br /> <br />ter resource as a waste carrier (effluent charges). Similarly, econom- <br /> <br />ic incentives may also take the form of subsidies to investment in less- <br /> <br />pollution technologies. These subsidies, to be effective, must be suf- <br /> <br />ficient to increase. net returns at the margin equal to or greater than <br /> <br />the alternative technology. <br /> <br />27 <br />