competition for water: farming vs. fracking claudia hitaj, jeremy g. weber, and andrew boslett...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking
Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett
United States Association for Energy Economics North American Conference
October 25-28, 2015Pittsburgh, PA
*The views are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the USDA or the Economic Research Service
![Page 2: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Fracking and Farming in the News• “When drought occurs, fracking
and farming collide” (Denver Post, Feb 2014)
• “Kale or fracking? Farmers and corporations fight it out for water” (The Guardian, Nov 2014) Hydraulic Fracturing & Water
Stress, Ceres (2014)
EnergyInDepth.org (2014)
![Page 3: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Motivation
• Academic research on shale development and water has focused on water quality (Olmstead et al., 2013; Vidic et al., 2013)
• We focus on water quantity: does fracking crowd out water use in agriculture?
• Fracking uses several million gallons per well– Fracking in Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale can at times
account for nearly 90% of local water use (Nicot and Scanlon, 2012)
![Page 4: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Oil and Gas Extraction: Water Use Varies Within Plays
5
Map created using data from USGS
![Page 6: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Acres of Irrigated Harvested Cropland as Percent of All Harvested Cropland Acreage: 2012
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
![Page 7: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Theory
• Growth in water demand not necessarily a problem if institutions account for water scarcity
• But they may not (e.g. rule of capture), and fracking may cause further overuse
• A lack of crowding out may reflect– Fracking uses too little water to affect prices– Poorly functioning water markets (e.g. prices and
use don’t change)
![Page 8: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Data
Farm-level• Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS) from
2003, 2008, and 2013County-level• Water use per well across shale plays (USGS)• Wells drilled (DrillingInfo)• Palmer modified drought index (NOAA)
![Page 9: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
MethodologyDependent variables• Quantity of water for irrigation on farm (gallons
and gallons/acre), and price of waterIndependent variables• Quantity of water used for fracking normalized by
county area• Drought index and drought index squaredModels• Fixed effects at the farm level• First difference with state and state*year FE
![Page 10: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Fixed Effects: Irrigation Water (Gallons)Dependent variable:
Water for irrigation (gallons)All shale
states Kansas Louisiana Montana
Water for fracking -0.060 -2.151* 0.457** 3.937**(gallons/acres in county) (0.057) (1.231) (0.229) (1.717)
Drought index 134.033*** 63.942 6.550 67.742(24.461) (113.787) (172.173) (54.095)
Drought index squared -8.334*** -4.517 0.710 -4.884(1.514) (7.537) (11.994) (2.990)
Constant -395.947*** -19.364 -12.579 -163.357 (92.990) (409.499) (603.462) (220.331)
Number of observations 28,232 1,594 2,350 1,791Adjusted R2 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.003
![Page 11: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Fixed Effects: Irrigation Water (Gallons/Acre)Dependent variable: Water for irrigation
(gallons/acre)All shale states Arkansas Oklahoma Texas Pennsylvania
Water for fracking 20.685 -35.795** -55.237** 42.596* 6.562**
(gallons/acre in county) (18.419) (17.880) (23.980) (23.772) (3.152)
Drought index 59,878*** -214,396 -8,756 117,784*** 75,212*
(12,327) (144,320) (16,328) (45,196) (39,236)
Drought index squared -4,042*** 6,618 525 -8,933** -4,220**
(739) (8,588) (951) (3,751) (2,117)
Constant -1,208 1,613,224*** 104,249 -243,039* -308,328*
(47,987) (604,335) (68,281) (133,306) (180,241)
No. of observations 21,399 1,709 1,098 2,154 1,179
Adjusted R2 0.014 0.152 0.005 0.057 0.019
![Page 12: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
First Difference ResultsD.Water for irrigation (gallons) D.Water for irrigation (gal/acre)
Stacked 2008-2013 2003-2013 Stacked 2008-2013 2003-2013
D.Water used for fracking -0.043** -0.023 -0.044 6.508 -1.012 -17.626
(gal/acres in county) (0.022) (0.026) (0.030) (8.724) (12.227) (13.600)
D.Drought index -19.6 -44.5** -111*** 32,816*** 28,347*** 16,100*
(16.044) (18.385) (21.302) (6,546) (8,347) (9,222)
D.Drought index squared 0.317 1.943 5.808*** -2,413*** -2,123*** -1,180*
(1.051) (1.209) (1.406) (430.951) (547.693) (610.168)
Indicator if in 03-08 148*** 15,842**
(17.0) (6,236)
No. of observations 28,237 12,221 12,221 16,471 6,377 6,282
Adjusted R-squared 0.016 0.007 0.005 0.014 0.009 0.005
![Page 13: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Fixed Effects: Water PriceDependent variable: All shale states Wyoming Texas
Water price ($/million gallons)
Water for fracking -0.00036 0.00242 0.00308
(gallons/acres in county) (0.001) (0.009) (0.002)
Drought index -0.428 -0.077 -1.608***
(0.272) (1.421) (0.293)
Drought index squared 0.026 0.009 0.107***
(0.018) (0.118) (0.026)
Constant 5.620*** 3.287 10.324***
(0.978) (3.951) (0.845)
Number of observations 3,525 423 214
Adjusted R-squared 0.022 -0.001 0.319
![Page 14: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Preliminary Results: MixedIn this specification, can detect:• No effect of fracking on the cost of surface water to farmers• No nation-wide effect of fracking on water use for irrigation
Effect varies across regions
Negative effectArkansas (Fayetteville), Oklahoma (Woodford), Kansas (Woodford, Excello)
Positive effectLouisiana (Haynesville), Montana (Bakken), Texas (Eagle Ford, Barnett, Haynesville), Pennsylvania (Marcellus)
What factors are we missing?
![Page 15: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
LimitationsDo not account for:• Production changes within a farm over time
– Switching to a different crop– Improving efficiency of irrigation machinery
• Different water markets and sources of water• Reuse of fracking water• Larger farms are more likely to be part of the
survey multiple times
![Page 16: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Summary• Fracking can have a negative or positive effect on
irrigation in agriculture– Competition for water – Wealth effect for farmers through increased economic activity
or royalties• A lack of crowding out may reflect
– Poorly functioning water markets – Isolated water markets– Fracking uses too little water to affect prices
• Future work:– Test additional model specifications and samples– Identify the role of different water markets
![Page 17: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Shale Production
![Page 18: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
U.S. Drought Monitor, Week of April 14, 2015
droughtmonitor.unl.edu
![Page 19: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
ProPublica
![Page 20: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Fixed Effects: Shale Coverage
Irrigated acres Value of ag products
Non-irrigated harv. acres
Percent of county covering a tight or shale formation
0.141*** 1,427.188 0.184***
(0.027) (1,116.857) (0.055)
(year=1997)*percent tight/shale -0.068*** -80.693 -0.117***
(0.006) (115.671) (0.012)
(year=2002)*percent tight/shale -0.176*** -44.888 -0.202***
(0.008) (124.960) (0.017)
(year=2007)*percent tight/shale -0.263*** -733.568*** -0.274***
(0.009) (229.356) (0.020)
(year=2012)*percent tight/shale -0.300*** -1,248.265*** -0.535***
(0.011) (284.409) (0.025)
Ag-wide effect
Non-irrigated harvested acreage does not include pastureland or non-harvested land
![Page 21: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Fixed Effects: Energy Production
Irrigated acres Value of ag products
Non-irrigated harv. acres
Btu of energy (oil + gas) per county area in acres 0.027*** -421.369** 0.035***
(0.008) (202.283) (0.008)
(year=2007)*Btu energy -0.021*** -12.572 -0.051***(0.007) (92.212) (0.007)
(year=2012)*Btu energy -0.029*** -114.694 -0.064***
(0.008) (164.631) (0.007)
Ag-wide effect
Non-irrigated harvested acreage does not include pastureland or non-harvested land
![Page 22: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
First DifferencingDep. Var.: D.Irrigated Acres Shale states Irrigation areas
D.Btu Energy (02-07 and 07-12) -0.001 -0.012
(0.002) (0.015)
D.Btu Energy (07-12) -0.003 -0.133***
(0.003) (0.032)
D.Btu Energy (02-12) -0.006* -0.091***
(0.003) (0.027)
![Page 23: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Oil/Gas Production Over Time (County-Level)Dep. Var.: Oil & Gas Production (Btu/acre)
Shale states WY, CO, TX
Percent of county covering either a tight or shale formation
177.711*** 287.924***
(47.167) (110.377)
(year=2007)*percent tight/shale 171.040*** 308.480***
(45.211) (114.166)
(year=2012)*percent tight/shale 555.157*** 757.189***
(118.897) (229.693)
Observations 3,184 860
![Page 24: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Instrumental Variables (County-Level)
Dependent variable D.Log Irrigated Acres
D.Share Irrigated Acres
D.Log Non-Irrigated Cropland
D.Log Value Ag Production
D.Log Value/Acre
D.Oil/Gas production 0.520 -1.640 -0.030 -0.805*** -0.036
(Btu/acre) (0.553) (2.075) (0.294) (0.311) (0.194)
D.Drought index 0.018* 0.090** 0.048*** 0.019*** 0.007
(0.010) (0.038) (0.009) (0.005) (0.005)
D.Drought index squared -0.001 0.004 -0.001* -0.001*** 0.000
(0.001) (0.002) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000)
Constant 0.068 2.686*** 0.047 0.286*** -0.007
(0.109) (0.595) (0.049) (0.045) (0.032)
Number of observations 2,055 2,054 1,842 2,055 2,055
Adjusted R2 0.019 0.123 0.127 0.076 0.463
Instrumenting for oil & gas production per acre with percent of county covering a tight/shale formationNon-irrigated harvested acreage does not include pastureland or non-harvested land
![Page 25: Competition for Water: Farming vs. Fracking Claudia Hitaj, Jeremy G. Weber, and Andrew Boslett United States Association for Energy Economics North American](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051821/5697bf9d1a28abf838c93a47/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Conclusions• Mixed results at the national level across the different
specifications: – Some evidence of an impact of fracking on water use, particularly in
irrigation areas (localized impacts)– Negative agriculture-wide effect
• A lack of crowding out may reflect– Poorly functioning water markets – Fracking uses too little water to affect prices
• Future work:– Focus on the intensive margin using FRIS data– Test additional model specifications and samples– Identify the role of different water markets– Interact rainfall and the effect of fracking