Student: Kassie Kometani
Graduation date: May 2019
Type: Concentration (single major)
Date approved: November 2016
Go to concentration landing page
Summary
The success of an environmental law in the United States can often be measured by how well it has adhered to environmental priorities and whether practical enforcement methods were executed. The actual application of legal requirements is especially pertinent since “the impact of policies depends largely on how they are implemented” (Rosenbaum 2002). Broadly speaking, enforcement is the approach or set of actions taken by governmental entities to ensure that compliance is achieved within set regulations. Two main factors are considered when allocating responsibility for practical environmental enforcement: the complexity of the issue being addressed and the geological area where impacts are most likely to be felt (Ercmann 1996).
Among the multitude of administrative agencies with responsibility in environmental regulation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, etc.), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bears the heaviest burden through their role of setting national standards derived from Congressional legislation (Rosenbaum 2002). The EPA is worth distinguishing since they are not only the largest federal regulatory agency that guides government authorities in their enforcement of environmental policies, but they also allow states to set their own directives if they exceed federal standards (Konisky and Woods 2016). This discretion is key for the concept of cooperative federalism. The model of cooperative federalism “engages both the federal and state governments in setting and meeting environmental goals” (Learner 2008). This practice is vital since regulations and measures should be tailored specifically to where their impacts will be felt (Bedsworth and Hamak 2010).
Federal and state authorities are not the only ones involved in environmental policy enforcement. While prominent entities such as the EPA attempt to represent the convoluted interests of Congress or the President, environmental interest groups have grown to encapsulate public opinions on current ecological problems (Rosenbaum 2002). Other actors representing various public interests can include policy makers, relevant stakeholders, and human rights activists. Unique interrelationships between the various parties involved greatly influence policy initiatives and foster a complex, dynamic enforcement process (Sapat 2004). How and to what extent various groups execute regulations are shaped by economic concerns, the current political climate, philosophical values, and the perceived risk to human safety. These factors are important to discern since patterns within each approach can shed light on what ultimately increases the propensity for viable policy enforcement (Vassuer 2016).
The South Coast Air Basin of Southern California was found to be exceeding federal standards in the Clean Air Act with excessive amounts of ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. These pollutants created a smog in the region that is connected with severe impacts on property, surrounding plants and animals, and public health. The negative effects cost the state billions each year and motivated the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to take action. The SCAQMD worked with the Southern California Association of Governments, the Air Resources Board, and the EPA to develop state air-quality standards that would be in compliance with federal regulations. This was achieved through measures such as controls on transportation, land-use, energy production, and technological improvements. Despite objections from developers and industrial groups, the SCAQMD was able to create a stringent enforcement strategy that effectively fulfilled the standards of the Clean Air Act and influenced the 1990 amendments to the Act itself (Kamienicki and Ferall 1991).
In the early 2000’s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) experienced a significant constriction on their power in enforcing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Arizona Cattle Grower’s Association (ACGA) had filed suits against the FWS on the grounds that the agency had issued unreasonable restrictions on land needed for grazing. District courts determined that the FWS acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” (Broderick 2004) for positing a vague biological statement that failed to show ranching would be harmful to endangered species in the area. It was believed that the grazing program in the ACGA was unlikely to jeopardize or modify the habitats of species, but the FWS argued they were still required to issue probable impact statements. Opposition in the courts led to the removal of a large measure of the FWS’s discretion in imposing conditions of the ESA (Broderick 2004).
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was a collective plan between nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to address CO2 emissions in the electric power sector. Their initial goal in 2003 was to decline annual CO2 budgets with a mandated strategy that encompassed a larger geological area and multiple centers of population. A network of states can yield bigger results on combating climate change while also serving as a model for future national cap-and-trade programs (Burtraw et al 2006). The cooperation of various state policy makers helped to overcome political resistance against the RGGI as emission standards became normative (Engel 2005). Similar to state concerns, regional initiatives are also influenced by impacts on the immediate environment and public health as well as perceived economic savings.
Economic, social, and political issues often play a large role in shaping environmental policy enforcement at differing scales. The dynamic of various levels in these examples provide insight on the approaches to enforcement and the interrelationships involved in each process. Cases such as these can be used to analyze how effective certain methods are and what they imply for overall environmental law enforcement in the United States.
Works Cited:
Bedsworth, Louise W., and Ellen Hanak. 2010. “Adaptation to Climate Change.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (4): 477–95.
Broderick, Gregory T. 2004. “Towards Common Sense in ESA Enforcement: Federal Courts and the Limits on Administrative Authority and Discretion under the Endangered Species Act.” Natural Resources Journal 44, no. 1: 77-124.
Burtraw, Dallas, Danny Kahn, and Karen Palmer. “CO2 Allowance Allocation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Effect on Electricity Investors.” The Electricity Journal 19, no. 2 (March 2006): 79–90.
Engel, Kirsten H. “Mitigating Global Climate Change in the United States: A Regional Approach. “New York University Environmental Law Journal 14.1 (2005): 54-85.
Ercmann, Sevine. “Enforcement of environmental law in United States and European law: realities and expectations.” Environmental Law, Winter 1996, 1213-1239. Academic OneFile (accessed October 18, 2016).
Kamieniecki, Sheldon, and Michael R. Ferrall. “Intergovernmental Relations and Clean-Air Policy in Southern California.” Publius 21, no. 3 (1991): 143-54.
Konisky, David M., and Neal D. Woods. 2016. “Environmental Policy, Federalism, and the Obama Presidency.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 4 (3): 366–91.
Learner, Howard A. 2008. “Restraining Federal Preemption When There is an “Emerging Consensus” of State Environmental Laws and Policies.” Northwestern University Law Review 102, no. 2: 649-663. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 18, 2016).
Rosenbaum, Walter A. Environmental Politics and Policy. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002.
Sapat, Alka. 2004. “Devolution and Innovation: The Adoption of State Environmental Policy Innovations by Administrative Agencies.” Public Administration Review 64 (2): 141–51.
Vasseur, Michael. 2014. “Convergence and Divergence in Renewable Energy Policy among USnStates from 1998 to 2011.” Social Forces 92 (4): 1637–57.
Questions
- Descriptive: Who are the various groups and agencies involved in environmental policy enforcement? What regulatory practices do they have the capacity to employ? What can the EPA do as an authoritative entity that others cannot?
- Explanatory: Why do certain groups and agencies involved in policy enforcement have more power than others? Why are certain approaches to enforcement chosen over others? What has the EPA done to promote successful implementation?
- Evaluative: How does the collaboration between relevant parties help or inhibit policy enforcement? What are the impacts of differing interests and agendas on the outcome of the enforced regulation? How does the EPA affect the approach taken by parties to apply regulations?
- Instrumental: What can or should be done to increase the cooperation of relevant parties in policy enforcement? What are the most viable approaches for various levels to take when enforcing environmental policies?
Concentration courses
- ENVS 460 (Topics in Environmental Law and Policy, 4 credits) fall 2018. Connected to overarching theme of concentration as well as preparation for law school.
- POLS 253 (Public Policy, 4 credits) spring 2018. Analyzes U.S. policy making process and significant actors in relation to relevent issues such as the environment.
- SOAN 214 (Social Change, 4 credits) fall 2017. Focus on social movements and their influence on environmental relations.
- SOAN 490 (Anthropology of Policy, 4 credits) fall 2017. Special topics course on the anthropology of policies and policy making.
- ENVS 200 (Situating the Global Environment, 4 credits) summer 2017. In conjunction with the Summer 2017 Japan Mt. Fuji trip: Perspective on the Japanese view of the environment and its role in Japanese culture.
Arts and humanities courses
- HIST 261 (Global Environmental History, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.