ENVIRONMENT
Does Environmental Policy “Need” the Federal Government?
Cooperative federalism seems to be a memory — where do we go from here?
Environmental policy in the United States is developed within a federal system — but what type of federalism do we experience today? There are a variety names that have defined environmental federalism over time: cooperative federalism, with clear lines of authority (and shared goals) and the more technical sounding conjoint federalism, with power sharing and overlapping roles (Welborn 1988). Newer terms suggest more contentious relationships: contested federalism (Conlan 2014) and disruptive federalism in which there are conflicts over goals, policy instability, and overt institutional and political conflicts (Fallon 2017).
The transition from the Obama to Trump administrations brought problems of environmental federalism into clear focus. My recent article with Daniel Fiorino highlights the four main challenges of environmental federalism and analyzes a continuum of control upon which policy issues fall. We conclude by discussing the ways in which the environment “needs” Washington, DC and warn of the risks of too much devolution.
As we see the transition from the Trump to Biden administrations, it should be with caution that the partnerships remain, and cooperation begins again. There is theoretical rationale for having overlapping levels of authority in environmental policy — federal government involvement is justified for reasons including pollution spillover management, mitigating the “race to the bottom”, and the pursuit of economies of scale. The state empowerment that comes with federalism is justified in their understanding of local perspectives along with the on-the-ground implementation capacities.
Four trends challenge the old model of cooperative federalism and have increased over the last few decades. A polarization of environmental politics within Congress and the public, increasingly divergent policy preferences among the states, erosion in federal funding, and federal policy instability.
Attitudes toward environmental issues and the roles of government evolve as problems and politics change. Some issues require national response, yet lawmakers have rested the power with state and local governments in many instances. Political constraints can make higher level in collection action more difficult. Polls show that the environment is among the most divisive issues. And with polarization rising, agencies are increasingly limited in their ability to act in the public’s best interest.
There are scenarios for the future of environmental federalism that don’t include unrealistic extremes like full centralization of full delegation. A more centralized federalism would follow existing air and water pollution examples, taking control on issues like fracking and greenhouse gases, too. Another option would be to rely on further devolution — leaving more issues like emission and effluent standards to the states.
While it is clear the environment “needs” Washington (the federal government), it is less clear that the states should just be removed from environmental protection as they sometimes are today. They provide critical understanding of local attitudes, and issues, and are able to strategize into a potential “race-to-the-top”. However, the nature of pollution is to spill over boundaries, and common pool resources must be protected — necessitating federal preemption.
The best option, it seems, is to maintain existing allocations of authority and attempt incremental reform. The federal-state partnership is not as cooperative as it used to be. It’s actually sometimes disruptive — but finding a more even-keeled balance is critical for the future of environmental protection. The success of our system depends on a working relationship between the federal government and state environmental agencies.
When not functioning, a problem arises for the quality of environmental policy and big, looming issues like climate change and water pollution. What there is a need for within environmental policy is partnerships. Yes, the federal government is important — and so are states. There has to be some collaboration. That’s how our government was designed to function and how it works best, if it’s done right. There needs to be some flexibility, some innovation and a lot of power-sharing.
Environmental policy relies on state and federal input, but current trends challenge cooperative federalism. Moving forward, authority must be allocated intelligently, with an eye toward preserving partnerships between the states and Washington, DC.
