Which environmental policy was enacted first

Emissions trading requires the ability to isolate the pollutant and its effects, which makes this approach a difficult fit for companies with complex cross-media pollution problems. Finally, it requires the ability to create and sustain a workable market, which limits the technique to large-scale operations with the capacity to cost out their alternatives. Reduce pollution below the ceiling and sell the credits, or buy credits from other operations because it costs less than meeting the standards?

Small companies are likely to find it difficult to play such a complex game. These problems leave emissions trading an important, useful, but ultimately limited twenty-first-century strategy.

For other problems not readily reducible to pollution markets, the EPA has been quietly exploring new performance-based partnerships with the states. Although the EPA has long devolved operating responsibility for environmental regulations to the states, new experiments give them far greater responsibility for designing and maintaining environmental management systems in exchange for reports on their performance.

The process has often proven just as burdensome to the states as the regulations have been for private companies. The states, not surprisingly, have proven just as fed up as the private sector with the high costs of the current system and have led the charge for performance-based partnerships.

The transformation of environmental devolution from enforcement to performance has proven widely attractive. Making it work, however, requires solving two tough problems. The first is building the partnerships and holding them together.

The partnerships depend on building trust by measuring performance, but this technology is now rudimentary at best. The strategy, therefore, requires constructing new measurement methodologies.

The second problem is building the confidence of everyone—companies, environmental groups, neighborhood associations, state regulators, the EPA, and elected officials at all levels—in the process and its decisions. Because performance-based systems tend also to be community-based systems, success depends on getting the groups who often warred in the past to work together.

That in turn requires building trust among the participants in both the performance-based process and the results it produces. Underlying all of these issues is the public interest puzzle: While the battles over environmental regulation often become enmeshed in hyper-technical how questions, they typically boil down to critical who problems. Who will shape environmental policy? Whose values will prevail?

How will the decision process be structured, and whose voices will be heard? Many environmental groups are quite frank in asserting that they view performance-based regulation as a tactic to turn more decisions over to private industry and to state environmental agencies they have captured.

So, along with the big questions of the cost of regulations for all players comes the problem of devising a structure for resolving those questions. Who speaks for citizens, and how should their voice be heard?

The process, then, is not only about reducing the costs of environmental regulation while improving environmental quality, but also about reconstituting the process of environmental debate and defining which values prevail. On one level, then, this is a problem of environmental performance.

On a broader level, it is about how reshaped intergovernmental partnerships will affect how America is governed. The challenge of environmental policy for the new millennium is to do everything that the first generation of environmental policy did—but to do it better—and to devise a second generation of environmental policy to solve problems that the first generation did not or could not.

At the core of the second generation is a shift from inputs including inspections and rulemakings to outcomes most notably performance. But even more importantly, the second generation of environmental policy revolves around fundamental and richly layered questions of governance:. How much are we willing to pay for how much environmental improvement? EPA Management.

Since the second generation requires new management technologies, how can the EPA effectively develop and prove these new technologies? And since many of these technologies are experimental, the EPA will have to maintain first-generation regulations while perfecting second-generation strategies.

What problems will the EPA face in simultaneously pursuing two so different regulatory approaches? The second-generation strategies involve substantial devolution to private markets and state governments.

How can the EPA construct the trustworthy performance systems required to make the market- and federalism-based systems work effectively? Later in that year, President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency EPA , which consolidated environmental programs from other agencies into a single entity.

The legislation during this period concerned primarily first-generation pollutants in the air, surface water, groundwater, and solid waste disposal. As a result of issues concerning acid rain, visibility, and air quality, air pollutants such as particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone were also placed under regulation.

The EPA is among the most highly decentralized agencies in the US federal government, operating through 10 regional offices and several support offices such as the Office of Water and the Office of Research and Development. CEQ has observed that such an effort may lead to an increase in the cost and time needed to complete NEPA documentation, but not necessarily an improvement in the quality of the documents ultimately produced.

In the past 20 years, numerous surveys and reports, conducted by both public agencies and private organizations, have studied the effectiveness of the NEPA process. They sought to determine issues such as how the NEPA process is implemented at individual agencies, whether the NEPA process delays project implementation, and, if so, how those delays may be addressed and NEPA more effectively implemented. In , a survey of staff from the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service sought to determine the degree to which the NEPA process slowed decision making and delayed projects.

Generally, participants felt that NEPA's enduring legacy was that it provided a framework for collaboration between federal agencies and those who will bear the environmental, social, and economic impacts of agency decisions. However, they also felt that NEPA often takes too long and costs too much, agencies make decisions before hearing from the public, documents are too long and technical for many people to use, and training for agency officials is inadequate at times.

Participants felt that critical elements of efficient NEPA implementation included the extent to which an agency integrates NEPA's goals into its internal planning processes at an early stage and provides information to the public. The study found that the extent to which the public is involved in the decision-making process also influences the potential for litigation. The study also found that some states, citizen groups, and businesses believe that certain EAs are prepared to avoid public involvement i.

Citizens also reported being frustrated when they were treated as adversaries rather than welcome participants in the NEPA process. Citizens reported that they often felt overwhelmed by the resources available to project proponents and agencies. As a consequence, litigation may be seen as the only means to affect environmental decisions significantly. CEQ formed the task force to review NEPA implementation practices and procedures and to determine opportunities to improve and modernize the process.

The task force interviewed federal agencies; reviewed public comments, literature, and case studies; and spoke with individuals and representatives from state and local governments, tribes, and interest groups. In , the task force released a report of its findings and recommendations. In compiling its research, the task force received more than stakeholder comments. Those comments reflected current issues and challenges to NEPA implementation. With regard to delays in and the effectiveness of the NEPA process, a large percentage of comments were directed at factors related to NEPA analysis and documentation requirements and to the role and effects of litigation.

According to CEQ, many respondents expressed a belief that the general requirement to provide adequate analysis had been taken to an extreme; that documents had become too time-consuming and costly to produce; and that the resultant "analysis paralysis" forestalled appropriate management of public lands and ultimately left the public distrustful and disengaged.

The stakeholders felt this was brought on by vague requirements that were open to considerable interpretation and, therefore, an easy target for litigation. Because the requirements were vague, those commenters further felt that agencies were not sure how much analysis would be considered adequate by the courts, resulting in pressure to produce more. In contrast, other respondents felt the "analysis paralysis" scenario was a misnomer. These respondents believed that agencies often predetermine the outcome of the planning process, that they often fail to consider other reasonable alternatives, and that the analysis agencies provide is often inadequate to support the management plan they propose.

These commenters felt that the environmental effects of proposed actions are often inadequately considered, particularly the cumulative effects; that agencies rely on inadequate or outdated data; and that agency research is not held to the same rigorous standards as research in other fields, particularly in terms of scientific reference and peer review. Moreover, they felt that agencies are sometimes intent on following a predetermined course of action and ignore concerns submitted by the public.

With regard to the role of litigation, a number of respondents felt that litigation only results when agencies do not comply with NEPA requirements.

Some felt that it is only through litigation that concerned parties can get agencies to recognize their concerns and give serious attention to the environmental effects of their proposed actions.

One issue discussed in the task force report was challenges faced by agencies with regard to budget, training, and staffing constraints. This issue is discussed in more depth in a report, cited by the task force, that was prepared by the Natural Resources Council an environmental conservation organization.

That report surveyed 12 federal agencies to determine how they implemented the NEPA process. Also, the report found that agencies were unable to document their NEPA workload, calculate average preparation times or costs, show trends in these factors over time, or respond objectively to assertions that excessive time or money is being spent on complying with NEPA's requirements.

The absence of such information, the report asserted, leaves agencies in a weak position to respond factually to or critically evaluate administrative or legislative proposals to "streamline" the NEPA process see discussion, below. Some members of Congress have expressed concerns that project delays are the result of inefficient interagency coordination required for large, complex projects. As a result, in the th Congress, several laws were enacted that included provisions intended to streamline the NEPA process.

Although not defined in any of the legislation, the term "streamlining" was broadly used to describe legislative or administrative procedures intended to expedite the NEPA process. In , most agencies filed fewer than 10 EISs. It may not be surprising, then, that many streamlining activities involve actions sponsored by those agencies. For example, what follows are bills enacted since the th Congress 97 and selected types of projects for which streamlining provisions have been included:.

Streamlining provisions are unique to the class of projects at issue. However, most include some or all of the following elements:. Streamlining proposals have generated a great deal of controversy among interested stakeholders e. Most stakeholders agree that the process for complying with environmental requirements applicable to complex federal projects can be implemented more efficiently. How that should be done and the degree to which it is necessary have been the subject of considerable debate.

Some stakeholders, such as industry representatives who would like to see projects implemented more quickly, argue that the authority of lead agencies must be strengthened to reduce delays caused by disagreements among agencies. They also contend that lead agencies should have the authority to set and enforce deadlines with regard to the cooperating agency decision-making process.

Environmental groups are concerned that by speeding up the compliance process and strengthening lead agency authority, concerns of the public or cooperating agencies will be minimized or ignored, in effect rubber stamping lead agency decisions. Further, some environmental groups contend that "streamlining" is a thinly veiled attempt at weakening environmental protection and reducing public participation in the federal decision-making process. NEPA is a procedural statute that, along with CEQ and individual agencies' regulations, specifies procedures that must be followed in the federal decision-making process.

It imposes no requirement other than to require agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions before proceeding with them and to involve the public in that process. It does not dictate what the decision must be. More specifically, it does not require the agency to select the least environmentally harmful alternative or to elevate environmental concerns above others.

The role the courts have played in NEPA's implementation is arguably more pronounced compared to many other environmental laws because of several unique factors. These include the initial lack of binding regulations applicable to the EIS preparation process, the absence of an agency authorized to enforce its requirements, and NEPA's requirement to involve the public in the decision-making process.

With regard to the latter, when members of the public oppose a project or feel that their opinions are not given sufficient weight, their involvement may result in turning to the courts to halt the project until their concerns are addressed. During the past 35 years, interested stakeholders have challenged the adequacy of NEPA documentation and agency compliance with NEPA in court and, in some instances, used NEPA litigation to try to halt or slow projects to which they were opposed.

As a result, the progress of some federal projects was slowed. However, particularly in the past years, the number of projects affected by NEPA-related litigation is very small. Also, unlike other environmental laws, NEPA itself cannot stop a project altogether. This does not mean that, during the course of a NEPA-related lawsuit, an agency may not decide to abandon a given project or project alternative. As a policy statute, NEPA supplements other statutes.

Consequently, agencies often are required to comply with provisions of other state, tribal, and federal environmental requirements before they can proceed with a given action. This requirement can lead to confusion when procedures to comply with other laws are integrated with NEPA compliance, and it can give the impression that NEPA alone is responsible for the time it takes to obtain the appropriate authorization or approval for a federal project.

Although stakeholders disagree about the extent to which NEPA currently halts or delays federal actions, few disagree that agencies can improve their methods of NEPA compliance. Those include integrating NEPA early in the planning process, integrating NEPA requirements with other environmental requirements, eliminating duplication with state and local procedures, swiftly addressing disputes with other agencies, and establishing appropriate time limits on the EIS process.

Debate is likely to continue with regard to if or to what degree further streamlining may be accomplished. Bear, Dinah. Caldwell, Lynton. Council on Environmental Quality. Smythe, Robert and Isber, Caroline. The Environmental Protection Agency EPA is required to review and comment publicly on the environmental impacts of proposed federal activities, including those for which an EIS is prepared. However, neither agency has enforcement authority with regard to an agency's environmental review requirements.

House of Representatives , July 17, , p. House of Representatives, summarizing key points raised in the dialog, October , Committee Print, p. Senator Jackson's remarks regarding "S. Nuse, compiler, for the U.

Atomic Energy Commission, September Although several similar bills were introduced in the Senate that session, those that ultimately received consideration by the Committee were S. NEPA was amended by P. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council , U.

The CEQ regulations, at 40 C. Criteria used to determine if environmental impacts are significant are discussed in "Determining the Significance of a Federal Action" section, below. Further, the term "federal agency" is defined as all agencies of the federal government but does not mean the Congress, the Judiciary, or the President 40 C. Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some municipalities and tribal governments have enacted their own environmental quality acts, sometimes referred to as "little NEPAs.

Determining the level of federal involvement that would federalize a private project is becoming more relevant as state and local governments are increasingly turning to public-private partnerships to fill gaps in federal funding for needed projects e.

The tiering process is discussed at 40 C. Copies of this documentation are generally available from the lead agency. A project applicant may be any public or private entity initiating a "federal" action.

For example, a state department of transportation may initiate the NEPA process for a federally funded surface transportation project. A project applicant may also be a private entity requesting a federal permit. For example, a livestock owner applying for a permit to graze cattle on federal land may also initiate the NEPA process. The lead agency in such a case would be the federal agency e.

Department of Agriculture's Forest Service issuing the permit. The term "streamlining" has also been used to refer to administrative or legislative actions intended to expedite the process of complying with other environmental requirements, such as permitting. Since , there have been various legislative proposals with provisions intended to expedite the NEPA process or waive NEPA requirements for certain classes of federal action, but few legislative proposals have progressed beyond their introduction.

Topic Areas About Donate. Download PDF. Download EPUB. Tables Table 1. Components of an EIS Table 4. Summary Beginning in the late s and through the s, Congress reacted to increasing public concern about the impact that human activity could have on the environment. Introduction Prior to the s, little formal consideration was given to the potential impact of human activity on the environment.

Governor Laurence Rockefeller, a participant in the colloquium, stated before the joint committee: [W]e do not have a clearly stated national attitude toward the environment. Following are relevant excerpts from that testimony: Dr. Last Name. Share this page. Follow Ballotpedia. Click here to follow election results! Environmental policy can include laws and policies addressing water and air pollution , chemical and oil spills, smog , drinking water quality , land conservation and management, and wildlife protection, such as the protection of endangered species.

Environmental policy is aimed at balancing environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources with other policy goals, such as affordable energy as well as economic growth and employment. Federal and state environmental rules cover air quality, water quality, waste management, land conservation, chemical and oil spills, drinking water quality.

Some environmental policies regulate the actions of private individuals, organizations, or businesses. For example, a factory that must discharge wastewater as part of its daily operations may need to hold and maintain a federal permit. The factory would be required to follow a set of rules and requirements within its permit to comply with environmental laws.

Environmental rules and regulations vary in their requirements depending on the issue involved. Environmental policy and energy policy are also interconnected. For example, energy production and consumption can produce environmental effects. As a result, environmental policy can involve restrictions or regulations on energy production such as oil and natural gas operations or solar energy development. The Endangered Species Act , which requires the listing of animal and plant species as endangered or threatened An endangered species is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

These environmental laws were meant to address air and water pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, suspended solids and toxic metal substances.