It is interesting to me to look at the history of the regulation on air and water pollution in the United States. It appears as if there is a constant tug of war over who should be setting the standards and regulating the sources until money and/or politics enters the fray. I say this because it appears that Chicago and Cincinnati were trying to work on the issue early on, 1881. Others either ignored or waited until the issues became so unbearable that the federal governmnet stepped in to regulate. In particular the vehicle emissions standards and the the air quality acts of 1965 and 1970 respectively. Subsequently, most, if not all states now have a state equivalent to the federal EPA.
Arizona's local EPA is the Department of Environmental Quality. That agency has departments within it that regulate air, water and waste. I spent five years in the Waste Programs Division, Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Section. In Arizona, for UST regulation and clean up efforts we see the federal reg's as the maximum. ADEQ's state regs are no more stringent than that of the EPA. Although the regulations may not be more stringent, the Arizona program has some administrative differences. For instance, Arizona requires a written report before ADEQ will close a leaking underground storage tank file. The feds do not have such a requirement. Some argue that makes our program more stringent. I think it is different, not more stringent.
As noted in the readings and lecture, California is usually on the cutting edge of regulations. That can serve as a double-edged sword. They impose standards that are greater than the federal standard in many areas. One such area is in the regulation of refrigerated trucks hauling perishable items into CA. As well as creating an overall benefit by reducing the amount of refrigerant in the air; this causes problems because the truck manufacturers cannot produce the CA standard trucks fast enough and the balance of trucks on the road face penalties for traveling into CA. Not to mention the budgetary burden on the trucking companies trying to meet a high standard that is only for one state. Like so many things in public policy we take the good with the bad and have to sometimes expect some unintended consequences. While I agree that the local government has a better idea of what its issues are, we may be better staying with a federal standard for most programs. The federal government still provides the bulk of the research data and the funding.
That sounds sort of interesting that you were able to work within the UST Section of ADEQ. I like your point that you bring up regarding trucks manufacturers/semi-trucks and the differences in state regulation. Do you know if there are clauses within the law that allows out-of-state drivers which have lower emissions regulations to be by-passed by these more strict standards? Also, this was an issue I believe during the recent expansion of NAFTA, having Mexican trucks crossing into the US border with less efficient emissions. I perceive you are leading to more unified stricter regulations being imposed by the Feds, right?
ReplyDeleteI like how you say that the State vs. Federal UST regulations are "different, not more stringent." I think that the ability for different levels of government to have different regulations is important in having a regulatory environment that can maintain similar standards, but allow different locations to focus on issues that may be more important to them.
ReplyDeleteEqually interesting is your description of California as a leader that results in a double-edged sword scenario. I wonder if, during the current economic climate, California is reconsidering some of the regulations that are prohibitive to businesses setting up there. Then again, such a short sighted change in policy would be difficult for the culture of a state that has been known as a leader for so long.