2003bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

Improving State Environmental Enforcement Performance Through Enhanced Government Accountability and Other Strategies

Clifford Rechtschaffen, David L. Markell

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

This Article discusses a number of options for EPA to strengthen state performance and bring it more in line with EPA's expectations. First, EPA must play a stricter gate-keeping function in initially authorizing state programs, and more regularly reassess and report the adequacy of state enforcement authorities and state capacity. Second, EPA must stop delivering a mixed message to the states about the enforcement practices it expects the states to follow. Instead, it must establish clear expectations for performance. Third, in terms of the substance of those expectations, EPA should revise its criteria for evaluating whether state enforcement programs work. Because this question is central to EPA's oversight practices, we discuss it at length in this Article. Among other things, we recommend that EPA place greater emphasis on measures based on how well states are doing in actually achieving compliance by regulated entities, and, to the extent feasible, improved environmental outcomes, although we also believe that continued reliance on activity-based measures is appropriate. Fourth, EPA should explore different administrative approaches for conducting program evaluations. Fifth, and related, EPA should improve its data management programs to enhance its ability to evaluate state programs. Sixth, EPA should implement a "differential oversight" scheme that rewards in a meaningful fashion better performing states. Seventh, EPA should publicly report its evaluation of state programs, and also improve public accessibility to the underlying data about state performance, as a way of using the power of an external spotlight to spur improved government performance. Eighth, EPA should make the prospect of program withdrawal a more credible threat and should also develop more graduated sanctions short of outright program withdrawal. Finally, EPA needs to continue to hone its capacity for strategic intervention—to help states to build capacity, and to take direct action in selected cases when needed. These options are not mutually exclusive; instead, they can and must be integrated in a variety of ways.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This Article discusses a number of options for EPA to strengthen state performance and bring it more in line with EPA's expectations. First, EPA must play a stricter gate-keeping function in initially authorizing state programs, and more regularly reassess and report the adequacy of state enforcement authorities and state capacity. Second, EPA must stop delivering a mixed message to the states about the enforcement practices it expects the states to follow. Instead, it must establish clear expectations for performance. Third, in terms of the substance of those expectations, EPA should revise its criteria for evaluating whether state enforcement programs work. Because this question is central to EPA's oversight practices, we discuss it at length in this Article. Among other things, we recommend that EPA place greater emphasis on measures based on how well states are doing in actually achieving compliance by regulated entities, and, to the extent feasible, improved environmental outcomes, although we also believe that continued reliance on activity-based measures is appropriate. Fourth, EPA should explore different administrative approaches for conducting program evaluations. Fifth, and related, EPA should improve its data management programs to enhance its ability to evaluate state programs. Sixth, EPA should implement a "differential oversight" scheme that rewards in a meaningful fashion better performing states. Seventh, EPA should publicly report its evaluation of state programs, and also improve public accessibility to the underlying data about state performance, as a way of using the power of an external spotlight to spur improved government performance. Eighth, EPA should make the prospect of program withdrawal a more credible threat and should also develop more graduated sanctions short of outright program withdrawal. Finally, EPA needs to continue to hone its capacity for strategic intervention—to help states to build capacity, and to take direct action in selected cases when needed. These options are not mutually exclusive; instead, they can and must be integrated in a variety of ways.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This Article discusses a number of options for EPA to strengthen state performance and bring it more in line with EPA's expectations. First, EPA must play a stricter gate-keeping function in initially authorizing state programs, and more regularly reassess and report the adequacy of state enforcement authorities and state capacity. Second, EPA must stop delivering a mixed message to the states about the enforcement practices it expects the states to follow. Instead, it must establish clear expectations for performance. Third, in terms of the substance of those expectations, EPA should revise its criteria for evaluating whether state enforcement programs work. Because this question is central to EPA's oversight practices, we discuss it at length in this Article. Among other things, we recommend that EPA place greater emphasis on measures based on how well states are doing in actually achieving compliance by regulated entities, and, to the extent feasible, improved environmental outcomes, although we also believe that continued reliance on activity-based measures is appropriate. Fourth, EPA should explore different administrative approaches for conducting program evaluations. Fifth, and related, EPA should improve its data management programs to enhance its ability to evaluate state programs. Sixth, EPA should implement a "differential oversight" scheme that rewards in a meaningful fashion better performing states. Seventh, EPA should publicly report its evaluation of state programs, and also improve public accessibility to the underlying data about state performance, as a way of using the power of an external spotlight to spur improved government performance. Eighth, EPA should make the prospect of program withdrawal a more credible threat and should also develop more graduated sanctions short of outright program withdrawal. Finally, EPA needs to continue to hone its capacity for strategic intervention—to help states to build capacity, and to take direct action in selected cases when needed. These options are not mutually exclusive; instead, they can and must be integrated in a variety of ways.

Key concepts: Enforcement, Statute, Accountability, Business, Government (linguistics), State (computer science), Federalism, Law enforcement

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Improving State Environmental Enforcement Performance Through Enhanced Government Accountability and Other Strategies — Research Paper | ScholarLens