Environmental Federalism in a Polarized Era

• Author: Carley A. Weted,Daniel Fiorino
• Date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20986225
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Reviews & Essay

Reviews & Essay

Environmental Federalism

in a Polarized Era

Daniel Fiorino

1

and Carley A. Weted

1

Abstract

Environmental policy making and implementation in the United States occurs within a federal

system. This system has served its purpose for nearly five decades but is now being challenged by

four trends: political polarization in Congress; increasingly divergent state policies; an erosion in

federal funding; and federal policy instability. Taking the place of the old, relatively cooperative

federalism is an increasingly disruptive federalism. It is time to reexamine the foundations of

environmental federalism and the effects of the four challenges on the effectiveness and capacities of

the US system. Such efforts to evaluate environmental federalism should account for variations

among programs and statutes as well as the effects on policy stability. A benefit of a federal system

for environmental protection is its contribution to stability in an era of polarization and conflict.

Keywords

environment, federalism, policy instability

Environmental policy in the United States is

developed and implemented within a federal

system. There is logic to federalism, especially

in large, diverse countries. In the environmental

realm, overlapping authorities can draw upon

strengths and weaknesses of other levels. For

example, the federal government can establish

economies of scale for funding research and

development, while sub-national governments

take charge of implementation by granting per-

mits, conducting inspections, managing

non-compliance, and collecting data.

The literature suggests that environmental

federalism can be defined and implemented in

a variety of ways. One is cooperative federalism

in which lines of authority are reasonably clear,

or at least not actively disputed, and broad goals

are shared. A more technical-sounding conjoint

federalism is used to describe power-sharing

and overlapping roles (Welborn 1988). These

terms suggest partnerships in which disputes

arise, but relationships are grounded in consen-

sus and collaboration. Other terms suggest a

more contentious relationship: contested or

coerced federalism (Conlan 2014, 30). More

recently is a disruptive federalism in which there

are conflicts over goals, policy instability, and

overt institutional and political conflicts

(Fallon 2017).

Whatever the terms, environmental federal-

ism is in a critical state. Although problems

have been brewing for decades, the transition

from the Obama to Trump administrations

1

Department of Public Administration and Policy,

American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Carley A. Weted, Department of Public Administration and

Policy, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue

NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA.

Email: carley.a.weted@gmail.com

State and Local GovernmentReview

2020, Vol. 52(2) 138-151

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X20986225

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg