General Revenue Sharing and Environmental Quality

• Author: William P. Angrick
• Published date: 01 May 1975
• Date: 01 May 1975
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/000271627541900108
• Subject Matter: Articles

General Revenue Sharing and Environmental Quality
By WILLIAM P. ANGRICK
ABSTRACT: General revenue sharing funds have been spent
by the recipient governmental units for a variety of services.
One of the important areas of these expenditures has been
environmental protection. Municipal governments have con-
sistently spent greater proportions of their revenue sharing
funds for environmental protection than other local and state
levels of government. This is because the jurisdictional
location for most environmental management activities is in
the cities. Revenue sharing should not be looked upon at
this time as the means for decentralizing environmental
policy decisions. Premature decentralization could result in
the delivery of inadequate environmental protection.
William P. Angrick is an Instructor of Political Science at Drake University.
He is presently completing his doctoral dissertation for Purdue University.
75

---

76
THROUGH the four entitlement Clarence Davies in The Politics of
-L periods to date, general rev- Pollution, in which he writes:
enue sharing has augmented the
Pollution control at the state and local
states’ and localities’ ability to move
level must function in a setting of
in the direction of a systematic
numerous governments competing for
response to environmental degrada-
economic advancement and divided be-
tion. Potentially, however, revenue
tween polluters and the victims of pol-
sharing carries with it the seeds
lution, between central cities and sub-
of
urbs, and between Republicans and
a threat to the continuation of
Democrats. All of the governments are
comprehensive planned administra-
short of funds and thus reluctant to
tion of environmental quality.
invest in the public facilities necessary
The development of our current
to curb pollution.... The difficulty of
national program was a response to
achieving stringent pollution control at
the severe conditions of environ-
the local level and the regional nature
mental degradation which had
of the pollution problem have resulted
emerged most dramatically since the
in a steadily greater assumption of
end of the Second World War.’
responsibility by higher levels of gov-
It also has been
ernment.3
3
a response to the
lack of concern for, and ability to
While a few state and local govern-
deal with, the environmental chal-
ments had initiated environmental
lenge on the part of state and local
programs by the late 1960s, the
governments. Lynton Keith Cald-
majority of those governments re-
well, one of the principal architects
sponded with piecemeal legislation
of the national environmental
and incremental administration that
policy, considered the proper roles
was
remedial rather than preventive
to be played by the state and local
in the approach to environmental
levels of government when he
management. The prevailing na-
stated:
tional ideology was, and remains,
Although certain aspects of environ-
one favoring economic growth and
mental management are distinctly local,
political pragmatism. In this context,
there are very few that do not have
environmental degradation was
more general implications. The local
viewed as a negative externality
level of government is frequently the
of an expanding economy and some-
least satisfactory forum for the considera-
thing that should be controlled only
tion of conflicting values in the environ-
as specific cases generated sufficient
ment.... Political circumstances at
the level of
political demands for its cessation.
American state government
As the
tend
problem accelerated into
to resemble those of localities
a crisis and became
more than those of the nation.2
2
widespread in
its distribution across the United
Substantive reasons for such criti-
States, voices were heard which of-
cisms have been put forward by J.
fered an alternative vision of what
we were doing to ourselves and the
1. Both Barry Commoner, The Closing
environment and of the future con-
Circle (New York: Bantam Books, 1972)
sequences these activities might
and J. Clarence Davies III, The Politics
of Pollution. (New York: Western Publish-
produce. After many years of scien-
ing Co., 1970) trace the emergence of severe
tific attention and several years of
conditions of environmental degradation to
political discussion, this alternative
this approximate date.
became formalized as a national
2. Lynton Keith Caldwell, Environment:
A
Challenge to Modern Society (Garden City,
New York: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 188, 189.
3. Davies, Politics of Pollution, p. 120.

---

77
environmental program. Inherent in
federally funded research. The sec-
this policy and in the forces which
ond phase is that of minimal federal
produced it was the perception of encouragement of state and local ac-
the environment as a whole, as a
tivity to meet the problem through
system. Comprehensive and antici-
stimulatory grants-in-aid. Accelera-
patory response was valued over in-
tion of this process occurs during
cremental and reactive policy. The
the third phase, in which the federal
dominant view was that govern-
government establishes standards
ment, and especially the national
derived from the research base and
government, was to assume the role
demands conformity and participa-
of regulator of the nation’s environ- tion on the part of the states and
mental health.4
4
The subsequent
localities in achieving those stan-
design of United States environ-
dards. Coupled with this assumption
mental policy reflects that view.
of national power over the policy
area is an increased reliance upon
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
project grants-in-aid as the &dquo;carrot,&dquo;
POLICY
with the threat of federal entry into
the actual administration of the
The United States environmental
policy at the lower levels of govern-
program is based upon the National
ment and the reduction of fiscal sup-
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
port via the grants program serving
(P.L. 91-190) and the supportive
as the &dquo;stick.&dquo; Achievement of
com-
legislation, both before and after that
prehensive policy goals is linked
law, which was enacted to meet the
directly to federal control over the
problem areas of air, water, solid
fiscal resources available to the sub-
waste, noise, pesticides, and radio-
ordinate levels of government.
active and hazardous chemical pol-
Needless to say, this is a primary
lution.
example of the traditional style of
The development of each of these
cooperative federalism found in the
problem-oriented legislative pro-
United States, with its propensity
grams has taken the form for air
toward dominance on the part of the
pollution control identified by
national government.
Charles O. Jones.5 Federal entry into
Federal support of state and local
the pollution abatement aspect of environmental activities under the
environmental protection initially grants-in-aid relationship has been
was a slow and cautious one which
significant. During 1973 the En-
advanced as need, knowledge, and vironmental Protection Agency
commitment increased. The first
(EPA) distributed amounts to state
phase of this development process
and local agencies engaged in en-
tends to be an identification of the
vironmental protection activities.
problem area and the placing of These amounts, shown in table 1,6
emphasis on the generation of an do not include grants for...