Perhaps the state of LA has the power to stop this pollution, but the residents lobbying for help from regulators, as depicted in the article, seem to be focusing their attention on the federal EPA. Unless I accidentally skipped a paragraph that talked about lobbying at a regional level.
If the state doesn't lack the teeth to fix this, why would they choose to compete for federal attention with an order of magnitude more people?
Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect).
I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.
Why does this stuff need to be at the federal level? CA has a very different air quality situation than Alabama. Why can't they both regulate air quality as they see fit?
The states are a terrible choice for managing the environment. Pollution trivially crosses state borders, but often the impact is very local. IE the smell from a paper mill or sewage treatment plant doesn't spread across 1,000 miles.
So local control makes sense for local issues, and federal control makes sense for widespread issues like runoff.
> Not necessarily. Before the EPA, states would often put their toxic dumps close to the state line, where the winds and the current would take their crap into the next state. Incentives only work if there are no externalities (sticking someone else with the bill).
The answer to this is to let states sue each other in federal court for any pollution that crosses state lines. Not companies in the states, the states themselves. Then states can prevent that from happening however they like, but if they don't, the state itself owes the neighboring state(s) billions of dollars. Strict liability. And then you don't need any federal regulations telling anybody how to do it.
> And moving power from the cities to the state level tends to screw the city, especially in heavily gerrymandered states.
On zoning rules? It's hard to imagine people getting screwed much worse than they do now.
I'm aware that powers not left to congress falls back to the states, you specifically mentioned regulation and this is in a thread about the EPA.
How is a state supposed to, on it's own, handle regulation against pollution from it's neighbors? How do they stop the state upstream? How do they they stop the state next door?
Not necessarily. Before the EPA, states would often put their toxic dumps close to the state line, where the winds and the current would take their crap into the next state. Incentives only work if there are no externalities (sticking someone else with the bill).
And moving power from the cities to the state level tends to screw the city, especially in heavily gerrymandered states.
You're certainly right that NIMBYism in zoning laws is a big problem, but NIMBYs can be quite powerful at the state level as well.
What I can’t seem to find the answer to in this very long and stream-of-consciousness style series of posts is why the author thinks the FAA is the only relevant federal agency. They complain constantly about violating NEPA and accuse the FAA of just waiving this through … but there’s no way someone can operate a point-source emitter (e.g., large 250mw power station, let alone the natural gas processing facility) without getting a permit from the relevant air quality regulator.
Might be the EPA but I’m guessing it’ll be TCEQ; most states, especially the large ones, have their own state agencies and so long as the standard exceeds what the federal minimums are, then they issue the permits. This is the scheme set up by the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. (I practice in California and we have two separate state agencies, one for air and one for water. It seems like Texas Comm’n on Enviro Quality does both per their website.) The EPA doesn’t get involved in permit issuing and the state agencies even have authority over other federal agencies’ operations and issue permits to them.
So if the FAA is asleep at the switch, who really cares? There’s a whole second governmental regulator out there and a host of environmental non-profits and local governments with standing to sue if they think that regulator has made a decision they don’t like.
It’s like complaining that the plumbing inspector hasn’t given proper consideration to the minimum set-backs and architectural character of the neighborhood and signs off on the new toilets and showers for a house renovation. Like, who cares? You can’t move in without getting the final permit from the City and even if you did get that permit, the neighbors can sue and stop construction if they think the City made the wrong decision.
What am I missing? Why is this author so obviously emotionally distraught?
In the US, there is a thing called The California Effect. California has a history of passing laws for California which end up getting adopted at the federal level.
This is the origin story for environmental protection in this country.
So probably that's a factor here. If you are in the federal government and you know California has the power to de facto dictate federal policy by passing a law at the state level, the only good defense is a proactive offense.
They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. The EPA is created with Congressional authority and is empowered to act on their behalf.
Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?
>The counter-claim that there's no way local governments could come together and offer a comparable solution is dubious.
It's not so much that localities can't as it is they didn't. Besides, pollution often affects large areas and crosses state boundaries. That sounds like the federal government's concern.
It's important to tell a balanced story. Parts of America was like this. Most of it was not.
Civil suits failed to curb industrial emissions in built-up areas, which then spilled over everywhere else. The EPA was a godsend.
I didn't understand the problem until the first time I visited L.A. Wow, what a mess. The air was so thick. It was disgusting.
It's amazing the progress we have made. But the EPA, like so many other agencies (I'm looking at you, TSA) is an agency without a limiting factor. You come up with a devil, you pass a bunch of rules, then you spend the next few years issuing press releases about how you're saving the world.
What's happened to American politics in many areas is that there are no feedback loops. When I look at the smog in LA back in the day and how the skies look now? That's a feedback loop. My government is doing something I want them to do. But when they talk about parts per billion versus parts per trillion? It's not evidently clear to me as a voter that we're not just continuing to expand our empire, just like the rest of the agencies.
I love what the EPA has done and I support them. But without some kind of limiting feedback loop my support really doesn't mean much. It's just a platitude. I don't support any agency that just runs off on their own taking more and more control over things for reasons I don't understand (or reasons I do understand but disagree with.)
So sure, EPA yay! So what the hell does that actually mean?
ADD: No matter what the group, big corporate governance groups, local town councils, Non-profit boards, or federal agencies, political groups exist for political reasons. We may laud their goals and love some of the things they've done, but when you are chartered because politics, and you get funding because politics, and people love or hate you because politics -- your primary concern is political. That's not a knock on anybody, that's just the logic of how these things work.
In theory, sure, a disinterested regulator would ensure that the cost of polluting was higher than the cost of not polluting. (Another solution to this problem is via property right enforcement, by the owners of the nearby polluted properties that share airspace/water table with the polluter).
But in practice the EPA is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to publishing studies on its own cost effectiveness. It exists to increase its budget and scope, just like all other agencies, but has no check on its behavior. Its officials are not elected, cannot be fired, and are effectively invisible to the public. Moreover, opposition to EPA malfeasance/corruption is often caricatured as opposition to clean air and clean water itself.
As an example of regulatory pathology, consider that the EPA is giving grants and instruction manuals to NGOs, telling them how to sue the agency into expanding its powers.
The EPA even tacitly encourages such suits, going so
far as to pay for and promote a "Citizen's Guide" that,
among other things, explains how to sue the agency
under "citizen suit" provisions in environmental laws.
The guide's author — the Environmental Law Institute —
has received $9.9 million in EPA grants over the past
decade.
And, to top it off, critics say the EPA often ends up
paying the groups' legal fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
What's going on? "The EPA isn't harmed by these suits,"
said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during
the Bush administration. "Often the suits involve things
the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and
then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal
cover from political heat."
Most people have never read an expose on the EPA; they think of them as the "good guys" who protect us from the evil polluters. What's funny is that we can see through this kind of logic when the normal police invoke it to justify any action in the pursuit of common criminals, but not when the environmental police do so -- and the EPA is most certainly a branch of the police, with the power to raid, fine, and seize property.
The EPA doesn't have a dog in this fight - the feds don't have much of a role at all, unless it is on federal lands of a particular class that would trigger special protections (ie National Park).
Piping gas across state lines can involve the feds, or if they impign on a wetland or waterway. There's no interstate commerce to trigger any substantial federal involvement that I can see.
Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily.
Although surely not serious, lots of naivete here. This assumes everyone values personal health over financial health. This prevents anyone from wanting to get elected to fix an existing problem. This places guilt even on the innocent if they are subjected to upstream or state-level pollution. On and on and on.
You either have a problem with existing laws not being enforced or there not being laws to enforce concerning the issue. This happens in many other areas of concern too. It's going to require a citizenry that cares, though PR stunts always feel good on paper.
Local representatives don’t get to counter the almighty EPA, which writes and enforces all of the environmental regulations affecting this kind of thing.
That's my main complaint about the current administration and a lot of Republicans. I am afraid that their attitude about environmental regulation will cause a lot of damage for a long time and erase progress made over decades. I live close to LA and when you talk to people who lived there in the 70s and 80s and compare it to now there is no way to to view what the EPA and other agencies did as anything other than a huge success for the quality of life in this country.
I find it infuriating how the leadership of the EPA is suddenly only lobbyists and scientists get treated with distrust and disrespect.
If the state doesn't lack the teeth to fix this, why would they choose to compete for federal attention with an order of magnitude more people?
reply