James P. Lester

Hazardous wastes, politics, and public policy: a comparative state analysis.

growth, industrial expansion, and technological change upon the environment. One of the major public policy issues to emerge recently is concern over public health and safety associated with hazardous (chemical) wastes. Dramatic incidents, such as kepone dumping in the James River, the Valley of the Drums incident in Kentucky, and the damage apparently caused by the Love Canal chemical disposal sites, have served as catalysts in mobilizing public interest in the responsible management of hazardous wastes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that in 1980, at least 57 million metric tons of the nations total wasteload can be classified as hazardous (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980). Indeed, the hazardous waste problem is often described as the single most threatening issue facing the country or the environmental problem of the century (Epstein, Brown, and Pope 1982: 37). As a result of this concern the hazardous waste issue has become the focus of much scholarly research and congressional activity (Goldfarb 1979; Getz and Walter 1980; Worthley and Torkelson 1981; Jorling 1981; Eckhardt 1981; Levine 1982). Moreover, the responsible management of hazardous waste has generated substantial interest among state governmental leaders and agencies, whose responsibilities include its regulation. Specifically, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (or RCRA, as it is commonly called), charges the EPA with approving state hazardous waste control programs. In the event that a state fails to comply with the standards set by RCRA, the EPA itself is authorized to develop and implement a program in that state (Steeler 1980). Although the states have strong incentives to comply with RCRA, their policy responses reflect varying commitments to the responsible management of hazardous waste. Consequently, it is important to explore some potential explanations of state policy in this area. The purpose of this comparative state study is to examine the states policy responses to the hazardous waste problem and to evaluate the utility of several indicators (both new and conventional) hypothesized to

Implementing Environmental Policy in a Federal System: A Test of the Sabatier-Mazmanian Model

Implementation research has been impeded by a variety of conceptual and methodological difficulties, some of which this articles hopes to remedy. It examines the regulation of hazardous waste in the fifty states and, using the conceptual framework developed by Sabatier and Mazmanian, identifies the factors that inhibit policy implementation. The authors focus specifically on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and find that state implementation is a function of technical uncertainty, agency competence, and the economic importance of target groups. They also find that there are differences between the nonimplementing states.

Decentralizing Federal Environmental Policy: A Research Note

NUMBER of predictions have been made about the likely effects of President Reagan’s New Federalism on state spending. Many critics A believe that &dquo;faced with worsening fiscal constraints, some states [will] simply drop many of the programs altogether&dquo; (Elder and Kiser 1983: 56). According to a survey by the National Governors’ Association (NGA), the proportion of states saying they would reduce activities rather than maintain them at present levels was well above two-thirds &dquo;for all but a few program activities&dquo; (Davis 1982; National Governors’ Association 1982). In the environmental area, state officials have predicted that reduced federal assistance will result in decreased environmental activities and may result in negative impacts on the environment (General Accounting Office 1982). Indeed, it has been suggested that &dquo;these reductions [have] significantly weakened the ability of states to implement their existing [environmental] control responsibilities&dquo; (Davies 1984: 151). Others suggest that states and localities will respond to the cuts in federal spending by picking up defunct national programs (Gray 1983). If anything, some argue, &dquo;reductions in federal aid should result in increases in requests for state monies to make up for aid losses&dquo; (Hedge 1983: 207). The empirical evidence to date, on the other hand, suggests that &dquo;most state governments [have been] unable or unwilling to maintain service levels in the face of federal aid cuts. The most common response to the FY 1982 federal aid cuts was to cut the services affected&dquo; (Nathan et al. 1983: 204). However, these findings have also led some researchers to conclude that &dquo;it is important to disaggregate both geographically and by program

Dimensions of hazardous waste politics and policy

Preface and Acknowledgments Part One: The Local Level Part Two: The State and Regional Levels Part Three: The National and Intergovernmental Levels Part Four: The Comparative and International Levels