Federalism and resource management
Federalism is a governance system that divides powers between the national government and individual states, allowing both levels to create laws and public policies. This structure has evolved over time, particularly in the context of natural resource management, which encompasses both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Initially, natural resources were viewed as abundant with minimal government oversight. However, as resource exploitation became evident, the federal government assumed a more significant role in managing these resources through various agencies.
Environmental federalism specifically addresses the balance of power in environmental protection and resource management between state and federal authorities. While local governments can tailor policies to their communities' needs and often operate more cost-effectively, challenges arise when environmental issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, necessitating collaboration. A notable example of this collaboration is seen in the management of marine fisheries, where both state and federal governments work together to ensure sustainable practices. Overall, effective resource management in a federalist system requires strong partnerships between different government levels, aiming to balance conservation goals with economic development.
Federalism and resource management
Natural resources management plays a key role in conserving and enhancing those goods and services provided by nature. Management practices in the United States are guided by the federalism model, providing an integrated mode of management structured around the needs and capabilities of local, state, and national efforts.
Background
Federalism refers to the institutional framework that divides decision-making power between the national government and individual states. In this framework, both national governments and states develop laws and public policies.
Before the United States ratified its constitution, the states acted autonomously. In the immediate aftermath of the signing of the Constitution in 1787, the national government dealt primarily with national issues, such as defense. Over time, changes in this balance of power occurred directly in the form of amendments to the Constitution and legislative actions. As an example of an explicit allocation of decision-making power, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares, “powers not delegated to the United States . . . are reserved to the States. . . .” The U.S. national government has increased its power over time, especially in response to large national events, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression.
As a subset of federalism, environmental federalism refers to a dynamic balance of power between the states and the federal government, which is determined by the nature of the role played in establishing environmental protection and managing natural resources. Natural resources include both renewable and nonrenewable resources: soil, minerals, forests, water, fisheries, and energy. In response to scarcity and the degradation of environmental quality, Congress has designed environmental programs that allow for implementation of policies to manage and protect these resources on the federal, state, and local levels.
History of Natural Resource Policy and Management
William Lowry describes the evolution of natural resource policies as divided into the following three eras: an era from colonial times to the end of the nineteenth century in which government did not get involved in resource extraction and most viewed resources as abundant; an ongoing era in which government determines natural resource policies; and a new era in which policies are determined by synthesizing the preferences and perspectives of different, often competing, stakeholders.
Before the shift to government involvement in the allocation of natural resources, a majority of the public perceived natural resources to be abundant. As the public began to utilize the expansive resources of the United States, it became evident that a lack of natural resource and public land management was leading to the exploitation of numerous types of natural resources, including wildlife, rangelands, and forests. In response to this exploitation, the federal government increased its role in the management of these resources.
For much of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century, natural resource policy and management focused on the management of individual resources rather than taking a more holistic view of public resources. As a result of this segmented approach, management responsibilities are divided among an array of state and federal agencies. The division of management between the federal government and state and local governments is often described as a vertical division. Within the U.S. government, the largest land and resource management agencies are the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. These four agencies manage roughly 250 million hectares of land. Other federal agencies also play key roles in managing natural resources, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minerals Management Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. State and local governments also play an important role in land management, with roughly 23 million hectares under management. These estimates do not include the 11.7 million square nautical kilometers of ocean under U.S. jurisdiction.
Public Policy and Natural Resources Management
Public policy refers to government action or inaction in response to some type of social problem. Management either involves day-to-day efforts on the ground (or water) or the efforts to control agencies that oversee those day-to-day efforts. Management represents a distinct form of policy implementation. It can be conceptually divided into two separate categories: strategic management and operational management. Strategic management refers to those efforts that determine the organizational/institutional structure; operational management refers to on-the-ground actions of the agencies.
Natural resource management is not a science. Ideally, natural resource management will be guided by both natural and social sciences but influenced by a host of other factors, including the values and the subjective processes of managers and resource stakeholders. Managers have the difficult task of bridging gaps between management, policy, and science.
General Issues in Environmental Federalism
One topic garnering continued discussion is the proper way to evaluate the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. This requires determining how the vertical divisions of decision making influence the management of natural resources. Which level of government has the best claim on the management of the resource and which level of government can manage the resource most efficiently are two factors that must be determined.
Several benefits of lower-level, or local (state, city, and county), government jurisdiction exist. Local governments promote citizen involvement in self-governance, are often more responsive to the needs and preferences of local citizens, and tend to be more cost-effective. Skeptics of local government effectiveness point out that they often do not have the necessary resources to perform well. In addition, detractors also assert that some environmental issues are larger than local jurisdictional boundaries. For example, air pollution is not likely to stay in certain geographical boundaries, because of natural shifts in global wind patterns.
One of the ongoing debates over environmental federalism concerns the correct balance of power. Researchers have found that different levels of government produce different policies. One major cause can be attributed to the perceived consequence of localized versus national decision making. In some instances, lower levels of government are more likely to encourage developmental policies, like economic growth, over redistributive policies. This can be traced to fears that residents may move to nearby locations with more pro-growth policies. On a national level, redistributive policies, such as those protecting environmental quality and natural resource abundance, can be more effective because individuals and firms are less likely to move beyond national boundaries.
Theorists have described this localized tendency to favor development, as it affects environmental quality and natural resources, as a “race to the bottom.” This refers to situations in which state and local governments favor development over environmental quality, allowing for lower environmental standards. This perception has been disputed in academic literature. In some cases, states have exceeded existing federal standards. In practice, states and local governments have actually developed a whole host of innovative policies. On the localized level, state and local governments benefit from having the ability to tailor policies to meet the specific needs of a given area. Local levels of government also tend to be more cost-effective than the federal government.
The federal government has played a key role in the development of laws protecting the environment and natural resources. However, the federal government does not always have the ability or the knowledge to tailor policies to meet regional or localized needs. The federal government is well suited to address issues that are large in scale or that cross more localized jurisdictional boundaries.
Collaborative Outputs of Natural Resource Policy
In application, there are numerous cases in which states and the federal government collaborate in the management of natural resources. One example of this occurs via the management of marine fisheries in the United States. Marine fisheries represent a unique natural resource requiring both state and federal attention, because some fish exist locally, but other fish have large migration patterns crossing numerous jurisdictional boundaries. Marine fisheries are a type of common-pool resource which, without oversight, are often depleted. In most cases, states control waters out to 5.6 nautical kilometers (the exceptions are Texas, Florida’s Gulf coast, and Puerto Rico, which control waters out to 16.7 nautical kilometers), and the federal government controls waters out to 370 nautical kilometers. Of course, environmental systems do not adhere to these types of jurisdictional boundaries, thus necessitating collaborative efforts.
In response to these challenges, Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (amended in 1996 and reauthorized in 2006) to outline principal goals in conservation and management of fish, while simultaneously promoting safety and efficiency.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act relies on collaboration between state and federal governments. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) acts as the lead federal agency for the management of fisheries in federal waters. The act also designated regional management councils to advise the NMFS in this management effort. These management councils are composed of representatives from state fisheries management agencies, mandatory appointees from coastal states, at-large appointees from states in the region, and the regional directors of NMFS. The fisheries management councils have the vital responsibilities of creating Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs), which designate fish in need of management, analyze factors (both natural and social) influencing the fishery, and prepare the FMP to balance environmental, social, and economic goals. In the case of fisheries, states have the important role of managing fish in their jurisdiction as well as participating in regional management responsibilities, such as educating commercial and recreational fishermen and promoting the safe, legal fishing practices outlined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Context
Federalism is the operating system used by the United States to manage its natural resources. Considering the goals for resource management, such as conservation and protection, good working relationships between federal and local agencies are necessary to ensure the most efficient and most effective supervision. Goals at the local and national levels are intertwined, creating opportunities to work together to maximize benefits to and from the natural resources available.
Bibliography
Kay, Robert, and Jackie Alder. Coastal Planning and Management. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2005.
Koontz, Tomas M. Federalism in the Forest: National Versus State Natural Resource Policy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2002.
Lowry, William R. “Natural Resource Policies in the Twenty-first Century.” In Environmental Policy: New Directions in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1999.
Magnun, William R., and Daniel H. Henning. Managing the Environmental Crisis: Competing Values in Natural Resource Administration. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1999.
Rabe, B. G. “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization.” In Environmental Policy: New Directions in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1999.
Scheberle, Denise. “Partners in Policymaking: Forging Effective Federal-State Relations.” Environment 40, no. 10 (1998): 14.
"What Is Federalism?" State Policy Network, 11 June 2021, spn.org/articles/what-is-federalism/. Accessed 23 Dec. 2024.