Nanneman 1

Response Essay 5
So far, the prevailing theme of environmental policy and politics has been the complexity and
interconnectedness of the issues. This idea is exemplified, yet again, by arguably the most
comprehensive and significant pieces of environmental legislation to date: The Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act (along with their many amendments). These acts not only reveal the different
approaches to policy the government has taken to address air and water pollution but also how
governmental institutions such as congress, the courts, and the bureaucracy interact in order to
build/dismantle, enforce and regulate legislation. By understanding the roles of the bureaucracy,
congress and courts and who created these acts, one can better determine their relative success by
comprehending the constraints from within these policies were made.
The major government actions to address air and water pollution in the United States have
been the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, along with their many amendments. Similar to most
environmental legislation passed in the sixties and seventies, the 1972 Clean Water Act proved be
wildly unrealistic by promising that all water was to be fishable and swimmable by 1983 (Kraft 141).
However, further amendments and other legislation such as the Clean Water Drinking Act helped
specify the standards for clean water, create plans to stop water pollution, and provide funds for states
to implement plans and research to prevent further contamination to waterways (Kraft 141, 143, 144)
Beginning in 1963, there have been several important acts passed concerning air pollution.
The first, the Clean Air Act of 1963 provided federal support for air pollution research as well as
assistance to the state for developing their own pollution control agencies (Kraft 136). In
1970, congress passed the more expansive Clean Air Act of 1970 and amendments to this act were later
passed in 1977 and 1990 (CAA' 70) (Kraft 136,137). Together, these acts and amendments required that
an ample margin of safety be set for toxic hazards or pollutants, created emissions standards for
mobile sources of air pollution, mandated that states create a state implementation plan to control
pollution and set national air quality (National Ambient Air Quality Standards), established three
classes for clean areas and permitted the act to also regulate SO2, NO2, and chlorofluorocarbons which
had been linked to acid rain and the degradation of the ozone (Kraft 137, 138,139).
One significant exception from these prescriptive regulations the allowance trading program
created by the EPA (Layzer 155. This program set a maximum rate for the country and allotted permits
to companies that allowed to produce a specific amount of emissions (Layzer 155). Through this
program emissions reductions occurred relatively quickly [...; and] the EPA made no exemptions or
exceptions from, or relaxations of, the programs requirements which is quite considerable given the
EPAs history (Layzer 161). Many, especially conservatives, have lauded the market approach; yet,
criticism that there were no significant technological innovations and the reductions mandated by the
act were not enough to stop damage done by acid rain as well a congressional gridlock has prevented
similar legislation from passing. (Layzer 151, 162).
 Nanneman 2

The roles of the congress, the bureaucracy, and the courts in regards to environmental policy
are all connected; often, the actions of one directly affect interactions between the other two. Within
the bureaucracy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead organization for controlling
pollution of the air and water as well as protecting the public from environmental threats (Vig and
Kraft 151). Created by President Nixon, and supervised by congress, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), often must balance its administrative mandates with the tone of the public, president
and congress. Its practices are often called into question via the court. While the EPAs primary tool for
protecting the environment is regulation, it has many roles in environmental policy: they must enforce
cooperation, support state environmental programs, conduct research on pollution, and set standards
for pollution and toxicants to ensure public safety (Vig and Kraft 151, 152) The EPA is essentially an
umbrella organization that administers many programs that operate under different laws and
budgets (Vig and Kraft 151). While trying administer its laws, the EPAs decisions are often questioned
by both congress and citizens, who bring the questions to court.
Within environmental policy, congress plays a major role in agenda setting and the
formulation, adoption and implementation of policies (Vig and Kraft 106). Vig and Kraft state that
historically, congress has been more influential than the white house in formulation and adoption of
environmental policies (Vig and Kraft 107). Members of congress can introduce policy, make
speeches, vote for legislation, and determine the budgets for agencies (107). These powers are quite
considerable, in fact, Vig and Kraft note that whatever the future holds, it is clear that Congress is the
only national political institution that can redesign environmental policy for the twenty-first century
(106). However, since the 1990s congress has been gridlocked on almost every issue (106). While
congress has the power to pass comprehensive legislation, congressmen must balance their roles as
legislator with their role as a representative and these roles often contradict each other. Layzer notes
that the desire to protect local or regional economic interests is a powerful reason to resist making
environmental policy more protective (Layzer 133). The lack of action has led many who desire
political action to take their complaints to the courts.
The courts have significant power to determine not only the legality of environmental but how
it is actually implemented (Vig and Kraft 147). There are five main ways the court has the power to
influence environmental law; the first being a determination of who has the right to sue (Vig and Kraft
132) The second way the courts influence policy is by deciding which cases are ready for review (132).
The courts choice of standard review is the third way it can control legislation by deciding whether to
look at the actions of an agency or defer to administrative expertise (132). The fourth, and possibly
the most significant, way is the ability for the courts to interpret environmental laws (132). Often
times laws are written in a way that are vague, leaving considerable decision making capability to the
agency in question, which the court can either reinforce or over turn (Vig and Kraft 133). The fifth and
final way is the courts ability to choose a remedy i.e. how harshly it will punish an offender or what
solution it will provide to a problem (133). Through these five main channels, courts have significant
 Nanneman 3

power to shape environmental policy, especially as more groups turn to them as a way to escape the
gridlock in congress (Vig and Kraft 147)
Since the sixties, the bureaucracy, courts, and congress have all been important players in the
regulatory process. All three are often important in determining how policies are created and
implemented, as evidenced by government actions to address air and water pollution in last few
decades. Within the evolution of the Clean Air and Waters acts there has been both periods of great
change and incremental growth. Much of this is due to congress dependency on public opinion, and
the EPAs dependence on congress for budgets and regulatory powers. Though most legislation
regarding pollution has been regulatory in nature, there have been some market based solutions that
have been quite successful. However, the dysfunctional organization of the EPA and the limited
powers congress has accorded it have prevented more innovative programs from being put into place.
In respect to the way pollution was prior to CAA and CWA and considering the constraints of the EPA
and the gridlock of congress, these policies have been quite successful. However, Congress
unwillingness to give the EPA more powers and a larger budget means that more dynamic policies
such as the allowance trading system cannot be reproduced. Given the potential change policies could
have and the fact that these policies still do not bring water and air to safe, sustainable levels, I do not
consider these policies a complete success.