balancing risk and finance: the challenge of implementing unfunded environmental mandates

Balancing Risk and Finance: The Challenge of Implementing Unfunded EnvironmentalMandatesAuthor(s): Carole J. Cimitile, Victoria S. Kennedy, W. Henry Lambright, Rosemary O'Learyand Paul WeilandSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1997), pp. 63-74Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976693 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 08:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.150 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:54:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/976693?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Balancing Risk and Finance: The Challenge of Implementing Unfulnded Environmental Mandates

Carole J. Cimitile, Syracuse University Victoria S. Kennedy, Syracuse, New York W. Henry Lambright, Syracuse University Rosemary O'Leary, Indiana University, Bloomington Paul Weiland, Indiana University, Bloomington

What impact have unfunded environmental mandates had on local governments? Carol Cimitile, Victoria Kennedy, Henry Lambright, Rosemary 0 'Leary, and Paul Weiland's two-pronged research studied seven local governments in New York State in 1994. First, they examined ifand how these local governments prioritized risks (such as environmental andpublic health problems) to decide what environmental areas should have priority. Second, they examined how local governments were payingfor the implementation ofenvironmental mandates. The division of responsibility for environmentalprograms differs dramatically among the seven localgovernments studied. Common themes, however, were discovered and are discussed. The authors con- clude that the problems posed by unfunded environmental mandates are the result of a number offactors includingfragmentation (institutional, scientific, legal, and political), lack of information, and the rigidity of laws and regulations. They call for a national reexamination of environmental regulation.

One of the first bills passed by Congress during the 1995 session and signed into law by President Clin- ton was P.L. 104-4 which addresses the issue of unfunded mandates. The passage of this law came on the heels of a number of other actions that called attention to a multitude of unfunded mandates being passed from the federal government to the states and from the states to localities. In 1993 and 1994, numerous resolutions were introduced in both the United States Senate and the House of Represen- tatives to limit the passage of unfunded federal mandates. In 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12875 (President Clinton, 1993) calling for a reduction in unfunded mandates. And October 27, 1993, was declared National Unfunded Mandates Day by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties.

One purpose of all these actions was to call attention to the growing number of environmental mandates handed down from federal and state governments to local governments. Increasingly, the duty to implement environmental laws is falling on local governments. Environmental responsibility has shifted downward but without the needed funds to implement the programs mandated by the laws (ACIR, 1990; Fix and Kenyon, 1990; Schwartz and Peck, 1990; Zimmerman, 1992). Unfunded environmental mandates affect many of our nation's governments (DiLorenzo, 1993; U.S. Conference of Mayors/Price Waterhouse, 1993). Although much has been written on federalism and environmental policy (Fitzgerald, McCabe, and Foltz, 1988; Peretz, 1992; Tobin, 1992), little attention has been paid to the issue of how local governments are dealing with unfunded environmental mandates.

Public Administration Review * January/February 1997, Vol. 57, No. 1 63



The cost of federally mandated environmental programs has been estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be $99 billion for 1990 alone (Pompilli et al., 1992). Yet there is little information on the impact of environmental mandates on individual local government entities. In one of the few studies on the subject, officials in Columbus, Ohio, estimated its portion of those costs to be $1 billion from 1992 to the year 2000 (Environ- mental Law Committee, 1991). In another study, the overall impact of environmental mandates on Anchorage, Alaska, was estimated to be $430 million from 1992 to 2000 (Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 1992).

To gather further empirical evidence to understand better how local governments are coping with the unfunded environmental mandates facing them, we studied seven local governments in New York State. The focus of the research was two-pronged. First, we examined if and how these local governments prioritized risks (such as environmental and public health problems) in order to decide what environmental areas should have priority. Second, we examined how local governments were paying for the implementation of environmental mandates. Researchers asked the questions: Are risk and finance balanced by these local governments? Can they be balanced under the current regulatory scheme? Should they be?

We begin by describing the risk and finance project, including an explanation of which local governments were selected for participation and why. We highlight the major findings, with particular emphasis on how the local governments ranked environmental risks and what role economic concerns played in such rankings. Finally, we present conclusions and policy recommendations. We urge a reexamination of our national approach to environmental regulation arguing for the enhanced provision of information to decisionmakers at all levels of government and to the public, increased integration of risk and finance decision-making process- es, and greater flexibility in how local governments comply with environmental laws.

The Project The communities participating in the unfunded environmental

mandates project were selected on the basis of diversity of size, geo- graphical location, and governmental jurisdiction (see Table 1 for a list of the communities that participated). At the same time, however, all of the localities are located in relatively close geographic proximity to each other. In addition, because all of the localities studied are in the state of New York, they are subject to similar, and in most instances identical, state and federal laws.

The participating communities were similar in another

Table 1 Localities Participating in Risk and Finance Project

Community Category Population Lowville Village 3,600 Ticonderoga Town 5,000 Oswego City 19,000 Auburn City 31,000 Binghamton City 53,000 Albany City 10O0,000 Monroe County County 1,000,000

respect-they were under considerable economic development pressure. Typical of many areas in New York State, the seven had lost population and major industries over the last 20 years, while struggling to hold onto their shrinking tax base. Only Monroe County and the two small communities (Lowville and Ticondero- ga) had reasonably stable populations. Oswego, Auburn, and Binghamton are representative of older, industrial cities in the Northeast (and the rest of the nation) that are facing ongoing economic pressures. (See Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the seven cities involved in the project.)

Project Structure The project consisted of two parts. First, local officials (both

elected and career public servants) were interviewed and asked how they actually implement specific environmental mandates from a risk and finance perspective. Second, officials from the seven communities participated in a day-long seminar at Syracuse University in February 1994 where they set priorities for environmental programs of a hypothetical community, using risk and finance criteria set forth for them. Through this exercise, we hoped to understand how local officials might systematically set priorities for environmental programs.

The issue of how to set priorities among mandates is one that is difficult to address within our political system. In theory, all statutes passed at both the state and federal levels are law and, therefore, should be fully implemented.1 However, the universe of environmental problems continues to grow, and, at the same time, the willingness and ability of government to finance solutions is declining. For example, the opening sentence of one recent assessment by the EPA stated, "In case you haven't heard, America is going broke protecting the environment" (Smolonsky et al., 1994, 1). As a result, the number of unfunded and partially funded mandates is increasing. For the purposes of this study, we adopted the strict legal definition of mandates as specified by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1990, 2): "Direct orders with clear intent to demand positive action allowing no legal choice but to carry out that action." Two additional compo- nents of the mandates we were concerned with should be identified. First, we focused on mandates passed from one level of government to another (i.e., intergovernmental mandates). Second, we focused on mandates that are not accompanied by full funding from the level of government that formulated them (i.e., partially funded or unfunded mandates).

In response to the increase in number and costs of unfunded and partially funded mandates, several experts in the field have called for the use of a risk-based planning process to assist the EPA in setting priorities (see, for instance, Fiorino, 1990; Reilly, 1991; Moynihan, 1993). The use of risk-based planning to set priorities became a divisive issue in the 103rd Congress when it was introduced in bills regarding the elevation of EPA to cabinet-level status and the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act ("Issue: EPA Cabinets," 1994). In addition, risk assessment is part of an overall package of regulatory reform that has been introduced into the House and Senate during the 104th session of Congress. Comparative risk analysis embodies the process of risk-based planning. "Comparative risk analysis is a procedure for ranking envi-

64 Public Administration Review * January/February 1997, Vol. 57, No. 1



ronmental problems by their seriousness for the purpose of assign- ing them program priorities" (Cleland-Hamnett, 1993, 19).

Although comparative risk analysis may include any number of scientific and technical criteria that may increase the robustness of the analysis, individual perceptions play an inevitable role in such analysis (Shrader-Frechette, 1989). The cultural theory of risk perception posited by Douglas and Wildavsky (1982, 8) is guided by the assumption that "any form of society produces its own selected view of the natural environment, a view which influences its choice of dangers worth attention." It is undeniable that values play a role in risk analysis. The very concept of risk has been defined in innumerable ways, and considerable evidence exists that individual perceptions play an important role in the assessment of risk.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this project the local government officials who were interviewed were not provided with a single, working definition of risk. Instead, officials were asked to rank mandates using their own definition of risk. As a result, the exter- nal validity of the findings should be strengthened.

The field team chose to focus on three environmental mandates that were extremely capital intensive: (1) the federal surface water treatment rule (requiring mandatory filtration of surface drinking water), (2) implementation of New York State's risk-based combined sewer overflow (CSO) strategy, and (3) the closure of municipal sanitary landfills in conformance with federal and state mandates. These cases were chosen after a survey of the major environmental mandates affecting localities, and expert testimony was solicited concerning the relative impact of each mandate. (See Appendix 2 for additional information about these three environmental mandates.)

Although similar issues were discussed in each community, the small size of the sample and other factors did not lend itself to a highly structured survey instrument format. Rather, the communities were interviewed by individual members of the research team using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Such a comparative/qualitative methodology has two primary strengths: (1) each individual sample may be explored as a case unto itself (Sartori, 1991), and (2) it is appropriate for generating questions and searching for patterns (Marshall and Rossman, 1989).

The research team was interested in examining in-depth each community's response to the required implementation of these mandates, including the specific parameters of each financial solution. In the case of sanitary landfill closure, we were also interested in the cost of the landfill alternative selected. Each of the seven communities was, or had been, deeply involved in implementing one or more of the three mandates examined, at considerable capital cost.

Background information was gathered on the seven communities as well. We asked similar questions in each community to understand the basis of the response to the same three major mandates. These questions covered the following areas: type of governmental responsibility for environmental services, economic and financial conditions of the

community, range of environmental problems, perceptions of the seriousness of environmental and public health risks presented by each, preferred priorities for implementation and the rationale for those preferences, integration of environmental programs, and factors that might inhibit future efforts to set multi-media (i.e., air, water, land) risk and finance priorities (such as lack of scientific risk data or fragmentation of local responsibility).

Findings

Risk Analysis Local officials were asked to rank risks on a numerical basis. To

provide for some consistency and to foster comparison, we asked all of the participants to rank the mandated activities according to environmental and public health risks. In addition, many participants ranked risks using other criteria (e.g., political risks, economic risks, and legal risks). There was some agreement within each community but less across communities (see Table 2). This illus- trates the commonsense observation that priorities set by a higher level of government (i.e., federal or state) may not be accepted readily by local governments.

In Oswego, career bureaucrats ranked CSO first, followed by filtration and landfill challenges. The mayor of Oswego, however, strongly disagreed, arguing that it is impossible to rank the three- all are equally important. In Binghamton, rankings were highly divergent. After much prodding, however, water filtration was ranked first, CSO second, and badly needed infrastructure improvements third. Landfill challenges were ranked fourth, largely because the landfill is owned and operated by the county and is not seen as a city problem. In Lowville, filtration and landfill challenges tied for first, and CSO was deemed not a problem.

In Albany, landfill challenges were ranked first, CSO second, and drinking water third. Auburn officials ranked drinking water first, followed by landfill challenges and CSO problems. Respons- es from Rochester/Monroe County officials were so divergent that generalizations are impossible to make. Finally, in Ticonderoga, drinking water was ranked first, followed by landfill and CSO problems.

Perception of risk seems to have played a prominent role in the ranking of risks. In the absence of documented local environmen-

Table 2 Risk Ranking

Community Risk Category Drinking Water Sewage (CSO) Landfill Lowville Environment and public health Medium Low Medium Ticonderoga Environment & public health High Medium-Low Medium

Economic High Political High

Oswego Environment & public health Medium High Low Auburn Environment & public health High Medium-Low Low

Economic/Legal Medium High Medium Binghamton Environment & public health High Medium Very low Albany Environment & public health Low Low High

Economic/political High Medium Low Legal High

Monroe County Environment & public health

The Challenge of Implementing Unfunded Environmental Mandates 65



tal or public health problems, officials interviewed still held strong individual perceptions of risk. Some of the communities participating in the project had experienced major environmental or public health threats. For example, Monroe County had dosed beach- es and issued drinking water advisories as a result of bacteria from combined sewer overflows. Air contamination in Albany had forced the state to close its "ANSWERS" (Albany New York Solid Waste Recovery System) solid waste incinerator. Several cities had worrisome industrial hazardous waste sites (e.g., Rochester, Bing- hamton, and Oswego). Several had been under state consent orders (e.g., Auburn for CSOs and landfill closure, Lowville for waste water).

However, even in the absence of real problems, local officials had firm views about what potential problems might be serious. Often these pertained to involuntary risks, such as those presented by industry. For example, the location of Oswego near three tribu- taries to Lake Ontario had raised concerns about upstream water quality. Air pollution from solid waste and sludge incineration, power generation (including nuclear power near Oswego), paper companies (in Oswego, Binghamton, and Ticonderoga), and other industries were serious concerns. Hazardous waste in landfills fre- quently was mentioned as a potentially high risk.

At the local level, it is clear that risk ranking differs across communities and also to some extent within individual communities. Risk rankings are based on various criteria (e.g., environmental and public health, economic, political, and legal risks) and are affected by individual perceptions. According to the EPA (1990, 2), the concept of environmental risk "allows many environmental problems to be measured and compared in common terms, and it allows different risk reduction options to be evaluated from a common basis." However, based on the evidence collected for the risk and finance project, this concept of risk is mired in the difficulties imposed by individual preferences and perception.

During the priority-setting exercise, the leading criterion used by local government officials was economic development. In con- sidering risk, the participants worried most about risks that might affect a particular industry's decision not to relocate, such as the availability of a clean water supply. In setting funding priorities, economic development and infrastructure maintenance were paramount. For example, participants were most willing to spend money first on helping industry solve a pollution problem and expanding infrastructure to accommodate new industry.

A similar pattern emerged in interviews with local government officials, with a few exceptions. In Oswego, discussions with career bureaucrats centered primarily around the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and EPA mandates that hurt and would thus drive out industry, although the mayor disagreed with this conclusion. In Binghamton, similar concerns about driving out industry were voiced, with one exception: The city engineer was primarily concerned with the environmental health of the entire area, including downstream implications for the Chesapeake Bay area. For Lowville, the real risk was seen not as environmental but as the threat of economic collapse, as the village is forced to spend beyond its perceived capacity.

In Auburn, although CSO issues were ranked low as environmental risks, they were ranked the highest in importance for economic and legal reasons. City officials in Ticonderoga placed CSO

A bout halofthe municipalities in the study viewed environmental risks not according to public health or environmental concerns but corresponding to how the implementation of environmental mandates might affect the capacity of current municipal infrastructure to sustain additional burdens.

problems first, followed by landfill and filtration issues, when economic concerns were allowed to play a role. Finally, it is interesting to note that in Albany, final rankings did not change when economic challenges were calculated.

About half of the municipalities in the study viewed environmental risks not according to public health or environmental concerns but corresponding to how the implementation of environmental mandates might affect the capacity of current municipal infrastructure to sustain additional burdens. In addition, municipalities were concerned with how industrial hookups would affect the local water and sewer systems. These observations buttress findings presented above which suggest that economic risk criteria may be the primary determinants in local decision-making process- es.

For the village of Lowville, located in Lewis County, as for most local governments, environmental risk assessments are set by higher levels of government. Local officials did not perceive risk levels in the same way that higher authorities did. They believed they were spending more money than they should have to for low-priority environmental problems. Lewis County officials were upset with environmental expenditures because the county was involved with operating the county hospital and thus had to deal with both rising health care and environmental costs. For this small rural area, the real risk was seen as economic collapse; they believed they face mandates that will result in minimal risk reduction and force them to spend far beyond their fiscal capacity. Lowville municipal officials seemed to realize that serious problems will be forthcom- ing from the postponement of needed improvement in infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, and sewer systems.

Auburn viewed its environmental infrastructure according to economic development concerns and maintenance costs. In fact, Auburn has a legal prohibition against adding any additional sanitary sewer or industrial hookups. Because infrastructure is an important variable to economic growth and any additional burden placed upon the system may limit the city's ability to grow, the city manager viewed this limitation in terms of how it would affect the cit/s image and economic growth goals. Scientific risk calculations did not play a prominent role in the ranking of environmental mandates for Ticonderoga either. CSO problems were considered most important for practical economic reasons (i.e., basic infrastructure maintenance).

One final pattern concerning risk and finance emerged among the localities. Financial information was more easily understood by the municipalities in the study than information about environ-

66 Public Administration Review * January/February 1997, Vol. 57, No. I



mental risks. Local governments had a better understanding of the various financial instruments and programs used to finance environmental mandates than they did of the information about risk assessments. Certainly, this is not an unusual finding as the information needed to assimilate financial programs is more readily available and understood by municipal officials than the highly scientific data and probabilities used to generate the likelihood of an environmental problem.

Also, since several of the municipalities had not actually experienced all the environmental problems, their perceptions of those risks were mostly based on statistical probabilities set by state and federal governments. Local government officials were more likely to consider public health as an important criterion when financing environmental mandates if the jurisdiction in which they worked had experienced previous environmental threats.

Implementing the Mandates

The three mandates we studied were often the responsibility of differing governmental units (see Table 3). The description of the division of responsibilities in these seven communities is typical of the wide array of ways that environmental programs are offered throughout the United States. In Oswego, for example, responsibility for waste water and sewers, as well as drinking water, is assumed by the city, while the county owns and runs the landfill. In Binghamton, responsibility for wastewater and sewers is jointly carried out by that city and Johnson City, while the county owns and runs the landfill. Yet the city of Binghamton has sole responsibility for providing drinking water. In Lowville, responsibility for the landfill lies with the county, while responsibility for providing drinking water lies with the village.

In Albany, responsibility for waste water and sewers is carried through a joint city/county partnership. A different partnership has been forged to deal with solid waste issues: The city owns and operates a solid waste shredder and landfill, while the state owns the garbage incinerator. The city has responsibility for drinking water. In Auburn, responsibility for all three services-waste water and sewers, drinking water, and landfill are carried out by the city. In Rochester/Monroe County, responsibility for waste water and sewers is shouldered by the county, while the city deals with drinking water challenges. In Ticonderoga, responsibility for waste water and sewers lies with the town which also provides drinking water. In a relatively new development, the county now has landfill responsibilities. In our study, there were only two revenue financing authorities, the Monroe County Water Authority and the Albany Water Authority (for water and waste water). The only general trend observed for environmental responsibility was toward regional sanitary landfills.

It is clear that based on these data local responsibility for environmental programs is highly fragmented by medium, and no general pattern of division of responsibility can be discerned. Those mandates over which governmental officials did not have direct responsibility were ranked low. For

example, as mentioned previously, Binghamton officials ranked landfill issues low because the landfill that they use is owned and operated by Broome County. In addition, officials from Oswego insisted that landfill problems are nonexistent because, ironically, it is the county not the city that owns and operates the landfill.

One additional finding that may be applied across mandates was a belief that rigidity on the part of state and federal governments made implementation more difficult. For instance, officials from Binghamton expressed frustration with the DEC and EPA, maintaining that mandates which these agencies implemented were too rigid and too costly. Officials from Oswego echoed this sentiment asserting that deadlines for compliance generally are too stringent. Auburn officials took issue with the DEC's solid waste and landfill policies and regulations contending that they are gov- erned by one-size-fits-all thinking which does not allow for the individual needs and differences among communities. Finally, officials from Monroe County identified themselves as part of a backlash against unwise priorities imposed by outside forces.

There were some patterns across localities regarding specific issues. For example, landfill closure, construction, and operation were mentioned by half of the local governments studied as being the most time consuming of the three challenges examined, largely for political reasons. Albany, Monroe County, and Ticonderoga had landfill-related difficulties, often political in nature, that were extremely time-consuming. Both Auburn and Albany had recently closed and constructed new landfills (an interim landfill in Albany's case). Albany was seeking state approval for a solid waste site but was having political difficulty in siting the new, $100 million long-term landfill. Monroe County had spent $72 million building an unsuccessful resource recovery plant and at the time of our study was constructing a new $140 million landfill. Ticon- deroga had no cost-effective place for a landfill for the grit cleaned from the wastewater treatment plant and faced extremely high tipping fees of at least $200 a ton.

Several rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court barring flow-control ordinances and eliminating limitations imposed by states on the export and import of solid and hazardous waste have reduced the capability of localities to manage solid waste effectively.3 In Auburn, competition from a large, private landfill in a neighboring county was undercutting the anticipated revenues for Auburn's newly operational landfill. Auburn had a tipping fee of $72 a ton, whereas the private owner charged $44 a ton. Both Auburn and Monroe County complained about the stricter controls placed by the state on public versus private landfills. The lack of flow con-

Table 3 Division of Responsibility for Programs

Community Drinking Water Sewage Landfill Lowville Village Village County Ticonderoga Town Town County Oswego City City County Auburn City City City Binghamton City (with Johnson City) City (with Johnson City) County Albany City (with Albany Water City (with Albany Water City (with state)

(Authority and county) (Authority and county) Monroe County City of Rochester County (with Monroe County County

Water Authority)




trol has affected Albany as well because many smaller communities are seeking landfill space at costs less than Albany's $55-a-ton tipping fee. This limits Albany's anticipated revenues for new construction. On the other hand, if Ticonderoga were not limited by its own county solid waste plan to sending its garbage downstate, it might have a less-expensive solution at hand. Given the Supreme Court's recent decision that flow-control ordinances violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (C & A Carbone, Inc. et al. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 114 S.Ct. 1677 [1994]), this issue will increase in importance.

Another common pattern arose in regard to the issue of waste water treatment. Some municipal officials feared that continued municipal subsidization of waste water user fees would undercut real cost evaluation and momentum to seek the least expensive funding source. Some cities were heavily subsidizing their waste water fees. For example, Binghamton had actually decreased taxes by 5.6 percent in the last year, and career public servants felt that the infrastructure was suffering because of the decrease. The subsidization of fees may temporarily pacify taxpayers until infrastructure deteriorates, when fees will probably have to increase to support new construction.

Implications and Conclusions The relationships among the implementation of environmental

mandates, the use of comparative risk analysis at the local level, and local priority setting as measured by the financing of discrete environmental issues are complex. The numerous institutions that interact to produce environmental policies assure an outcome that is difficult to analyze and even more difficult to reform. Nevertheless, the findings presented in the previous section may prove useful as proposals are developed for reform and improvement of the current system.

The problems posed by the unfunded environmental mandates examined in this study are the result of a number of factors including fragmentation, lack of information, and the rigidity of laws and regulations. Fragmentation is present in the area of environmental policy in a number of forms. One form identified in the findings was fragmentation by medium and, therefore, fragmentation by administrative office as well. Fragmentation by medium is caused by the division of responsibility by medium which may be traced to single-medium statutes such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. This type of fragmentation may lead to a situation in which pollution is simply shifted from one medium to another. For example, as landfill capacity decreases, incineration may increase, resulting in reduced land disposal but increased air- pollution problems. Efforts to enact multi-media environmental laws may prove helpful in addressing this challenge.

Institutional fragmentation is the result of a complex political system in which power is distributed among many layers of government. In solid waste management, the problems caused by institutional fragmentation are clear. At the same time that New York and numerous other states have passed mandates requiring localities to reduce the amount of solid waste entering landfills, the Supreme Court has made a number of rulings prohibiting localities from taking action to limit the import and export of solid waste. The need for coordination is vital, particularly with regard to environmental issues that do not heed political boundaries.

The problems posed by the unfunded environmental mandates examined in this study are the result of a number

offactors includingfragmentation, lack of information, and the rigidity of laws and regulations. Institutional fragmentation also stems from the fact that multi-

ple actors (often in different branches of government and at different levels of government) are involved in the formulation and implementation of environmental policy. The values of these actors play a prominent role in the formulation and implementation of environmental policy. Such values became apparent in this study when local government officials were asked to rank environmental risks. This points to a conclusion that the environmental decision-making process should be made transparent at all levels of government.

At the same time, government officials should strive to strengthen the scientific basis behind environmental policies. Although one EPA study concluded that the risks considered most serious by the general public differ from the risks considered most serious by technical experts (EPA, 1990), our study provides clear indication that federal, state, and local officials also have differing risk perceptions. Providing decisionmakers and the polity at large with quality scientific information may lessen this gap and enhance the quality of dialogue between those who are formulating and implementing policy and the general public. As local government officials gain a greater understanding of environmental problems and the risks they pose, they will become more aware of the link- ages between environmental and economic risks. If local, state, and federal decisionmakers are able to arrive at an agreed-upon set of criteria for evaluating risk (a challenging undertaking), it may be possible for communities to analyze their own environmental risks using this criteria. In such a situation, comparative risk analysis may prove an important component of a strategy to provide local government officials with increased discretion to implement mandates.

Both fragmentation and rigidity may be reduced if local officials are given the opportunity to take a more active role in the formulation and implementation of environmental mandates. P.L. 104-4 may provide for increased local government involvement in the formulation of policies because it requires federal agencies "before imposing any regulatory requirements that would signifi- cantly affect small governments-those local jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000-to notify those governments of the proposed requirements" ("Issue: EPA Cabinet," 1994; 1088).

Local governments are already involved in the implementation of environmental mandates. "Municipalities have both the incentive and the ability to enforce environmental standards that affect the communities which they are charged to protect" (Lehner, 1993, 81). However, efforts must be made to improve the ability of local governments to effectively and efficiently implement environmental mandates.

Therefore, efforts to increase discretion at the local level should be accompanied by capacity building that will improve the ability




A healthy environment and a sustainable economy go hand-in-hand. However, the haphazard application of

one-size-fits-all regulations coupled with narrowly focused economic development objectives threaten to undermine both of these goals.

of local-level decisionmakers to gather and analyze information. Capital planning and capital improvement plans may be used by communities to build local government capacity and provide valu- able information to local government officials. Only one community (Albany) in the study appeared to make use of a capital plan. The institution of capital planning would force communities to plan for the maintenance or new construction of environmental infrastructure. Furthermore, communities making use of a capital plan would have a better idea of the affordability of particular mandates and the impact on user fees and water rates.

Market incentives might be used to increase flexibility. Market incentives tend to decentralize the locus of decision-making, resulting in greater discretion and increased flexibility. For example, user fees are charged based on the number of units consumed of a given commodity. Such fees may be implemented for water usage or solid waste removal. The locus of decision making in a flat-fee system would be at the level of local or state government. If a user fee is implemented, individuals are given some discretion to decide how much they would like to pay for what quality of benefits.

Another market incentive that may be implemented more extensively is the subsidy. Subsidies may provide incentives to individuals and groups to meet environmental standards by making these standards economically feasible. In the area of drinking water, subsidies could be provided to states and to community water systems through the creation of a state revolving fund. Such a fund exists under the Clean Water Act Amendments for waste water systems, and EPA administrator Browner has urged Congress to create a similar fund under the Safe Drinking Water Act for drinking water systems (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 1994).

The issue of subsidies is a double-edged sword. While subsidies may be used to protect human health and the environment, they also may result in the degradation of the environment. The provision of subsidies in a variety of forms to those who harvest timber from government-owned lands provides perhaps the most prominent example of the environmental degradation subsidies may cause. At the local level, the subsidization of fees and rates may

seem politically palatable for elected officials, but such actions can have damaging long-term implications. Therefore, efforts should be made to eliminate those subsidies that result in environmental degradation.

A healthy environment and a sustainable economy go hand-in- hand. However, the haphazard application of one-size-fits-all regulations coupled with narrowly focused economic development objectives threaten to undermine both of these goals. Many factors are involved in balancing risk and finance in the environmental arena. Therefore, there is no single cure for the problem of unfunded environmental mandates. It is only partially a problem of too little money. Instead, we must look at the institutions and regulatory tools that contribute to the imbalance between risk and finance and seek to improve upon them.

Carole J. Cimitile is a Ph.D. candidate in public administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Formerly, she worked as the program coordi- nator for the Environmental Finance Center at Syracuse Universi- ty. Her dissertation is titled, "The Role of Citizen Participation in the Environmental Agenda Setting Process."

Victoria S. Kennedy is a consultant with the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, managing the activities of the Environmental Finance Center. She serves on several state and local environmental commissions, including the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, and is a founding member of the Council on Infrastructure Financing Authorities. She is the author of several books and articles on environmental management.

W. Henry Lambright is a professor of political science and public administration and director of the Center for Environmen- tal Policy and Administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. His latest book is Power- ing Apollo: James E. Webb of NASA (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995).

Rosemary O'Leary is an associate professor of public and environmental affairs (SPEA) at Indiana University, Bloomington. A winner of five national research awards, she is author of Environ- mental Change: Federal Courts and the EPA (Temple University Press, 1993) and coauthor of Public Administration and Law, 2d ed., with David Rosenbloom (Marcel Dekker, 1996).

Paul Weiland is a Ph.D. candidate in the joint program in public policy in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington. He has published a number of articles and book chapters in the area of environmental policy. He is currently a Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Urban Policy and Environment at SPEA, Indianapolis, pursuing his research interests in environmental law and intergovernmental relations.

Acknowledgements This research was conducted under a grant from the Environmental Finance Branch, Office of Administration and Resource Management of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The authors thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Syracuse University Environ- mental Finance Center, the Syracuse University Center for Environmental Policy and Administration, and the Indiana University Center for Urban Policy and the Environment for providing additional funding and assistance for this study. The authors also thank David Rosenbloom and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this artide. Finally, Mike Boots is thanked for his research assistance.




Notes

1. Although significant progress has been made in some areas of environmental protection since the passage of the major environmental laws of the 1 970s and 1 980s, few laws have been fully implemented. For example, since the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments, a number of areas of the country have continuously violated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated in accordance with the act. In addition, the Com- prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 provides yet another example of a law that calls for large-scale clean-up which has resulted in small-scale incremental results.

2. Risk may be broadly defined as exposure to hazard. Environmen- tal risks may be hazardous to human health, economic development, ecosystems, and/or the biosphere. The criteria used to define and rank risks vary from one individual to the next. According to Andrews, EPA defines risk as "the probability of injury, disease, or death under specific circumstances" (Andrews, 1994, 211). In this definition, the EPA has highlighted risk to human health but has failed to include any consideration of risk to economic development, ecosystems, or the biosphere. In addition to problems of definition, there are also problems of perception. (For a discussion of these, see "Risk Assessment in Environmental

Policy Making" by Audrey Armour, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences by Mary Douglas, and Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards by Liora Salter.)

3. In City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (S 437 U.S. 617 (1978), the Supreme Court overturned a New Jersey state law which limited the transportation of solid waste into New Jersey. The New Jersey law was declared to be in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution because of the limitations it placed on interstate commerce as defined by the Court. The precedent set in this case has been upheld in a number of more recent decisions- Oregon Waste Systems v. Environmental Dept. (114 S.Ct. 1345 (1994)), Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources (504 U.S. 353 (1992)), and Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt (504 U.S. 334 (1992)). These decisions have effectively eliminated the ability of states and localities to manage solid waste, because they ban restrictions on the flow of solid waste. In the recently decided case C & A Carbone, Inc. et al. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York (1 14 S. Ct. 1677 (1994), a flow-control ordinance adopted by Clarkstown as part of an effort to comply with federal and state solid waste regulations was declared to be in violation of the Commerce Clause, further limiting the ability of states and localities to manage solid waste.

References

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), 1990. Man- dates: Cases in State-Local Relations. Washington, DC: Advisory Commis- sion on Intergovernmental Relations.

Andrews, Richard, 1994. "Risk-Based in Decisionmaking." In Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, eds., Environmental Policy in the 1990s. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Armour, Audrey, 1993. "Risk Assessment in Environmental Policy Making." Policy Studies Review, vol. 12 (Autumn/Winter), 178-196.

Cleland-Hamnett, Wendy, 1993. "The Role of Comparative Risk Analysis." EPA Journal vol. 19 (anuary/February/March), 18-23.

Congressional Quarterly (CQ), 1994. "Issue: EPA Cabinet." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 52 (43), 3170.

DiLorenzo, T., 1993. Unfunded Federal Mandates: Environmentalism's Achilles Heel? St. Louis: Washington University Center for the Study of American Business.

Douglas, Mary, 1985. RiskAcceptabilityAccording to the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky, 1982. Risk and Culture:An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: Universi- ty of California Press.

Environmental Law Committee of the City of Columbus, Ohio, 1991. Envi- ronmental Legislation: The Increasing Costs of Regulatory Compliance to the City of Columbus, Ohio. Report of the Environmental Law Review Com- mittee to the Mayor and City Council of Columbus, OH.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priori- ties and Strategies for Environmental Protection, Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC: SAB.

Fiorino, Daniel, 1990. "Can Problems Shape Priorities? The Case of Risk- Base Environmental Planning." PublicAdministration Review, vol. 50 (anuary/February), 82-90.

Fitzgerald, Michael R., Amy Snyder McCabe, and David H. Folz, 1988. "Federalism and the Environment: The View From the States." State and Local Government Review, vol. 20 (3), 98-104.

Fix, M. and D. Kenyon, eds., 1990. Coping with Mandates: What are the Alternatives? Washington DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen Rossman, 1989. Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Moynihan, Patrick, 1993. "A Legislative Proposal: Why Not Enact a Law That Would Help Us Set Sensible Priorities." EPA Journal vol. 19 (anuary/February/March), 46-47.

Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, 1992. Payingfor Federal Environmental Mandates: A Looming Crisisfor Cities and Counties. Unpublished report.

Peretz, Jean H., 1992. "Equity Under, and State Responses to, Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986." Policy Sciences, vol. 25 (2), 191-209.

Pompilli, Michael etal., 1992. Ohio Metropolitan Area Reportfor Environ- mental Compliance. Ohio Municipal League.

President Clinton, 1993. "Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership." Executive Order 12875, 58 Fed. Reg. 58093, October 26.

Reilly, William, 1991. "Why I Propose a National Debate on Risk." EPA Journal vol. 17 (March/April), 2-5.

Salter, Liora, 1988. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Sartori, Giovanni, 1991. "Comparing and Miscomparing." Journal of Theo- retical Politics, vol.3 (3), 243-57.

Shrader-Frechette, K. S., 1989. "The Conceptual Risks of Risk Assessment." In Albert Flores, ed., Ethics and Risk Management in Engineering. New York: University Press of America.

Smolonsky, Marc, Elise Caplan, and David Dickson, 1994. Annual Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: Environmen- tal Working Group.

Schwartz, T. and J. Peck, eds., 1990. The Changing Face of Fiscal Federalism. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Tobin, Richard J., 1992. "Environmental Protection and the New Federal- ism: A Longitudinal Analysis of State Perceptions." Publius, vol. 22 (1), 93-107.

U.S. Conference of Mayors/Price Waterhouse, 1993. Impact of Unfunded Federal Mandates on U.S. Cities. Washington DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors.

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, 1994. Hear- ings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations: Part 5 CEQ/EPA. U.S. House of Representatives, 103rd Congress, 2nd Session.

Zimmerman, Joseph, 1992. "Study Fixes Costs of Unfunded Mandates." National Civic Review, vol. 81, 183.




Court Cases

C (-A Carbone, Inc. et al. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York, 1994. 114 S.Ct. 1677. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 1992. 504 U.S. 334. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 1978. 437 U.S. 617. Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Dept. ofNatural Resources, 1992. 504 U.S. 353. Oregon Waste Systems v. Environmental Dept., 1994. 114 S.Ct. 1345.

Appendix 1 Descriptions of the Seven cities

Albany

Albany is the capital of New York State located on the western shores of the Hudson River, 150 miles from New York City. Albany's population has remained relatively stable for several decades at slightly over 100,000, declining from a high of 135,000 in 1950. Albany has a large downtown state office building complex known as the Empire State Plaza, and there is a consortium of seven major universities and colleges in the city. The greater Albany area has continued to grow and includes a number of large industries such as General Electric and BASF.

Albany is noted for its unusually strong mayoral system of government and also has an active city council. The outgoing mayor has served for the past 10 years, and the previous mayor served continuously for the previous 42 years. The current mayor has a small administrative staff, preferring to deal directly with departmental commissioners on all policy matters. The departmental system itself is fragmented, a situation not unlike the other major cities in New York such as Buffalo and Syracuse but nonetheless complicated in Albany by the lack of any special environmental staff.

In addition, a large Department of Public Works is responsible for waste water treatment and solid waste programs plus snow removal and other activities, and a Department of Water and Water Supply is responsible for drinking water programs. Since 1987, the city also has had a Water Board and Water Authority which include both waste water and drinking water. The Water Board makes decisions on such matters as rates, extensions, and capital plans, while the authority is the tax-exempt revenue financing arm.

The multi-faceted agency/authority structure is further complicated by a split in ownership and responsibility for both waste water treatment and municipal solid waste. While the city owns and maintains the storm-sewer system, the Albany Water Board owns and maintains the combined and sanitary sewers (including one large combined sewer overflow (CSO) interceptor line empty- ing directly into the Hudson River), and the Albany County Sewer District owns and maintains the interceptor sewers and the waste water treatment plants, the North Plant and South Plant, serving the city. This kind of partnership for waste water treatment is typical of the larger New York cities.

Because Albany is the state capital, an unusually large number of active, well-organized interest groups lobby both the city and the state, such as the Environmental Planning Lobby and the New

York State Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). The major local concerns of these and more specialized groups are the Hud- son River and its recreational uses for fishing and boating, the ANSWERS incineration plant and solid waste disposal in general, preservation of the nearby rare pine bush lands owned by the Pine Bush Commission, and air quality related to transportation, power generation, and industrial air contaminants. The ability of Albany officials to think and plan across all environmental areas may be somewhat hindered by the divided responsibilities of its departmental/board/revenue authority structure and the fact that all three programs examined are tangled up in regional delivery systems.

However, the city's primary officials, including the budget director, have held their positions for some time and have developed a great deal of sophistication in dealing with complex environmental problems and large sums of money. Moreover, the city has for several years prepared a capital budget which has become the fundamental planning process in setting priorities for needs and resource allocations. Unlike many other cities hosting revenue authorities, Albany's capital budget has included the capital plans of the Water Authority. Inclusion of revenue financing authority's budgets in the city's capital budgets, at least for planning purposes, is necessary if the capital budget is to be used for setting risk and finance priorities in the future.

Auburn Auburn is a medium-sized community with a population of

approximately 31,000 located in the Finger Lakes region of central New York State between Lakes Skaneateles and Cayuga near Syra- cuse. Like many other communities in central New York, it is struggling with serious economic development choices and is try- ing to attract new industry, as well as retain current industries, such as American Locomotive and General Electric. Auburn Steel is the largest industry in Auburn, although the state prison is the largest employer. International Harvester has left the city, but Sny- der General (air conditioning) from Tennessee has recently located in Auburn. Currently, Auburn has under 10 percent unemployment. Auburn has a strong city manager form of government, and its environmental policy has resulted from the manager's predilec- tions. The city has historically been a resister of new EPA mandates, following a policy of what the new city manager calls "benign neglect." He reversed Auburn's tradition of noncompli- ance almost overnight, aggressively renegotiating the high-priced CSO consent order which had existed since the 1980s. He also




helped to bring the city's landfill situation under control, thus clos- ing out a similarly long-standing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) consent order.

Auburn has a highly integrated environmental organization. Auburn supplies waste water, drinking water and landfill services to the surrounding small towns. The manager spends an estimated 35 percent of his time on environmental issues and has created a Department of Municipal Utilities (for water and sewer programs) and a Department of Solid Waste out of what was previously a loose confederation of programs grouped together solely for budget purposes. The governing tasks in the city of Auburn appear to be simplified by an absence of revenue authorities and citizen interest groups with varying and competing agendas.

Binghamton

Binghamton, with an area of 10.4 square miles, is located in south-central New York State in Broome County. It sits on the banks of the Susquehanna River, approximately 10 miles from the Pennsylvania state line and about 80 miles southwest of Syracuse. In the last 25 years, the population has decreased from approximately 80,000 to 53,000. Binghamton is the home of the State University of New York at Binghamton and such private businesses as Browley Foods, Dover Electronics, Anitec (a division of Interna- tional Paper), and Triple Cities Metal Finishers.

In addition to the three major environmental challenges discussed in this article, Binghamton has faced some other major environmental problems. The first occurred in 1981 when a switch-gear fire in the basement of the 18-story state office building caused a transformer to crack and to release about 180 gallons of coolant containing PCBs throughout the building. The entire building was shut down and remains closed today. The second major environmental problem occurred in 1990 when an explo- sion in the Anitec plant, brought about by the distillation of chemical solvents, caused a sewer line to burst and the chemicals to seep into the ground. The building then began to sink because of the chemical-soaked soil. The site is being cleaned up as of the writing of this article. A third major environmental problem has been asbestos and radon in schools.

When asked about environmental innovations, most city officials said that with budgetary cutbacks they were barely holding on, with little room for innovation. The former mayor decreased taxes by 5.6 percent in her tenure, which was great politically but led, according to some career public administrators, to some major infrastructure and capital improvement needs being ignored. "Environmental decisions have become political decisions," said one career bureaucrat, "Major needs are being ignored." The city recycling rate is high (43 percent), however, and the quality of air and water in the city is good.

City of Rochester/Monroe County

Rochester is the third largest city in New York State with a population of approximately a quarter million people. Rochester is located in Monroe County with a metropolitan area of approxi-

mately 750,000 people. Thus, the Rochester/Monroe County complex is an interdependent area of about one million people. Rochester is a major manufacturing, cultural, and commercial center. It lies along the Genesee River, about 70 miles northeast of Buffalo, near the river's outlet into Lake Ontario, and 90 miles west of Syracuse.

There is a distinct "high technology" tone to Rochester. Nick- named "Film City," its leading employer is Eastman Kodak, a company of international significance in the camera/film business, which has its headquarters in Rochester. Other major companies in Rochester are Xerox (xerography) and Bausch and Lomb (opti- cal equipment). In addition, two universities-University of Rochester and Rochester Institute of Technology-have contributed to the special flavor of Rochester/Monroe County.

The city of Rochester and Monroe County have long been considered "progressive" governments. Up until recent years, they were characterized by professional city (county) managers, but this has changed in favor of strong mayor (county executive) systems. The tradition of professional (as contrasted with political) government has left its mark on the Rochester/Monroe County area, and they are regarded as places where local administrators can build successful and rewarding careers. Rochester/Monroe is a relatively well-to-do area because of its high-tech companies and universities. But it has the problems of a center city that is declining relative to expanding and more affluent suburbs. Moreover, as resources have shifted to the suburbs, and environmental problems have come on the public agenda, the function of environmental management has gravitated to the county. In discussing the governance of environment, it is now more useful to examine Monroe County/Rochester than the reverse. Monroe County, more often than not, is the focus of environmental decision making.

Within Monroe County, the governmental organization for environmental issues is dominated by three agencies whose leaders report to the county executive. These agencies are the Department of Environmental Services (in charge of sewage and solid waste), the Department of Engineering (in charge of managing hardware aspects of sewage and solid waste), and the Department of Health (in charge of assessing risks to environmental health). In addition, there is a fourth critical organization concerned with environment-the Monroe County Water Authority. As an authority, this body has a degree of autonomy from the county government.

Within the city of Rochester, the principal environmental organization is the Department of Environmental Services. This department, which reports to the mayor, is concerned with garbage collection, drinking water (the city has its own water supply), and hazardous waste cleanup. The principal gap in environmental governance in Rochester/Monroe County lies with air pollution. The Department of Health in Monroe County is an assessor of air pollution risk, but the local governments rely on the state for enforce- ment action.

Probably what is most interesting about Monroe County/Rochester is the desire of the local governments to stay ahead of their problems. Having dealt with their CSO issue, for example, Monroe is now deciding on what to do about nonpoint source pollution issues. There is concern about acid deposition




from rain and storm water run off into streams, as well as the health of the Great Lakes.

Lowville/Lewis County The village of Lowville is located in rugged Lewis County,

approximately 90 miles northeast of Syracuse, not far from the Canadian border. Part of what is called by upstate New Yorkers as the North Country, Lewis County is nestled between the Adiron- dack Mountains to the east and Tug Hill Plateau on the west. This is a beautiful area of New York State, with plenty of water, mountains, and flatland.

This is a lightly inhabited county with a population of only 26,700. Lowville, the largest of the small towns and villages that dot Lewis County, has 3,600 people. This is a rural county, whose ecology is based on agriculture, paper mills, and tourism. It is not doing well financially with high unemployment and one of the lowest per capita incomes in New York State. The biggest single employer in Lewis County is the county government.

Politics in Lewis County tend to be conservative, as there is a sense of "rugged individualism" and "small town virtues." The people do not look for solutions from government and do not wish to spend money on taxes to support major services. There are serious problems because of the postponement of needed improvements in infrastructure, bridges, roads, and sewer systems. The people of Lowville and Lewis County as a whole seem to see economic problems as their major predicament and have little sense of environmental issues as an urgent problem. The recent changes made in environmental policies result from mandates from governments beyond their borders.

The government of Lewis County is run by a board of supervi- sors and a professional county manager. The village of Lowville has a mayor-council system. The county manager is full time and has a small staff of professionals, while all political officeholders are part time. There are four primary organizations concerned with the governance of the environment in the area. In Lowville, the key organization is the Department of Public Works, which is responsible for drinking water and sewage. Lewis County has a Department of Public Works/Solid Waste which is responsible for transfer and recycling. There is also a Planning Department which is important to the county's decision making on the environment. The fourth key organization is the Development Authority of the North Country. This is responsible for a regional landfill that serves three counties, including Lewis County.

Oswego

Oswego is located in Oswego County on the shores of Lake Ontario. Incorporated as a city in 1848, Oswego is approximately 7.6 square miles and has a population of approximately 19,195. Census records indicate that the city's population in 1970 was 23,844, a decrease of over 4,500 in 23 years. It is interesting to

note that while the city contains approximately 16 percent of the county's population, in size it comprises approximately .7 percent of the county's land mass.

Oswego County is also home to several thousand college students who attend the State University of New York at Oswego. Located on the edge of Lake Ontario, Oswego hosts winter festi- vals and activities and is a gathering place for many snowmobilers from around the state. In the summer, area residents and visitors make use of Oswego's proximity to Lake Ontario and boat and fish its waters. The city also hosts a Harbor Festival attended by thou- sands of people from around the state.

The city owns and operates a water supply filtration plant and two waste water (sewage) treatment plants, one on the east side of town and one on the west side of town. The city has a good tax base, with 60 percent to 70 percent of all properties taxable. The city does not own a landfill; it was transferred to the county in the 1970s. Finally, the city is located less than 10 miles from Nine Mile 1 and Nine Mile 2, privately owned nuclear power plants, and Fitzpatrick, a nuclear power plant that is owned by the New York State Power Authority.

Ticonderoga

Ticonderoga is a small community in upper New York State located on the western edge of Lake Champlain and the northern tip of Lake George. Its ideal Adirondack location and the pres- ence of the famous Fort Ticonderoga, as well as the two lakes, attract many visitors and vacationers each year. The village has 2,500 permanent residents, while the town hosts approximately 5,000 persons plus up to an additional 3,000 in summer visitors. In 1992, village residents voted to disincorporate and merge with the town, which took place officially in January 1994. This step is unprecedented in New York for a village this size and has attracted much attention. (Dissolutions of villages in New York State have been few and mostly in communities fewer than 1,000.)

The town has one major industry, International Paper Compa- ny, situated on the banks of Lake Champlain. The company has been there since the early 1900s and is the major employer. Inter- national Paper handles its own waste and also treats the sewage of 11 homes in the Claymore Homes Sewer District.

Currently, the population of Ticonderoga is stable and unemployment is 10 percent. The village mayor and town supervisor exercise hands-on management of environmental issues and work closely together. Given its small size, there are no overall environmental staff or departments. Citizens generally are historically minded and expect efficient governmental services. There are no obvious special interest groups affecting leadership decisions, although Vermont residents across the border have some concerns about the paper company. The village currently treats two drinking water supplies and administers its own waste water treatment and municipal solid waste programs.




Appendix 2 Descriptions of the Three Environmental Mandates

Surface Water Filtration

The Federal Surface Water Filtration Rule 40 C.F.R. Subpart H: Park 141.75 and 147.71 required by 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act mandated filtration of drinking water. The New York state law that mandated this filtration requirement is NYS Sanitary Code Park 5-1:30. This code requires all public water systems with surface water sources or ground water sources directly influenced by surface water to provide treatment (filtration and/or disinfection) to adequately inactivate and/or remove various pathogenic organisms. In part 5, ground water under the direct influence of surface water is defined as: any water beneath the surface of the ground which exhibits water characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, conductivity, or pH which closely correlate to climatological or surface water conditions and/or which contains microorganisms, algae, organic debris, or large-diameter pathogens or insect parts of a surface water origin.

Landfill Closure

Landfill Closure law was required by the 1984 RCRA Subtitle D, Federal law: 40 CFR Subpart I: Part 256.24 and New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation developed regulations (Part 360s) governing municipal landfills and other solid waste management

facilities. These regulations incorporate USEPA solid waste disposal facility criteria into New York State regulations, as well as addressing legal, technological, and policy developments. The landfill closure ruling requires a leachate collection system and impermeable capping of landfills to prevent ground and surface water runoff contamination.

Combined Sewer Overflow The purpose of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strate-

gy is to address the abatement of water quality problems from combined sewer overflows with special emphasis on controlling NSO-related, floatable materials. Most major municipal areas in New York State are served by a combination of sanitary sewers, separate storm sewers, and combined sanitary and storm sewers. Large municipal service areas typically contain combined sewers in older downtown urban areas with separate sanitary and storm sewers serving outlying tributary suburban residential and commercial areas. CSO-related impacts are typically related to human pathogens or indicator organisms which result in closed shellfish beds and permanent or temporary bathing beach closures; floating debris or slicks resulting in visual or aesthetic impairment; and BOD or nutrients resulting in depressed dissolved oxygen and sed- imentation or sludge beds which impact benthic biota and cause sediment oxygen demand.

74 Public Administration Review * January/February 1997, Vol. 57, No. I



balancing risk and finance: the challenge of implementing unfunded environmental mandates

Documents