| OCR Text |
Show The Environment: A Down-to-Eartii Approach Governor Michael Leavitt The eight principles that would guide such a policy are straightforward: • National standards/ Neighborhood Strategies • Collaboration, not polarization • Reward results, not process • Science for facts, process for priorities • Markets before mandates • Recognition of benefits and costs • Work across political boundaries, within ecosystems • Change a heart; change a nation Back to the Grand Canyon and the haze. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require that the vistas over the canyon be cleared. But federal lawmakers were persuaded to try something unique. Rather than initiate immediate Environmental Protection Agency mandates, the federal government created the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, a task force of governors, leaders of Indian nations and representatives from the private sector. The federal government gave the go-ahead to come up with a plan. And if we couldn't, it would. The commission was the group that stood that day on the canyon's north rim and resolved to clean up the view. Grand Canyon pollution is caused by many sources: emissions, dust, smoke from wood-burning stoves, industrial plants, among others. It is carried to the region by winds from California, Arizona, Nevada and Mexico. States to the north, Utah, Idaho and Colorado, occasionally contribute pollution. But most of the time, it is their clean air that blows south and sweeps away the haze. Arguments ensued as we set about devising a plan. One state maintained that to get a small reduction in pollution from a power plant, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars each year and dramatically increase the cost of electricity within that state. Was it fair, the state argued, for its citizens to pay the cost when cars in California were the real problem? Not true, the Californians countered, producing scientists to buttress their view. The pollution comes from Mexico. The northern states weighed in. They did not want to sacrifice future jobs just to create enough clean air to blow away the exhaust from California, Mexico and the power plants. Every state was committed to clean the air over the Grand Canyon. Every one of those governors had experienced something like I had, standing there as a child in awe. The economic debate was fierce. Every regulation, every requirement, every conceivable plan was equated to jobs, dollars and competitive advantage. Then the largest single source of canyon pollution was identified. Not cars in California, nor power plants in Arizona, but wildfires set intentionally by the U.S. government to reduce the build up of old, dead forests. I an not disputing the science of setting fires to improve the health of the forest. But I am saying we are down to a question of what matters? Is it biomass or clean air? Who decides? Congress, EPA, states, environmental groups, indus- tries? Who pays? Obviously, the governor of California is in a bind when a citizen asks why power bills will go up and backyard barbecues must be restricted so that a ranger in Arizona can set the forest on fire. Those are tough questions. They are dilemmas. And if the federal government had not said to those groups of states, "You need to clean this up. Figure out a plan or we will," it never would have happened. This is a telling example of how-governments ought to work. The national government should establish standards. Local governments should figure out how best to meet them. There should be penalties, but not prescriptions. In 1996, the commission agreed on a plan. It was tough and it was innovative. Everybody had to do their part. The EPA initially concurred and then waffled. No action has been taken; new regional haze rules remain under review. But the initial commission has become a permanent group, and the common-sense principles first raised as a Grand Canyon solution, have now become a guiding resolution for a new environmental doctrine my colleagues and I in the Western Governors Association will propose for the West. We know these lands. We know the people who live on them, and we know what will work: National standards-neighborhood strategies means the federal government sets national environmental standards - states develop plans to meet them. One-size-fits-all solutions from Washington cannot account for the political, social, geographic, environmental and economic differences that exist in our nation and often result in irrational consequences in the West. Collaboration means the best policies are made through open, collaborative approaches that involve all affected parties working together to reach agreement. To succeed, participants who may be traditional adversaries have to set aside ironclad positions and begin with an understanding of what is truly critical. Everyone wants clean air and a healthy environment. But too often the process by which a state goes about improving its environment is more important to the federal government than the end result of clean air or water. The mind-set of agencies such as the EPA is this: If pollution isn't being reduced EPA's way, then states are not, in EPAs view, solving the problem. This approach discourages state solutions. What the federal government should do is reward results, not process. Give states the flexibility to step outside the traditional government processes and procedures to achieve the goal - clean air, safe water - without regard to the process. In setting the standards, the federal government also tends to mandate the technologies and programs needed to achieve them. This approach has resulted in some advances in environmental protection. But it has caused great economic hardship and fostered intense animosity between governments and industry. Under mandates, the only economic incentive to meet 96 |
