In their “Growing Burden” report, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs William Kovacs; Executive Director, Federal Regulatory Process Review & Analysis Joseph Johnson; and Senior Policy Counsel and Managing Director Keith Holman weigh an issue central to Environmental Protection Agency mandates, How did Congress intend the Federal-State relationship to work?:
“Under the principle of cooperative federalism, states assist the federal government in implementing nationwide programs and policies, using state agencies and state personnel to administer and enforce laws that the federal government by itself cannot. Cooperative federalism is the mechanism Congress has chosen to effect such sweeping federal policies as public housing and welfare programs, education, civil rights, and public health, environmental, and occupational safety standards. In return, the federal government provides technical guidance, a uniform regulatory structure, and—significantly—funding support for state activities that actually carry out federal policies.”
“Congress designed the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) and other environmental laws to work on a cooperative federalism model,” Kovacs, Johnson and Holman write. “Congressman Harley Staggers, the floor manager of the House version of the CAA, clearly articulated why the states are essential co-regulators with EPA: ‘[i]f we left it all to the federal government, we would have about everybody on the payroll of the United States.’ Indeed, the EPA has historically provided the states with categorical grants to assist them in implementing the various statutes. Section 105 of the CAA provides that EPA has the authority to make categorical grants to state air pollution control agencies in amounts up to 60 percent of their program costs. Congress understood that the states—not federal authorities—are best equipped to deal with implementation and enforcement issues, if they are given adequate resources. Agency rules tax state coffers, undermine fundamental relationships “Congress recognized that the federal government could not handle the enforcement task alone, and that the primary burden would rest on state and local governments. On all levels, the air pollution control program has been underfunded and undermanned. To implement the greater responsibilities of this bill, great financial commitments will have to be made and met at all levels.”
At the dawn of the EPA in 1970, the authors observe, Congress intended the agency provide state counterparts with sufficient funds—up to 60 percent of program costs—enabling them to implement and enforce the CAA. “The Committee [on Public Works] expects that the grantmaking authority in Section 105 will be used to make three-to-one support (three to two in case of maintenance support) grants available to the States,” they conclude. “Thus, the ultimate success of EPA’s CAA programs and those under other laws depends on the states’ ability to perform their responsibilities, which depends on resources available.”