Environmental Policy Analysis and Practice

Preface

PREFACE In , I earned my first bumps and bruises trying to navigate the realities of environmental policy making. I was a graduate student at Columbia University during the worst drought on record in the northeastern United States. Across the region, the amount of available potable water was down by one-third, and in some locations there was less than half the normal supply. Some reservoirs looked more like mud flats than deep lakes, and water restrictions were in place. I went to my advisers, George Carey and Leonard Zobler, with an idea for a thesis that made sense to me because I believed that policy was based on science. Quite simply, we would rescue areas that were running out of potable water by transferring it from places that still had a surplus. Technically, we would determine the sources of potable water and the locations that needed water, the capacity of the pumps and pipes that link sources and sinks for potable water, and the costs of moving surplus water, and suggest specific transfers. We spent months obtaining data, and then we ran a mathematical model that optimized the supply of water across the region. Everything worked on paper: We could move water through the network and reduce the impact of the drought. I was shocked when our recommendations were not embraced by many of the municipalities and private water purveyors. Some did not accept the premise that they should share their surplus. They were concerned primarily with their jurisdiction’s needs and argued that they would run a deficit if they shared their surplus. Others were willing to provide water, but only if they could raise prices to levels that I thought were outrageous. Remarkably, some opposed our idea because they disliked their counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions for reasons that were both personal and organizational and apparently had originated even before I was born. In New Jersey, which epitomized this resource problem, Governor Richard J. Hughes finally ordered some of the most recalcitrant municipalities to share their water. My first lesson in environmental policy, then, was that you need good science , but you had better learn who pays, who benefits, and who dislikes their neighbors. Morality — or at least my sense of it — did not count for much in the late1960s where the distribution of public potable water was concerned. So much for my first bona fide effort to be a policy hero. xi There have been many more bumps and bruises over the past  years, and once in a while I have even earned a gold star. I have worked on locally unwanted land uses such as nuclear power plants, incinerators, and dams; on cleaning up chemical or nuclear weapons facilities and Superfund and brownfield sites; on sprawl; on environmental asthma and cancer; and on a variety of other environmental policy subjects. These projects have replaced my fantasies about how policy is formed with the reality of how and why decisions are made. Now I can laugh at my naiveté, but then I was horrified at the idea that good science was not the dominant consideration. I learned that good science was necessary for good policy but did not guarantee it; that as much as I would like to, I could not start every policy analysis with ecological and human health as the first consideration; and that I must consider six criteria for each policy option: 1 The likely reaction of elected government officials and their staffs 2. The likely reactions from the public and special interests, including not-forpro fit organizations, business, and the media 3. Human and ecological health 4. Short- and long-term economic costs and benefits 5. The moral imperative 6 Flexibility and time pressure I have used these six factors as a policy framework to assist governors, senators , and other elected officials; to talk with reporters; to lecture in various countries; and to teach at Columbia and Rutgers Universities. Whatever the policy issue, I write down and assess every argument, pro and con, for every option. For example, suppose the issue involves reducing the risk from left-over chemical weapons: Options include destroying by incineration, destroying by hydrolysis or another similar method, packing and shipping to another location, and a few others. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages. Knowing them and evaluating them allows me to compare what we already know with what we need to know and to be assured that I have...