In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 1 Innovation, Implementation, and Institutions THE PROBLEM WITH INNOVATION A DEFINING TREND IN THE 1980s AND 1990s was the proliferation of seemingly innovative solutions to difficult environmental and natural resource problems. Innovation emerged in response to the inadequacy of traditional regulatory approaches to address a new generation of problems that to varying degrees involved complex and dynamic systems, great uncertainty, tangled political and jurisdictional boundaries, and a variety of control options.1 Not surprisingly, these innovations raised the necessary question: How well have we fared in this new era of environmental and natural resource policy innovation? Consider the following examples. In 1989 the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) embarked on a bold effort to address nutrient pollution in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. Beginning in the late 1980s, massive fish kills in the Pamlico estuary on the North Carolina coast gained the attention of environmental managers. Algal blooms linked to high levels of pollution upstream in the Tar River caused the problem. The Tar River extends nearly 180 miles from central North Carolina to the coast and drains the collective flows from 2,300 miles of freshwater streams. On its journey from the interior of North Carolina to the Pamlico Sound, the river passes through seventeen counties, several cities, and extensive agricultural and forest lands. Multiple jurisdictions and wide geographic areas pose unique problems for environmental management because different agencies, landowners, and others have divergent and sometimes conflicting mandates, resources, and values that make it a challenge to impose and enforce standards from the top down. Facing numerous sources of 1 2 CHAPTER 1 pollution across a wide geographic expanse and numerous parties, the NCDWQ was reluctant to embark on traditional regulatory solutions. So in 1989, the NCDWQ began a series of bold policy innovations. Instead of requiring limits on the various sources of nutrient pollution, the NCDWQ sought to develop a novel trading program between point and nonpoint sources. Using the power of the market, polluters could exchange permits to meet their respective targets, thereby finding the most cost-effective way to meet individual and overall regulatory goals. However, a well-functioning market never developed, and no trades took place.2 The NCDWQ adopted a second innovative pollution reduction strategy in 1994 to work with nonpoint sources of pollution in the Tar Pamlico Basin. Under a system of voluntary nitrogen and phosphorus reduction goals, the NCDWQ asked participants to decrease their pollution without requiring or enforcing regulatory action. As part of this second inventive strategy, pollution reduction goals were set and participants were asked to meet the requirements. Failed progress in voluntarily reducing pollution led to more stringent rules to achieve reduction goals two years after its implementation . To develop these rules, the NCDWQ decided on a third novel approach and called together a stakeholder group to establish regulations. The goal was to draw together those most affected by the new regulations and give them a say in how the rules were made and implemented. However, the stakeholder process was forced into an unrealistically short time frame. The technical nature of the task, coupled with the compressed time period, undermined public confidence in the regulations and the innovative participatory aspects of the policymaking process itself.3 To the south of North Carolina, the seven-square-mile strip of land between the Ashley and Cooper rivers in North Charleston, South Carolina, is home to another set of complex environmental problems, including the storage of hazardous wastes at historical and active industrial and commercial sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified the area as a potential target for a novel effort in Community-Based Environmental Protection, an EPA program that works with communities to protect and enhance environmental resources.4 In conjunction with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, the EPA assisted in the formation of a community action group to characterize the concerns of the residents and embark on plans to improve the quality of the land, water, air, and other resources in the area. Federal, state, and local agencies and organizations were called together to develop and guide the Community-Based Environmental Protection project. Funded by the EPA, facilitated by the EPA, and provided technical assistance by the EPA, the community action group came under criticism for not being more strongly grounded in local concerns and needs. The group experienced many difficulties, including overly structured bureaucratic processes, lack of community participation, and divergences in priorities about the objectives for the group...

Share