User talk:Ztruidium: Difference between revisions

Template:WAP assignment

Prior to the late 1970, nearly all environmental policy was at the state and local level.^[1] Federal environmental regulation addressed the federal government itself, rather than states, consumers, or industry.^[1]. This all changed with a flurry of environmental legislation in the early 1970s. Currently, most federal environmental laws grant both expansive regulatory authority to federal agencies, as well as authorize states to implement plans outlined in federal laws. This model is often called "cooperative federalism."^[2].

Relationships between State and Federal parties often shape environmental laws and policy. States shape federal law and policy in the way states choose to enforce, or not enforce, environmental regulation. Federal regulation of nonpoint source water pollution is often cited as weak, in part because of localities often lack the incentive to enforce these regulations.^[3] In areas where the federal government cannot directly intervene, state and local governments have a very strong hand in shaping the practical effect of federal regulation.

States often serve as testing grounds for various policies later adopted as federal law or policy. This idea, often called Laboratories of democracy, was articulated by Louis Brandeis in dissent to a 1932 supreme court ruling.^[4] If states are left a free hand to try different forms of regulation, the relative merits of each approach will be easier to identify. States often adopt successful regulations from other states as well.^[5] One example is treatment of electronic waste. Currently, 18 states and New York City have enacted laws requiring the recycling of electronics at the end of their useful lives.^[6], whereas the Federal programs do not treat electronic waste different from solid waste. Perhaps as a result of pioneering state regulation, Congress has recently considered several bills to regulate e-waste.

Federal regulation often acts as a signal to states. States may perceive this signal to mean more stringent regulation is necessary.^[7]. Alternately, states may understand federal regulation to be a maximum standard or states may believe federal legislation crowds out state action, and react by enacting legislation to limit state agencies from enforcing standards more stringent than federal standards. ^[8].^[9]States may also adopt radically different policies as a result of perceived weakness in federal legislation.^[10].

States have also used litigation to force federal regulation. A "deluge" of litigation has forced federal agencies, and the EPA in particular, to adopt more aggressive policies.^[11]. Nowhere is this trend more clear than with greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of federal climate change regulation, states have brought public nuisance suits against carbon emitters and the EPA. In Massachussets v. EPA, a group of states succeeded in compelling EPA to promulgate rules to regulate C02 emissions under the clean air actCite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). States have spurred federal action by bringing suit against emitters directly, such as when California sued General Motors^[12] and a number of states sued power companies.^[13]

Lastly, limits on state and federal power have often shaped environmental regulation. Federal law may preempt state legislation in issues of interstate commerce or navigable waters. Federalism doctrine limits federal power as well. For example, federal policy regarding non-point water pollution is typically subsidies to states with plans to regulate these emissions, in part because of the serious question as to whether the federal government can regulate interstate land use, as it applies to pollution.

Since environmental issues are so complex, regulation covering these issues needs to be broad, all-encompassing and sometimes need to be changed as new information is made available. Environmental issues can be regional or federal and this is reflected in regulation. Some topics are regulated at the federal level or the state level, while others are regulated by both.

One area in which there have been many federalism issues is land. In the past, land has been a state issue and therefore state regulated. With the Clean Water Act, wetlands were a source of confusion and controversy. In section 404, wetlands were declared “navigable waters” and thus were under regulation by the EPA.

With the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the federal government decided that states should have a plan for managing coastal zones. The act is voluntary and the government assists with the creation of plans and with finances. The state management plans have authority and any federal actions in the states must follow these plans.

The Endangered Species Program is a federal program, but there is also room for state programs. States such as Florida have their own plans designating animals as threatened or endangered. These plans overrule federal plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdunne0419 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

preemption

inducement/commandeering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.giambattista (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many environmental laws establish federal standards as the minimum criteria needed to be met in order to ensure state compliance. These include the SDWA, RCRA, CAA, and CWA. The notion is that as long as states meet the federal standards, the EPA will not step in. However, there are fundamental differences regarding how this is enforced.

• State notification and assistance are used by the EPA to encourage state and local governments to initiate environmental action.
  • In the CAA, the EPA must issue a 30-day notice to the state government, informing the state that there is an instance of non-compliance that must be corrected. If the state does not take corrective measures within the 30-day window, the EPA can assume all enforcement authority previously given to the state regarding the CAA.
  • FIFRA gives the EPA strict authority on designating which chemicals must be registered and therefore regulated. Much like the CAA, states in non-compliance are given a notification; however, in this case it is a 90-day notice.
  • The SWDA requires the EPA to maintain an up-to-date list of states that are potentially non-compliant with the federal standards. If continued infractions warrant federal intervention, the EPA must provide technical assistance, advice, and a 60-day notification to the state, so the state has a chance for remedial action.

• In some cases the EPA has the authority to issue permits to polluters.
  • The CWA gives the EPA such authority. However, this issuing right can be given to states that meet federal standards. Unlike the CAA and the FIFRA, the Federal government retains enforcement authority even if issuing rights are delineated and no EPA notification of intervention is required.

• The EPA can implement environmental compliance with command and control policy instruments.
  • When a pollutant presents an imminent danger to the populace under RCRA and SWDA, the EPA can take complete control of state enforcement authority without any notice.
  • Under RCRA, the EPA can not only obtain all state enforcement authority for solid waste control, but they can also force the state to create its own entity to control and monitor solid waste pollution. Although notification to the state by the EPA is required by law, the timeline of the notification is not strictly defined, allowing the EPA to interpret what is considered a "timely manner for notification". Furthermore, the EPA has created "guidelines", called the Enforcement Response Policy, that establish specific techniques to solve pollution problems and sources of pollution that should be dealt with. Although states are not legally required to abide by these "guidelines," the EPA uses them as a measurement of compliance. Therefore, states must adhere to these "guidelines" in order to prevent federal intervention; however, these guidelines are very specific in some cases such that states with limited resources cannot properly address other sources or use more efficient techniques that are not covered in the "guidelines."
  • CERCLA grants the EPA the authority to put contaminated Superfund sites on the National Priorities List. This list designates sites that must be cleaned up to protect public health. The EPA has the option to lead the cleanup themselves and require state involvement or give funds to the state, who then leads the cleanup measures. However, before the EPA can provided any funding to a state, the state must guarantee that it will meet certain EPA requirements in the cleanup.

• Underground Storage Tanks
• Community Right to Know Act

Overfiling

Federal and State Environmental Relations

United States' environmental regulation has typically been done piecemeal, by the type of pollution. States have concurrent authority to impose state laws that meet or exceed federal standards. Federal environmental laws typically either require or grant authority for states to regulate pollutants or polluters. As a result, state enforcement agencies often work with Federal regulators to create and enforce these rules. However, State and Federal regulators often disagree over the rules or their interpretation, and these disagreements have generated considerable litigation.

Water is regulated at both the federal and state level depending on the area. Since we depend on water for consumption, crops, production, transportation, many forms of recreation and so many other means, it is important that there be extensive rules to ensure that the different bodies of water are at the levels necessary for these uses. Water is primarily governed by the Clean Water Act (CWA) which because effective in 1972. The CWA’s main goal is for water in the US to not have excessive amounts of pollution and to be acceptable for human recreation use. The CWA requires states to establish and enforce different standards which will be more fully explained in the Water Pollution Section. Other regulations include the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Air pollution is the introduction of particulate, biological, or chemical materials into the air that have negative effects on humans, other living organisms, or the environment generally. In the United States, air pollution is primarily regulated through the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA authorizes the EPA to set air quality standards, and requires states to achieve these standards through permitting and enforcement programs. While EPA and state environmental agencies typically work together, disagreements between over air quality standards and permitting have caused conflict between the state and federal government.

Solid waste includes anything from medical wastes, sludge, refuse, garbage, industrial by-products, etc. Like air and water, solid waste is another form of pollution that is regulated at both the state and national levels. Environmental legislature covers the areas of generation, transportation, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Regulatory powers have mainly fallen under the EPA by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but other acts and legislature have played a role as well. Nevertheless, the EPA has much authority in setting limits and requirements of facilities dealing with solid and hazardous wastes. However, it should be noted that the RCRA does provide some freedom to states who want to regulate their own solid wastes.

Other environmental regulations include the Endangered Species Act and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The Endangered Species Act became effective in 1973 and is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The list determines which species in the US are at risk for extinction and include varying levels of risk. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act became effective in 1986 and was created to help with the creation of emergency planning for potential chemical hazards in communities.

Since water is a resource used in such a wide variety of ways, there are many forms of regulation. The main law used to regulate water is the Clean Water Act which became effective on October 18, 1972. Other regulations include state policies on materials into navigable waters, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the main law used to regulate water pollution in the US. As stated on the EPA’s Website, the goal of the CWA “is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands”. The CWA protects all bodies of water with a “significant nexus” to “navigable waters”. The exact interpretation of this has been the source of controversy since it is not specific. The Act gives most regulation power to states. Important sections of the act include:

• Section 303(d) – States are required to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for water bodies within their jurisdiction
• Section 319 – Requires states to identify broad categories of nonpoint sources and identify best management practices (BMPs) to control pollution.
• Section 401 – Any applicant for federally permitted/licensed activity potentially causing discharge of pollutant into navigable waters must obtain a state permit, which regulates point source water pollution
• Section 402 - Most states have received authority to implement and enforce National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) – protection of surface water quality throughout the State by regulating point source discharges
• Section 404 - Lets states implement permit programs about discharge of dredge & fill

Significant Cases

• PUD No. 1 v. Washington Dept. of Ecology 511 US 700 (1994) – states have the right to place conditions necessary to enforce quality/use standards on water quality certificates
• CWA cannot cover totally isolated wetlands Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. US Army Corps of Engineers 531 US 159 (2001), so many states have their own statutes

The Safe Drinking Water Act began on December 16, 1974. The primary purpose is to ensure safe drinking water for the public. This task is given to the Environmental Protection Agency who is required to set standards and oversee all states, municipalities and water suppliers. It is important to note that this Act does not apply to bottled water since this is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Coastal Zone Management Act was created in 1972 in order to protect coastlines of the nation. It is a voluntary program which encourages states to have coastal zone management plans. These plans are meant to find ways to balance development with the needs of the coastlines.

Despite the interstate nature of air pollution, which sweeps across states, state legislatures have not been significantly limited in promulgating state-specific air quality standards.^[14] Despite this concurrent authority, the bulk of state and federal interaction occurs through federal grants of authority to states through the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) contains both a grant of authority to states and several sources for conflict between state and federal agencies. The CAA requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for each pollutant when "air quality criteria" have been issued under 42 USC 7408. Under the CAA, primary responsibility for attainment and maintenance of these standards rests with state and local agencies.^[15] These agencies are authorized to achieve these standards through state-specific permitting and enforcement programs (State Implementation Plan). This requirement was heavily revised in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990^[16].

Conflict has arisen as a result of state disagreement with the national standards promulgated by the EPA and EPA disagreement with state permitting decisions. For example, EPA authority to change and revise rules has been challenged, but upheld. ^[17] Additionally, EPA has established authority to countermand state permitting decisions.^[18] Additionally, conflict has arisen as a result of multi-state pollution, caused by mobile air sources.

New Source Review is a permitting process added to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in a 1977 amendment. This process requires EPA review for environmental controls prior to construction of any "new pollution source." A new source is either new facilities or changes to existing facilities that would create a "significant increase" of a pollutant regulated under 42 USC 7408 (section 108 of the CAA).

Additionally, in the 1977 and 1990 amendments to the CAA, states are required to designate "nonattainment areas" where an area has failed to attain national ambient air quality standards.^[19] States must establish plans to make reasonable progress towards attaining these standards "as expeditiously as possible."^[20]. Within these areas, new source review requirements ensure sufficient offsetting emissions reductions have been obtained in the region by the time the source is to begin operation.

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, is designed to protect areas which have attained national ambient air quality standards. The program creates three classes of areas, and allows differing levels of development in each area. New sources can never be allowed to cause air quality to deteriorate lower than national ambient air quality standards.^[21]

The EPA and states have often been at odds as to whether the clean air act requires heightened scrutiny in permitting new sources of air pollution and sources so altered as to be called "new" under 42 USC 7411(a)(4). For example, EPA rules were challenged by states as being too narrow.^{[22] [23]}. EPA efforts have been supplemented by state actions in a number of cases, especially in cases involving coal fired plants.^{[24] [25] [26]}.

In the absence of federal climate change regulation, states have brought public nuisance suits against carbon emitters, as well as against the EPA for failing to regulate carbon emissions. For example, a group of states succeeded in compelling EPA to promulgate rules to regulate C02 emissions under the clean air act (Massachusetts v. EPA)Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). States have spurred federal action by bringing suit against emitters directly, such as when California sued General Motors^[12] and a number of states sued power companies^[13].

Hazardous and solid wastes are more easily defined by nature, and therefore easier for federal and state governments to monitor and control. Most issues involving hazardous and solid wastes are guided under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA provides an online tool to help define what is considered "solid waste": EPA Solid Waste Tool. Note that waste must be classified as solid waste before it can be deemed hazardous waste^[27] .

Passed on October 21, 1976, RCRA defines what the federal government considers a solid waste and if it is a solid waste whether or not it should also be considered hazardous or nonhazardous^[28] . RCRA uses the "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 2 in order to establish dominance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over state agencies in environmental regulatory matters. Despite this, RCRA provides states to regulate their own environmental issues as long as they receive interim authorization from the EPA. In order to be granted authorization, states are required to enforce and monitor regulations that are equivalent or even more stringent than the EPA’s standards. Even if the EPA does grant a state authorization, the EPA still maintains its enforcement powers over that state^[29].

On December 11, 1980, the Superfund Act was passed that addressed hazardous pollution/disposal sites. The Act also defined who was liable for the cost of cleaning the sites. Additionally, the Act created a monetary fund that could be drawn from if no responsible party could be determined^{[30] [31]}. Although CERCLA made the EPA responsible for Superfund sites ^[32] , the Federal government has the option of either leading the clean-up itself or funding state governments to lead the clean-up. CERCLA also mandates that states partner up with the EPA to provide remedial measures for the Superfund sites. This is done indirectly by withholding Superfund monies until the state makes an effort for remediation itself^[33] .

The Endangered Species Act was created on December 28, 1973. This program is run by two federal agencies, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Section 6 of the Act allows for programs by state wildlife agencies as well. This allows for species which are endangered in a particular state to be listed even if they are not endangered throughout the country. State conservation plans are considered prior to listing a species under the act 15 USC 1533(b)(1)(A). Some plans have been challenged as violating the ESA, such as Maine & Massachussets National Environmental Policy Act – states frequently oppose federal decision making in environmental impact statement review.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act was enacted on October 17, 1986. The purpose of the Act is to encourage states and localities to create emergency plans and to make public any information about potential chemical hazards. Each state must appoint an emergency response commission, divide the state into emergency planning districts, and name a local emergency planning committee for each district. With regards to potential chemical hazards, there are no limits to the amount allowed to be stored, facilities are just required to report on the amounts.

The Federal Insectidicde, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was created to regulate pesticides in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency and environmental agencies in states are in charge of administering the law. It has been amended several times, most recently in 1996.

• The 1978 amendment to FIFRA gave state's pesticide enforcement priority?

to be merged into other sections

• Can states enforce federal laws against federal agencies (especially DoE & DoD)
  • Typically no – unless explicitly waived by statute, federal government has sovereign immunity
  • Federal Facilities Compliance Act – waived federal government’s immunity from RCRA,
    • Partially as a result of Department of Energy v. Ohio 503 US 607 (1992)
    • Lots of resulting litigation, such as US v. Colorado 990 F.2d 1565 (1995)
  • Lots of other litigation over CAA, CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA
    • US v. Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board 185 F.3d 529 (1999)
    • California v. US 215 F.3d 1005 (2000)
• Can federal government intervene if state action is insufficient? Some disagreement:
  • Harmon Industries v. Browner 191 F.3d 894 (1999) – EPA could not enforce once state had begun, but not yet completed, enforcement action
  • US v. Elias, 269 F.3d 1003 (2001) – EPA can make concurrent enforcement actions
  • State Water Control Board v. Smithfield Foods, 261 Va. 209 (2001) – the state cannot enforce violations of a permit that was previously enforced by EPA
• Preemption – lots of state environmental laws have been challenged as preempted, for example:
  • United States v. Locke 529 US 89 (2000) – Washington state’s oil spill prevention regulations were preempted by federal law

• http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/
• http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcwa.html
• http://www.campuserc.org/resources/EHSguide/RCRA/Pages/default.aspx
• http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm
• http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/index.html
• http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/opinions/AIG930O1.pdf
• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.findlaw.com%2Fnews.findlaw.com%2Fnytimes%2Fdocs%2Fepa%2Fnyepa31706opn.pdf&rct=j&q=new%20york%20v%20epa&ei=T1FxTcRwgbe3B9i-wPIO&usg=AFQjCNGw3LIk2Udc-BtbrqKDWBzWUIiXgQ&sig2=tkxm-CwiOXyyt_EUtvfYZA&cad=rja
• http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/ffca_requirements_table.htm
• http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/risk/rsk-25.cfm
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
• http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/185/185.F3d.529.97-5715.html
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1701.ZO.html
• http://www.law.buffalo.edu/homepage/eemeid/smithfield.htm
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1911.ZS.html
• http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1178.ZS.html

Hey all, great draft so far! Just a few suggestions. I think the current lead is a bit too long. Shortening the last four paragraphs or cutting them out all together would be helpful. The information provided there is covered later on in the article anyway. There are a few minor copy-edits that need to be made and I think you should be able utilize the internal links quite often (maybe even linking to classmates' articles!) in the final draft. Also, I think at some points the language should be simplified a little, keeping in mind the broad wikipedia audience. So far, so good though! You give a quick summary of the relevant topics related to your article. Well done! Lmissik (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I agree with Leah that introduction is too long. I'd shorten it by half at least. No more any specific suggestions. Overall your article looks good. Aliaklsei Babko 8 April 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 02:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wow! This is quite a broad topic- I sympathize! I like that you will be incorporating the enforcement and state versus federal issues into the sections on the individual laws. The court cases are a good idea to bring out the legal issues. Hmmm it's hard not to talk about federalism and our basic structure of government too- we are having some of the same sorts of decisions to make about what to cover and focus on with water trading, because you could start at the very beginning and go on and on! I agree with the above comment that some links to other articles will help- then you don't have to explain absolutely everything and won't be duplicating other wikipedia articles too much. Great start, I think it's going in a good direction! Gwaleko (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)gwaleko[reply]

Nice job with your article, folks! That was a lot to take on and you've done great! I agree that there are definitely some copy edits to identify (Ex. In lead paragraph after CWA reference;"disagreements because over air quality"; "additionally" used in two consecutive sentences, etc), but I'm sure those will be caught before you've wrapped up. I found the introductory paragraph to be somewhat complex and yet the following paragraphs to be much more general public-friendly. Perhaps you make the first paragraph a bit easier for the average reader to understand, as to encourage them to explore this article more. The paragraphs to follow, as the other reviewers have mentioned, could probably be consolidated to something much more brief. The end of the first paragraph doesn't really prepare the reader for the next several paragraphs (they'd have to skim down the lead to see that you're now addressing 3 types of pollution). Maybe summarizing these paragrphs in one nice big paragraph could take care of this and also slim down the lead. The Air Pollution intro statement is a bit wordy and could lose someone still learning about policy. Another semi-technical comment is about the reference to "when California sued General Motors"- in reading this sentence, the reference to this lawsuit sounded really interesting, but the phrasing of it felt like it left the reader hanging. One solution might be to the nature of the phrase, or to follow it with another specific example instead of just "several states have sued power companies." The Air Pollution section also has a brief mentioning of lawsuits that have ensued. This part could be really interesting and in my opinion, could stand to have its own section on the page- maybe a section for any lawsuits/legal issues/industrial or social implications, etc. I'm sure there are tons of wikipedia pages on these issues, but giving the reader an idea of what pertains to this topic specifically could be useful. The first half of this page seems to have few sources listed and few internal links. Like Leah said, there are definitely chances to link to other V625 pages (Solid Waste). Finally, in the "other" section, you bring up the Fedeal Insecticide, Fungicide, etc Act along with the ESA and one other, BUT the FIFRA is the only one that you didn't mention earlier in the paper. I think it would be good to either mention all three as examples in the beginning or make a general comment in the intro and then address it later. I've made a lot of comments about what could be changed, but your page seems to be coming along nicely! The huge majority of your page is very readable to the average Wikipedia surfer and I would say the tone seems very neutral. The topics you've chosen to highlight seem like good examples of US environmental policy. Nice work, I'm sure your page will be great! BloomingtonWriter (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)BloomingtonWriter[reply]

Hi! Here is more feedback on your article from a fellow classmate.

• When you condense the lead, keep in mind it should read like the abstract of a paper (or at least that was my interpretation when I read the wiki article of the lead—review it if you haven’t: WP:LEAD), and it should be between 2-4 paragraphs. So having a “long” lead isn’t terribly problematic, as long it chiefly serves to cover the main points of the article. The lead should be able to “stand alone”, so consider if you only have 2-4 paragraphs to explain your topic to people, what information would you include?

• Under Water Pollution > Clean Water Act > 1st paragraph: Can you include a link to the EPA’s website when you quote the goal of the CWA? In case readers want to go there and learn more about it (and that way you don’t have to explain the CWA in great detail).

• I also like that you’ve bulleted important yet controversial components of the CWA, as well as significant cases. Are there external links you can provide for the cases, so readers can learn more about those cases if they like? (or provide references at the bottom of the article?)

• You mention some sources of state/federal contention stemming from the CWA and significant cases; what about controversial points or important cases for the Safe Drinking Water Act or CZMA?

• Under Air Pollution > Clean Air Act: Since attainment/maintenance is up to state and/or local agencies, perhaps you can add one sentence to name some examples of state agencies that participate in regulation/monitoring? Agencies across states that address the same regulatory responsibilities don’t always have the same name, and the stringency of their regulation isn’t always the same. I think it would be worthwhile to cover that in a few sentences.

• Under Solid Waste Pollution: Since other groups in class are covering solid waste topics, perhaps you can include links to their wiki articles? Same goes for water pollution or air pollution.

• State/federal partnerships: Since the article is on Environmental Relations, and not just conflict between federal and state agencies in environmental regulation, I think it’d be appropriate to also address cases where state agencies and federal agencies have worked well to achieve environmental protection/regulation. For example:

Western Regional Air Partnership: http://www.wrapair2.org/

EPA lists more air partnerships: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/regional.html

Overall, very nice work! I think if you can incorporate suggestions provided in class after your presentation (especially comments on the variation in state/federal conflict for the CZMA vs. other regulatory acts where states meet standards EPA sets) and here by other classmates, you will have a solid, informative article. --SequoioideaeJr (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestions

As you are still working on your content I would like to stress on some wiki techniques:

Like Prof. Richards mentioned in class, you have the toughest topic. But I believe it comes with lots of advantages too. I recommend using internal wiki links extensively so that work is not duplicated. Since every other group is touching a unique topic on US environmental policy that is relevant to your topic, you should use that to your favor. I think your article is a title or executive summary page for all other articles.

In addition to the content, in wikipedia, it is the presentation. Unlike a regular typewritten paper, it is quite challenging to provide graphs, tables, citations, etc. Take good care while doing this which can help the reader understand the content with ease. I suggest tables over bullets or paragraphs. --Brijesh Krishnan 06:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC) User:Brijeshkrishnan(talk)