Enforcement and Regulatory Governance

by Robert Glicksman

June 23, 2014

Co-authored with David L. Markell.

Enforcement is widely acknowledged to be an indispensable feature of effective governance in the world of environmental protection and elsewhere. Unfortunately, criticisms of the U.S. government’s efforts to enforce the environmental laws began almost with the inception of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more than forty years ago – and they continue virtually unabated today.

In a 2012 report, for example, the U.S. Government Accountability Office(GAO) noted that “EPA has reported that it is not achieving all of the environmental and public health benefits it expected . . . because of substantial rates of noncompliance.” Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged in 2009 that “[t]he level of significant non-compliance” with various Clean Water Act requirements had grown “unacceptably high.” Even EPA’s enforcement office has admitted significant shortcomings, noting that “violations are . . . too widespread, and enforcement too uneven.”

Assessments have found serious deficiencies in state enforcement performance too. This is a significant weak spot for environmental protection because of the central role that states play in the U.S. cooperative federalism system of environmental protection.

Several looming challenges have exacerbated concerns about enforcement. In many areas of environmental regulation, the size of the regulated community has expanded dramatically, putting additional pressure on government data-gathering, monitoring, and enforcement capacities. For example, the number of point sources subject to CWA permitting requirements, such as those responsible for stormwater discharges and pesticide applications, doubled over a recent ten-year period.

At the same time, government resources to address an expanding regulatory universe have declined. According to theCongressional Research Service, EPA’s funding in fiscal year 2009, adjusted for inflation, was slightly lower than in fiscal year 1978, notwithstanding a significant increase in the agency’s responsibilities during that time frame. EPA’s workforce also declined between 2004 and 2012, even though the overall number of federal employees grew by 14 percent during that period.

EPA is well aware of these challenges and has begun to develop and implement responsive strategies. In 2013, for example, it launched its Next Generation Compliance initiative. This initiative seeks to take advantage of advances in information and emissions monitoring technology to enhance detection, processing, and communication capabilities and bolster the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental enforcement.

In an effort to contribute to the discussion about opportunities to improve compliance, we have recently suggested that EPA and state agencies adopt a multi-layered conceptual framework for structuring enforcement and compliance promotion regimes. While much existing research focuses on one aspect of enforcement or another, such as the need to increase formal enforcement litigation against alleged violators, or the relative effectiveness of deterrence versus cooperation-oriented strategies, we argue that the pursuit of an effective and efficient enforcement and compliance regime demands a broader, holistic approach.

Our effort to develop such an approach begins by identifying five components of an effective enforcement and compliance effort: norm clarity; norm achievability; verifiability; an appropriate mix of sanctions and rewards; and indicia of legitimacy. Each of these components is inter-related. As a result, policymakers designing and implementing an enforcement regime should consider the inevitable trade-offs among the components and make choices that best promote agency priorities and take advantage of available synergies.

In addition, four contextual design issues create ongoing challenges when trying to determine the appropriate content of the five components of effective enforcement. These challenges include: the hybrid character of contemporary governance efforts; the importance of analyzing past performance and future challenges and opportunities; the dynamic character of environmental governance challenges; and the need to prioritize design improvements. Efforts to develop an effective enforcement and compliance promotion regime should consider these challenges in identifying the need for trade-offs and the opportunity for synergies among the five components.

Taking a wide lens approach that incorporates the components of effective enforcement, tradeoffs and synergies between these components, and considers key design issues should help regulators like EPA identify better ways to reinvent their enforcement strategies.

Fortunately, EPA has already taken an approach consistent with our holistic framework. Agency officials have looked beyond ex post enforcement, considering a range of tools throughout the regulatory process that are capable of improving compliance. For example, the agency has observed that fixing problematic regulations, improving operating permits, and strengthening data management in order to enhance the capacity to identify serious problems represent opportunities to improve compliance across the regulatory spectrum. EPA has also pointed to changes in information technology that can contribute to more effective regulation, planning, permitting, and monitoring, and to greater transparency and accountability more generally. These information technology changes, one aspect of the dynamic character of governance that we discuss, deserve special attention in the pursuit of more effective and efficient enforcement and compliance efforts.

Our framework suggests useful ways to supplement EPA’s efforts. To provide one example, EPA’s current reinvention efforts do not appear to consider the role that citizen suits might play in enhancing compliance. Citizen suits are a variation of “hybrid governance,” a contextual design issue that we highlight as vital for regulators to consider. Such suits have the possibility of bolstering enforcement capacity when that is needed, particularly as new compliance-monitoring technologies emerge. At the same time, in some cases citizen suits have the potential to undermine government efforts to address particular alleged violations because of the different interests of private and government enforcers. We recommend that EPA, and other agencies, do more to analyze the use of citizen suits so that federal, state, and private actors can coordinate effectively to improve the chance of inducing desired levels of regulatory compliance.

In short, a holistic view of both different actors and different tools is indispensable to effective enforcement and compliance. A clearer, comprehensive conceptual framework should promote a more holistic – and ultimately more effective – understanding of challenges and opportunities.

David L. Markell is the Steven M. Goldstein Professor and Associate Dean for Environmental Programs at the Florida State University College of Law.

This blog is cross-posted from RegBlog.

 

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Robert Glicksman

Robert L. Glicksman is the J. B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is a member of the board of directors of the Center for Progressive Reform.

Trump's Environmental Steamroller Bears Down on National Monuments

Glicksman | May 01, 2017 | Environmental Policy

No, They Don't, Mr. Pruitt

Glicksman | Mar 02, 2017 | Good Government

Congress Wants Land Agency to Ignore the Facts and Future

Glicksman | Feb 28, 2017 | Environmental Policy

Ryan Zinke's Troubling Road to Interior Secretary

Glicksman | Jan 19, 2017 | Environmental Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015