6.1 Preamble

The nation’s governors are committed to protecting public health and conserving the environment for the American people. Governors strongly support and are committed to achieving the national environmental goals outlined by Congress in recent decades. However, governors also realize that the nation does not protect the environment by the promulgation of rules alone. Someone must carry out the rules and that “someone” often is state and local government. Underfunded and inflexible environmental regulations often exceed the financial and technical capabilities of the governing agencies that must implement them. Although this is particularly true in small towns and rural America, it is becoming increasingly clear that large municipalities also share these problems.

Governors are convinced that the future success of environmental protection and remediation depends on the success of state and local governments. The successful implementation of many environmental programs at the state level demonstrates governors’ significant contribution to environmental protection. To further this progress, governors pledge to continue to promote environmentally sound policies within their state and work with Congress and the Administration on the development of new or revised federal environmental programs.

6.1.1 Costs of Environmental Protection. Governors are deeply concerned about the high and growing costs of environmental protection, including both the programmatic and capital costs required to comply with federal environmental mandates and reporting requirements. These costs, borne by states, local governments, and the private sector, result, in part, from new federal requirements related to air, drinking water, water quality, and waste management that require substantially more sophisticated programs and additional environmental infrastructure throughout the nation.

Governors believe that flexibility in achieving environmental goals is essential to reducing these costs. The increased efficiency afforded by nonregulatory approaches, coupled with the appropriate use of tools such as environmental management systems, has the potential to provide better environmental protection, promote business efficiency and cooperation, and give public-private partnerships more opportunities to prevent pollution.

To avoid the “one-size-fits-all” standard and maximize limited resources, flexibility must include the authority for states to prioritize environmental problems and allocate resources on a “worst-first” basis and the authority to shift U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-administered grant funds among programs to target local priorities. In addition, EPA should look at the cumulative impacts of rules and guidance documents across program areas to ensure that unintended burdens can be avoided.

6.1.2 Reduction of Unfunded Mandates. Governors also are committed to reducing unfunded federal mandates, including environmental and related administrative requirements. Although many environmental and related administrative requirements have merit, the cumulative effects of unfunded mandates challenge states either to fund the federal requirements from very limited revenues or divert funds from other state priorities. For example, EPA is going to require states to track Clean Water Act permits, compliance monitoring and enforcement in the new Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with increased reporting. This new database requires states to complete significantly more data forms and fields than states are currently required to complete for more sources with no consideration as to their environmental significance. Completion of many of these forms and fields in the ICIS database requires not only data entry and uploading into ICIS, but field investigation and analysis by qualified technical staff. This federal mandate adds additional requirements on states without additional federal funding, diverting existing state resources for a federal purpose. Governors believe that the mandate to enter this additional data in ICIS imposes an additional resource burden. Governors believe that Congress must provide adequate resources to fund mandatory environmental programs. States need flexibility to allocate available resoures to environmentally important activities.

6.2 Principles for Environmental Management

In this era of limited resources, the federal government and the states must commit to a new partnership for environmental protection that aggressively promotes high standards of performance that maximizes efficient use of resources to more effectively protect the environment. Governors call on the federal government to commit to the following important principles:

6.3 Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit

6.3.1 Federal environmental laws and regulations must recognize the need to set priorities and focus on the most important environmental objectives at the national, state, and local levels. To promote risk-based priority setting, environmental requirements should be based on sound science and risk-reduction principles, including the appropriate use of cost-benefit analyses that consider both quantifiable and qualitative measures. Such analyses will ensure that funds expended on environmental protection and conservationaddress the greatest risks first and provide the greatest possible return on investment.

6.3.2 The federal government must design environmental legislation and regulation based on the following criteria.

• If an environmental problem warrants passage of federal legislation or adoption of regulations, state and local governments should receive federal assistance to carry out the resulting requirements.
  
• If the federal government does not provide the necessary financial assistance for states to comply with federal environmental mandates, the federal government should allow state and local governments to carry out environmental protection activities based on their own priorities and programs.
  
• If new problems emerge that require federal attention but additional federal resources are not available, the federal government should balance existing requirements against new requirements so that the highest priority work can be accomplished within existing budgets.

6.4 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention is an internationally recognized strategy to reduce and eliminate the waste generated by the extraction and use of raw materials and the production and consumption of goods. In the United States, there are numerous pollution prevention programs and initiatives that encourage a reduction in the quantity and toxicity of waste before it enters the environment. Governors support the implementation of voluntary pollution prevention and energy efficiency strategies, including those that encourage process substitution, and that reduce risk to public health, protect the environment, and conserve our natural resources.

Pollution prevention promotes a robust and expanding economy while ensuring that unmanageable environmental legacies are not passed on to future generations. Well-planned and implemented pollution prevention programs have positive economic and environmental results at all levels of society.

Pollution prevention should become central to the effort to enhance environmental quality in America for present and future generations.

6.4.1 Recommendations. The “prevention first” environmental protection policy established in the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 should be fully integrated into federal, state, and local environmental protection programs so that governments can more effectively facilitate pollution prevention. Governors recommend that this principle guide the nation’s environmental policy so that our air, waste, and water laws and regulations do not inadvertently create disincentives for industry to achieve the cleanest production available.

The scope and sophistication of state and local pollution prevention programs has expanded greatly since the enactment of the Pollution Prevention Act. These programs provide technical assistance to businesses and have been true sources of innovation. Results show that funds for these programs are well spent in terms of environmental benefits and increased efficiency and cost savings to businesses. Without jeopardizing existing state assistance, the federal government should increase support for these programs and eliminate barriers to their success.

Cooperative efforts of government, business and industry, and nongovernmental organizations should be aimed at developing workable pollution prevention strategies as well as education and training. The Governors believe that in order for pollution prevention strategies to be successful, the merits and methods of incorporating pollution prevention strategies into our everyday lives will have to be made widely known.

6.5 Right to Know

6.5.1 Toxic Reporting Inventory and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) is a valuable and powerful incentive for environmental improvement. The collection and release of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data empowers the government, public health officials, journalists, and citizens with critical information about the amount of toxic chemicals generated annually in a neighborhood, how such material was managed, and whether any of the chemicals were released into the environment.

Governors are concerned about recent changes made to TRI reporting requirements that reduce the amount of information on toxic releases that is made publicly available. Governors also are concerned about the increase from 500 to 5,000 pounds in the annual volume of toxic releases that is exempt from the full disclosure requirements. Governors believe the change weakens existing incentives for facilities to reduce their releases and would deprive states of the ability to track a significant amount of TRI data. Finally, any reduction in available data about persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals is of particular concern given the high priority that is placed on reducing exposure to these chemicals nationally.

6.6 State-Federal Environmental Partnerships

EPA and states should jointly establish clear principles of program administration and establish them in memorandums of understanding. States should be held responsible for administering, and EPA should be held responsible for overseeing, the delegated programs in accordance with those principles. These principles should reflect governors’ concern that federal permit-by-permit review and veto authority over state permit or regulatory actions are inappropriate.

• Program audits can be a valuable means of oversight. If the audit reveals deficiencies or inappropriate actions, the state and EPA should work collaboratively to ensure timely corrective action. Any necessary program revisions should be identified and undertaken in a spirit of partnership to ensure that every effort is made to ensure success. Further, Congress, in consultation with states, should ensure that fines and penalties collected by federal agencies from violations of environmental statutes are reinvested in the impacted state or states and used by the state or states to restore and enhance environmental quality.

6.7 Regulatory Innovation

Governors recognize that the enforcement of existing environmental laws and regulations plays an indispensable role in the protection of human health and the environment. Environmental gains achieved during the past three decades are the direct result of compliance with traditional regulatory programs.

However, Governors also recognize that innovative regulatory approaches hold great promise for building on environmental successes and may often be necessary to address the most pervasive environmental problems. The Governors have supported regulatory innovation that recognizes environmental excellence, harnesses market forces, and achieves environmental goals that may otherwise be unattainable.

Governors have enacted programs and policies in their states promoting pollution prevention, voluntary and incentive-based compliance strategies, environmental management systems, and outcome and performance-based oversight. These are examples of innovative approaches that can produce collaborative solutions among levels of government, regulators, and the regulated community.

Greater state flexibility, prudent risk-taking, decentralization of decisionmaking, and value-added experimentation are necessary to create an environment conducive to regulatory innovation. Verifying performance also is an essential component to successful innovation. Governors:

• encourage EPA to affirm its commitment to working with states to promote environmental regulatory innovation;
  
• support increased state efforts to inform and consider the perspectives of all stakeholders in developing and implementing successful regulatory innovation strategies; and
  
• support states’ exploration of plausible federal statutory changes that would affirm and expand states’ authority to develop and test more effective regulatory innovations.

6.8 Environmental Justice

Governors fully support the implementation of state environmental programs that protect the health of citizens and the environment in a manner compliant with federal law and that do not subject any person to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Governors urge EPA to implement programs, policies, and activities that substantially improve human health and the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of all people, including minority and low-income populations. EPA also should assist states in preventing or reducing complaints alleging Title VI violations, avoid shifting permit decisionmaking from the state and local level to the federal government, and avoid creating delays in state environmental permitting programs.

6.9 Improved Information

The National Geologic Mapping Act established the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), which develops geologic maps using federal, state, and educational geological surveys. States can utilize these maps to manage mineral and water resources, mitigate natural disasters, and effectively plan urban development. Maps are continually updated using advanced technologies, and therefore continuous funding is needed. The nation’s governors support the continued formation of the national spatial data infrastructure and reauthorization of the National Geologic Mapping Act.

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2009–Winter Meeting 2011).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1994; revised Winter Meeting 1996, Annual Meeting 1996, Annual Meeting 1998, Winter Meeting 1999, Annual Meeting 1999, and Winter Meeting 2001; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2003; revised Winter Meeting 2005, Winter Meeting 2007, and Winter Meeting 2009.