Policy Studies Review, Autumn 1989 VO~. 9, NO. 1, pp. 67-68

SYM POSlU M

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURFACE MINING ACT AND COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM

Edited by Uday Desai

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in August 1977 is, perhaps, the last of the major pieces of environmental legislation passed in the 1970s, the decade of the environment. I t is also, perhaps, the most conflictual of the environ- mental laws. Even a dozen years after its passage, its implementation remains problematic and controversial. The Act and its implementation were incessantly attacked by the s ta te governments and the coal industry during the first three years of its existence (the Carter years) and by the environmentalists during the next eight years (the Reagan years).

The Act incorporates an implementation design that is variously referred to as "cooperative federalism," "partial preemption," or "state primacy." Essentially, i ts effective execution requires a good faith partnership be- tween the federal government and the s ta te governments. I t has also built into its very design a perpetual tension, if not conflict, between the federal and s ta te partners. This is, of course, the same "federalism" cloth that so many other public policies are cut from.

The symposium addresses two questions:

1. What does the SMCRA experience tell us about the promise and pitfalls of "cooperative federalism" policy implementation schemes?

2. What have been the impacts of SMCRA in various states, and what independent factors account for the variations?

The first three articles, by Harris, Miller, and Clinton, deal with the first question, the lessons of SMCRA for "cooperative federalism." While Harris recommends a "senior partner" role for the federal government, Miller finds state preeminence inevitable. Clinton, analyzing 122 federal SMCRA cases, finds a "balanced approach in the application of SMCRA" by the federal courts. The remaining six articles deal with the second question. Desai finds significant variations in the impacts of SMCRA in six major surface coal mining states. Both Davis, Davis, and Peacock, and Scicchitano, Hedge, and

I wish to thank the Illinois Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for their financial support for this symposium. However, only the individual authors are responsible for the content of the articles. I also wish to thank colleagues who served as referees: Robert Beck, Susan Buck, Michael Clarke, James Carrol, Osbin Ervin, Michael Hamilton, James Lester, Daniel McCool, Richard Miller, Rosemary O'Leary, and Myra Spieker. The symposium is of better quality as a result of their labors. Special thanks to Richard Miller who has been unflinching in his support and generous with his time and energy throughout the preparation of the symposium. The symposium has been much improved by Mara Lou Hawse's expert copy editing. I also wish to thank the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University - Carbondale for its support in preparation of the sym- posium.

67

68 Policy Studies Review, Autumn 1989, 9:l

Metz find states to be variably prepared to enforce the law: Davis e t al. are troubled by the lack of rigorous federal oversight in recent years, while Scicchitano et al. are generally encouraged by the states' performances. Beier and McElfish study the specific and important issue of "alternative bond systems" under SMCRA and argue for a vigorous leadership role by the federal government. Vestal and Nielson discuss the very different SMCRA experiences of two states. Oklahoma had the painful, but in t h e end salutary, experience of "cohabitation" with the U.S. Office of Surface Mini- ng. Utah, on the other hand, simply does what is best for itself, with little, if any, concern with "cooperative federalism."

The symposium articles clearly reflect the two divergent strands in thinking about policy implementat ion design based on "cooperative federalism": one optimistic about the ability and preeminence of the states, the other unsure of the states' abilities and resolve, insisting on the federal "senior partner." Given the space limitation of the symposium, however, i t has not been possible to provide full coverage of many salient issues in SMCRA. At a later date, we hope to substantially increase both the breadth and depth of issues covered, in the more capacious book that will result from expansion of this symposium.