ABSTRACT
/ This paper combines a review of recent publications on the effectiveness of environmental enforcement in the United States with new data to address the question of what type of enforcement activity is most productive. Using data on 39 state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs, the measures of effort and cost typically applied to environmental enforcement and inspection activities were tested for relationships with compliance outcomes. No statistically significant relationships were found. In the absence of any improving trend in traditional measures of compliance, this lack suggests all enforcement systems presently used by states are failing. To work, an environmental enforcement system needs to include maintenance and restoration of compliance, real deterrence, mobilization of public opinion, minimal obtrusiveness, conformity with legal search requirements, cost-effectiveness for all parties, effective primary role for skilled inspectors, self-monitoring, compatibility with environmental management systems (e.g., ISO 14000), environmental auditing, robustness in the face of changing strategies by permittees, segregation of technical assistance from enforcement, team orientation, adaptability to multimedia, and, most difficult of all, disconnection from today's timely, appropriate, proportionate standard. These goals can be achieved through a proposed new environmental enforcement approach built on infrequent, random, but thorough inspections leading to fully documented enforcement actions resulting in high penalties. The enforcement system used by the Vienna Übahn, or subway, can serve as a model for this type of environmental enforcement system. KEY WORDS: Enforcement; Deterrence; Environmental water quality; Discharge elimination systems
ABSTRACT
/ Questionnaires from 39 state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) agencies were analyzed using principal component analysis and multiple regression. Decentralized programs scored better in a fundamental indicator of efficiency (lower percentage of expired permits) and in the key effectiveness measure of unit-cost compliance achieved. In no case did centralized states score significantly better than decentralized ones. These results indicated support for the theory that superior local knowledge is the key mechanism. Case studies of five states suggested internal program adjustments may cause outcomes to converge towards efficiency and effectiveness, perhaps explaining the large number of variables showing no difference between centralized programs and decentralized ones.KEY WORDS: NPDES; Compliance; Decentralization; Outcome; Efficiency; Unit-cost analysis