The state and municipal effect: Enforcing the Clean Water Act in Massachusetts/California - Boston/San Diego

This research analyzes federal and state enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Even though President George W. Bush is preoccupied in foreign affairs, recent history supports the notion of state-centered federalism. The Republican congress (1995-2006) placed federalism issues high on its agenda and President Clinton signed welfare reform legislation calling for the states to play a greater role. And today states are at the forefront of important domestic policy issues like immigration reform and global warming. States are leaders and innovators in the policy process. While the reviews of this "devolution revolution" are mixed (Cho and Wright 2004; Cole et al. 1999; Hoornbeck 2005; Soss et al. 2001) it is clear that state influence is on the rise. Some states lead, innovate, and implement more than others. Inevitably this results in variation that raises questions of equity.;Two models are developed to empirically gauge this potential variation as the Clean Water Act is implemented. A quantitative time series analysis is employed in a Federal and State framework. In the Federal model I analyze how the Clean Water Act is enforced in two culturally similar states: Massachusetts and California. Unconventionally, these two states were selected because of their similarities with one central exception, California has primacy under the Clean Water Act's NPDES program and Massachusetts does not. In the Federal model state indices are measured against EPA regional action (NPDES inspections and low-level enforcement actions). The findings shed light on whether or not granted state authority under this program affects federal implementation.;Most subnational inquiries focus on state action. A second model is developed, the State model, where municipal indices are measured against regional state action. Boston and San Diego were included in this analysis because both municipalities sought a secondary treatment waiver under §301(h) of the Clean Water Act. Boston's waiver was ultimately denied by the EPA and the municipality now employs full secondary treatment at their wastewater treatment plant, Deer Island. San Diego's original waiver application was also denied by the EPA. However, with the assistance of their congressional delegation, specific legislation was enacted allowing San Diego to re-apply for a secondary treatment waiver after the deadline had passed. Ultimately, San Diego's waiver was approved (and renewed) by the EPA and San Diego now employs an advanced primary treatment process (at substantial savings) at their wastewater treatment plant, Point Loma. The findings of this model shed light on a second order devolution; do municipal indices affect state regulatory behavior?;Finally, this study concludes with a water outcome analysis. In comparison to Boston, where full secondary treatment is employed, how does the advanced primary treatment process in San Diego affect the marine environment?...