Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Advance Access originally published online on November 22, 2008
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2009 3(1):104-120; doi:10.1093/reep/ren018
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Published by Oxford University Press 2008.
Policy Monitor—The Evolution of Solid and Hazardous Waste Regulation in the United States
* National Center for Environmental Economics, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460 USA.
This article reviews the evolution and interaction of legislation, regulation, and practical experience concerning solid and hazardous waste management and site cleanup in the United States. The evolution of waste laws provides insights that fall under three themes. First is the effect of new information. Early waste legislation was written in an environment of limited information. As understanding of waste management, disposal, and cleanup issues improved, the governing statutes were amended and the regulations refined. Second, new waste laws were sometimes a reaction to structural and behavioral responses to previous regulation. For example, the Brownfields Law was written to address poorly functioning property markets for land tainted by real or perceived contamination, attributed in part to the liability rules in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Third is the balance of responsibility between federal and state government. Initially, waste issues were solely the purview of state and local governments. With the advent of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and CERCLA, the federal government took on a prominent regulatory role and established baseline national regulations. In the past three decades, the state's role has expanded again, resulting in a variety of enforcement- and incentive-based state programs. This diversity across states may be evidence of efficient accommodation of local preferences and conditions.
JEL Classification: H1, H7, Q5
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No official agency endorsement should be inferred.
The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Ed Chu, Tom Gillis, Melanie Hoff, Sven-Erik Kaiser, Robert Kayser, Scott Palmer, Kate Probst, Hilary Sigman, Lura Strasser, Guy Tomassoni, and Kris Wernstedt on earlier drafts.