Premium
From Antagonistic to Cooperative Federalism on Water Resources Development
Author(s) -
Hrezo Margaret S.,
Hrezo William E.
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
american journal of economics and sociology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.199
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1536-7150
pISSN - 0002-9246
DOI - 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1985.tb02335.x
Subject(s) - legislation , restructuring , federalism , cooperative federalism , government (linguistics) , business , public administration , state (computer science) , process (computing) , water resources , public economics , environmental planning , economics , political science , politics , finance , law , ecology , linguistics , philosophy , environmental science , algorithm , computer science , biology , operating system
A bstract . A major reason for the antagonism among federal, state, and local water resources planners may be their lack of understanding of the policymaking process. Water resources policies not only distribute social, economic, and physical benefits , they also have redistributive, regulatory, and social effects. The federal government is not capable of leadership in all four policy areas. Neither, however, are localities or the states. Planners, therefore, need to develop a viable mix of policy responsibilities so that each level has primary authority over the type of policy it is best suited to develop and implement. Analysis of the capacities of each level of government indicates that the federal government should provide regulatory objectives through such legislation as the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act , and provide support for state redistributive efforts through a restructuring of water resources grants‐in‐aid to reward states that improve their policy planning capabilities. The states' most appropriate role is development of a planning process. Social policy is the most appropriate sphere of local action.