Environmental policy and the pursuit of sustainability

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND THE PURSUIT OF SUSTAINABILITY It is increasingly apparent that human activities are not suitable for sustaining a healthy global environment From energy development to resource extraction to use of land and water, humans are having a devastating effect on the earth’s ability to sustain human societies and quality lives Many approaches to changing the negative environmental consequences of human activities focus on one of two options, emphasizing either technological fixes or individual behavior change to reduce environmental harms through sustainable consumption habits This book takes a different approach, focusing on the role of environmental policy in shaping the possibilities for and creating hindrances to pursuing more sustainable use of environmental resources This unique compilation examines environmental policy through empirical case studies, demonstrating through each particular example how environmental policies are formed, how they operate, what they in terms of shaping behaviors and future trajectories, and how they intersect with other social dynamics such as politics, power, social norms, and social organization By providing case studies from both the United States and Mexico, this book provides a cross-​national perspective on current environmental policies and their role in creating and limiting sustainable human futures Organized around four key parts  –​Water; Land; Health and Well Being; and Resilience  –​and with a central theme of environmental justice and equity, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars of environmental policy and sustainability Chelsea Schelly is Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Social Sciences and the Environmental and Energy Policy graduate program at Michigan Technological University, USA Aparajita Banerjee recently completed her PhD in Environmental and Energy Policy from Michigan Technological University, USA ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Land and Resource Scarcity Capitalism, Struggle and Well-being in a World without Fossil Fuels Edited by Andreas Exner, Peter Fleissner, Lukas Kranzl and Werner Zittel Nuclear Energy Safety and International Cooperation Closing the World’s Most Dangerous Reactors Spencer Barrett Meredith, III The Politics of Carbon Markets Edited by Benjamin Stephan and Richard Lane The Limits of the Green Economy Matthias Lievens and Anneleen Kenis Public Policy and Land Exchange Choice, Law and Praxis Giancarlo Panagia International Arctic Petroleum Cooperation Barents Sea Scenarios Edited by Anatoli Bourmistrov, Frode Mellemvik, Alexei Bambulyak, Ove Gudmestad, Indra Overland and Anatoly Zolotukhin Why REDD will Fail Jessica L. DeShazo, Chandra Lal Pandey and Zachary A. Smith The European Union in International Climate Change Negotiations Stavros Afionis The EU, US and China Tackling Climate Change Policies and Alliances for the Anthropocene Sophia Kalantzakos Environmental Policy and the Pursuit of Sustainability Edited by Chelsea Schelly and Aparajita Banerjee ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND THE PURSUIT OF SUSTAINABILITY Edited by Chelsea Schelly and Aparajita Banerjee First published 2018 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Chelsea Schelly and Aparajita Banerjee; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Chelsea Schelly and Aparajita Banerjee to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​29650-​3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​29651-​0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​315-​09999-​6 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Out of House Publishing This one’s for Prabha, who made it possible –​ CS To Imon, my being –​ AB This wide-ranging anthology on environmental policy does much more than the title suggests The contributing authors present a selection of case studies that illustrate the successes and failures of environmental policies in a number of important areas including water and land use This will be a useful supplemental textbook in courses on environmental policy Zachary Smith, Regents’ Professor, Northern Arizona University, USA There is no single pathway to “sustainability,” but instead – as Julian Agyeman argues – “sustainabilities.” The illuminating case studies collected by Schelly and Banerjee allow us to see diverse pathways in practice, to recognize the centrality of social justice, and to cultivate insights into the crucial policy contexts that both constrain and enable them John M Meyer, Humboldt State University, USA; author of Engaging the Everyday: Environmental Social Criticism and the Resonance Dilemma CONTENTS List of figures List of tables Editors List of contributors Introduction – when one size does not fit all: environmental policy, social context, and social justice Aparajita Banerjee and Chelsea Schelly x xi xii xiii PART I Water, water management, and adaptation to changing water landscapes 15 Nutrient trading credits: best management practices and policy hurdles for non-​point source polluters in the Chesapeake Bay M Dawn King 17 Water management in the Upper Klamath Basin: collaboration and polarization Patricia Snyder 30 Toward a whole-​of-​government and whole-​of-​community approach for regional adaptation to sea level rise: lessons learned from the Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Pilot Project Juita-​Elena (Wie) Yusuf, Michelle Covi, Carol Considine, Burton St John III, Meagan M. Jordan, and J. Gail Nicula 47 viii Contents PART II Land management and land use 63 US public lands and a new administration: new and old issues John Freemuth 65 Perceptions of contentiousness: how individual traits shape environmental policy conflicts Kristin Olofsson 79 Solid waste governance: consumption and culture in the globalization era Beatriz Adriana Venegas Sahagún 93 PART III Human health and well being Where is the justice? An examination of the failure of the US EPA Office of Civil Rights to ensure environmental justice for poor and minority communities Amelie Simons The power of the talking points: persuasive power and the challenges of sustainable natural resource development Amanda Kreuze, Roman Sidortsov, and Chelsea Schelly Social and political inequality as challenges in technology diffusion: evidence from government-​funded improved cookstove program in rural Mexico Aparajita Banerjee and Chelsea Schelly 109 111 124 137 PART IV Resilience 151 10 The role of voluntary agreements in a hybrid model of environmental law enforcement Joice Chang 153 11 Institutional barriers to managing dynamic landscapes: lessons learned in Southwestern Colorado Nina Burkardt and Patricia Biddle Orth 169 Contents  ix 12 The long road to sustainability of Mexican oil palm production Erin C. Pischke 182 Conclusion – environmental policy and the pursuit of just sustainability Chelsea Schelly and Aparajita Banerjee 195 Index 204 198 Conclusion between environmental policy and outcomes for human and environmental health, a theme raised again and again in Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9, and Chapter 12 Environmental policy effectively involves decisions about access to clean air, clean water, and land suitable for human habitation, services that are essential for human life but are nonetheless not equitably distributed among human beings.The human health impacts are an essential consideration for any environmental policymaking process, but policy silo effects often create difficulties for integrated thinking, planning, and policymaking across all the various dimensions involved in quality of life In order to make effective environmental policy, it is essential to think about the intersecting nexus of impacts connecting air and water, water and land, land and climate, etc It is also arguably essential to recognize that environmental policy always has real implications for economies, community development, and actual human health Perhaps thinking through the potentially unintended impacts of any policy decision (Merton, 1967; Schelly, 2014) in terms of its widespread impacts across the human experience is an ideal first step in any policy process Books, courses, departments, and agencies focused on environmental policy (Rosenbaum, 2013; Vig and Kraft, 2016; and of course the current volume!) may all suggest an artificial separation between environmental issues and other issues of real human life, indicating that environmental policy is somehow separate from other policy, management, or moral issues This false suggestion may work to hinder progress toward training policy experts, advocates, and scholars who recognize the integrated impacts of environmental decision-making on economies, technologies, relations of power, and systems of social justice Issues of social justice In this volume, we aim to especially highlight that environmental policy, in every instance presented here, raises essential questions about the distribution of access to resources, wealth, and well being in ways that characterize issues of social justice Environmental policymaking takes place within existing contexts of social injustice and can work to either exacerbate or eradicate that injustice, but arguably the most common impact is for environmental policy to make conditions of injustice worse or certainly no better simply because environmental policy explicitly ignores its implication in issues of social justice Sometimes, the simplistic language of costs, payments, benefits, or burdens can capture these questions of social justice In the case of Chapter 1, a clear question exists regarding who should have to pay for the management of non-​point source waste in the form of chicken litter: should the costs of management be the responsibility of corporate profit makers or the contracted farmers? The question may be answered via contract negotiation; however, environmental policymaking can also be used to explicitly address questions such as who pays, who benefits, and who bears the burden of environmental policy However, issues of social justice go beyond questions of payments and costs to issues of access and inequitable access to both quality of life and decision-making Conclusion  199 power In Chapter 5, and also highlighting the complexities of geographical and geopolitical scale in managing resource extraction with potentially monumental impacts on local communities and regional ecosystems via federal rather than local policy, Kristin Olofsson’s research demonstrates that policy actors involved in issues of resource extraction via hydraulic fracturing in the realm of federal policy are not commonly exposed to the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on a personal level This inevitably raises questions about procedural justice (Sovacool et al., 2017) and the rights of individuals and communities to participate in environmental decisionmaking that impacts them directly and to avoid being subject to decisions made by those who are not at all personally impacted, issues also raised by Chapter Chapter directly considers the justice implications of environmental policymaking in the United States, particularly through the lack of consequences in clear cases of environmental injustice, where environmental management decisions are made in ways that disproportionately impact already marginalized communities Environmental injustices such as the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, are devastatingly too numerous to count, both in the United States and around the world as the result of global commodity chains and flows People who are poor and people of color are overwhelmingly burdened with the environmental hazards and risks associated with productive and consumptive activities, and all environmental policy choices involve choices about the communities and individuals that will face the burden of exposure to unclean water, air, and land as well as diminished human health and quality of life The social justice implications of how land is used to extract energy resources is the topic of Chapter 8, which explicitly calls for management approaches that recognize the injustice in expecting fair negotiations of land use contracts given the existing relations of power in society Corporate entities stand to gain massively from the exploitation of natural resources, with huge consequences for human health; these private, corporate actors leverage a form of persuasive power to insinuate that they are acting with the authority of the sovereign power (as the state is often seen as the legitimate holder of sovereign power) in ways that manipulate the process of contracted access to land for development Given the existing relations of power in which economic actors often have more structural and cultural power and in which they use persuasive power to convince land owners that they also have the legitimacy of sovereign power, Chapter 8 argues that it is the responsibility of environmental policy makers to recognize the uneven distribution of power that shapes the terrain of environmental management and to proactively work to develop ways of evening the playing field so that environmental management decisions with enormous consequences for community health and well being can be negotiated fairly and in a balanced way in the face of economic pressures for development Chapter also explicitly deals with issues of social justice, specifically how current distributions of socio-​political power shape access to resources that are intended to benefit individual health and well being as well as global climate health and well being In this case, political power and party affiliation influenced 200 Conclusion the distribution of improved cookstove technology in a way that diminished the program’s effectiveness while solidifying the legitimacy of the current distribution of power across both gendered and party lines.Themes of social justice are also considered in Chapter 12, as individuals with the least amount of power in the form of land holdings are also least able to benefit from either federal government programs intended to promote sustainable development or international programs intended to open access to markets geared for sustainable products Making and implementing environmental policy across all scales and levels of governance always involves questions of social justice; some people get to participate in decision-making and get to benefit from the intended outcomes while others are left to bear the burdens of decisions they did not make In these ways, environmental policy always involves grappling with questions of justice, in terms of who has the right to participate in decision-making and who has the right to the benefits of a quality life with clean water, land, and air Environmental policymaking that does not explicitly address issues of power and justice when addressing implementation is likely to exacerbate current injustices By simply ignoring injustice, environmental policy often works to perpetuate it Issues of lacking leadership A final theme presented in this volume relates to the lack of clear leadership for making effective environmental policy in pursuit of sustainability The complexities in identifying and navigating leadership in this terrain include all of the issues raised above: the geographical and geopolitical scales (as well as the temporal scales) are complex, sometimes overlapping and sometimes mismatched entirely; the policy silos that occur around particular issues or sectors limit the ability of emerging leaders working across resource areas or policy realms to be effective in implementing change; and promoting long-​term resilience via environmental policy requires grappling with existing relations of power, issues of social injustice, and the role of environmental policy in attenuating or exacerbating these issues The geopolitical and jurisdictional scales at which leadership could be most effective in creating environmental policy for just sustainability remain unclear, and an overall sense of lacking leadership pervades the challenges of policy success In Chapter 3, the Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Pilot Project faced the challenge of lacking clear leadership in thinking about the project’s success and longevity in the future In Chapter 8, clear leadership would be required but has yet to effectively emerge in order to combat the challenge of persuasive power via local policy and advocacy channels In Chapter 11, lack of clear leadership was identified as a challenge to creating long-​term plans for managing landscape-​scale environmental change One particularly effective way for leadership to emerge in the realm of environmental decision-making may involve promoting a sense of efficacy among individuals and groups whose actions are environmentally impactful Efficacy refers to the sense that one’s actions make a difference, and given the multifaceted and global scale of environmental issues, it is challenging to maintain a sense of efficacy in Conclusion  201 the face of such complexities.Yet research suggests that people who feel a sense of efficacy are much more likely to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors (Schelly et al., 2011; 2012) Effective environmental leadership may require navigating the complexities of geographical and geopolitical scale as well as issue intersections in order to identify areas of truly impactful change and communicate about the possibilities for this change This may also require speaking truth to power to identify when it is not individual but rather collective corporate choices that are causing the greatest extent of environmental damage (Freudenburg, 2006; Collins, Munoz, and JaJa, 2016; Jorgenson, Longhofer, and Grant, 2016; Greenberg, 2017) and being willing to find innovative ways of utilizing efficacy to promote change in larger societal practices rather than focusing on individual behaviors Potential leaders face many challenges in environmental policymaking, including the difficulty of acquiring and applying scientific data at the correct temporal and spatial scales, the complexity of coordinating among land owners and managers across geographical scales and social institutional units (e.g., private land, public land, corporate actors), and the difficulty of making decisions in an environment of climate uncertainty Political regimes shift and the geopolitical scales at which environmental leadership may be most effective change over time, and environmental policy involves complex choices about water, air, and land but also about technological change, economic development, human health, and social justice.Yet leaders that are willing to navigate the spatially and socially complex world of environmental policy are absolutely essential for pursuing social justice and sustainability through effective policy Conclusion: pursuing just sustainability through environmental policy As of the year 2017, it has been 30 years since the term sustainable development was popularized by the World Commission on Economic Development in 1987 and concepts of sustainability began to circulate widely in socio-​political domains Some of the challenges identified by the different authors in this volume in pursuing sustainability via environmental policy can perhaps be traced back to how sustainability was imagined as an economic term rather than encompassing “essentially ethico-​political objectives” (Jacobs, 1995, p 65) Given the focus on economic development in much of the initial sustainability discourse, and perhaps given more fundamental issues related to relations of power and modes of production, there has rarely been a balance between the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability and trade-​offs mostly favor the economic dimension at the cost of the other two (Lorek and Spangenberg, 2014) This applies to both global governance and policy frames that trickled down to even regional and local levels Today, public policies continue to be steered towards meeting economic goals and sustainability has become, according to some, an “empty phrase and at worst a Trojan horse” (Voß and Kemp, 2015, p 3) Even environmental policies have been, for the most part, aspirational in nature, rather than setting down mandatory 202 Conclusion guidelines (with few exceptions, like the Endangered Species Act) As a result, social considerations based on human rights, inequality, redistribution, and capabilities are often missing in environmental policymaking Even environmental concerns have often been sidelined, as living within environmental limits conflicted with continuous economic growth (Lorek and Spangenberg, 2014) Therefore, not surprisingly, 30 years hence, we continue to grapple with the pursuit of sustainability The key themes that run throughout the chapters of this book, as discussed at the beginning of this chapter, may provide insight to finding some solutions As many of the chapters in the book identified, there is a need for innovation in environmental policy processes so that new forms of collaborative problem solving can tackle the non-​linear, dynamic, and unpredictable nature of environmental problems Existing policy silos can be replaced by a policy process that is coherent across sectors in such a way that policy problems are framed and solutions are identified by recognizing their interconnectedness across sectors, with other problems, the scales at which they operate, and direct and indirect impacts of implementable actions Innovation in the policy realm is also necessary to overcome the path dependency of past and current policies, many of which perhaps undervalue the environmental challenges human society is facing; some of these challenges have never happened before, at least not at present scales Though breaking out of existing conditions in our socio-​political regimes can meet resistance, particularly from those who benefit from existing social structures, the quest for alternatives should involve grappling with making effective environmental policy that is attentive to complexities and issues of scale, comprehensively addresses social issues, is proactive in addressing social justice, and emerges within a vision of comprehensively embracing possibilities for sustainability References Balint, P J., Stewart, R E., and Desai, A., 2011 Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict Island Press Carley, S., 2011 The era of state energy policy innovation: A review of policy instruments Review of Policy Research, 28(3), pp 265–​294 Collins, M B., Munoz, I., and JaJa, J., 2016 Linking ‘toxic outliers’ to environmental justice communities Environmental Research Letters, 11(1), p 15004 Freudenburg, W R., 2006 Environmental degradation, disproportionality, and the double diversion: Reaching out, reaching ahead, and reaching beyond Rural Sociology, 71(1), pp 3–​32 Greenberg, P., 2017 Disproportionality and resource-​based environmental inequality: An analysis of neighborhood proximity to coal impoundments in Appalachia Rural Sociology, 82(1), pp 149–​178 Jacobs, M., 1995 Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: A response to Beckerman Environmental Values, 4(1), pp 57–​68 Jorgenson, A., Longhofer,W., and Grant, D., 2016 Disproportionality in power plants’ carbon emissions: A cross-​national study Scientific Reports, Lorek, S and Spangenberg, J H., 2014 Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy – ​beyond green growth and green economies Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp 33–​44 Conclusion  203 Merton, R., 1967 Manifest and Latent Functions Chapter  in On Theoretical Sociology New York: Free Press Mormann, F., 2017 Constitutional challenges and regulatory opportunities for state climate policy innovation Harvard Environmental Law Review, 41, pp 189–​242 Rabe, B., 2016 Racing to the top, the bottom, or the middle of the pack? The evolving state government role in environmental protection In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-​First Century, Norman J.Vig and Michael E Kraft (eds.).Washington DC: CQ/​ Sage, pp 33–​57 Rosenbaum, W A., 2013 Environmental Politics and Policy CQ Press Schelly, C., 2014 Implementing renewable energy portfolio standards: The good, the bad, and the ugly in a two state comparison Energy Policy, 67, pp 543–​551 Schelly, C., Cross, J E., Franzen, W S., Hall, P., and Reeve, S., 2011 Reducing energy consumption and creating a conservation culture in organizations: A case study of one public school district Environment and Behavior, 43(3), pp 316–​343 Schelly, C., Cross, J E., Franzen, W., Hall, P., and Reeve, S., 2012 How to go green: Creating a conservation culture in a public high school through education, modeling, and communication The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(3), pp 143–​161 Sovacool, B K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C K., and Wlokas, H., 2017 New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice Energy Policy, 105, pp 677–​691 Vig, N J and Kraft, M E eds., 2016 Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-​First Century, Ninth Edition CQ Press Voß, J P and Kemp, R., 2015 Sustainability and Reflexive Governance: Introduction Technische Universität Berlin INDEX A Canal (Upper Klamath) 33 Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (1906) 9, 66, 71–​76 adaptation strategies see climate change adaptation strategies adjudication for water rights 30, 39–​40, 42 administrative law judges (ALJs) 158, 164 Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) 81 agricultural activity 7; see also irrigators (Upper Klamath); manure treatment technologies; nutrient trading credits; oil palm production (Mexico) Agricultural Alliance (Mexico) 187 Alaska, Antiquities Act and 73 Alonso, L. 94 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 68 Andrus, Cecil 73 Antiquities Act (Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities, 1906) 9, 66, 71–​76 Appadurai, A. 94, 95 archaeological artifact protection 71 Arizona, public lands management in 67 Aspinall, Wayne 71 Banarjee, Aparajita 11 Baudrillaird, J. 94 Bears Ears National Monument 73 behavior-​driven solutions 1; NPS pollution and 7, 18, 21, 26; RGGI 24, 27; see also environmental policy enforcement; municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico); technology-​driven solutions best management practices (BMPs): biochar and 18, 22, 24; economics of 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27; monitoring 23 biochar 18, 21–​26, 27; poultry char 7, 18, 21–​22, 25, 26, 27; see also manure treatment technologies biofuel 182, 184 Bourdieu, Pierre 95, 126 Brewer, Jan 67 Bullard, Robert 112 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 65, 67 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) 31, 33, 34, 40 Burkardt, Nina 12 Bush, George W. 74 Bush administration 33, 35 California Air Resources Board 24 cap and trade policies 21; GHG trading credits 18, 23–​24, 27; see also market mechanisms; nutrient trading credits Carson, Rachel 112 Carter, Jimmy 73 Castells, Manuel 125 Castle-​Pinckney National Monument 74 Cawley, McGreggor 67 Center for Responsible Shale Development (CRSD) 133 Chang, Joice 12 charter forests 70 Index  205 Cheney, Dick 33 Chesapeake Bay Agreement 17, 18, 19, 24, 26–​27; see also nutrient trading credits Chesapeake Bay Program Manure Treatment Technologies Expert Panel 22 Chesapeake Bay Watershed (description of region) 18–​19 chicken litter biochar see poultry char China 128 citizen participation see behavior-​driven solutions; municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) Civil Rights Act (1964) 113 Clean Air Act (1963) 131 clean cookstove dissemination program see Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico) Clean Power Plan (2015) 24 Clean Water Act (1972) 18, 40 climate change adaptation strategies 12, 47, 139, 170–​171, 174–​178, 184–​185; decision making issues 174, 176–​177, 179, 195; Executive Order 13,653 on 50; see also Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project; Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project) Clinton, Bill 73, 74, 113, 118 Clinton administration, establishes OCR 111, 113 Colectivo Ecologista de Jalisco (CEJ) 100–​101 Colorado Plateau region 71, 73 Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project 12, 169–​180, 197; adaptation strategies, developing 170–​171; adaptation strategies, perceptions of barriers to 170–​171, 174–​178; coproduction of knowledge and 179; stakeholder engagement, strengthening 178–​179; study overview 171–​173; see also public land management (US) compensation, as enforcement approach 157–​158; see also environmental policy enforcement Congress, US, Antiquities Act and 71–​73, 74, 76 conservation, definition 67 conservationists (Upper Klamath): clash with irrigators 33–​36, 38, 39–​40, 42; KBRA signing 35–​36, 38, 42; see also Upper Klamath Basin water management Constitution, Mexico 95, 96, 141 Constitution, US 31, 38–​39, 132 consumption 94–​95, 99–​101, 105; see also municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) cookstoves see Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico) Coolidge, Calvin 74 cooperation-​based approaches 12, 153–​158, 163–​164, 165; Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 17, 18, 19, 24, 26–​27; deterrence-​based approaches 12, 153–​158, 159, 163–​164, 165; KBRA and 31, 35–​37, 38, 41–​42, 43; SLR and 47–​48; see also environmental policy enforcement; Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project); voluntary agreements (VAs) Copco power company (later PacifiCorp) 40 Crapo, Mike 70 Craters of the Moon National monument 74–​75 Cummings, Homer 74 dams: energy provision by 40–​41; removal of 35–​36, 37, 38, 41–​42, 43; water flow 34–​35 decision making: bureaucratic/​slow 66, 104–​105, 174–​176, 179; climate adaptation strategies and 174, 176–​177, 179, 195; desirable qualities in policy makers 26–​27; environmental discrimination and 112–​113, 120, 199–​200; hybrid enforcement and 158, 159, 160–​161, 162, 165; incentives in 197; marginalized communities excluded from 120, 121; multiple stakeholders 4–​5; policy silos and 3; scale issues and 6, 133, 196; see also environmental policy enforcement; policy actors, research on beliefs and traits; stakeholder engagement Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 130 deterrence-​based approaches 12, 153–​158, 159, 163–​164, 165; see also cooperation-​ based approaches; environmental policy enforcement discrimination see environmental discrimination drought 30, 31–​34, 42 Economy and Society (Weber) 126 endangered species 31–​35 Endangered Species Act (ESA) 31–​33, 35, 36–​38, 170 206 Index energy provision 38, 40–​41, 42 enforcement see environmental policy enforcement environmental discrimination 111–​121, 138–​139, 199–​200; burden of proof in statutory law 112, 113, 116–​117, 118; complaints process 113–​115, 116–​117, 119, 120; environmental racism 111–​112, 113, 114–​121, 117; Flint water contamination crisis 10–​11, 111, 115–​121, 199; OCR issues 111–​112, 113–​114, 117, 118–​121; term defined 112–​113; see also marginalized communities environmental justice, history of 112–​114; see also environmental discrimination “Environmental Justice: Examining the Environmental Protection Agency’s Compliance and Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12, 898” (USCCR Report) 111, 117 environmental policy enforcement 153–​166, 197; deterrence-​based 12, 153–​158, 159, 163–​164, 165; for NPS 7, 17–​18, 19, 20–​21, 23, 26, 27; penalties 157–​158, 164; see also cooperation-​ based approaches; hybrid enforcement; voluntary agreements (VAs) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, US): biochar and 18, 22; Chesapeake Bay protection 19; hydraulic fracturing policy and 79; see also Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) 10–​11, 111–​121, 198, 199; agency culture within 112, 117, 118–​119, 120; complaints process 113–​115, 116–​117, 119, 120; environmental discrimination and 111–​112, 113–​114, 117, 118–​121; established 111, 113; External Compliance Program 114; Flint water contamination crisis 10, 111, 115–​121; hindrances to addressing environmental justice 114–​121; institutionalized racism 112, 117, 119–​121 environmental racism 111–​112, 113, 114–​121, 117; statistics of 114–​115; term defined 112; see also environmental discrimination Executive Orders: Antiquities Act review (13,792) 71, 73, 75; Chesapeake Bay protection (13,508) 19; climate change adaptation strategies (13,653) 50; OCR environmental discrimination compliance (12,898) 111, 113, 118 farms and farmers 7; see also irrigators (Upper Klamath); manure treatment technologies; nutrient trading credits; oil palm production (Mexico) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 40, 42 federal governance see regulatory authority Federalist 10 (Madison) 66–​67 federal land (US) see Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project; public land management (US) Federal Land Law Review Commission 66 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 67, 68, 70, 74 Federal Lands Western Anger (Cawley) 67 Federal Law to Prevent and Control Environmental Pollution (Mexico) 95 Federal Power Act 40 Federal Reclamation movement 31, 40 fertilizers see manure treatment technologies Fewkes, J Walter 71 fish (Upper Klamath) 31–​35, 41, 42; see also Upper Klamath Basin water management Flint water contamination crisis 10–​11, 111, 115–​121, 199 fracking see hydraulic fracturing Freemuth, John 9 fuel: benefits to ICS 139–​140, 145–​146, 147; biofuel 182, 184; firewood 140–​141, 142–​143, 144, 145–​146; see also Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico) garbage see municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) gender, ICS and 139–​140, 142, 146 General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste (LGPGIR, Mexico) 96 General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA, Mexico) 95–​96 geographical and geopolitical scale issues 2–​3, 7, 8–​10, 13, 195–​197; Chesapeake Bay Agreement and 17, 18, 19, 26–​27; decision making issues and 6, 133, 196; RGGI and 24, 27; SLR and 47–​48; see also Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project; Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project); non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties Index  207 Gettysburg Energy and Nutrient Recovery Facility 26 government regulation see regulatory authority government subsidies: NPS policy dependence on 7, 18, 21, 25, 27, 197; for oil palm production 184, 187–​188, 190 Grand Canyon National Park 67, 72 Grand Staircase-​Escalante National Monument 73 Grand Teton National Park 72 Gravel, Mike 73 Graves, William 65 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions: ICS and 141; manure treatment and 22–​24, 25, 27; in Mexico 184, 185; RGGI and 24, 27; trading credits and 18, 23–​24, 27 “Guidelines”, the (“Talking Points for Selling Oil and Gas Lease Rights”) 124, 127, 128–​130 Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project) 8, 47–​59, 196, 200; analysis methodology 52–​53; development of 48–​52; goal ambiguity 48, 53–​54, 55–​58; Hampton Roads map 49; implementation difficulties 48, 49, 57, 58, 59; key findings 53–​58; leadership issues 48, 53, 56–​58, 200; local governance in 50–​54, 55, 57; participants in 51–​52, 54, 56–​57; regional cooperation challenges 49, 53–​54, 56–​57; relationship building issues 53, 54–​55, 58; resource inadequacies 48, 53, 56–​58; role confusion 48, 53, 56–​58; scalar flexibility 48, 57, 58; Steering Committee 50–​52, 56; working groups and advisory committees 50–​53, 54–​55 hazardous waste 95, 102, 115 Hewett, Edgar Lee 72 high-​conflict policy issues 80–​81; see also policy actors, research on beliefs and traits Hill, C. 118 Hoover, Herbert Clark 66–​67 human health and well-​being policies 10–​11, 197–​198; see also Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights (OCR); Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico); persuasive power hybrid enforcement 158–​166; chain of decisions (figure) 162; decision makers in 158, 159, 160–​161, 162, 165; deterrence-​based approaches 12, 153–​158, 159, 163–​164, 165; judicial and quasi-​judicial actors in 158–​159; motivations in 158; regulator role in 158, 160–​161, 163–​164, 165; see also cooperation-​based approaches; environmental policy enforcement; voluntary agreements (VAs) hydraulic fracturing 9, 11, 124, 128, 133; complexity of issue 79–​80; impact 129–​130, 131; policy actors’ perceptions 80–​81, 83, 90–​91; technique description and history 80; see also persuasive power; policy actors, research on beliefs and traits Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico) 11, 137–​148, 197, 198, 199–​200; benefits to ICS fuel 139–​140, 145–​146, 147; challenges to 140, 147; dissemination patterns 143–​147; gender and 139–​140, 142, 146; local governance in 138, 139, 140, 143–​147, 148 incentive programs see government subsidies indoor air pollution (IAP) 139 infrastructure-​driven solutions 1; dam removal 35–​36, 37, 38, 41–​42, 43; Pilot Project and 48 institutionalized racism see environmental discrimination International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) 185 Iron Gate Dam 34 irrigators (Upper Klamath) 31; clash with conservationists 33–​36, 38, 39–​40, 42; dam removal and 41–​42; energy rates for 38, 40; KBRA signing 35–​36, 38, 42; needs of 33–​34, 35, 37, 40, 42; see also Upper Klamath Basin water management Jalisco, Mexico, MSW in 96, 98–​101 Jewell, Sally 42 Kennedy/​Johnson Administration 71 King, M Dawn 7, 196 Kitze, Rachel 133 Klamath Basin Alliance 38 Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA) 31, 35–​37; dissolution of 41–​42, 43; drafting of 35–​36, 42; opposition to 36, 38; see also Upper Klamath Basin water management Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA) 35, 37, 41 Klamath Hydropower Project 40 208 Index Klamath Irrigation District v United States (2005) 39 Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement (KPFA) 38, 42 Klamath Project 31 Klamath reservation 39 Klamath Termination Act (1954) 39 Klamath tribe 39–​40 Kreuze, Amanda 11 Lake Ewauna 33 landmen (persuading land owners to lease land for oil and gas production) 129–​130, 133, 134 land policies 8–​10; see also hydraulic fracturing; municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico); policy actors, research on beliefs and traits law: concept defined 126; statutory 112, 116, 117, 118, 120; see also environmental discrimination; environmental policy enforcement Law for the Development of Renewable Energy and Energy Transition Financing (LAERFTE, 2008, Mexco) 184 leadership issues 3, 176, 200–​201; in Pilot Project 48, 53, 56–​58, 200; see also policy actors, research on beliefs and traits; regulatory authority leasing land for natural resource extraction see persuasive power legitimation strategy of persuasion 11, 125–​126, 127, 130–​131, 132–​134, 199 Leven, R. 116 LGEEPA (General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection, Mexico) 95–​96 LGPGIR (General Law for the Prevention and Integral Management of Waste, Mexico) 96 Link River Dam 40 local governance: ICS and 138, 139, 140, 143–​147, 148; MSW and 95–​96; Pilot Project 50–​54, 55, 57; of public land 9, 70; see also regulatory authority Lockhart, Betsy 68 Lucas v South Carolina (1992) 39 Lukes, Steven 127 Lynn, L., Jr. 118 Madison, James 66–​67 Malaysia 189 Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 34, 66 manure treatment technologies: biochar 18, 21, 22–​25, 27; GHG and 22–​24, 25, 27; MSW and 100; NPS addressed through 18, 21, 26, 27; poultry char 7, 18, 21–​22, 25, 26, 27; pyrolysis 22, 24–​25 marginalized communities 11, 111–​121; environmental discrimination complaints dismissed 111, 113–​119; environmental discrimination pattern first identified 112–​113; excluded from policy making 120, 121; ICS distribution and 141, 142–​147; MSW and 99–​102; persuasive power in 126; see also environmental discrimination market mechanisms 1; biochar production 25; environmental discrimination and 117; GHG reduction 18, 23–​24, 27; government subsidies 7, 18, 21, 25, 27, 197; ICS and 140; NPS and 18; sustainability certification 12, 182–​183, 185, 189–​191; see also nutrient trading credits Maryland 25–​26 Mazama Forest 35, 36, 37, 38 McGloughlin, J. S. 59 Meiburg, Stan 119 Mejorar Program 141 Metropolitan Area of Guadalajara (AMG) 97, 104 Mexican Federation of Oil Palm (FEMEXPALMA) 186, 189–​190, 191 Mexican General Law for Climate Change (2012) 184 Mexico 2–​3; see also Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico); municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico); oil palm production (Mexico) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 115 Ministry of Environment and Territorial Development (SEMADET, Mexico) 98 minority communities see environmental discrimination; marginalized communities Modoc tribe 39 Mount Olympus National Monument (Olympic National Park) 75 MSW see municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (MUSY, 1960) 69 municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) 9–​10, 93–​106, 196–​197, 197–​198; burning waste 101; citizen participation 93, 95, 96, 104–​105; compost 102, 104; consumption patterns Index  209 94–​95, 99–​101, 105; environmental education about 102–​104, 104–​105; food and yard waste 102, 103, 104; hazardous waste 95, 102; marginalized communities and 99–​102; packing materials 94, 100–​ 101, 104, 105; regulatory authority 95–​ 96, 104–​105; reselling waste 100; survey methods 98–​99; in Tlaquepaque 96, 97, 98–​99, 101–​102, 105; waste disposal culture 101–​104; waste separation 93, 99, 102–​103, 105; waste types 94, 95–​96, 99–​100, 102–​105; in Zapopan 96, 97–​99, 101–​102, 105 National Development Plan (Mexico) 189 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, US) 66, 170–​171, 176, 178 National Institute of Ecology (US) 100–​101 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, US) 33, 34 national monuments see public land management (US) National Park Service (NPS, US) 65, 70, 71, 75 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, US) 20 native populations 179; Antiquities Act and 71–​72; KBRA and 35–​36, 38; Order of Determination water rights 39–​40, 42–​43; termination policies 39; in Upper Klamath 31, 34, 35–​40, 42–​43 natural resource availability: land policy and 8–​9; public lands and 67; sustainability definition 3–​4; see also hydraulic fracturing; persuasive power; public land management (US) Nelson, Robert 69–​70 Nixon administration, establishes EPA 112 non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties 23, 196, 198; enforcement issues 7, 17–​18, 19, 20–​21, 23, 26, 27; government subsidies 7, 18, 21, 25, 27, 197; regulatory authority 18, 20, 21, 26, 27; transaction costs 17, 20–​21; volunteerism reliance 7, 18, 21, 26 Norton, Gale 33, 34 nutrient trading credits 17–​27; biochar and 18, 21–​26, 27; logistical issues 18, 20–​21, 23, 26–​27; see also market mechanisms; non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties Obama, Barack 19, 66, 73, 74, 116 Obama administration 24, 79 OCR see Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Civil Rights (OCR) offsets see nutrient trading credits oil and gas leases, rights to see hydraulic fracturing; persuasive power oil palm production (Mexico) 12, 182–​191, 198, 200; civil society involvement 186, 189–​190; cooperative for 188, 190; demand 182; environmental impact 187; government subsidies and 184, 187–​188, 190; labor for 187; scale of 183–​184; sustainability certification 182–​183, 184–​186, 188, 189–​191; in Tabasco 183, 186–​188, 190 Old Dominion University (ODU) 50 Olofsson, Kristin 9, 199 Olvera, A 143–​144 Order of Determination water rights 30–​31, 39–​40, 42–​43 Orth, Patricia 12 Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development report) 3 Owyhee Initiative (collaborative public land management, Idaho) 70 Penn Central Transportation Co v New York City (1978) 39, 132 Pennsylvania 26 persuasive power 124–​134, 197, 198, 200; conversational field limits set by 127–​128, 132; the “Guidelines” 124, 127, 128–​130; implications of 132–​133; legitimation strategy 11, 125–​126, 127, 130–​131, 132–​134, 199; power, concept of 124–​125; sovereign power and 125–​126, 127, 130–​131, 133–​134; see also hydraulic fracturing PET (polyethylene terephthalate) 99, 100 Pilot Project see Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project) Pishcke, Erin 12 point source (PS) pollution 17, 20, 21, 26; see also non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties policy actors, research on beliefs and traits 9, 80–​92, 199; cognitive characteristics 87–​89, 90, 91; collegiality of relationships 84, 88–​89, 90; contentiousness level perception 80, 84, 85–​89, 90, 91; data collection and methodology 81–​82, 91; education level 83, 85, 86, 89, 90; experience 210 Index level 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90; hydraulic fracturing case setting 80–​81, 83, 90–​91; issue priority 83, 85, 88, 89, 90; organizational affiliations 82, 83; survey questions 84–​85; survey results 83–​90; threat perception 87–​88, 90 policy decision making issues see decision making policy economics see government subsidies; market mechanisms; nutrient trading credits policy enforcement issues see environmental policy enforcement policy implementation issues 2, 5; Pilot Project and 48, 49, 57, 58, 59; see also geographical and geopolitical scale issues; leadership issues; non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties; policy silos; social justice issues; stakeholder engagement policy making, overview 4–​6; see also decision making policy silos 3, 195, 197–​198, 200, 202; climate change adaptation strategies and 47; NPS and 27 political inequality see power inequalities pollution: indoor air 139; point source 17, 20, 21, 26; see also non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties poultry char 7, 18, 21–​22, 25, 27; impact measurement 21, 22, 26; see also manure treatment technologies power (energy provision) 38, 40–​41, 42 power, persuasive see persuasive power power inequalities 10–​11, 195, 198–​200; defined 137–​139; ICS distribution and 140, 142–​147; see also persuasive power; social justice issues production-​driven solutions 1 Program for Housing Improvement in the Modality of Ecological Stoves (Programa de Mejoramiento de Vivienda en la Modalidad de Equipamiento de Estufas Ecológicas) 141 Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC) 70–​71 public land management (US) 65–​76, 196, 197; Antiquities Act 9, 66, 71–​76; local governance 9, 70; monument designation criteria 72, 73–​74, 75; multiple use doctrine 68–​70; reform 66–​71, 75–​76; transfer proposals 66–​69; see also Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project public land trusts 70 punishment, as enforcement approach 157–​158; see also environmental policy enforcement pyrolysis 22, 24–​25; see also manure treatment technologies racism see environmental discrimination Reagan, Ronald 67 recycling 100 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) 24, 27 regulator role (hybrid enforcement) 158, 160–​161, 163–​164, 165 regulatory authority 195; efficacy in 200–​201; of ESA over water rights in Upper Klamath 31–​32, 36–​38; hydraulic fracturing policy 79; leadership issues 200–​201; in Mexico 143–​145; MSW and 95–​96, 104–​105; NPS and 18, 20, 21, 26, 27; oil palm production and 183–​186, 189, 190–​191; Pilot Project and 49–​50; SLR and 47–​48; see also Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project); policy actors, research on beliefs and traits; public land management (US) renewable energy certificates (RECs) 23 “Report on Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act H B.148” (Utah Constitutional Defense Council and Utah’s Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office report) 67–​68 Reserved Right Doctrine 39 resilience policies 11–​12, 48, 166; see also Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project; environmental policy enforcement; oil palm production (Mexico) Rhodes, E 112–​113, 114–​115 Robertson, Edward 72 Rockefeller, John D. 72 Roosevelt, Franklin 72, 74 Roosevelt, Theodore 72, 76 Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) 185 rural communities: MSW and 100, 101–​102; oil palm production and 185, 186–​187, 189, 190, 191; see also Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico); marginalized communities; persuasive power; Upper Klamath Basin water management Russell, Bertrand 125 Index  211 Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) 115, 131 Sagebrush Rebellion 34, 67 Sahagún, Beatriz Venegas 9–​10 San Pedro Tlaquepaque, Mexico 96, 97, 98–​99, 101–​102, 105 scale issues see geographical and geopolitical scale issues Schelly, Chelsea 11 Scott, John 125, 146 sea level rise (SLR): Hampton Roads’ area vulnerability 49; planned adaptation to 47–​48, 50, 55; see also Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project) shale gas production 124, 133; see also hydraulic fracturing; persuasive power Sierra Papacal, Mexico 141–​146 Silent Spring (Carson) 112 Simons, Amelie 10–​11 Snyder, Patricia 8 Social Development Ministry (SEDESOL) 141 social dominance theory (SDT) 138–​139, 147 social justice issues 2, 3, 4, 5–​6; ICS distribution and 140, 142–​147; power inequalities 10–​11, 137–​139, 140, 142–​147, 195, 198–​200; termination policies 38, 39; see also environmental discrimination socio-​ecological resilience 48 soil management see manure treatment technologies sovereign power 125–​126, 127, 130–​131, 133–​134 stakeholder engagement: decision making and multiple stakeholders 4–​5; Pilot Project and 53–​54; strengthening 178–​179; sustainability certification and 185; see also Upper Klamath Basin water management State, Local and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience 50 state governance see regulatory authority statutory law 112, 116, 117, 118, 120 Steering Committee (Pilot Project) 50–​52, 56 subsidies see government subsidies Sucopo, Mexico 141–​146 Supreme Court, US: Antiquities Act challenged 72; Lucas v South Carolina 39; Penn Central Transportation Co v New York City 39, 132; Winters v United States 39 sustainability: defined 3–​4, 201 sustainability certification, third-​party 12, 182–​183, 184–​186, 188, 189–​191 Sweeney, J. 59 Tabasco, Mexico 183, 186–​188, 190 “Talking Points for Selling Oil and Gas Lease Rights” (the “Guidelines”) 124, 127, 128–​130 Taylor Grazing Act (1934) 67 technology-​driven solutions 1; biochar 7, 18, 21–​25, 26, 27; see also Improved Cookstove (ICS) dissemination programs (Mexico); manure treatment technologies timber harvesting 75 Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 113, 114, 116–​118, 119; burden of proof 112, 116–​117, 118; see also environmental discrimination Tlaquepaque, Mexico 96, 97, 98–​99, 101–​102, 105 total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 19–​20 Trump, Donald 71, 73, 75 Trump administration 42, 79 Udall, Stewart 67 United States 2–​3, 23; see also Colorado San Juan Basin, public land management project; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, U.S.); Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project); non-​point source (NPS) pollution, policy difficulties; public land management (US); Upper Klamath Basin water management US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) 111, 117 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 18, 25 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 33, 34, 65 United States Forest Service (USFS) 65, 69, 70, 75 United States v Adair (1983) 39 Upper Klamath Basin Comprehensive Agreement (UKBCA) 31, 35, 37, 40 Upper Klamath Basin water management 8, 30–​43, 196, 197; biological opinions research 33, 34–​35; drought as catalyst 30, 31–​34, 42; energy-​food-​water nexus and 40–​41, 42; ESA involvement 31–​33, 35, 36–​38, 170; fish, needs of 31–​35, 41, 42; irrigators, needs of 33–​34, 35, 37, 40, 42; 212 Index KBRA 31, 35–​38, 41–​42, 43; legal issues 30–​31, 38–​40, 42; map 32; timeline 42; tribes’ involvement 31, 34, 35–​40, 42–​ 43; UKBCA 31, 35, 37, 40; unintended consequences in 31–​33; see also irrigators (Upper Klamath) Upton, John 26 urban waste management see municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) Utah 68–​69, 73 Valles Caldera Preserve 70 voluntary agreements (VAs) 153–​166; compliance records in 159, 163–​164; as cooperation-​based 153–​154, 165; defined 153; internal and external conditions and 159–​160, 165; motivations for joining 161, 165; NPS and 18, 21, 26; principal–​ agent model 160–​161; resilience and 166; see also environmental policy enforcement Wall Street Journal 70 waste removal see municipal solid waste (MSW) management (Mexico) water policies 7–​8, 196; history of Western water law 30–​31; irrigation 32, 33–​35; see also Hampton Roads Intergovernmental Sea Level Rise and Resilience Pilot Planning Project (the Pilot Project); nutrient trading credits; Upper Klamath Basin water management water scarcity 8 watershed implementation plans (WIPs) 19–​20 Watt, James 67 Weber, Max 126 Wilbur, Ray Lyman 66 Wilderness Act (1964) 71 Wilson, Woodrow 75 Winters v United States (1908) 39 World Commission on Environment and Development 3, 201 World Energy Outlook 139 Wyatt, A. 74 Wyoming 72–​73 Yahooskin tribe 39 Yellowstone National Park 65 Yucatan, Mexico 141 Yurok Tribe 35 Yusuf, Juita-​Elena (Wie) 8, 59 Zapopan, Mexico 96, 97–​99, 101–​102, 105 Zinke, Ryan 71, 75 ... central theme of environmental justice and equity, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars of environmental policy and sustainability Chelsea Schelly is Associate Professor of. .. examination of the failure of the US EPA Office of Civil Rights to ensure environmental justice for poor and minority communities Amelie Simons The power of the talking points: persuasive power and the. .. Director of the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State University, USA He has written and edited three books and numerous articles on the environment and public lands, and was the chair of the