Public Organization Review

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 223–244 | Cite as

National Defense, Environmental Regulation, and Overhead Democracy: A View from the “Greening” of the U.S. Military

Article

Abstract

This study examines the patterns of politics accompanying efforts to hold the United States military accountable to U.S. environmental and natural resources (ENR) laws in the post-Cold War era. This analysis (1) uses three cases to describe what happened, and why, (2) to test several propositions related to military accountability to ENR laws in the post-Cold War era; (3) to offer a typology of tactics used that may help inform future research on intragovernmental regulation more generally; and (4) argues that public agencies have a responsibility to comply with the regulatory processes that hold them accountable to U.S. ENR laws.

Keywords

Bureaucracy and democracy Overhead democracy Environmental regulation Natural resources management National security The U.S. military 

References

  1. Davies, J. C., & Probst, K. (2001). Regulating government. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  2. Durant, R. F. (1985). When government regulates itself: EPA, TVA, and pollution control in the 1970s. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  3. Durant, R. F. (2007). The greening of the U.S. military: Environmental policy, national security, and organization change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Elmore, R. (1985). Forward and backward mapping: Reversible logic in the analysis of public policy. In K. Hanf & T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems: Questions of analysis and design (pp. 33–70). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  5. Henk, D. (2006). The environment, the U.S. military, and Southern Africa. Parameters (U.S. Army War College Quarterly), XXXVI(2), 98–117.Google Scholar
  6. Inside Washington Publishers. (1993). Health assessment agency seeks major new role in Superfund cleanup decisions. Inside EPA Weekly Report, 14(20), 10. also 1.Google Scholar
  7. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994a). Text: EPA issues paper on munitions rule. Defense Environment Alert, 2(18), 7–11.Google Scholar
  8. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994b). Superfund language could impose full liability on defense contractors. Defense Environment Alert, 2(18), 6.Google Scholar
  9. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994c). DOD to stick with munitions policy EPA says could result in violations. Defense Environment Alert, 2(16), 20.Google Scholar
  10. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994d). Army official warns stringent munitions regs could jeopardize operations. Defense Environment Alert, 2(25), 15.Google Scholar
  11. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994e). Court report says Air Force plans violate environmental law. Defense Environment Alert, 2(21), 6.Google Scholar
  12. Inside Washington Publishers. (1994f). EPA science board highlights plight of agency research program. Inside EPA Weekly Report, 15(19), 11–12.Google Scholar
  13. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995a). Military fears wildlife refuge bill could undermine DOD authority. Defense Environment Alert, 3(16), 14.Google Scholar
  14. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995b). Environmental attorney attacks EPA draft munitions rule. Defense Environment Alert, 3(13), 3–4.Google Scholar
  15. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995c). DOD submits own version of munitions rule to administration. Defense Environment Alert, 3(19), 4–5. 26–33.Google Scholar
  16. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995d). Air Force faces legal setback in plans for Idaho training range. Defense Environment Alert, 3(10), 17–18.Google Scholar
  17. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995e). DOE won’t back plan to amend Federal Facility Compliance Act. Defense Environment Alert, 3(18), 3.Google Scholar
  18. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995f). House panel devising Superfund reform proposal for DOD cleanup. Defense Environment Alert, 3(18), 4–5.Google Scholar
  19. Inside Washington Publishers. (1995g). DOD seeks legislation to allow use of DERA money at newly closing bases. Defense Environment Alert, 3(6), 4.Google Scholar
  20. Inside Washington Publishers. (1996a). Defense cleanup expert: Rule undermines government-citizen partnerships. Defense Environment Alert, 4(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
  21. Inside Washington Publishers. (1996b). State environmental officials protest DOD policy for closed ranges. Defense Environment Alert, 4(9), 8–9.Google Scholar
  22. Inside Washington Publishers. (1996c). Air Force to study impacts of enhanced training at Mountain Home. Defense Environment Alert, 4(3), 10.Google Scholar
  23. Inside Washington Publishers. (1996d). Environmentalists in Air Force NEPA case add new claims. Defense Environment Alert, 4(25), 19.Google Scholar
  24. Inside Washington Publishers. (1996e). Environmentalists revive arguments against Air Force’s Idaho range plan. Defense Environment Alert, 4(18), 17–18.Google Scholar
  25. Inside Washington Publishers. (1997a). Navy to help fund California study on air emissions from ships. Defense Environment Alert, 5(13), 14.Google Scholar
  26. Inside Washington Publishers. (1997b). BLM orders Navy to halt training flights over public lands in Nevada. Defense Environment Alert, 5(5), 7.Google Scholar
  27. Inside Washington Publishers. (1997c). DOD background paper on a national security provision for the proposed climate change protocol. Defense Environment Alert, 5(20), 4.Google Scholar
  28. Inside Washington Publishers. (1997d). EPA munitions rule draws mixed reviews from stakeholders, DOD. Defense Environment Alert, 5(4), 5–7.Google Scholar
  29. Inside Washington Publishers. (1997e). Idaho sets parameters for Air Force range expansion plans. Defense Environment Alert, 5(16), 11.Google Scholar
  30. Inside Washington Publishers. (1998a). Trustees voice concerns over EPA ecological risk management guidance. Defense Environment Alert, 6(24), 11.Google Scholar
  31. Inside Washington Publishers. (1998b). Reid, Inouye try to block Kempthorne’s Idaho Air Force range expansion. Defense Environment Alert, 6(10), 6.Google Scholar
  32. Inside Washington Publishers. (1998c). Idaho congressional delegation ready to push for expanded Air Force range. Defense Environment Alert, 6(3), 15–16.Google Scholar
  33. Inside Washington Publishers. (1998d). Environmentalists sue Air Force, Idaho over planned range expansion. Defense Environment Alert, 6(9), 12.Google Scholar
  34. Inside Washington Publishers. (1999a). EPA warns Defense Department of urgent need to address UXO issues. Defense Environment Alert, Special Report(May 6), 1–3.Google Scholar
  35. Inside Washington Publishers. (1999b). Regulators remain concerned about range rule risk methodology. Defense Environment Alert, 7(13), 3–4.Google Scholar
  36. Inside Washington Publishers. (1999c). Text: Excerpts of sovereign immunity report. Defense Environment Alert, 7(4), 16–20.Google Scholar
  37. Inside Washington Publishers. (1999d). Reps. DeGette, Norwood urge strengthening sovereign immunity waivers. Defense Environment Alert, 7(2), 17.Google Scholar
  38. Inside Washington Publishers. (2000a). Administration preparing legislation for Fort Irwin expansion. Defense Environment Alert, 8(6), 7.Google Scholar
  39. Inside Washington Publishers. (2000b). Inventory indicates DOD greenhouse gas emissions lowered. Defense Environment Alert, 8(5), 6–7.Google Scholar
  40. Inside Washington Publishers. (2000c). Citizens sue Air Force over lack of analysis of low-level flights. Defense Environment Alert, 8(3), 20–19.Google Scholar
  41. Inside Washington Publishers. (2001). DOI, DOD outline for Congress key elements of Fort Irwin expansion plan. Defense Environment Alert, 9(3), 8–10.Google Scholar
  42. Jablon, R. (2008). Navy sonar ban in Southern Calif. Upheld. Washington Post, March 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101099.html. Accessed 2 March 2008.
  43. Lazarus, R. J. (2004). The making of environmental law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Noskin, H., Carnes, R., & Schumann, P. (1992). When does RCRA apply to a CERCLA site? Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, 3(2), 173–178.Google Scholar
  45. Paehlke, R. (1991). Government regulating itself: A Canadian-American comparison. Administration and Society, 22(4), 424–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, J. Q., & Rachal, P. (1977). Can the government regulate itself? The Public Interest, 46(Winter), 3–14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AffairsAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations