The State Of The States

Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning

T H E S TAT E O F T H E S TAT E S

Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve

Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning

Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of Resource Renewal Institute

$

I believe that we are entering a new era of environmental politics—an era where the very nature of the problems we face challenges us to seek new strategies for success— particularly those that call for, and result in, greater individual responsibility and accountability for our air, land, and water. You cannot achieve that through regulation; you cannot achieve that through confrontation; you cannot achieve that through the courts. You can only achieve that through a collaborative and cooperative process that engages thousands of Oregonians and gives them a stake in the problem and some degree of ownership in the solution.

-Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber

Government must go beyond regulation and offer the vision, create the incentives, provide the tools, and support those who embrace the vision.

-Former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman

Let this generation in Maine be the one where we achieve a new model for our economy and our environment—one that is based on sustainability—in which we utilize resources for people today without comprising their availability and viability for our children and grandchildren.

-Maine Governor Angus King

Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green

T H E S TAT E O F States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning T H E S TAT E S Planning Assessing the Capacity of

Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning Assessing the Capacity Resource Renewal Institute A report of the Resource Renewal Institute August 2001

by Eric Siy Leo Koziol Darcy Rollins

© Copyright 2001 by the Resource Renewal Institute All rights reserved

Resource Renewal Institute Fort Mason Center, Pier One San Francisco, CA 94123 415.928.3774 (phone) 415.928.6529 (fax) www.rri.org

If you have any questions or comments on the substance of this report, or if you would like to receive a copy of the supplemental technical volume— Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis—please contact us. An important resource for all green plan practitioners is our website, where this report is posted, along with internet resources for all fifty states.

Resource Renewal Institute

$ Table of Contents Preface .............................................................................................................................................. i. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. iii. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ iv. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 I. The Imperative for State Leadership on Sustainability ...................................................................... 3 A. The Green Plan Model ...................................................................................................... 4 B. The Challenge of Achieving Sustainability in the United States ......................................... 7 II. Green Plan Capacity Across the Fifty States .................................................................................... 13 A. Overview of Research Results, By State ............................................................................. 20 B. Overview of Research Results, By Factor ........................................................................... 22 III. States on the Green Plan Path ....................................................................................................... 35 A. Oregon: Sowing the Seeds of a Green Plan ........................................................................ 35 B. New Jersey: Translating the Dutch Model .......................................................................... 37 C. Minnesota: The First U.S. Green Plan? ............................................................................. 40 IV. Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path .................................................................................... 45 A. Elements of a Sustainable State .......................................................................................... 48 B. Stepping Stones Toward a Sustainable State ....................................................................... 49 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix A: GPC Index Methodology and Data Tables .............................................................. 55 Appendix B: A Comparison of GPC Index Rankings with Existing Measures of State Environmental Quality and Socio-Economic Quality ...................................................... 67 Appendix C: State Legislation and Administrative Action Related to Sustainable Development............................................................................................. 71 Endnotes ............................................................................................................................................. 93 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 97 Online Resources ................................................................................................................................ 103 Resource Renewal Institute

List of Figures Figure 1. Previous State-Level Comparative Studies ............................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Sustainable Development as a Global Priority ...................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Structure of GPC Index Methodology.................................................................................. 2 Figure 4. Ten Defining Characteristics of Green Planning ................................................................... 5 Figure 5. Examples of U.S. Sustainability Initiatives ............................................................................ 8 Figure 6a. Green Plan Capacity Index Methodology Overview ........................................................... 14 Figure 6b. Green Plan Capacity Index: Distribution & Weighting ...................................................... 14 Figure 7. Green Plan Capacity (GPC) Index (map) ............................................................................. 23 Figure 8. Leading State Environmental Agency Websites ..................................................................... 25 Figure 9. Pollution Prevention Programs (map) ................................................................................... 27 Figure 10. Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables (map) .................................................................. 27 Figure 11. National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) (map) ........................ 29 Figure 12. Climate Change Action Plans and Greenhouse Gas Inventories (map) ............................... 29 Figure 13. Governance Grade (map) ................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14. Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index (map) ............................................... 32 Figure 15. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index (map) .............................................................. 32 Figure 16. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index (map) ............................................................ 33 Figure 17. Governance Sub-Index (map) ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 18. New Jersey’s Sustainability Accomplishments ..................................................................... 39 Figure 19. Environmental Threats and Challenges .............................................................................. 46 Figure 20. State of the World Environment 1950-1997 (World Resources Institute) ........................... 47 Figure 21. Vision Statement & Principles of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative ...................................................................................................... 52

List of Tables Table 1. Overview Of Research Results – Selected Indicators, GPC Index .......................................... 16 Table 2. Sustainability Plans and State of the Environment Reports, An Overview.............................. 26 Appendix A Table 3. Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index .............................................................. 60 Table 4. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index ......................................................................... 61 Table 5. Fiscal and Program Commitment Sub-Index ......................................................................... 62 Table 6. Governance Sub-Index .......................................................................................................... 63 Table 7. GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked ...................................................................................... 64 Table 8. GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked ..................................................................................... 65 Appendix B Table 9. Comparison o f GPC Index and Supplemental Index Rankings ............................................. 68

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Preface The purpose of this report is to bring greater attention to the important and evolving role of states in safeguarding the nation’s environmental health and in determining how society will develop in the future. It is intended to help policy makers and opinion leaders develop solutions to increasingly complex environmental, social, and economic problems. Provided is an overview of the policies and programs now being employed in each of the 50 states and an assessment of how these actions are contributing to the ability of states to pursue sustainable development. The State of the States offers a composite picture of the present and a lighted view of the path leading toward a sustainable future. In order to compare the performance of individual states, we have developed the Green Plan Capacity Index (GPC Index), a multi-faceted measure that uses 65 indicators to examine four fundamental components of sustainable development: 1) the environmental management framework, 2) environmental policy innovation, 3) fiscal and program commitment, and 4) quality of governance. Accompanying this state-by-state analysis are detailed case studies of Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota—three leaders nationally in applying the sustainable principles of green planning. Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) has served as a catalyst for the progress being made in each of these states. Green plans are long-term, comprehensive environmental management strategies aimed at achieving environmental and economic sustainability. Their effectiveness is being demonstrated in a growing number of locations worldwide, including the Netherlands and New Zealand. In fact, the success of green planning abroad has been a primary source of inspiration for sustainability initiatives in this country, particularly at the state level. As an established strategy with quantifiable attributes, green planning provides a stable foundation for this study. A key tenet of sustainable development is the integration of economic, environmental, and social issues. Although the overarching goal of both RRI and this report is to advance sustainable development, green plans and the GPC Index are weighted toward the environment. This reflects both history and practical reality. While modern thinking has expanded to encompass the concept of sustainability, our capacity to manage for it is just beginning to take shape. Because of the complex nature of environmental issues, the integrated and long-term strategies required for green planning are best developed in the environmental arena. This reality is reflected in the current parameters of the GPC Index. In the vanguard of green planning, many countries in the European Union, and some U.S. states, are beginning to develop integrated sustainability programs—simultaneously managing economic, environmental, and social systems. As these programs become established, we anticipate the advent of new indices that provide an even fuller account of where governments are and where they need to be.

Resource Renewal Institute

i

The development of this report required the creation of an entirely new methodology. In designing the GPC Index, we were confronted with various limitations that ranged from inconsistent data quality to a lack of information for all 50 states. For a number of relevant factors—such as the existence of watershed-based planning—reliable data for every state was not readily available. While this may have diminished the diversity of indicators used, it did not prevent us from achieving our research goals for each of the four components examined. A more detailed discussion of the data limitations is provided in Section II. Another significant challenge was accounting for the very real differences that exist among states. Wide variations in size, demographics, economics, and other characteristics made direct comparison difficult. As Steve Brown of the Environmental Council of the States points out, “States with less environmental degradation are less pressed to conduct the sorts of policy initiatives they are being graded on” and therefore may be ranked lower than deserved. This fundamental concern was addressed by not pinning a state’s ranking on a single measure, but rather on a range of factors that together provide a fair representation of individual state actions and performance. In addition, a separate analysis of state environmental quality is presented in Appendix B, to distinguish green plan capacity from current environmental conditions. While RRI has made every effort to conduct a rigorous GPC analysis, certain subjective interpretations were necessary, as conveyed in the description of our methodology (Appendix A). Methodological refinements may be required in subsequent editions of this report. It was clear when we began this project that significant hurdles would be encountered along the way. In addition to limitations in the availability and comparability of data, there were also limitations in the means for measuring the capacity to achieve sustainability, and in the resources that our small organization could devote to this venture. Paul Burnet of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality summed up the formidable nature of this task in his review of the report, noting that “Trying to understand, let alone quantify, the factors that make a state or community the way it is can be very difficult. I applaud your efforts…and commend you on an ambitious piece of work.” Ultimately, The State of the States presents the best information available for determining the readiness of states to address and attain sustainable development. We offer this initial analysis not as a finished product, but as a work in progress, a first step toward understanding the crucial role states can play in securing the nation’s quality of life into the 21st century. As the report makes clear, the path to a sustainable future is fraught with ups and downs and twists and turns, but it is one that more and more states seek to travel. It is our hope that this report will stimulate a state-to-state interchange that leads to the deliberate and shared pursuit of sustainable states and a sustainable nation.

ii

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Acknowledgements RRI first thanks the institutions and individuals whose generous support of RRI’s state advocacy and education efforts made this report possible. They include: Bank of America; Columbia Foundation; G.A.G. Charitable Corporation; the Fred Gellert Family Foundation; The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, Inc.; Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund; The Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation; the Ittleson Foundation, Inc.; the New York Community Trust, Bob and Blaikie Worth; the New York Times Company Foundation; Patagonia, Inc.; the Rockefeller Family Fund, Inc.; the San Francisco Foundation, Green Tomorrow Fund; Seven Springs Foundation; Springcreek Foundation; and the Surdna Foundation. We are also grateful to our friends at the Tellus Institute—James Goldstein, Jeanne Herb, and Allen White—for their instrumental role in developing the methodology to assess state Green Plan Capacity. Their gracious contribution of time and talent enabled RRI’s small staff to take on this enormous project. Special thanks to our esteemed group of reviewers. Their thoughtful comments greatly enhanced the content and relevance of this report. The reviewers are: R. Steven Brown (Deputy Executive Director, Environmental Council of the States); Paul Burnet (Manager, Special Projects, Office of the Director, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality); Ira Feldman (President, Greentrack Strategies, Inc.); James Goldstein (Director, Sustainable Communities Group, Tellus Institute); Jeanne Herb (Senior Scientist and Manager, Public Policy Program, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute); Diana M. Hinchcliff , Esq. (President, New York State Chemical Alliance); Ken Jones (Executive Director, Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy); Peggy Lauer (Executive Director, The Fred Gellert Family Foundation); David Moore (RRI advisor and former Executive Director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation); Kenneth Pokalsky (Director, Environmental and Regulatory Programs, New York Business Council); Jerry Speir (Director, Tulane Institute for Environmental Law and Policy); Paul Templet (Professor, Environmental Studies Program, Louisiana State University); John Wells (Sustainable Development Director, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Sustainable Development Initiative); and Allen L. White, Ph.D. (Vice President and Director, Business and Sustainability Group, Tellus Institute). (The Resource Renewal Institute is solely responsible for the report’s accuracy and content.) Also, many thanks to Miriam Landman for her deft editing and handling of the countless details involved in finalizing the document and to Kathy Woodruff and Jennifer Broughton for design and layout. Finally, we pay tribute to the visionary leaders of the Netherlands, New Zealand, and other green plan nations. Their remarkable achievements are inspiring action globally and, as reported here, in a number of U.S. states. It is our hope that the strides being made by these states can do for the country what green plan nations are doing for the world. Resource Renewal Institute

iii

Executive Summary The State of the States: Assessing the Capacity of States to Achieve Sustainable Development Through Green Planning provides the most comprehensive appraisal yet undertaken of individual state preparedness to implement sustainability as integral public policy. It does so through the lens of green planning, a widely applied sustainable development strategy. The report is part of Resource Renewal Institute’s (RRI’s) Campaign for a Sustainable Future, an education and advocacy effort aimed at ushering in a new generation of environmental achievement. This report is divided into four sections: I. The Imperative for State Leadership on Sustainability Includes an introductory overview of green planning, focusing on the Netherlands and New Zealand. Discusses the potential for national green planning in the U.S., limitations in progress to date, and future barriers to progress. Sets out why action at the state level is now key to advancing the sustainable development agenda. II. A Survey of Green Plan Capacity Across the 50 States Analysis of the capacity of states to achieve sustainability through green planning, applying the multi-faceted Green Plan Capacity Index. Provides the GPC Index rankings of states and descriptions of the individual indicators that together make up the Index. Numerous graphics included to illustrate the standing of states and the geographic distribution of indicators. III. States on the Green Plan Path Individual profiles of three states making progress along the green plan path—Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota. IV. Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path Provides a summary of the essential elements of a sustainable state and a guiding set of actions and examples for states wishing to embark on the green plan path. Following these sections are extensive appendices where more detailed information can be found on the GPC Index and on the strategies being undertaken by states to address sustainable development. Green plans engage all sectors—business, government, non-governmental organizations, and the general public—in a deliberate process to solve the complex environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten future quality of life. Green planning represents an evolution of environmental management practices that go beyond regulatory compliance to make sustainable development the driving objective. Green plans are being instituted in a growing number of nations worldwide, most notably the Netherlands and New Zealand, with remarkable results. Inspired by these international examples, a handful of states in this country have been developing green plan initiatives of their own.

iv

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Acute recognition of the need for more effective environmental policies—as well as increased awareness of the interconnected nature of economic, environmental, and social problems—are accelerating the push for public policy and public decision-making systems that are grounded in the cooperative and integrated principles of green planning. In the United States, nowhere is this activity more apparent than in the growing number of state governments that are setting the pace for lasting change, an encouraging trend that carries with it the promise of a sustainable future. Never have states played a more central role than they do today in safeguarding the nation’s environmental health, yet little has been done to assess whether existing state policies and programs are adequate to achieve sustainable development—“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” In an effort to fill this void, RRI, with technical guidance from the Tellus Institute, has developed the Green Plan Capacity Index, a tool that measures four core attributes of effective environmental management and successful green planning: • • • •

strength of the environmental management framework; level of environmental policy innovation; fiscal and program commitment; and quality of governance.

Although sustainability is broader than these four attributes, proficiency in these areas provides a good indication of a state’s ability to develop and institute working strategies to realize sustainable development. The programs assessed in this report generally require states to evaluate public issues from a systems perspective, adopt a long time horizon, and integrate solutions over a wide range of issues. In essence, the report analyzes states’ capacity to understand and act on sustainable development. Comprising the Green Plan Capacity Index are 65 factors that cover a broad range of available information, from the existence of climate change action plans and state of the environment reports to the quality of pollution prevention and recycling programs, levels of environmental funding, and caliber of management. Each of these factors contributes to a state’s overall environmental performance. Together, they paint a clearer picture of how far states have come and how much further they must go to secure lasting protection of the environment. Overall, the report finds that: •

State environmental policy in the United States is at a crossroads. A select group of states is leading the way in creating effective environmental management models and establishing policies that, in many cases, take state environmental programs beyond federal mandates. At the same time, however, most states lag well behind in preparing themselves for increasingly complex environmental problems that can only be solved with new strategies. Resource Renewal Institute

v

•

•

•

•

Despite their expanding role as stewards of the environment, the vast majority of states lack the necessary capacity to implement green plans and actively pursue sustainable development. Only seven states received more than half of the 100 points possible in the Green Plan Capacity Index. Oregon ranked number one with 73 points, followed by New Jersey (71), Minnesota (64), Maine (59), Washington (57), Massachusetts (57), and Vermont (55). Worth noting is the nonpartisan nature of their achievements. Of the top seven states, three of the governors are Democrats, two are Republicans, and two are Independents. States that have made the greatest progress in developing sustainability strategies have derived major aspects of their programs from the examples provided by countries with established green plans. For example, leaders in Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota have visited either the Netherlands or New Zealand and have hosted Dutch delegations in their states. In the case of New Jersey, a working relationship has been established with the Dutch government that has, among other collaborations, resulted in joint action on climate change. Most states are working to improve their environmental performance on specific fronts—smart growth, water quality, brownfields clean-up, land acquisition, etc.— but few have worked to integrate these efforts as pieces of the larger sustainability puzzle that needs to be assembled. Moreover, nearly all states have failed to link environmental protection efforts to the other defining elements of sustainable development—economic security and social equity. While there is much room for improvement and cause for concern, there is also good reason to be optimistic. States have become incubators for an array of innovative new strategies, often self-funded, to address pressing environmental needs. Pollution prevention, regulatory integration, and economic incentives for improved environmental performance are three areas in which states are making meaningful strides to increase their effectiveness—with or without help from the federal government. They are also key features of green planning. As the compelling benefits of these and other innovations become clear, it can be expected that many more states will act to adopt improved policies of their own and, for optimal results, to do so within the context of green planning.

The following are some of the report’s specific findings: 1. On the strength of a state’s environmental management framework •

vi

A variety of indicators of adequate infrastructure and institutional capacity were considered. In descending order, the top 10 states are Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, Florida, Maine, Vermont, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Over half have state planning offices, either focused on land-use (such as New Jersey) or inclusive of broader environmental sustainability objectives (such as Minnesota). Most have excellent environmental agency websites, with many, such as Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

•

Minnesota, providing comprehensive environmental databases. Almost all have strong state planning roles with supporting legislation. As of the release of this report, only Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota had documents and strategies in place that encompass major elements of green planning. These include New Jersey’s cross-sector Sustainable State strategy and Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan. Minnesota’s sustainability plan is somewhat out of date, having been prepared in 1998 by the Governor’s Sustainability Roundtable, which is no longer in existence.

Three States Sowing the Seeds of Green Planning Oregon: As the top ranking state for green plan capacity, Oregon has long been a national leader on environmental issues. It was the first state to introduce a bottle bill; the first to institute statewide urban growth management legislation; and the first to create a regional metropolitan planning agency (Portland Metro). With the work of its Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, Governor Kitzhaber’s executive order on making state operations sustainable, and a comprehensive state of the environment report, Oregon is poised to lead the nation to a new level of management capacity that promises to bring sustainable development within reach. Most encouraging is the fact that these efforts enjoy strong support from the state’s residents. According to a poll of registered voters conducted in March 2000, a clear majority of Oregonians—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike—believe that now is the time to act decisively on behalf of sustainable development. New Jersey: Two initiatives in particular demonstrate New Jersey’s leadership in working to shape a sustainable future. First is the state’s Development and Redevelopment Plan, prepared in 1992, which provides a widely supported blueprint for smart growth. Complementing this effort is the Sustainable State Project, launched in 1999 to guide public and private leaders in developing new policies that meet the state’s long-term socio-economic and environmental needs. Both endeavors are products of extensive public outreach. New Jersey does not yet have an official green plan, but no other state has done more to learn about and incorporate green planning principles, especially in the areas of flexible, goal-oriented environmental regulation and statewide land use and transportation planning. Yet, despite these advances, the Sustainable State Project report rightly concludes that “much work remains to be done if we are to see this project bear sustainable fruit.” Minnesota: Like New Jersey, by scrutinizing the ways in which the environment, the economy, and human communities are interrelated, Minnesota has moved forward on the path to a sustainable future. The state offers a good model of how to secure the broad participation necessary to make sustainable development policies a reality. Minnesota has used administrative and legislative action to establish an impressive framework for sustainable development. In keeping with the state’s clear vision and principles, the Sustainable Forest Resources Act, Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, and Environmental Regulatory Improvement Act are examples of Minnesota’s commitment to the three E’s of sustainable development—a healthy Environment, social Equity, and Economic security. Success in bringing about the changes called for in the state’s strategic plan, “Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota,” will require continued leadership from the public and private interests that have been responsible for the important strides already made.

Resource Renewal Institute

vii

•

•

•

As of May 2000, 31 states had comprehensive and recently-published state of the environment reports (SoE’s), with a number of these states weaving their reporting into broader sustainability initiatives. Defined in this study as a comprehensive assessment of a state’s environmental resources, state of the environment reports provide the foundation for a well-informed green planning process and a vehicle for ongoing monitoring of and reporting on progress. Each of the 10 highest ranking states have strong SoE reports. Four states—Iowa, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Illinois—marked Earth Day 2000 with the release of SoE reports. Oregon and Michigan are notable for their creation of science boards to inform the content of their state of the environment reports. Twenty-five states have offices with a statewide planning function. Of these, the majority (15) are focused primarily on long-term budget strategy and development of performance measures for state operations. Some of the budget-focused offices are demonstrating noteworthy leadership, such as Missouri’s Center for Performance Innovation with its online Show Me Results indicators program. Six states have state planning offices focused on land use and transportation planning that are grappling with sprawl and smart growth. Five states (Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania) have organizations addressing statewide sustainability planning. The Minnesota Planning agency warrants special mention as it has the most comprehensive forecasting, planning, and sustainability research operation of any state. States have expanded their environmental management role through federally delegable programs under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. All but six states in the U.S. have over half of the eligible programs specified under these Acts delegated to them, with 31 states having over two-thirds of such programs delegated. This indicator reflects, in part, a state’s commitment to managing their environment and strengthening the ability of their environmental agencies.

2. On the level of environmental policy innovation: •

•

viii

For the indicators selected (including policies on air quality, pollution prevention, energy, climate change, waste management, land use planning, cooperative agreements, and public disclosure), the top 10 states are Massachusetts, Maine, New York, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Washington. All 50 states have some form of pollution prevention program in place, with 38 states having specific supporting legislation in place. Of these, only 17 have reporting requirements for industry and only in 14 states does the legislation provide funding specifically for the P2 programs. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota have noteworthy pollution prevention programs. Moving from pollution control to pollution prevention is a guiding tenet of green planning. Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

•

•

•

$

A number of states, usually in tandem with ongoing electricity market restructuring programs, are integrating support for renewable energy into their policy frameworks. The report cites special standards and funds that encourage renewable electricity development as the two policy strategies that will have the greatest effect in moving states toward more sustainable energy sources. To date, six states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—have adopted both of these strategies. Thirty-eight states have signed National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) agreements. Set up in 1995 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environmental Council of the States, this program is intended to grant states increased flexibility in administering federal environmental statutes. NEPPS possesses features actually derived from the green plan model. Most important, like green plans, the program emphasizes management for results through its use of long-term goals and indicators to measure progress. States possessing strong green plan capacity, in particular New Jersey, have benefited most from the NEPPS program. Global climate change is emerging as a topic of major concern across the 50 states and, through the support of the EPA, 34 states have developed inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and 25 have climate change action plans. Although these reports are important indicators of climate change awareness, the substantive response varies from state to state. In some states, such as New Jersey, state agencies have done an impressive job of implementing their plans; while in others, including New York, California, and Minnesota, leadership is instead coming from researchers in the nonprofit sector.

3. On fiscal and program commitment: •

The 10 leaders in this sub-index are Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, New York, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Florida. Measures considered include environmental agency budgets, funding for public transit, and commitment to open space protection and to recycling. States with high per capita spending on environmental programs are Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Delaware, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. States with strong commitment to public transit funding include Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Illinois. States leading the way on recycling and waste management include Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota, all of which have set high recycling targets (over 50% of solid waste recycled) and are well on the way to achieving them (recycling more than 40%).

4. On the quality of governance: •

The top states in this sub-index are Missouri, Virginia, Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Used here are the results of a state governance survey done by Governing Resource Renewal Institute

ix

magazine. The survey examined a broad range of state government factors, including financial management, capital management, and managing for results. For our purposes, the most important of these is managing for results, which indicates adoption and implementation of strategic planning within state governments. On green procurement programs, another indicator employed in this category, a total of six states have comprehensive plans in place for “environmentally friendly” state government purchasing and operations. In New Jersey and Oregon, these initiatives are supported by executive order. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and Minnesota also have comprehensive green procurement plans. In assessing state environmental activities in the above four areas, The State of the States endeavors to provide a common baseline of where the country stands in employing strategies that can ultimately lead to sustainable development. According to the report, arriving at this goal is a threefold proposition: •

•

•

First, efforts must be made to expedite expanding interest and initiative by establishing an interstate communication network that informs states of ongoing progress in every region of the country. The network should function as an organizing vehicle for regional and national interchange. Participating entities should include, among others, the Environmental Council of the States, the Multi-State Working Group, the Council of State Governments, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. Second, to optimize the potential of these activities, green planning should be the common thread that weaves them together, ensuring consistency and coordination of sustainable development programs across state lines. High priority should therefore be placed on equipping state leaders with the knowledge and skills required to apply the green plan methodology. Third, the federal government must serve as chief facilitator of the transition to a regulatory system that applies the green plan model. Working with states and the private sector, a system of national environmental targets and long-term goals needs to be established that provide the basis for coordinated and efficient action.

The report’s final section, on “Stepping Stones Toward a Sustainable State,” provides a practical plan of action that fuses the major features of green planning with applied examples drawn from highlighted state initiatives. These steps can help any state begin the determined pursuit of a sustainable future.

x

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Introduction Providing the impetus for this report is the pressing need to better understand the contributions being made by states in developing and implementing sustainable environmental policies. Increasingly, states are at the forefront in seeking solutions to complex environmental problems, yet little focus has been given to how well states are doing and what more needs to be done. The State of the States seeks to fill this void with a 50-state survey that begins the process of achieving a collective view of state actions and their overall impact on the nation’s environmental health.

The State of the States builds upon the findings and methodologies of a number of earlier studies, including the Green Index1 and the Gold and Green 2000, 2 which provided at least some comparisons of state environmental policies. (See Figure 1.) The State of the States provides an updated and expanded view of state policies and their shifting emphasis toward sustainability. To assess the state of the states, RRI has investigated the preparedness of states to embrace the goals of sustainable development and implement green planning, a strategy conceived with

Figure 1. Previous State-Level Comparative Studies • In 2000, the Institute for Southern Studies in Durham, North Carolina, released its second Gold and Green report. This study compiles 20 indicators of economic performance and 20 indicators of environmental performance and finds a significant correlation between the two factors. • The Sierra Club developed a Sprawl Index for the 50 states that was released in a 1999 report titled Solving Sprawl.1 The report ranks states according to their relative progress on four factors: open space protection, land use planning, transportation planning, and community revitalization. It also inventories the existence of statewide comprehensive planning and open space protection legislation, two factors that are incorporated into the GPC Index. • There are numerous studies that focus on economic and social indicators across the states. One of the more comprehensive of these was the Development Report Card undertaken by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, an entity that recognizes the need to incorporate the principles of sustainability into economic indicators.2 Their index for 1999 measures development capacity, business vitality, and performance in all 50 states, and clearly denotes how these measures are linked to and affected by state policy. In particular, the index attempts to integrate sustainability and environmental factors with the economic and social factors examined.3 • A comprehensive study of state-level governance is undertaken annually by Governing magazine. This study, which is based on hundreds of state agency interviews, ranks states according to the following factors: financial management, capital management, human resources, information technology, and managing for results. Of these, the measure of greatest relevance to green planning is managing for results. States that are already instituting goal-oriented planning may be the most receptive to the green planning approach.4

1. Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., 1999. 2. Development Report Card for the States: Economic Benchmarks for State and Corporate Decision Makers. Corporation for Enterprise Development, Washington D.C., 1999. Also see: The State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States, Progressive Policy Institute, Technology and New Economy Project, Washington, D.C., 1999. 3. The Report Card included “resource efficiency and quality of life [sub-indices]… to reflect [our] view that economic development in the new millennium must be sustainable development.” 4. Another survey of goal-oriented planning within states focuses upon environmental planning: the State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project. This study has not been updated since 1995. Website: http://www.fcpm.fsu.edu/segip.html

Resource Renewal Institute

1

sustainability as its overarching purpose. Green plans are proving their effectiveness in a growing number of locations, including the Netherlands and New Zealand whose plans are highlighted in this report.

Figure 2. Sustainable Development as a Global Priority • Since the 1987 publication of “Our Common Future,” the report of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, nations around the world have been contemplating how they might achieve the goal of sustainable development, not just for their own citizens but for the world as a whole. This document, better known as the Brundtland Report, defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” • The need for international action on sustainable development was formally recognized at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992—the Earth Summit. The defining work of the conference, the Agenda 21 action plan, was adopted by 179 nations, including the United States, and declared that: “Governments should adopt a national strategy for sustainable development... Its goals should be to insure socially responsible economic development while protecting the resource base and the environment for the benefit of future generations.” The goals of sustainable development are Figure sometimes described as the “Three E’s” of Environmental quality, Economic development, and social Equity. Index • Leading the world in the effort to apply these words in spirit and in deed are nations that have developed and instituted green plans. The substantive results of green planning in the Netherlands, New Zealand, and other locations, are inspiring nations, states, and communities to forge green plan strategies of their own. The most promising state initiatives in the U.S. are featured in this report.

2

In the course of this study, we endeavored to develop new analytical measures that enable meaningful comparisons to be made across state boundaries. The centerpiece of this work is the Green Plan Capacity Index (GPC Index), which evaluates the relative ability of states to pursue sustainable development using the established principles of green planning as its basis. A description of the GPC Index is provided in Section II of this report, and details on the research methodology are provided in Appendix A. (A more extensive review of the indicators comprising the GPC Index can be found in a supplemental technical volume, Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis, which is available upon request or at www.rri.org.) Figure 3 shows the basic structure of the GPC Index. The GPC Index is complemented by the Institute for Southern Studies’ Gold and Green indices, which rank the 50 states according to socio-economic performance and environmental quality. The Gold and Green rankings indicate that there is a positive relationship between high socio-economic performance and high environmental quality. Furthermore, a comparison of these rankings with the GPC Index shows some overlap between states that perform well socio-economically and environmentally and states that have a significant level of green planning capacity. (See Appendix B.)

3. Structure of GPC Index Methodology GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX

$

Sub Indices (“attributes”)

Indicators

Framework Innovation Commitment 25 Indicators 25 Indicators 8 Indicators

Governance 7 Indicators

Note: See Figure 6 and Appendix A for further details on research methodology

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

I

The Imperative for State Leadership on Sustainability

Among the numerous papers presented at the 1999 National Town Meeting on Sustainable Development in Detroit was a report describing how the United States can successfully implement the principles of sustainable development—not in Washington, D.C., but in each of the 50 states.3 The study concludes, “if the U.S. is going to take sustainable development seriously, states will have to be key players.” The report, which features the sustainability efforts of five leading states,4 explains why this is so: “States have major control over land use, transportation, energy regulation, and economic development, while they are the front-line implementers of most federal and state environmental laws.” Amplifying the importance of these basic facts is a well-documented devolution of environmental responsibility from federal to state and local governments that has states shouldering an unprecedented share of the work being done to protect the nation’s environment.5 This shift is being viewed as both a threat to the status quo and an opportunity for much needed reform of a regulatory system that is realizing its limits. In either case, without decisive action, the changes underway stand to undermine our collective ability to safeguard the nation’s environment. As a leading advocate for sustainable development, the Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) has recognized the opportunity of this propitious moment and, in these pages, offers the basis for a fresh approach that capitalizes on the ascendancy of states and the steadily expanding interest in applying the principles of sustainable development. The State of the States provides the most comprehensive appraisal yet attempted of states’ capacity for achieving sustainability. It does so through the lens of an innovative environmental management strategy that is proving its value in a growing number of places worldwide. Known as “green planning,” this

approach offers the promise of transforming environmental policy in the U.S.—from the short-term, singleissue, conflict-based measures that typify conventional protection efforts to the long-term, integrated, and cooperative policies required for sustainable development to be achieved. Green plans are long-term environmental management strategies that have the ultimate aim of achieving environmental and economic sustainability—whether for a city, state, region, or nation. Like business plans, green plans guide the efficient use and intelligent investment of resources into the future. Those places with established green plans are demonstrating that a healthy environment, enhanced quality of life, and a vibrant economy not only can coexist, but must coexist to remain viable over time. Common to all successful green plans are four core attributes: • • • •

a strong management framework; the continuous pursuit of innovation; an unwavering commitment to the goals of sustainable development; and effective governance and leadership.

Indeed, it is these four factors that RRI has inventoried in assessing the capacity of states to develop and implement the green plan model. The details of how this has been done and why these elements are essential to the process follow in the next section. The State of the States underscores the compelling need for a new generation of environmental policies in the United States that are expressly created to achieve sustainable development. Green planning is the vehicle for getting us there and states are well positioned to take the wheel.

Resource Renewal Institute

3

A. THE GREEN PLAN MODEL Accelerating environmental decline, in this country and around the world, poses one of the greatest problems of our time. Today, despite growing environmental awareness, the United States has become the least sustainable society on Earth. Each year, each one of us generates more than one million pounds of waste— from land-filled carpeting to carbon dioxide. Discarded food alone amounts to 28 billion pounds annually. If everyone in the world lived and consumed as we do, it would take the resources of three planet Earths to support all of us.6 In response to the problem—and in growing recognition of the fact that conventional strategies are inadequate to the task—the principles of sustainable development are being learned and spoken like a new language: by communities seeking to improve their quality of life, by companies pursuing benefits to their bottom lines, by entire countries trying to follow through on commitments made at the United Nations’ Earth Summit in 1992, and, indeed, by states trying to solve increasingly complex problems. The momentum created by all of this activity offers extraordinary potential for resolving our environmental dilemma. Yet, without a unifying vision and sense of purpose, the sum of these efforts will not be enough for an enduring recovery. Green plans provide the framework needed to harness the potential that now exists and channel it toward development of a sustainable future.7 Green plans are comprehensive and integrated strategies for the deliberate pursuit of sustainable development that involve each sector—government, business, and the NGO community—as partners in developing and implementing a plan’s provisions. Also known as strategic environmental management, green planning applies the business model of “managing for results” to achieve long-term environmental and economic goals and to secure a high quality of life for present and future generations. The green plan model is comprehensive because it embraces integrated problem-solving for all environ-

4

mental and resource issues, across media and across geographical boundaries. Green plans also integrate environmental efforts across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries, providing a framework to coordinate activities among, for example, competing government agencies or industries. Success is not measured by imposing one agenda over another, but by finding solutions that integrate many needs and concerns. Green plans accomplish this complicated task through the use of systems analysis, a discipline that dissects complex problems into basic elements and subsystems. Only in this way can the underlying interrelationships and patterns of change at the root of a problem be properly evaluated for the development of an effective response. Systems analysis sets the stage for crafting a strategic environmental management plan that enables a city, state, region, or nation to move toward a shared vision of the future. Green plans represent the next generation of environmental policy, a necessary evolution that picks up where conventional measures leave off. Hence, green planning is not an avenue for getting around existing rules and regulations. Fundamental to any green plan is the stand-still principle, meaning that environmental quality must not deteriorate below current levels. Standards that have already been established by regulation should thus be viewed as the floor. Green plans seek to redefine the ceiling by offering the regulated community meaningful incentives for moving beyond compliance. These include streamlining the permitting process, allowing for flexibility in achieving targeted objectives, and creating a long-term—and therefore predictable—regulatory environment. Rather than rejecting the benefits of traditional regulatory approaches, green planning strikes an important balance that better serves all parties involved. Two nations, the Netherlands and New Zealand, offer compelling examples of how green planning can be applied for the benefit of the economy and the environment alike. Improved governance, environmental protection, and economic performance are being realized in both countries. Their groundbreaking efforts have

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

inspired other nations along with a number of U.S. states to actively develop green plan initiatives of their own. Indeed, the small scale of the Netherlands and New Zealand makes their progress especially relevant to states. As is made clear in the descriptions of the Dutch and New Zealand models below, no two green plans are alike. Replicating the green plan of one nation (or state) for application in another is simply not possible. Individual environmental, economic, political, cultural, and social needs require distinct application of the general characteristics outlined in Figure 4.

The Netherlands: Achieving Environmental and Economic Progress With life-threatening environmental problems brought on by congestion and heavy industry, the Netherlands is a microcosm of the threats facing much of the planet. Home of the world’s busiest port (Rotterdam) and a $30 billion a year chemical industry, all sectors of Dutch society are pulling together to achieve environmental recovery within one generation: 25 years.

Figure 4. Ten Defining Characteristics of Green Plans 1. Long-term. All green plans represent a society’s ongoing commitment to the goal of sustainable development, as defined in the Brundtland Report of 1987. 2. Comprehensive. Green plans are management solutions that address the full array of priority issues, across media (e.g., air, water, land) and their impacts on the environment, economy, and society as a whole. 3. Dynamic. Green plans are capable of adapting to evolving problems, ideas, goals, and information without radical changes to their structure and function. 4. Cooperative. To develop a green plan, all facets of the community, all types of businesses, and all branches of government participate in a process of developing trust, identifying common values, and working toward a shared vision of the future. 5. Integrated. Green planning enables a fusion of economic, environmental, and societal needs by accounting for the many complex interrelationships that together determine quality of life. This process is made possible through systems analysis, a discipline that dissects complicated problems into basic elements and subsystems that form the basis for successful solutions. 6. Informed. Policy decisions are guided by a reliable information base that aggregates environmental, economic, and societal conditions in order to accurately depict significant trends (past, present, and future) and devise a responsive set of new programs. 7. Flexible. In exchange for a commitment to realizing targeted environmental goals and objectives, green plans provide participants with more freedom in developing the necessary technical and/or institutional improvements. The longterm nature of this arrangement creates a more stable and predictable regulatory environment that benefits all parties. 8. Strategic. Like business plans for companies, green plans apply a strategic management approach, with a continuous process of setting goals, developing timelines, and monitoring and reporting on results. 9. Results-Oriented. Green plans demand the level of focused and resolute initiative necessary for the deliberate pursuit of sustainable development. 10. Investment-intensive. To be effectively implemented, green plans require adequate funding from both government and industry, recognizing that the stakes of a sustainable future could not be higher and that success mandates a substantial long-term investment.

Resource Renewal Institute

5

In the Netherlands, all the elements of successful green planning have come together to make environmental recovery a reality. The Netherlands possesses the most advanced framework for achieving sustainability of any industrialized nation: the National Environmental Policy Plan, or NEPP, which was first adopted in 1989 and is now in its fourth incarnation. The NEPP is supported by innovative environmental management approaches with a reliable fiscal commitment and strategic governance that is highly accountable to its participatory citizenry. It was the release of a comprehensive state of the environment report, Concern for Tomorrow,8 that precipitated the creation and implementation of the NEPP. Prepared by the National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, an independent research group, the report predicted dire consequences—including loss of groundwater within one generation—if immediate steps were not taken. At the time, public concern was already heightened by the death of seals in the North Sea and by the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Queen Beatrix raised awareness by making the impending environmental crisis the topic of her annual address to the nation.9 Not only does the Dutch green plan integrate all environmental issues into one coherent, ecosystembased policy, it integrates them with human factors like public health and the economy. More than 250,000 Dutch businesses are participating in the plan through performance-driven covenants with government. These legally binding agreements target emissions reductions, improved environmental quality of products, and energy conservation. All parties agree that this arrangement is proving far more effective than the commandand-control policies of the past. Major reductions in pollution of air, water, and land have been achieved through the plan along with a streamlined regulatory process that is saving both time and money. The Dutch are reducing pressure on the environment even as their Gross Domestic Product climbs. They refer to this trend as “decoupling”—a fundamental component of sustained recovery. In June

6

of 2001, the Dutch parliament adopted the fourth iteration of the NEPP; it addresses consumption patterns and other critical quality-of-life issues, such as transportation, health, and education.

New Zealand: A New Legislative Structure Based on Sustainable Management Where the Netherlands is a model of advanced environmental management in a highly industrialized nation, New Zealand provides a model for many states in the U.S. with natural resource-based economies. The Resource Management Act (RMA) of New Zealand sets the sustainable management of the nation’s natural resources as a goal for all national, regional, and local government agencies. New Zealand is noted in particular for the radical restructuring of its government institutions to create welldefined environmental policy and management roles. This included putting in place an innovative system of regional government with boundaries based on watersheds. Improved governance has resulted from the introduction of greater public accountability, transparency of government activities and decision-making processes, and annual strategic planning at all levels of government. The key principle driving the RMA is the sustainable management of New Zealand’s resources. This is defined in the Act as managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety, while: 1) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; 2) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and 3) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Any actions taken under the RMA—in effect, any decisions that may have environmental consequences—must satisfy these requirements. Of key importance is the requirement that while social, economic, and cultural objectives will play an important role in decision-making, they cannot be allowed to threaten the sustainability of ecosystems. Primary responsibility for implementing this vision of sustainable management lies with the regional and territorial (district and city) councils. Through the development and implementation of policy statements and plans, local authorities strive to achieve sustainable management by managing the environmental effects of activities, rather than the activities themselves. Decision making is integrated across land, air, and water. While effects-based planning conceptually promises improved environmental outcomes, the approach relies upon good information systems. Unfortunately, when the RMA was adopted in 1991, quality information was not readily available. This resulted in a difficult transition from the old laws and plans to the new, and an inability to accurately measure environmental performance. To address the problem, a national environmental performance indicators program was launched in 1996. Its purpose is to create a standardized “tool-box” of indicators to inform the RMA process and ultimately to track progress toward achieving the goal of sustainable management. Ten years after its inception, the Resource Management Act is still ahead of its time. Although the transition period has been rough, the RMA provides a sound framework for environmental management and the flexibility to enable program enhancements without eroding its core purpose: the sustainability of this island nation.

B. THE CHALLENGE OF ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES The federal government has never adopted a comprehensive environmental strategy. Nor has it published a comprehensive state of the environment report. Numerous attempts at reinvention of the environmental management framework have been undertaken since the early 1970s, but despite lengthy dialogue and extensive research, the nation’s environmental management system remains fundamentally flawed. Lacking is the forward-looking, cooperative, and integrated process necessary for a unifying environmental vision to be developed and pursued.10 A number of studies published over the past 20 years assess the gravity of our environmental predicament and/or recommend specific federal policy and program changes (see Figure 5). However, all have failed to institute the reforms required to place sustainability at the center of the national agenda. In what is perhaps the most thorough assessment of the present situation, the National Academy of Public Administration’s recent report, environment.gov, concludes that: The nation’s current environmental protection system cannot deliver the healthy and sustaining world that Americans want. Absent significant change in America’s environmental governance, the accumulation of greenhouse gases will continue to threaten the stability of the global climate and all the systems that depend on it; the uncontrolled runoff of fertilizers and other pollutants will continue to choke rivers, lakes, and estuaries with oxygen-depleting algae; smog will continue to degrade the health of millions of Americans. The regulatory programs in place in this country simply cannot address those problems at a price America can afford.11 Although an overarching framework for sustainability has yet to be developed, significant progress on environmental quality in the U.S. over the past 30 years deserves to be acknowledged.12 The air is

Resource Renewal Institute

7

Figure 5. Examples of U.S. Sustainability Initiatives Be it under the banner of sustainability or of regulatory reinvention, in the last two decades the U.S. has attempted to remake and strengthen its role in the management of domestic and international environmental affairs. To date, no effort has been effectively implemented, with the President’s Council on Sustainable Development making the most progress in the latter half of the 1990s. Provided here is a sampling of the numerous reports published:1 • The Global 2000 Report to the President, published in 1980, remains the sole effort to date by the U.S. government to assess in a comprehensive fashion global population, environmental, and resource trends over a 20-25 year future time frame. • In 1981, the President’s Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State jointly published Global Future: A Time to Act. The document offered suggestions for specific federal actions in response to the Global 2000 Report. Notably, the report stressed the importance of sustainable development. • The leaders of 10 nonprofit environmental and conservation organizations collaborated in 1985 on An Environmental Agenda for the Future. The book addressed the failures of U.S. environmental policy and provided a concise menu of necessary reforms. • In 1987, prior to the presidential elections, a broad coalition of 18 national environmental organizations published Blueprint for the Environment. The report included recommendations regarding a range of issues, including global warming and ozone destruction. It also addressed the need for institutional changes in the structure of the federal government. • A 1993 conference held in Louisville, Kentucky focused on how states and regions of the U.S. could follow up and build on the Earth Summit in Rio. Speeches, panel proceedings, and case studies from the conference were published in a book called From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable Development.2 • The President’s Council on Sustainable Development undertook a lengthy examination of what sustainability might mean for the U.S. The efforts of this cross-sector group culminated in the release of Sustainable America: A New Consensus in 1996. The report was criticized for its lack of direct support from the President, and in 1999 the PCSD disbanded. • The 1998 Enterprise for the Environment report was jointly produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the National Academy of Public Administrators, and the Keystone Center, with cross-sector representation similar to the PCSD. The report aimed to build upon the success of EPA-sponsored programs such as Project XL, but its recommendations have been largely ignored and the report has been criticized for the “watered down” results of its consensus-based process.3 • In 2000, the National Academy of Public Administration released environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. The third in a series of reports commissioned by Congress, it presents a detailed strategy for improving the nation’s environmental protection system. States figure prominently in the recommended plan of action. 1

2 3

8

The Global 2000 Report to the President, Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State, New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Global Future: A Time To Act, Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C., 1981. Robert Cahn (ed.), An Environmental Agenda for the Future, Washington, D.C.: Agenda Press, 1985. T. Allen Comp (ed.), Blueprint for the Environment: A Plan for Federal Action, Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1989. From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable Development, Conference Proceedings, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Louisville, KY, May 1993. Cary Coglianese, “The Limits of Consensus,” A review of the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E) report: “The Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future,” Environment, April 1999.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

cleaner, more rivers are safe for swimming, drinking water standards have improved dramatically, the national parks system has been expanded, and a number of critically listed species have been brought back from the brink of extinction. U.S. pollution control legislation has served as a model for governments around the world, particularly in Europe. The U.S. also continues to lead the way on other environmental fronts such as environmental justice campaigns and community “right to know” provisions on toxic releases from industrial facilities.13 Overall, the U.S. has applied media-specific measures to address environmental problems, a segregated approach that has had the effect of shifting problems from one medium to another. This has created new (and often more complex) issues in need of resolution. Having evolved from a very similar system of environmental management, the Netherlands and New Zealand are demonstrating the tangible benefits of moving beyond these limitations. As observed by Karl Hausker of the Center for Strategic and International Studies: The challenge for the United States and for all nations is to protect and restore the natural environment while providing for the economic needs of a population that will grow by at least several billion more people. This will require, among other things: •

•

•

that pollution be limited not by the “best available technology” or some variant thereof but by limits determined by human and ecological health; that industry undergo a “green revolution” resulting in products and processes that generate dramatically less waste and that channel remaining wastes back into production rather than into the environment; and that society find far more effective means of reducing the environmental impact of the day-to-day decisions of billions of people in their roles as consumers, workers, drivers, farmers, etc.

According to Hausker, “We will fail in these tasks unless the environmental protection system evolves” in the following ways: •

•

•

toward a more performance-based, information-rich, technology-spurring, flexible, accountable regulatory system; toward a broader array of policy tools that promote continuous environmental improvement, including environmental taxes, subsidy reform, emissions trading, and information disclosure; and toward stronger private sector management systems that internalize the same stewardship ethics embodied in environmental statutes.14

There are recent examples of federal progress on governance and government efficiency that offer a glimpse of the kind of systemic change called for. This includes the National Performance Review,15 a reinvention effort commenced in 1993 under the direction of then Vice President Al Gore. Through this program, the EPA produced more than 40 management innovations. According to Norman Vig, who has written extensively on environmental policy in the U.S. and abroad, “essentially these programs invite states, industries, individual companies, and communities to collaborate with EPA to develop new performance-based management systems in return for greater regulatory flexibility. Although it is too early to evaluate their success, it appears that they have begun to create a new, more cooperative relationship between government and business while improving environmental quality.”16 In the second half of the 1990s, “smart growth” and “livable communities” emerged on the political agenda, as states and localities joined together to battle suburban sprawl. During this time, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development completed its process for pursuing sustainability nationally, but with no legislative action and little fiscal support to propel the effort forward.17

Resource Renewal Institute

9

The increasingly complex nature of environmental problems demands a more responsive approach. Challenging issues that will influence our future quality of life include: climate change, the controversial impacts of endocrine disruptors on human and animal fertility,18 and the uncertain effects of releasing genetically modified organisms into the nation’s ecosystems. Such problems underscore the need for strategic environmental management (i.e., green planning) in the U.S. with a reach that extends from local to global, involving government, business, and community interests as active partners in the process. However, as observed by Vig and Kraft, “Perhaps the greatest obstacle to more rational and effective environmental policymaking at present is the absence of any mechanism for coordinating and integrating policy actions on the basis of an overall strategy or set of priorities… To achieve sustainable development in the future we will need to move beyond policy coordination to policy integration—that is, to making environmental protection an essential part of the mission of all federal agencies”19 (original emphasis). They are not optimistic about the near-term prospects for change: “Policy integration on this scale will require both more comprehensive environmental legislation and transformation of the institutional cultures within many agencies. Such major changes are not likely in the near future.” At the start of a new century, the future direction of environmental management in the U.S. is uncertain. While an enhanced federal role will ultimately be required, the promise of achieving meaningful progress in the short-term now resides with the states.

The Case for State Action Showcased in this report are several states—New Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon—that have begun to adopt the principles of green planning and, in the process, improve upon a regulatory structure that cannot keep pace with increasing environmental demands. Compelling these and a growing number of other states

10

to act is an acute awareness of the limitations inherent in conventional environmental management. As characterized by Beardsley et al., “The United States does not really have an integrated system for tackling environmental pollution but rather a potpourri of ad hoc, media-specific environmental laws enforced by the states and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These laws overlap and frequently conflict… Given the current state of affairs, the U.S. federal government and almost all of the states have recently (and understandably) begun to look for better ways of doing business…”20 Nowhere have these problems been more sharply felt than by the state agencies charged with implementing federal environmental statutes. Frustrated by the “inefficient, intrusive, and fragmented” nature of federal environmental laws, a growing number of states are challenging the role they are expected to play. Fanning the flames of discontent have been “decreases in funding from the federal government, political currents favoring decentralization, and actions by EPA and Congress that impose expensive obligations on states and localities without providing funding to meet the obligations (‘unfunded mandates’).”21 The changing face of environmental regulation in the United States has then, by default and not by design, thrust states into an expanded role that will likely have historic consequences. According to the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), “States have become the primary environmental protection agencies across the nation. Whether the yardstick is delegation, fiscal, enforcement, information gathering or policy making, the states are responsible for an increasing, and perhaps surprising, amount of the work done to protect the nation’s environment.”22 One telling indicator of an evolving state role is the volume of state environmental legislation not tied to federal statute. The Brookings Institution reports that approximately 70 percent of environmental laws now being enacted at the state level have “little or nothing to do with federal policy.” In a similar vein, of the billions of dollars spent by states on environmental protection each year, only 20 percent comes from federal sources.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

According to Brookings, “State and local governments are responsible for nearly all the enforcement of national environmental laws and continue to dominate decisions in areas like land use and waste disposal.”23

A “Race to the Bottom” or a “Race to the Top”? As states take on greater environmental management responsibilities, concern has been expressed that this may precipitate a “race to the bottom” in establishing standards for environmental quality. Indeed, a number of states have put in place laws stipulating that state environmental standards should be no more stringent than federal standards.24 Other states have pursued “beyond compliance” voluntary agreements with industry that have been criticized for lax enforcement.25 Many states, however, have enacted environmental laws that are “more stringent than or different from federal laws (e.g. groundwater protection and/or wetland statutes that go beyond the requirements of the Clean Water Act).”26 And many of the “beyond compliance” projects, such as those facilitated by the Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), include nongovernmental organizations to help oversee the process and ensure public involvement.27 Mary Graham argues that the “race to the bottom is far too simplistic a notion to describe state environmental politics in the 1990s.”28 She makes several important observations, among them that: 1) “State policies have been transformed by three decades of national regulation and increased public consciousness;” 2) “Evidence is by now overwhelming that businesses rarely decide where to locate or expand based on the strength or weakness of state environmental laws;” and 3) “Most important, public attitudes have changed. After 30 years of government action and scientific progress, state officials, business executives, and voters find that some environmental measures have economic value.” Graham writes of the strong link between environmental protection and economic vitality—with cause and effect flowing both ways:

Assuring safe drinking water, limiting growth, or preventing sewage from polluting public beaches…may produce benefits that residents and businesses can appreciate and are sometimes willing to pay for. More often, though, support for environmental protection follows, rather than precedes, state economic success…Today, states compete to gain prosperity in a fast-changing economy. In that race, some states lead in economic performance and environmental protection, while others lag behind in both.29 Both the following and concluding sections of The State of the States consider this assessment in greater detail.

State Innovation in Environmental Management: An Initial Glance Individual states have become incubators for an array of innovative new strategies, often self-funded, to address environmental priorities. Pollution prevention, regulatory integration, and economic incentives for improved environmental performance are three areas in which states are making strides to increase their effectiveness—with or without help from the federal government. They are also examples of new implementation tools that are being used successfully in green plan nations to achieve sustainable development goals. Today, all 50 states have, to varying degrees, implemented pollution prevention programs30 with notable standouts including Minnesota’s Toxic Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. Moving from pollution control to pollution prevention is a guiding tenet of green planning. Another necessary component of a green planning framework is regulatory integration, a process designed to prevent the cross-media transfer of pollutants that too often results from standard media-specific protection efforts. By employing an integrated approach to industrial permitting, inspection, and enforcement, some states—New Jersey, in particular—are achieving emissions reductions that exceed previous best efforts. Improving environmental performance through economic incentives is yet another component of green

Resource Renewal Institute

11

planning that more and more states are incorporating into their environmental programs. This approach is viewed as one of the best ways to transcend the limitations of command-and-control regulation and enable market forces to influence environmental outcomes. By one recent count, states have adopted more than 250 environmental charges and tax incentives that are intended to stimulate superior performance.31 Once again, New Jersey, Minnesota, and Oregon have been national leaders with successful tax programs to facilitate recycling and reduce solid waste. These are just three examples of state-level innovations that are contributing to a sea change in the way protection of the nation’s environmental health is being pursued. Highlighted in this report are many other equally encouraging indicators of state progress. As important as the shifting roles of federal and state government are the wide variations of effectiveness and commitment among the states themselves. Our findings are consistent with other comparative analyses that have revealed a predictable pattern of environmental achievement that ranks certain states high and others low. Given the increasing receptivity to new solutions by most states, there has never been a better opportunity to break this pattern and advance the capabilities of all states.

State-Federal Partnerships To create consistency, balance, and a unifying vision across state boundaries—one that fully embraces the goals and objectives of green planning—the federal government must be involved. Given that many of the nation’s environmental laws are federally based, this is in fact an inescapable priority. To be a full-fledged partner with states, the federal government must facilitate needed innovations and policy improvements. One of the most promising developments on this front was the establishment of the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) in 1995. Set up by the U.S. EPA and ECOS, the program is an acknowledgement of current

12

shortcomings and offers a major opportunity to advance green planning state-by-state, with the federal government serving as chief facilitator. Its aim is to grant states flexibility in administering federal environmental statues. The degree of flexibility is determined by the strength of a state’s environmental programs, thus creating an incentive for ongoing improvement. The NEPPS program possesses features actually derived from the green plan model. Most important, like green plans, the program emphasizes management for results through its use of long-term goals and measurable indicators to track progress. What started as a pilot program of six states just five years ago now involves 38 states,32 with strong interest being expressed by other states, through both the MSWG and ECOS. Having launched its Sustainable State initiative in 1999, New Jersey is among the leaders in taking advantage of the program, with the year 2000 marking its third NEPPS agreement with EPA. As is discussed in subsequent sections of this report, New Jersey has excelled because of its groundbreaking work to incorporate the principles of green planning. With strong leadership and direction, the NEPPS program has the potential to redefine the roles of federal and state government and, in the process, foster broad public involvement and partnerships across sectors. As facilitator of this evolution, the federal government is responsible for providing the necessary resources, training, and technical support to ensure long-term success of the program. There has never been a more opportune time for strengthening the capacity of states to serve as principal stewards of the nation’s environmental heritage. Ultimate success, however, hinges on the commitment, framework, innovation, and governance brought to this pursuit. It is the combined performance in all of these areas that determines a state’s potential to achieve sustainable development. Section II of this report identifies the leaders and the laggards on each of these four fronts, offering a snapshot of how far states have come and how much further they must go.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

II

Green Plan Capacity Across the Fifty States

Featured in this section is the 100-point, 65indicator Green Plan Capacity Index. Contributing elements of the Index are dissected and the performance of individual states is analyzed. This assessment is the result of original research as well as secondary analyses, mainly of the work done by other nonprofit research organizations. In creating the GPC Index, RRI’s objective was to establish a systematic process for gauging state progress in advancing the goals of sustainable development. The Index can inform the actions of any state wishing to improve its management of the environment by providing both a 50-state overview of policies and practices and an evaluation of how these activities are contributing to the pursuit of a sustainable future. The GPC Index is comprised of the following four sub-indices (see Figure 6a): • • • •

comprehensiveness of the environmental management framework; level of environmental policy innovation; fiscal and program commitment; and quality of governance.

Throughout this section, symbols representing each of these core attributes are utilized to guide the reader:

FRAMEWORK

INNOVATION

$ COMMITMENT

GOVERNANCE

The environmental management framework provides the essential structure for establishing a successful green plan. Analysis of a state’s framework reveals whether the state has the institutional capacity to develop and implement the multi-tiered, multimedia provisions of green planning. Indicators employed in making this determination include: the existence of a state sustainability plan and a high quality, up-to-date State of the Environment (SoE) report; availability and scope of environmental information; and the existence of modern state land use planning legislation. Also considered is the presence of strategic entities such as a state planning office or progress board that conducts long range planning. RRI’s review of state agency websites offers a snapshot of how states are capitalizing on the opportunities provided by the Internet, a powerful medium that can foster the accessible, cross-sector interchange required for effective green planning. Also included in this analysis is the proportion of federally delegable programs actually delegated to state environmental agencies—a useful indicator of states that are willing to develop strong environmental programs. The level of environmental policy innovation indicates the degree to which a state seeks continuous improvement of its environmental programs. The success of any green plan hinges on the power of the innovations brought to the process. Thus, innovation is the most heavily weighted of the four attributes surveyed in this report—accounting for 40 of the 100point GPC Index (see Figure 6b). There are a total of 11 indicators of innovation, which encompass a range of environmental concerns contributing to a strategic management approach. The GPC analysis included an assessment of policies on air quality, pollution prevention, energy, climate change, waste management, land

Resource Renewal Institute

13

FIGURE 6a: GREEN PLAN CAPACITY (GPC) INDEX METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW INDEX

SUB-INDEX/ATTRIBUTES

GREEN PLAN CAPACITY (GPC) INDEX

$

INDICATORS

1. Environmental Management Framework

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

2. Environmental Policy Innovation

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11

3. Fiscal & Program Commitment

4. Governance

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

Existence of a State Sustainability Plan (with Legislative Support) Existence (and Quality) of SoE Report Availability of Information to the Public (Website Review) Existence of State Planning Office/Program State Planning/Development Act, Modernization & Strength of State Role Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States Air Quality Standards (above Clean Air Act) Pollution Prevention Programs Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables Existence of NEPPS Program Existence of Environmental Leadership Program Existence of State Climate Change Action Plan State Authored Inventories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Existence of State-Level "Right-to-Know" Act Existence of Bottle Bill Existence of Environmental Assessment Requirements Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements State Budget Environmental Commitment, 1997 Open Space Protection Expenditure on Public Transport Recycling Levels, Targets, Commitment

4 . 1 Governance Index, 1999, Governing magazine 4 . 2 Existence of Green Procurement Program 4 . 3 Voter Participation Rate, 1996

FIGURE 6b: GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX: DISTRIBUTION & WEIGHTING

Framework

Governance 15%

Fiscal & Program Commitment 10%

Environmental Management Framework 35%

Environmental Policy Innovation 40%

14

Resource Renewal Institute

Innovation Commitment Governance

The State of the States

use planning, cooperative agreements, and public disclosure. There were other important indicators of innovation for which data from all 50 states were not available, including the existence of watershed-based planning programs, that RRI will seek to include in future surveys. The current ability of states to innovate is constrained by the generally inflexible nature of federal environmental statutes that are the basis for many state policies. Notable efforts to encourage innovation and overcome existing limitations include a bipartisan measure in Congress (H.R.3448, “Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act”) that calls for “new approaches to address remaining and emerging environmental problems…” and fosters “innovation in the pursuit of enhanced environmental quality.” Fiscal and program commitment reflects the priority a state places on environmental quality. The indicators employed to assess this third core component of green plan capacity include environmental agency budgets, funding for open space protection, funding for public transit, and commitment to recycling programs. With regard to agency budgets it should be noted that in some states environmental agencies are subsidiary to larger health agencies, therefore making it difficult to precisely determine in all cases the level of fiscal investment earmarked for environmental programs. Overall, a state’s commitment in these areas demonstrates a longterm investment supportive of green planning. Quality of governance, the fourth and final attribute assessed in this report, indicates the functionality (or dysfunctionality) of a state’s governing bodies. It also reflects internal government capacity to conduct long-term planning and involve the public in the planning process. Presented here is an overall analysis of governance, state by state, that considers numerous factors including the soundness of accounting practices, public accountability, and willingness to plan strategically and long-term. Data for these factors were drawn from a comprehensive study of state-level governance periodically undertaken by Governing magazine.33 Two additional indicators used were the existence of “green

procurement” programs for state government purchasing and operations, and the level of voter participation in the 1996 elections, a general, but useful, indicator of involvement in the democratic process. Together, the four core attributes of the GPC Index present an aggregate measure of internal state government capacity for green planning. Outlined in Figure 6a is a diagram of the methodology used to create the GPC Index. Included in this graphic are the primary indicators employed for each of the four sub-indices. Figure 6b depicts the distribution and weighting scheme used in determining the contribution of each sub-index to the GPC Index. The weighting of the sub-indices and indicators was not an exact science and it required interpretation of the data. As exhibited in Appendix A, substantial effort was made to standardize data analysis and the general scoring system to create a consistent methodology that would enable meaningful state comparisons to be made. Figure 6b shows that the framework and innovation sub-indices account for three-quarters of the total GPC Index points (75 of 100). This is primarily a function of their relative importance to green plan implementation, hence, the reason these two subindices comprise the bulk of the indicators used in determining green plan capacity. It was also felt that limiting the weight of the commitment and governance sub-indices would lessen the skewing of results that might occur when attempting to compare states with vastly different demographics. Moreover, doing so served to circumscribe the significance of the Governing magazine survey, which was not focused on environmental policy but rather on the overall management efforts of states. Finally, due to a lack of available qualitative data for some indicators, the GPC Index relies more on quantitative than qualitative measures (e.g., existence of programs as opposed to their actual effectiveness). RRI believes that the research results do, however, provide a good initial picture of where each of the 50 states lie on the sustainable development continuum. A more thorough accounting of state performance in the future

Resource Renewal Institute

15

TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS - SELECTED INDICATORS, GPC INDEX Environmental Management Framework

1

29 15 42 25 45 40 43 42 28 31 45 41 34 24 36 22 59 43 57 36 64 23 36 30 20 18 31 71 11 39 38 17 26 15 73 42 28 37 22 28 40 39 55 29 57 17 37 10

79%

1

2

50%

n

n

2

B

3

2

50%

n

n

1

n

2

2

71%

n

R

4

R

3

2

50%

n

n

2

B

1

1

71%

n

R

1

B

2

2

79%

n yp

R

4

LU

4

3

68%

PR

4

S

4

3

64%

n

R

2

B

4

3

82%

n

R

4

B

4

3

25%

n

R

3

B

3

2

57%

n

R

5

n

1

1

79%

n

R

4

n

1

1

71%

n

R

2

B

1

1

39%

n

R

2

n

1

1

64%

n

R

4

n

3

2

39%

n n

n

4

n

1

1

75%

PR

3

LU

4

3

64%

n

R

4

LU

4

3

54%

n

R

2

n

3

2

54%

n

R

4

n

1

1

68%

Y

PR

4

S

2

2

68%

n

n

1

n

2

2

68%

n

P

2

B

1

1

86%

n

R

1

n

1

1

50%

n

n

3

n

1

2

75%

n

n

2

B

2

2

61%

n

R

2

LU

3

3

50%

Y

PR

5

LUS

4

2

29%

n

n

1

n

1

1

68%

n

n

2

n

2

2

61%

yp

P

4

B

1

1

79%

n

n

2

n

1

1

75%

n

R

2

B

1

1

79%

n

n

2

n

1

1

82%

Y

PR

4

S

4

3

79%

Y

SP

3

S

3

2

46%

n

n

2

LU

4

3

61%

n

R

4

n

3

2

79%

n

n

2

n

1

2

82%

n

R

2

n

1

1

64%

n

SP

2

n

1

1

61%

yp

P

2

SB

2

2

96%

n

R

3

n

4

3

71%

n n

P

4

B

1

1

46%

RR

5

B

4

3

64%

n

n

4

n

1

2

75%

n

R

3

n

1

1

57%

n

n

1

n

1

1

71%


 
     
   

       
    


      





2.6 Climate Change Action Plan

1

n

2.5.2 Environmental Leadership Program Legislative Support 2.5.1 Environmental Leadership Program Existence

n

2

2.4 NEPPS

1.5.2 Strength of State Role

1

n

2.3.3 Renewable Electricity Funds 2.3.2 Renewable Electricity Standards

1.5.1 Modernization of State Planning Legislation

n

n

2.3.1 Renewables: Comprehensive Restructuring

1.4 Esixtence of State Planning Office

n

2.2.3 Pollution Prevention Reporting Requirements

1.3 Website Rating






          
    
 

 



   
     



2.2.1 Pollution Prevention Legislation and State Support

1.2 State of the Environment Report




                         
 

          



2.1 Air/Tailpipe Standards Above Federal Cean Air Act

1.1 State Sustainability Plan

8 17

2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION SUB-INDEX 1.5.3 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated

1. ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. FRAMEWORK SUB-INDEX

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX

50 43 31 47 12 36 8 16 10 13 34 27 9 15 26 37 23 40 4 11 6 25 3 38 24 29 41 42 28 2 48 18 20 45 35 46 1 14 32 22 39 33 17 19 7 30 5 44 21 49

GREEN PLAN CAPACITY INDEX

Rank

16

State

Environmental Policy Innovation

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

Y

n

-

-

YS

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

YS

Y

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

n

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

n

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

YS

n

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

YS

n

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

YS

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

n

D

Y

Y

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

YS

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

n

D

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

YS

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

D

-

YS

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

-

-

D

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

D

-

YS

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

D

Y

YS

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

D

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

YS

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

n

-

-

Y

n

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

YS

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

Y

YS

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

YS

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

n

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

n

-

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

TABLE 1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS - SELECTED INDICATORS, GPC INDEX

$

2

7

17

50

N

39

9

3

3

36

40

N



21

2

43

33

25

Y

   

62

3

24

18

-

28

2

29

24

40

109

3

9

22

25

N

1

35

1

13

39

30

N

74

2.8 State-Mandated Disclosure

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

-

Y

Y

Y

SL

3

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

L

-

Y

-

Y

-

1

-

-

-

-

3

2.10 Environmental Assessment Requirements 2.9 Bottle Bill

2.7 Greenhouse Gas Inventory

-

-

-

L

1

-

-

SL

-

-

-

-

-

2

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

L

1

Y

-

Y

-

1

Y

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

-

0

Y

-

Y

-

2

Y

-

-

L

2

Y

-

Y

L

0

-

-

Y

L

1

Y

-

-

SL

0

Y

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

L

2

-

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

-

1

Y

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

L

0

Y

-

-

-

0

Y

-

Y

SL

1

Y

-

-

L

0

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

0

Y

-

Y

SL

2

Y

-

-

-

1

Y

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

L

0

Y

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

0

Y

-

-

-

1

Y

-

Y

-

2

Y

-

-

L

0

Y

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

1

Y

-

-

L

0

-

-

-

-

0

 
  
                  
            


33

25

N

52

24

50

N

0

27

3

6

-

25

N

16

77

2

58

28

25

Y

50

15

3

8

23

50

N

70

8

3

5

34

50

N

52

23

3

4

13

-

-

-

15

3

7

32

25

N

-

21

3

13

19

25

N

46

41

2

4

42

50

N

32

12

1

56

30

20

Y

78

15

2

102

34

46

N

77

22

2

9

25

50

N

25

19

2

10

45

50

N

76

34

3

1

14

25

N

15

48

3

16

30

40

N

39

38

3

18

5

25

N

1

12

2

3

29

40

N

26

33

3

17

14

25

N

23

71

3

2

26

40

N

37

25

1

674

43

65

Y

90

21

3

6

10

50

N

23

18

2

83

43

50

N

95

9

2

6

32

40

N

46

4

26

40

N

14

16

17

25

N

59

2

12

-

-

19

77

1

119

30

50

Y

56

41

2

36

26

35

N

73

73

2

6

27

70

N

71

59

3

2

42

30

N

13

7

42

50

N

21

3

20

47.3

C-

-




C-


  
                  

                 

18

34

43

-

100

33

15

C

-

2

2

59.5

Y

3

11

55.6

-

55

6

13

-

C

16

45

17

D


 


9

35

25

Y

-

32

35

40

N

24

36

3

20

22

-

-

13

79

1

5

30

40

N

19

13

3

13

40

25

N

66

23

2

63

33

50

N

88

108

3

8

20

50

N

28

25

3

10

36

-

-

57

nd

3

2

5

-

-

5

State

Rank

29

-

4.3 Voter Participation Rate (%), 1996

2

4.2 Green Procurement Program

23

N

   

4.1 Governance Grade, 1999

3.4.2 Recycling Target (%)

N

40

-

4. GOVERNANCE SUB-INDEX

3.4.1 Recycling Level (%), 1998

25

7

1

-

3.4.4 Curbside Recycling Population Reach (%) 3.4.3 Local Government Recycling Mandate

3.3 Transit Spending per Capita ($)

23

-

-

3.2 Open Space Protection

2 8

-

-

3.1 State Environmental Budget per Capita ($), 1997

2 3

3. FISCAL & PROGRAM COMMITMENT SUB-INDEX 2.11 Innovation in Comprehensive. Plan Requirements

7

-

-

Y

Governance

74

Y

Y

Fiscal & Program Commitment

51.5

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas

50 43 31 47

-

48.4

California

12

C+

-

58.8

C-

-

58.5

B

-

54.7

C+

-

50.7

Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida

36 8 16 10

C+

-

49.6

C-

-

43.1

C

-

60.1

B-

-

55.6

C+

Y

55.8

B

-

61.1

B-

-

62

B

-

52.8

B-

-

61.8

C

-

67.7

B

-

54.4

B-

-

56.3

Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

13 34 27 9 15 26 37 23 40 4 11 6 25 3 38 24 29 41 42 28 2 48 18 20 45 35 46 1 14 32 22 39 33 17 19 7 30 5 44 21 49

B+

-

58.1

B

Y

66.9

C+

-

55.1

A-

-

61.1

B-

-

67.3

B

-

61

C+

-

47.8

C+

-

60.1

B-

Y

54.7

C-

-

51.7

C-

-

50.9

B

Y

54

B-

-

65.8

B

-

58.7

C

-

58.5

B-

Y

61.1

B

Y

55

C-

-

60.6

B

-

54.5

B-

-

64.3

B-

-

53.1

B

-

46.2

A-

-

53

B-

-

59.5

A-

-

56.4

A-

-

60

C+

-

50.2

B

-

62.4

C

-

66.2

Resource Renewal Institute

Generalized Key   


High

Y

Yes

-

No/not applicable

Above average Below Average Low

nd

No data

n

No

See detailed key on next page

17

18

Resource Renewal Institute

2.3.2 Renewable Electricity Standards: Y: Yes. States which have set standards for definition of renewable energy. Source: as per 2.3.1, above.

2.3.1 Renewables: Comprehensive Restructuring Policies: Y: Yes. States which have commenced restructuring of electricity markets, opening them up to competition and new energy suppliers (including green energy in some states). Source: Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2000.

2.2.3 Pollution Prevention Reporting Requirements: Y: Yes. See narrative for pollution prevention legislation and state support, above. Source: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.

2.2.1 Pollution Prevention Legislation and State Support: Y: Yes. S: Existence of state support of pollution programs through funding (fees, appropriations, penalties, etc). "Pollution Prevention (a.k.a. P2 or source reduction) is any practice that eliminates or reduces pollution at its source. Source reduction differs from conventional regulation of pollution, which has traditionally focused on end-of-pipe, or after the pollution is produced. States have chosen to institutionalize pollution prevention in a variety of ways. Some states pass laws that declare pollution prevention a good idea and encourage voluntary efforts. Other mechanisms vary from the funding of voluntary programs and technical assistance programs to mandatory planning and reporting requirements." Source: National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. http://www.p2.org/inforesources/nppr_leg.html

2.1 Air/Tailpipe Standards Above Federal Clean Air Act: Y: Yes. "The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the framework for regulating emissions from motor vehicles. In 1970, it established nationwide air quality standards to protect public health. Recognizing the large contribution motor vehicles make to air pollution, the Clean Air Act also set the first federal tailpipe standards. The CAA granted California, which has some of the worst air quality in the nation, the authority to set its own vehicle emission standards. As of 1990, other states may adopt the California program as their own (and several have done so), but are otherwise prohibited from setting their own emission standards. As of May 2000, four states have opted into the California program: Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and Vermont. Texas is currently exploring the option." Source: Union of Concerned Scientists website: http://www.ucsusa.org/

2. Environmental Policy Innovation: A 40-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.

1.5.3 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States: Proportion of federally delegable programs delegated to states under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Note: data was also available for the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodendicide Act, and Oil Pollution Act, however the data for these three acts were not utilized as it was either (a) programs that were not delegable to states, or (b) all programs were delegated, so there was no differentiation between states. Source: ECOS website: http://www.ecos.org/

1.5.2 Strength of State Role: "The numbers 1 through 3 in this column describe the strength of the state role in local planning as: 1— weak; 2— significant; and 3— strong." Source: American Planning Association, 1999.

1.5.1 Modernization of State Planning Legislation: "The degree that the statutes have been updated is described as numbers 1 through 4 meaning: 1— not updated (few or no modernizations have been made from SCPEA [the 1928 Standard City Planning Enabling Act drafted by an advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Commerce], or similar 1920s planning laws); 2— slightly updated (statute shows more than a few but not many significant modernizations past the 1920 planning legislation); 3— moderately updated (statute shows many significant modernizations from the 1920 planning laws but still resembles them in some significant way); and 4— substantially updated (statute contains a substantial number of modernizations and no longer resembles the 1920s planning legislation in any significant way)." Source: American Planning Association, 1999.

1.4 Existence of State Planning Office: S: State planning office with strategies inclusive of sustainability. LU: Office focused on land use/"smart growth" programs; B: office focused on long-term budgeting and financial planning, with some emphasis upon environmental factors. n: No state planning office. Source: RRI research, 2000.

1.3 Website Rating: RRI review of state environmental agency content and "user friendliness". Scored 1 (low) to 5 (high). Review undertaken in May, 2000.

1.2 State of the Environment Report: n: No report available or in existence. P: "Progress Board" type report available, includes economic, social, and environmental indicators. R: Report focused on the state of the environment, maybe summative or comprehensive, must cover a range of media (air, water, land, etc.). SP: Existence of strategic plan that includes indicators on the state of the environment. Source: RRI research, May 2000.

1.1 State Sustainability Plan: Existence of a state government plan or strategy inclusive of the concept of sustainable development. (Y: yes; yp: Yes, but progress-board type plan only; n: none.) Source: Resource Renewal Institute (RRI), 2000.

1. Environmental Management Framework: A 35-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.

Green Plan Capacity Index: The 100-point index of green plan capacity as calculated by RRI (see methodology diagram). Scoring represented in symbol form.

KEY: DESCRIPTION OF INDICATORS, GPC INDEX

Resource Renewal Institute

4.3 U. S. Voter Participation Rates (%) 1996: Indicates participation in the democratic process. Measure: Percent of people who reported voting in the 1996 November elections. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey, Table 4a: Reported Voting and Registration. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

4.2 Green Procurement Program: Y: Yes. Existence of a comprehensive green procurement program, defined as existence of plan across all state agencies (in some cases mandated through legislation). Source: RRI research, 2000.

4.1 Governance Grade: A comprehensive study of state-level governance is undertaken annually by Governing magazine. This study, which encompasses hundreds of interviews across agencies in all fifty states, ranks five key factors — financial management, capital management, human resources, information technology, and "managing for results." Grades are A+ down to F. Source: Governing magazine, 1999. http://www.governing.com/

4. Governance: A 10-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.

3.4.4 Curbside Recycling Population Reach: Percentage of the state's population which is serviced by curbside recycling collection. Source: BioCycle Magazine, 1999.

3.4.3 Local Government Recycling Mandate: Is there a state government mandate for local city and county governments to reach a set recycling target? (Y: Yes. N: No.) Source: BioCycle, 1999.

3.3 Transit Spending Per Capita ($): State transit budget as a proportion of state urban population. Data from the Federal Transportation Administration. 3.4.1 Recycling Level, 1998: Proportion of waste stream diverted to recycling processes (%). Source: BioCycle magazine, 1999. 3.4.2 Recycling Target: Statewide recyling rate target (%). (Year not specified in table, further information available from source). Source: BioCycle, 1999.

3.1 State Environmental Budget per Capita ($), 1997: Budget of environmental agencies as a proportion of state total population. Source: www.stateline.org; the Council of State Governments ECOS Magazine, Volume IV Number 1; reprinted from CSG's The Book of the States 1998-1999. 3.2 Open Space Protection: Rating 1 (high) to 3 (low) for various factors related to open space (including policies and funding). From Sierra Club Sprawl report, 1999.

3. Fiscal & Program Commitment: A 15-point sub-index of the Green Plan Capacity Index, represented in symbol form.

2.11 Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements: Four comprehensive plan requirements that are innovative were chosen from the APA report on states (see 1.5.2 and 1.5.3 for source). The number denotes how many of the selected requirements were required in each state (1 to 4).

2.4 NEPPS: Y: Yes. The National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) creates an enhanced partnership between states and EPA for protecting the environment and operating the nation's environmental protection programs through performance based management systems. Source: US EPA website, July 2000. 2.5.1 Environmental Leadership Program - Existence: Y: Yes. An environmental leadership program (ELP) is defined by the Tellus Institute as a "voluntary program that offers incentives to facilities for striving to achieve environmental performance beyond that required by law or by regulation". Source: Tellus Institute. 2.5.2 Environmental Leadership Program - Legislative Support: Y: Yes. Existence of legislation supporting an ELP. Source: Tellus Institute. 2.6 Climate Change Action Plan: Y: Yes. D: Draft. "EPA's State and Local Outreach Program partners with states to develop greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and action plans. Each inventory identifies the major sources of GHG emissions and creates a baseline upon which reduction strategies are based. States play a critical role in reducing GHG emissions; many states have developed State Action Plans that draw heavily on the information in their inventories." Source: US EPA. 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Y: Yes. See narrative for climate change action plan (above). Same source. 2.8 State-Mandated Disclosure: Y: Yes. Existence of state-level "community right-to-know" type legislation. Barry Rabe, "Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization", in Vig & Kraft, Environmental Policy, 2000. 2.9 Bottle Bill: Y: Yes. Existence of legislation mandating beverage container refund payments. Source: National Council for Science and the Environment. 2.10 Environmental Assessment Requirements: S: state level. L: local level. Environmental assessment requirements delegated to states under NEPA. Source: Journal of Environmental Management.

2.3.3 Renewable Electricity Funds: Y: Yes. States which have set funding mechanisms to support renewable energy sources. Source: as per 2.3.1, above.

The State of the States

19

could be achieved by using standardized measures/ indicators that apply equally for all 50 states. As determined from the overview of research results presented in Table 1 (and Appendix A), RRI finds state environmental policy at an important crossroads. A select group of states is leading the way in creating effective frameworks for environmental management and establishing progressive policies that, in many cases, take statelevel environmental action beyond federal mandates. At the same time, however, numerous states lag well behind in developing strategies that can solve a new generation of environmental problems. Table 1, along with the map in Figure 7 (and Appendix A), summarize the results of the GPC Index analysis, highlights of which are provided below. A more extensive explanation of the indicators that make up the GPC Index can be found in a separate technical volume, Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis, which is available upon request or by visiting RRI’s website at www.rri.org.

A. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS, BY STATE Seven states emerge as national leaders in possessing the capacity for green planning—the only states to receive more than half of the 100 GPC Index points (see Appendix A for designation of points by indicator). These seven states are remarkable for their diversity and their distribution across the U.S. (see Figure 7). Leading the nation is Oregon, followed by New Jersey, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Massachusetts, and Vermont. These states share a strong commitment to environmental protection and innovation that creates the potential for successful green planning. Worth noting is the nonpartisan nature of their achievements. Of these seven states, three of the governors are Democrats, two are Republicans, and two are Independents. It should also be emphasized that if the GPC results were test scores the highest grade given would be a C, as the highest score was 73 out of 100. Thus, according to RRI’s analysis, even among leading states there is still much room for improvement in developing the capacity to implement the green plan model.

20

Seven States for Sustainable Development 1. Oregon (73 points/100) Oregon’s long history of environmental leadership on such issues as regional planning and recycling was recently broadened with an Executive Order from Governor John Kitzhaber that promotes sustainability in state government operations (see Appendix C). The Beaver State also completed a comprehensive state of the environment report to help guide the green planning process. In addition, Oregon developed legislation for investigating the potential of a statewide green plan, which has yet to be adopted. This same measure is now being actively pursued in New York (see Appendix C).

2. New Jersey (71 points/100) With a comprehensive land use plan and a Sustainable State initiative in place, New Jersey is a national leader and innovator in environmental management. Especially encouraging is the collaboration between business and community interests that is embodied in New Jersey Future, a nonprofit group working with state government to guide the Garden State’s “smart growth” and sustainability programs (see www.njfuture.org).

3. Minnesota (64 points/100) Through programs such as Minnesota Milestones, the Sustainable Development Initiative, and an innovative pollution prevention program, Minnesota is a clear leader in implementing the sustainability agenda. Indeed, if it had been possible to include such factors as statewide watershed planning, existence of a statewide planning agency, and an environmental data clearinghouse, the North Star State would have ranked even higher in this assessment.

4. Maine (59 points/100) With a governor strongly supportive of environmental sustainability, Maine scores well across the board and appears poised to formally pursue green planning.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

5. Washington (57 points/100)

•

Washington has a solid state of the environment report and scores particularly well on governance and long-term strategic planning. A good example of innovation is the state’s Watershed Management Act of 1998 that established a framework for addressing water resource and water quality issues as well as salmon habitat needs.

•

6. Massachusetts (57 points/100)34 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts released a comprehensive state of the environment report on Earth Day 2000 and rates well across a wide range of capacity and innovation indicators. In particular, the state’s pollution prevention legislation—the Toxics Use Reduction Acts—has been lauded for its innovation in requiring more than 500 firms to submit plans for curbing their use of toxic substances.35

•

7. Vermont (55 points/100) Vermont annually reports on its state of the environment with a topical discussion on a new set of issues each year. Even though small and rural, Vermont is a significant innovator, having adopted California’s tailpipe standards and having put in place pollution prevention and recycling programs.

•

Notable Actions of Other States Of the 43 remaining states that received fewer than 50 points on the GPC Index, there are a range of promising initiatives worth mentioning, especially on the policy innovation front. For example: •

Illinois has a community-based environmental monitoring program, EcoWatch, which was recently re-energized with the signing of two Executive Orders establishing the Green Illinois initiative, an ambitious program designed to encourage local communities to preserve and protect the state’s environmental resources.

•

•

Connecticut passed legislation in 1999 encouraging sustainable business practices (see Appendix C). The measure allows greater flexibility for businesses to establish new environmental management systems and encourages companies to adopt practices guided by the CERES Principles and The Natural Step. Wisconsin’s Green Tier program, based in part on the Dutch management model, is a voluntary, “beyond compliance” approach designed to produce greater environmental results by businesses. Details on the program are available online at www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/green_tier/ index.htm California, the only state with air quality legislation in existence prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act in 1972, continues to be a leader in such areas as habitat and species conservation planning, tailpipe emission controls, and the provision of public information on toxic substances. California EPA’s Innovation Initiative represents an important step toward implementing strategic environmental management (see Appendix C). Maryland’s smart growth legislation is a blueprint for environmental protection and sprawl reduction that numerous other states have moved to adopt. The state is also a focus of the Chesapeake Bay Program, a unique regional partnership that has been directing the restoration of Chesapeake Bay since the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Pennsylvania’s 21st Century Commission recommends strategies to meet targeted environmental priorities and measures progress toward environmental goals. The Commission’s work has led to a number of significant actions including enactment of land use legislation in 2000. Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection provides an exceptional website: www.state.pa.us.gov/dep/ Though New York lacks an overall vision for sustainable development, the state legislature is taking up landmark legislation that would create a sustainable development task force to assess the

Resource Renewal Institute

21

•

feasibility of “adopting a goal-oriented, performance-based regulatory system”—a green plan. The measure has generated uniquely broad and influential support and could provide a model process for other states (see Appendix C). Utah possesses solid strategic planning policies and has begun to combat sprawl along the Wasatch Range through the Utah Tomorrow initiative.

The next section identifies the top-ranking states in each of the four sub-indices of the GPC Index. It also provides a brief analysis of each of the indicators employed.

B. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS, BY FACTOR Environmental Management Framework In descending order, the top 10 states in the Environmental Management Framework sub-index are Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, Florida, Maine, Vermont, Utah, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina (see Figure 14). Not surprisingly, the top three performers are the only states nationally with strategies in place that resemble green plans. All 10 of the top states have strong SoE reports. Over half have state planning offices, either focused on land use (such as New Jersey) or inclusive of broader environmental sustainability objectives (such as Minnesota). Most have excellent environmental agency websites, with many, such as Minnesota, providing comprehensive environmental databases. Almost all have strong state planning roles with supporting legislation.

State Sustainability Planning Only three states—Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon—have documents and strategies in place that possess major elements of a green plan. These include New Jersey’s cross-sector Sustainable State strategy and Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan supported by the recently released state of the environment

22

report. Minnesota’s sustainability plan is somewhat out of date, having been prepared in 1998 by the Governor’s Sustainability Roundtable, which is no longer in existence.

State of the Environment Reports As of May 2000, 31 states had comprehensive and recently published state of the environment reports. Defined in this study as a comprehensive assessment of a state’s environmental resources, state of the environment reports provide the foundation for a well-informed green planning process and are a vehicle for ongoing monitoring of and reporting on progress. Four states—Iowa, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Illinois— marked Earth Day 2000 with the release of SoE reports (see Table 2).36 Oregon and Michigan are notable for their recent creation of science boards to inform the content of their SoE reports.

Availability of Information to the Public Through the Internet, a new level of information is now readily available to the public across all 50 states. The Internet promises to transform how environmental information is disseminated. In a growing number of states, signs of this transformation are already being seen; new mechanisms for public feedback and input on policy and issues are being provided, such as online response forms, online permitting that makes the regulatory process less cumbersome for businesses, and cross-linked websites that allow access to a wide range of environmental data (see Figure 8).

State Planning Office Twenty-five states have offices with a statewide planning function.37 Of these, the majority (15) are focused primarily on long-term budget strategy and development of performance measures for state operations. Some of the budget-focused offices are demonstrating noteworthy leadership, such as Missouri’s Center for Performance Innovation with its online Show Me Results indicators program. Six states have state planning offices focused on land use and transportation planning, grappling with the issues of sprawl and

Resource Renewal Institute

Map not to scale.

Figure 7. Green Plan Capacity (GPC) Index

2000

The State of the States

Resource Renewal Institute

23

smart growth. Five states (Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania) have organizations addressing statewide sustainability planning. The Minnesota Planning agency warrants special mention; it has the most comprehensive forecasting, planning, and sustainability research operation of any state.

Strength of State Planning Land use and transportation planning is another area of dynamic change and transformation. A recent report by the American Planning Association cites literally thousands of legislative initiatives underway to support the principles of “smart growth” and integrated land use planning.38 Yet only a dozen states have comprehensive land use planning systems in place.

Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States States have expanded their environmental management role through federally delegable programs under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.39 All but six states have over half of the eligible programs specified under these Acts delegated to them, with 31 states having over two-thirds of such programs delegated. This indicator reflects, in part, a state’s commitment to managing their environment and strengthening the ability of their environmental agencies.

Environmental Policy Innovation For the indicators selected (including policies on air quality, pollution prevention, energy, climate change, waste management, land use planning, cooperative agreements, and public disclosure), the top 10 states are Massachusetts, Maine, New York, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, and Washington. The following indicator-byindicator discussion details the relative standings for the environmental policy innovation sub-index.

24

Air Quality Controls California, which since the middle of this century has faced enormous air pollution problems, has long been a leader in air quality policy and remains so today. It was the first state to mandate air quality and tailpipe standards above the federal standards of the Clean Air Act. The United States EPA has followed the lead of California in setting national air quality policy.40 Since 1990, states have been able to join California by adopting their tailpipe emission standards. To date, four states—New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine—have elected to do so.

Pollution Prevention All 50 states have a pollution prevention (P2) program in place,41 with 38 states having specific legislation to support them. Of these, only 17 have reporting requirements for industry and only in 14 states does the legislation provide funding specifically for P2 programs. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Minnesota have noteworthy pollution prevention programs (see Figure 9).

Renewable Energy Energy policy supportive of renewables throughout the 50 states was the focus of an April 2000 research report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The study found that a number of states, usually in tandem with ongoing electricity market restructuring programs, are integrating support for renewable energy into their new policy frameworks. The report cites special standards and funds that encourage renewable electricity development as the two policy strategies that will have the greatest effect in moving states toward more sustainable energy sources. To date, six states—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—have adopted both of these strategies. This is an important development. As the UCS report notes, “these policies create renewable energy markets and provide measurable commitments to renewables development”42 (see Figure 10).

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Figure 8. Leading State Environmental Agency Websites The following 10 websites provide examples of how some states are leading the way in presenting information on the environment in a user-friendly and innovative manner: Iowa 2010—The Governor’s State Planning Council: “What’s your vision of Iowa for the year 2010? Will the economy thrive? Will our children continue to receive high quality education? Will our land, water, and sky be pure?” So begins the website of the Iowa 2010 strategic planning initiative website, a well designed site that is highly encouraging of public input and participation. The site includes an online feedback form for public input. http://www.iowa2010.state.ia.us/ Illinois EcoWatch Network: The Illinois EcoWatch Network has been a tremendous success in Illinois. Through programs such as Illinois RiverWatch, ForestWatch, PrairieWatch, WetlandWatch, and UrbanWatch, adult volunteers and high school science teachers and students monitor a range of environmental quality indicators. http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ecowatch/ Save Louisiana Wetlands: A great example of a site tailored for a particular project, the Save Louisiana Wetlands website is a clearinghouse for information on projects working to save and protect America’s largest and most diverse wetlands region. http://www.savelawetlands.org/ Maine Department of Environmental Protection: With a well-designed website featuring a lot of content, Maine DEP gets particular mention for its excellent online feedback form for visitors to the site. http://janus.state.me.us/dep/feedback.htm Minnesota Land Use and Cover 1990s Census of the Land: This well-designed website provides zoom-in maps for all parts of the state of Minnesota, where residents can review 1990 land use maps from the entire state right down to their local town or village. A simple interface, without the need for plug-ins. Supported by the Minnesota Planning agency, which also has an excellent website (http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/). http://mapserver.lmic.state.mn.us/landuse/ New Jersey Future: With a clean, simple, and well-designed website, New Jersey Future clearly presents its strategies for “smart growth” and sustainability planning. The full report of Living with the Future in Mind is available both for online review and PDF download. http://www.njfuture.org/ GreenWorks Channel: This Pennsylvania state-government supported website hosts environmental videos, interactive educational programming, environmental workshops, conferences, and live events. A wealth of information on sustainability is included, and the website has won numerous awards. http://www.greenworks.tv/ Environment 2000, An Assessment of the Quality of Vermont’s Environment, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources: Of all the online state of the environment reports, Vermont’s perhaps rates best. A highly graphical and user-friendly overview of the state’s natural environment is presented, clearly targeted to the general public. Reports for 1996, 1997, and 1998 are also available online, with each year focusing on a particular topic. http://www.anr.state.vt.us/env00/index.html Watch Over Washington (WOW): Similar to Illinois Eco-Watch, WOW encourages state citizens to monitor environmental quality and post this information on the Internet. “We currently know that over 11,000 people in Washington State voluntarily monitor various aspects of their environment. They want to do more. They want to do it better.” http://www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/wow/index.html West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Public Empowerment Program: An excellent and comprehensive environmental data website strongly supported by the state government. “The Public Empowerment Program is designed to make WVDEP’s information resources available to the public by capitalizing on the exploding popularity of the Internet. Through this initiative, citizens from home, work, or the public library can find out about toxic chemical releases near where they live, locate superfund sites, landfills, abandoned mine lands, and obtain other useful information.” http://www.dep.state.wv.us/pubemp.html

Resource Renewal Institute

25

TABLE 2. SUSTAINABILITY PLANS AND STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTS, AN OVERVIEW

State

State Sustainability Plan (or plan with reference to sustainability)

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut

None

-

None

None

-

None

None

-

None

None

-

None

None

R

CalEPA Environmental Indicators Report, 1995

None

-

None

None

R

Delaware

None

R

Florida

Florida Benchmarks, 1998.*

Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas

None

R

Environmental Quality in Connecticut, 1998 Delaware's Environment: A Report to the People of the 1st State, 1997 Florida Benchmarks, 1998; Strategic Assessment of Florida's Environment (SAFE) Reports, 1992 Georgia's Environment, 1999

None

R

Environmental Report Card, 2000

None

R

Idaho Environment, 1998

None

R

Annual Environmental Conditions Report, 1998

None

R

Indiana State of the Environment Report, 2000

None

R

Iowa - Portrait of the Land, 2000

None

R

Kentucky

None

R

Louisiana

None

-

Maine

None

PR

Maryland Massachusetts Michigan

None

R

Kansas Environment, 2000 State of Kentucky's Environment: Charting a Path of Progress, 1999 None An Assessment of the Quality of Maine's Environment, 1998; Measures of Growth, 2000 Maryland Environmental Indicators Status Report, 1999

None

R

Massachusetts The State of Our Environment, 2000

None Minnesota Milestones, 1998; Investing in Minnesota's Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, 1998. None

R

Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma

PR

-

Michigan Environmental Quality Report, 1999 Minnesota Milestones, 1998; Protecting Minnesota's Environment, 1998 None

None

P

Show Me Results Missouri

None

R

Our Montana Environment: Where do we stand?,1996

None

-

None

None

-

None

R

Environmental Quality in New Hampshire, 1996

None Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, 1999.

PR

PR

Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, 1999

None

-

None

None

-

None

Measuring Our Progress: Targets for the Year 2010, 1997.*

P

Measuring Our Progress: Targets for the Year 2010, 1997

None

-

None

None

R

The Comparative Risk Project, Ohio SoE Report, 1995

None

-

None Oregon Benchmarks, 1998; State of the Environment Report, 2000 Report of the PA 21st Century Commission, 1998

Oregon

Oregon Benchmarks, 1998.

PR

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

Report of the PA 21st Century Commission, 1998.

SP

None

-

None

None

R

The Quality of the Environment in South Carolina, 1999

None

-

Tennessee

None

R

Texas Utah

None

SP

None Tennessee State of the Environment: A Legacy for Tomorrow, 1996 Strategic Plan: State of the Environment, 1998

Utah Tomorrow Strategic Plan, 1998 Annual Report.*

P

Vermont

None

R

Virginia

None

P

Washington

None

RP

* These plans only make mention of sustainability.

26

SoE Report Type Name of State of the Environment Report

Utah Tomorrow Strategic Plan, 1998 Annual Report Environment 1999 - An Assessment of the Quality of Vermont's Environment Performance Measures 1999, Department of Planning and Budget WA Env. Health 97; Our Changing Nature: Natural Resource Trends 1998; Environmental Chartbook: A Collection of Indicators on Washington's Environment, 1999

R: Standard state of the environment report (focused on environment, statistical). P: Progress-board type report, covers economic and social indicators as well as environmental indicators. May have a sustainability focus. S: State environmental agency strategic plan, including state of the environment reporting. Note: More than one letter above denotes more than one report.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States Figure 9. Pollution Prevention Programs

Map not to scale.

Figure 10. Energy Policies Supportive of Renewables

Map not to scale. Resource Renewal Institute

27

NEPPS Program

Disclosure Mandates

Thirty-eight states have signed National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) agreements43 (see Figure 11). Set up in 1995 by the United States EPA and the Environmental Council of the States, this program is intended to grant states increased flexibility in administering federal environmental statutes. NEPPS possesses features actually derived from the green plan model. Most important, like green plans, the program emphasizes management for results through its use of long-term goals and indicators to measure progress. States possessing strong green plan capacity, in particular New Jersey, have benefited most from the NEPPS program.

The federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act has been a significant success in enabling public disclosure of toxic emissions by industry, as is currently available through the Toxic Release Inventory administered by the EPA. To date, only one state, California, has expanded this mandate to the state level. According to Barry Rabe, “the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986…supplements existing right-to-know programs through mandatory disclosure of exposure to chemicals known by the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Interestingly, no other state has followed California’s path in this area to date.”46

Environmental Leadership Programs

Beverage Container Refund Laws

An environmental leadership programs (ELP) is defined by the Tellus Institute as a “voluntary program that offers incentives to facilities for striving to achieve environmental performance beyond that required by law or by regulation.” In their recent review of ELPs across the U.S., the Institute found a total of 12 active ELPs, with nine of these authorized by statute.44 These nine states were Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Texas.

The first “bottle bills” were created in the 1970s and 1980s by the states of Oregon and Michigan. State beverage container refund laws are now also in existence in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont. States providing deposits on beverage containers are innovators in waste management and have improved recycling and reuse rates dramatically.

Greenhouse Gas Inventories & Climate Change Action Plans

According to a recent article in Environmental Planning and Management a total of 17 states have state-mandated environmental assessment requirements based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).47 Of these, only four—California, Hawaii, Minnesota, and New York—have delegated these requirements to the local government level.

Global climate change is emerging as a topic of major concern across the 50 states. Through the support of the EPA, 34 states have developed inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and 25 have climate change action plans. Although these reports are important indicators of potential climate change awareness, the substantive response varies from state to state. According to the reports of several nonprofit groups, in some states, such as New Jersey, state agencies have done an impressive job of implementing their plans; while in other states, including New York, California, and Minnesota, leadership is instead coming from researchers in the nonprofit sector45 (see Figure 12).

28

Environmental Assessment Requirements

Comprehensive Plan Requirements Information for this indicator comes from the same American Planning Association report that is used for the indicator on strength of state planning (within the Environmental Management Framework sub-index). Here, the emphasis is on state mandates for local plans to include a select group of innovative elements: awareness of the need for urban growth boundaries, planning ahead for natural hazards, protecting critical and sensitive

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States Figure 11. National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) Programs

Map not to scale.

Figure 12. Climate Change Action Plans & Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Map not to scale. Resource Renewal Institute

29

Figure 13. Governance Grade (from Governing magazine, 1999)

Map not to scale.

30

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

natural areas, and providing for community input through visioning and public participation. According to the APA report, only four states show a strong commitment to innovation—Arizona, California, Florida, and Washington—each having three or more of the innovative elements as local plan requirements.

$

Fiscal and Program Commitment The 10 leaders in the Fiscal and Program Commitment Sub-Index are Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, New York, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Florida (see Figure 15).

Fiscal Commitment: Environmental Programs, Open Space, and Public Transport States with high per capita spending on environmental programs are Illinois, Oregon, Utah, Delaware, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. Looking at the sub-category of open space protection, strong commitment has been demonstrated by Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont. States with strong commitment to public transit funding include New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Illinois.

Recycling Each year, Biocycle magazine undertakes its annual “State of Garbage in America” survey. States leading the way on recycling and waste management include Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and South Dakota, all of which have set high recycling targets (over 50%) and are well on the way to achieving them (above 40%).

Quality of Governance Leading states on the Quality of Governance SubIndex are Missouri, Washington, Virginia, Utah, and Michigan (see Figure 17).

Governance This indicator is drawn from a state governance survey done by Governing magazine.48 The survey examined a broad range of state government factors, including financial management, capital management, and managing for results, which are important in assessing green planning capacity as it considers the broader context of effective state governance. For our purposes, the most important of these factors is managing for results, which indicates adoption and implementation of strategic planning by state governments. According to the survey, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, South Carolina, Oregon, and Arizona are leading the way on this front (see Figure 13).

Green Procurement Programs A total of six states have comprehensive plans in place for “environmentally friendly” state government purchasing and operations. In New Jersey and Oregon, these initiatives are supported by executive order. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, and Minnesota also have comprehensive green procurement plans.

Voter Participation Rate Though not strictly an indicator of internal state government capacity, voter participation is an important reflector of community participation, which often results from good government performance and governance. In the 1996 presidential and state elections, states with high voter participation rates included Maine and Minnesota, both top 10 states on the GPC Index. Other states with high participation rates included Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Note: For detailed descriptions and analyses of the specific indicators comprising the four GPC subindices, see the supplement to this report: Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis.

Resource Renewal Institute

31

Figure 14. Environmental Mgmt. Framework Sub-Index (35 pts)

Map not to scale.

Figure 15. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index (10 pts)

$

Map not to scale.

32

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States Figure 16. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index (40 pts)

*California is the only state able to have standards higher than the Clean Air Act allows. Other states shown have opted into the California standards since this became possible in 1990.

Map not to scale.

Figure 17. Governance Sub-Index (15 pts)

Map not to scale. Resource Renewal Institute

33

34

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

III

States on the Green Plan Path

Emerging from Resource Renewal Institute’s analysis of green plan capacity is a clearer picture of which states are farthest along the path to sustainability. This section profiles the three highest-ranking states— Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota. These states exemplify the strides being made to develop environmental management strategies for moving beyond command and control. Exhibited in the three profiles are many of the nuts-and-bolts steps that have been taken in pursuit of sustainable development. Undergirding all of these actions are the principles of green planning. Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan proposal, New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project, and Minnesota’s Sustainable Development Initiative are outstanding examples of innovative action that can propel a state forward. Together, these three states capture much of the geographic, cultural, economic, and environmental diversity that characterize the United States. Moreover, their efforts to embrace sustainability provide the nucleus for wide-scale development and application of the green plan model in every region of the country.

A. OREGON: SOWING THE SEEDS OF A GREEN PLAN Having evolved from an economy heavily dependent on abundant natural resources, Oregon has become a magnet for the high-tech, information-based “new economy.” With the rapid growth and development brought on by this change, the very qualities that are attracting business investment are increasingly threatened by air pollution, congestion, and suburban sprawl. A variety of state leaders have recognized the

seriousness of this situation and are looking to green planning as a means for ensuring that continued economic development does not destroy the state’s pristine natural character. Oregon has long been a national leader on environmental issues. It was the first state to introduce a bottle bill; the first to institute statewide urban growth management legislation; and the first to create a regional metropolitan planning agency (Portland Metro). It is therefore no wonder that the state is making significant progress in developing the capacity for green plan implementation. Among recent actions is an executive order signed by Governor Kitzhaber last year that should generate momentum for an expanding set of initiatives all aimed at making sustainable development an overarching state goal (see Appendix C). Also unveiled recently was a detailed state of the environment report that gives leaders a clear picture of the environmental conditions and priority issues that will have to be addressed in working toward a sustainable future.

Development of Environmental Policy in Oregon The greatest legacy of Governor Tom McCall’s administration in the 1960s and 1970s is seen by many as the introduction of a statewide growth management framework. The passing of two landmark bills put in place the framework that exists today: one in 1969 requiring comprehensive local land use plans; a second in 1973 creating statewide land use planning law. The 1973 law declared that the State of Oregon had an interest in the way growth and development occurred, reclaiming for the state some of the planning and zoning authority delegated to local government decades earlier. The 1973 law set Oregon apart from all other states. It created the Land Conservation and Development

Resource Renewal Institute

35

Commission (LCDC) to establish statewide planning goals that would guide growth and development in the state. Every city and county in the state has to shape its plans to meet the framework of these overarching goals. In the late 1980s, under the leadership of Governor Neil Goldschmidt, Oregon launched a strategic planning effort that focused on the state’s long-term health and prosperity. Out of that effort came several important recommendations, including an understanding of the need to “engage all of Oregon’s sectors in a partnership for progress.” A fundamental tenet of this work was the need to “assure that the state can grow while protecting one of [its] key advantages, [its] quality of life.” The effort culminated in the creation of a comprehensive plan for the state’s future. Called “Oregon Shines,” the plan set five, 10, 15, and 20-year goals in three categories: people, economy, and quality of life. Approximately 35 goals focused on environmental issues ranging from carbon dioxide emissions to wetlands and forest preservation, transportation, and water quality. Progress on these goals is measured through the Oregon Benchmarks program, which issued its first report in 1991. The Benchmarks program has become a national model in establishing a framework for the continuous improvement of government agency activities, with a focus on encouraging “state and local government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit and citizen groups to use the Benchmarks in their planning and reporting.” This includes linking environmental agency activities to specified environmental benchmarks, a critical element of outcome-based environmental management. Oregon has also integrated its planning for transportation, land conservation, and urban development. The Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program, formed after its approval by the 1993 Oregon Legislature, integrates “transportation planning with the statewide land use planning program to achieve benchmarks for mobility, air quality, and community design.” The program offers grants for innovative strategies and undertakes extensive outreach about smart development principles to a broad range of constituencies.

36

Oregon’s Plan for Salmon Restoration Oregon’s Salmon Plan, launched in 1997, closely resembles a green plan, albeit on a small scale. When the federal government was preparing to list Oregon’s coastal coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, the state developed a plan to enlist voluntary citizen cooperation in restoring the salmon’s habitat, arguing that because so much of the habitat involved private property, a concerted voluntary effort would be the most effective way to ensure success. The Salmon Restoration Plan is a comprehensive, watershed-based strategy to restore, monitor, and preserve the ecosystems upon which the salmon depend. It involves efforts by federal land managers, state agencies, 81 new citizen watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, cities, counties, businesses, and private landowners. Projects include wetlands restoration, erosion control, water conservation efforts, urban riparian habitat restoration, reduction of non-point source pollution, control of hatchery salmon stock and exotic fish species, and catch-andrelease programs for wild salmon. Federal and state agencies responsible for dams and hydroelectric projects have initiated measures to manage stream flows for the maximum benefit to fish. Although spearheaded by government, primary responsibility for carrying out many of the plan’s restoration efforts lies with local businesses, community groups, and residents. Government provides a comprehensive framework, coordinating mechanisms, and legal and regulatory measures, as well as some monitoring and enforcement activities. Funding comes from both public and private sources. It is not yet clear whether the plan will succeed.

Toward an Oregon Green Plan In March 1999, a bill to assess the feasibility of establishing a green plan for Oregon was introduced in the state legislature (see Appendix C for the full text of the bill). As reported in the Portland Business Journal, “patterned after ‘green plans’ in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, House Bill 3135 seeks to put

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Oregon on a path not yet taken by other states toward eco-leadership.” The proposal was designed to establish a new state goal of sustainable development and require environmental and natural resource agencies to adopt integrated goals, measurable objectives, and benchmarks to achieve the new state goal. It would also require each agency to institute outcome-based management and regulatory tracks to foster innovation and provide maximum flexibility to the private sector and communities to achieve the goals. Introduction of the sustainable development bill followed a 1996 RRI-led “Seeing is Believing” policy tour to the Netherlands with multi-sector leaders from Oregon. In helping to build broad interest and support, RRI also brought a delegation of Dutch industry leaders to Oregon in 1997 to present the business benefits of the green plan model. Unfortunately, the legislative measure was not brought to the floor for a vote. However, recognizing the importance of the initiative, Governor Kitzhaber quickly moved to advance the sustainable development agenda through executive action. As the governor proclaimed in a recent speech: I believe that we are entering a new era of environmental politics—an era where the very nature of the problems we face challenge us to seek new strategies for success—particularly those that call for, and result in, greater individual responsibility and accountability for our air, land, and water. You cannot achieve that through regulation; you cannot achieve that through confrontation; you cannot achieve that through the courts. You can only achieve that through a collaborative and cooperative process that engages thousands of Oregonians and gives them a stake in the problem and some degree of ownership in the solution. A key body that has laid much of the groundwork for Oregon’s progress in the past several years is the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, an informal group of diverse interests that has been meeting since 1997. The group has been pursuing

“more efficient and effective approaches to environmental management and regulation” through an impressive process that is summarized in a background report. Driving the Committee’s proposal to establish a state Environmental Stewardship Plan is the need for a “unified and results oriented environmental management system, which can place Oregon on a path towards sustainable development.”

Future Directions With the work of the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, the governor’s executive order to make state operations sustainable, and a comprehensive state of the environment report, Oregon is poised to lead the nation to a new level of management capacity that promises to bring sustainable development within reach. Most encouraging is the fact that these efforts enjoy strong support from the state’s residents. According to a poll of registered voters conducted in March 2000, a clear majority of Oregonians—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike—believe that now is the time to act decisively on behalf of sustainable development. RRI will continue to monitor the state’s progress and to share Oregon’s experience with the growing number of leaders from other states who are looking for viable alternatives to the status quo.

B. NEW JERSEY: TRANSLATING THE DUTCH MODEL In its conscious effort to learn from and actively incorporate key ingredients of the Dutch green plan, New Jersey has become the nation’s leading proponent for state-level green planning. Strong interest in the Dutch approach stems from the comparable environmental challenges facing both places. The Netherlands and New Jersey are both densely populated, heavily industrialized, and, because much of their land area is coastal, they face significant danger from rising sea levels brought on by global climate change.

Resource Renewal Institute

37

Two initiatives in particular demonstrate New Jersey’s leadership in working to shape a sustainable future. First is the state’s Development and Redevelopment Plan, prepared in 1992, which provides a widely supported blueprint for smart growth. Complementing this effort is the Sustainable State Project, launched in 1999 to guide public and private leaders in developing new policies that meet the state’s long-term socioeconomic and environmental needs. Both endeavors are products of extensive public outreach efforts that have generated broad and influential support.

The Evolution of State Environmental Policy It was a Resource Renewal Institute policy tour to the Netherlands in the summer of 1993 that brought New Jersey’s long-term environmental goals into focus. Seeing the Dutch green plan in action proved so compelling that the group of state NGO leaders who participated in the trip resolved to permanently change the way their state dealt with environmental matters. Backing this bold proposition was the freshly minted Stockton Alliance, a group of 20 CEOs from the NGO and corporate communities that had come together to find better ways of achieving results than confrontation and litigation. Environmentalists and businesses were dissatisfied with the lack of progress being made and with the way the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was administering its programs. All agreed that piecemeal, media-specific programs—each with their own regulations and staff—required integration and an overarching plan for the future. Immediately after becoming governor in 1994, Christine Whitman was invited to visit the Netherlands by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, in cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment. Recognizing the possible benefits of such a visit, Governor Whitman sent a delegation of six high-ranking state officials to learn about the Netherlands’ plan. That trip served as a springboard for all subsequent actions in the state, beginning with the governor’s advocacy of the green plan model in her 1995 State of the State address.

38

In that speech, Governor Whitman detailed her strategy for moving forward: “We are working with environmentalists, corporate leaders, and the public to determine clear, measurable [environmental] goals with specific target dates… and will merge these goals with the aims of the Economic Master Plan, Energy Master Plan, the upcoming Environmental Master Plan, and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.” Based on the collaborative principles and purpose of the Stockton Alliance, Governor Whitman established the Green and Gold Task Force that same year to pursue working strategies for the joint promotion of environmental quality and economic vitality. Also in 1995, 20 diverse non-profit groups united to develop the fundamental elements of a plan for New Jersey’s environmental future. A series of Environmental Summits were convened that culminated in the release of the “New Jersey Green Plan,” which set out green plan principles and objectives for the state. This document, and the organizations behind it, provided a basis for launching the Sustainable State Project. With growing interest and support, the Whitman Administration adopted a number of the organizing principles embodied in the Dutch green plan, among them a DEP master plan and benchmarked annual report, a standards-based program for working with the U.S. EPA, and a statewide, interdisciplinary goalsetting and benchmarking process. An annotated list of accomplishments flowing from the ongoing interchange between New Jersey and the Netherlands is provided in Figure 18.

Toward a Sustainable State: “Living With the Future in Mind” In a remarkably eventful year, it was also 1995 when New Jersey Future, a leading state NGO, hosted the first Sustainable State Leadership Conference. This gathering brought together representatives of business, academia, environmental, and civic groups to consider the concept of sustainability in shaping New Jersey’s future. As defined by New Jersey Future, a sustainable state is one that “recognizes that a high

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Figure 18. New Jersey’s Sustainability Accomplishments 1)State Commerce Commissioner Gil Medina proposed an Office of Sustainability that was subsequently established by the governor through executive order in 1997. It was created to materially promote sustainable business development, offering loans and technical support to new and existing businesses. It has since been renamed the Office of Sustainable Business. 2)In response to a challenge issued by Governor Whitman, a loose consortium of state conservation and environmental organizations agreed on a common agenda and subsequently published a New Jersey Green Plan. This document served as part of the platform for the Sustainable State Project launched by the NGO New Jersey Future and the governor’s office in 1999. 3)The 1999 Sustainable State Project Report, Living with the Future in Mind, lists 11 goals and 41 indicators of socio-economic and environmental progress toward meeting those goals. Governor Whitman initiated the project with an executive order asking all line agencies to adopt the goals and track the indicators as an integral part of their operations. The NJDEP has taken the lead in coordinating benchmarking with its sister cabinet departments—transportation, agriculture, utility regulation, community affairs, and commerce. 4)The DEP also took the lead in implementing the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, New Jersey’s “smart growth” plan, with an administrative order mandating agency cooperation. 5)DEP Commissioner Robert Shinn, in his role as chair of ECOS, a national organization of state natural resource and environmental commissioners, urged the federal EPA to develop performance-based agreements and evaluation. This action helped create the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), now working in more than thirty-seven states. Central to the program are performance-based contractual agreements between the states and the federal government that are aimed at measuring environmental quality results rather than counting permits issued or violations of law. New Jersey’s NEPPS agreement encompasses the complete range of DEP programs, from radiation protection to open space acquisition. 6)DEP also initiated facility-wide permitting, in part as a lesson learned from the Dutch “one page permit” process. The department is moving ahead with Silver Track II and Gold Track streamlined permit systems. An outgrowth of Project XL, DEP is working exclusively with ISO 14000 companies on simplifying permit requirements. Silver Track II companies must buy into CO2 goals, pollution prevention, and other DEP initiatives. Gold Track companies must exceed these criteria by demonstrating a downward trend in emissions. 7)Necessary for this process to succeed is continuous monitoring of environmental functions. NJEMS (an environmental management system) has been developed to index emissions via a GIS-based computer system. It will be tied into an online program to provide the EPA with direct access to any part of the DEP monitoring system. 8)Steps to integrate growth management and environmental program rules into the State Plan started with coastal zone protection legislation in 1994. Water quality rules and watershed management planning guidelines incorporating State Plan implementation strategies were recently released. 9)The Dutch influence can also be seen in the latest effort to gain a stable source of funding for open space, where tax policy is linked with environmental protection. While an increase in the motor fuel tax was initially proposed, the legislature would not approve it. However, over $1.8 billion of sales tax revenue has been dedicated for the next 20 years by means of a ballot referendum in 1998 and implementing legislation signed into law a year ago. The goal is to protect a million acres of open space and farmland by fee and easement purchase within a decade. 10) In a unique action, the DEP and the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment have executed a letter of intent to work together on greenhouse gas reduction strategies, aiming at a 3.5% reduction over 1990 levels by 2005.

Resource Renewal Institute

39

quality of life depends on a balance of economic, environmental, and social goals.” The conference was the first in a series of public dialogues throughout the state that led to the identification of 11 indicators for the state’s longterm quality of life. In the four years that followed, additional outreach was conducted through workshops, conferences, and roundtables to determine what type of state New Jerseyans want. This work was carried out in a partnership between New Jersey Future and the Whitman administration, the kind of purposeful collaboration that is at the heart of the green planning process. The goals and indicators of this extensive undertaking were presented and evaluated in the 1999 Sustainable State Project Report, Living with the Future in Mind. Governor Whitman acknowledged the importance of the report by issuing an executive order directing all state agencies to pursue actions that will enable the 11 sustainability goals to be realized.

International Initiative In yet another bold step, New Jersey signed a landmark agreement with the Netherlands in 1998 to address the issue of global climate change. The jointly signed letter of intent established a framework for developing shared initiatives to combat global warming, including a trading system for greenhouse gas emission credits. The national Center for Clean Air Policy has facilitated the project. Over the past year, New Jersey has deepened its relationship with the Netherlands in order to make even greater advances on progressive emissions policies. The two governments have agreed to convene meetings every six months, alternating host sites between the Netherlands and New Jersey. The general purpose of these meetings is to promote innovative environmental policies that will help both places achieve high environmental standards and to further facilitate exchange of information and technology between New Jersey and the Netherlands for mutual benefit.

40

Future Directions New Jersey’s actions thus far demonstrate a commitment to the sustainability agenda that has propelled the state into a position of national leadership. Yet, despite these efforts, it remains to be seen whether the conviction truly exists to turn words into deeds that enable the state to achieve its widely shared goals for the future. The Sustainable State Report rightly concludes that “much work remains to be done if we are to see this project bear sustainable fruit. We must continue to fill in gaps in our knowledge of trends affecting our future. We must set meaningful targets, or benchmarks, for each indicator. We must commit, as citizens, businesses, and government officials, to achieving these benchmarks—and eventually, our goals of a sustainable and fulfilling life for all New Jerseyans.” New Jersey does not yet have an official green plan, but as RRI’s analysis reveals, no other state has done more to learn about and incorporate green planning principles, especially in the areas of flexible, goal-oriented environmental regulation and statewide land use and transportation planning. While New Jersey has only just started down the path to sustainability, the state’s current willingness to employ new environmental strategies has positioned it well for the next generation of environmental management.

C. MINNESOTA: THE FIRST U.S. GREEN PLAN? Minnesota’s natural wealth, coupled with a commitment to progressive policy actions that represent the interests of many groups, have made the state a leader in developing and implementing sustainability initiatives. Like New Jersey, by scrutinizing the ways in which the environment, the economy, and human communities are interrelated, Minnesota has moved forward on the path to a sustainable future. The state offers a good model of how to secure the broad participation necessary to make sustainable development policies a reality.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

A Collaborative Process for Achieving Sustainability When Governor Arne Carlson was elected in 1990, he committed his administration to reforming the management of state government. The centerpiece of this reform was Minnesota Milestones, an initiative to establish goals and a 30-year vision for the state. Led by Minnesota Planning, the Administration turned to the public for suggestions on the state’s future and what Minnesotans most wanted that future to look like. Thousands of citizens participated in the effort, as did the heads of each and every state department. They identified 20 broad social, economic, and environmental goals under a vision for the future, which stated, among other things: “We do not want growth and change to overpower our quality of life. …A new respect for the environment based upon a deeper understanding of our role in the natural world will become a part of our personal and corporate values.” Eighty measurable indicators of progress, or milestones, were selected to track progress toward the vision and goals. They have been routinely monitored since the program’s inception. Building on elements of the Milestones’ vision, cited above, and a Milestones goal that the state would seek sustained economic growth consistent with environmental protection, the state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) decided to examine sustainable development as a strategy for the State of Minnesota. The EQB is a policy forum consisting of the heads of ten state agencies involved with environment and development, five citizens, and a chair who serves at the request of the Governor. The Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning, also known as Minnesota Planning, is both a board member and staff to the board. The EQB develops policy, creates long-range plans, and reviews proposed projects that would significantly affect the environment. Redefining Progress provided the basis for a state strategic plan for sustainable development, distributed by the Governor and EQB in 1995. The plan called for appointment of a Governor’s Round Table on

Sustainable Development, which took place in 1996. The Governor asked the Round Table to serve as a catalyst for sustainable development, foster public and private partnerships, and reach out to Minnesotans across the state to stimulate interest in and communicate the importance of achieving sustainable development. The Round Table consisted of 30 business, environmental and community leaders, half of which were members of the original Initiative teams. The Round Table issued its final report in 1998, “Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life.” The report identifies six challenges to sustainable development in Minnesota. (See the Minnesota Planning/EQB sustainable development webpage at www.mnplan.state.mn.us/SDI/ index.html.) Subsequent agency efforts have begun to respond to these challenges.

Significant Legislative Landmarks In 1996, the state legislature took the remarkable step of directing all state agencies, departments, and boards to assess how well their missions and programs reflect and implement the Round Table’s principles of sustainable development, or how they could be changed to do so. Minnesota was the first state to take this dramatic step forward. In addition to this directive, the state has enacted other groundbreaking, sustainability-focused legislation, including: •

•

The Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995, which established a Forest Resources Council. The Council in turn set guidelines for sustainable forest management and created compliance audits that have shown levels of compliance exceeding 90 percent on most ownerships. Improved information sharing, landscape planning, and a training program to certify loggers are also results of the Council’s work. The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, also passed in 1995, which established a multimillion-dollar program to redevelop

Resource Renewal Institute

41

•

•

contaminated sites for urban revitalization and set area-wide goals for affordable housing. The Community-Based Planning Act of 1997, which created mechanisms and guidelines for community-based planning aimed at achieving sustainable development. The Act promoted citizen participation, improved cooperation among local governments and the development of sustainable approaches to economic development, conservation, community design, housing, transportation, land use planning, public investment, and education. The Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act of 1996, which sought to reward Minnesota companies by granting regulatory flexibility in exchange for superior environmental performance. Promoting corporate environmental responsibility in this way stands as a cornerstone strategy of any successful green plan.

Toward A Minnesota Green Plan Minnesota has many of the key components of a green plan already in place, the most important being a comprehensive, integrated, systems-based approach. As with any such endeavor that is in its initial phase, however, there is much room for improvement. For example, many of the goals and strategies that have been identified are in need of greater specificity. Each community, along with the state as a whole, will need to set clear, coordinated priorities and develop specific goals with measurable outcomes and a fixed timetable in order to achieve meaningful change. The extent to which the goals and principles that have been adopted are being integrated into areas of government other than those traditionally responsible for environmental concerns is unclear, nor is there much evidence that environmental factors are being integrated into economic decision-making. Both are cited as key priorities in the strategic plan, Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota, but it will take a steadfast commitment from government leaders to actually bring about changes of this magnitude.

42

Although the Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development went out of existence in 1998, sustainability continues to be a focus in Minnesota. In particular, smart growth has emerged as a priority of the Ventura Administration, demonstrated by the “Growing Smart in Minnesota” initiative. The framework paper for that initiative calls for the state to “support local governments around the state that make sustainable development choices.” For example, the Governor’s 1999 transportation budget recommendations called for funding of community-based planning in conjunction with inter-regional corridor improvements. The intent was to ensure that communities would be equipped to control highway access and prevent the sprawl that highway improvements might otherwise engender. While the legislature balked at the planning initiative, the Governor has established a Local Solutions Alliance, a recommendation of the Governor’s Round Table, to unify financial and technical assistance across state agency lines in pursuit of smart and sustainable communities. Two other signs of continuing progress are the 1999 release of Smart Signals: Economics for Lasting Progress and the December 2000 adoption by EQB of the scope for an Urban Development Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The Smart Signals study recommends specific policy actions to move the state toward a sustainable economy, including taking better advantage of market forces, developing new tools to measure progress, and redesigning incentive programs to encourage sustainable development. The Urban Development GEIS seeks to understand the social, economic and environmental implications of urban development in Minnesota, and the effectiveness of state and local policies and institutions in managing growth. It will examine the influence of state tax policy, general local government aid, and state spending programs on urban development cost and form. It will also examine the extent to which local land use controls export growth costs. The goal is to separate myth from reality and, by so doing, improve urban development policy and practice.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Future Directions What direction the state will go in the coming years is difficult to predict, but the solid framework that has been established is capable of driving the process forward regardless of political changes. Creating an environmentally and economically sustainable society is not a short-term proposition, and as Minnesota continues to blaze a path for itself and for other states it will take years to determine the true effect of the state’s actions. What is certain is that Minnesota has already accomplished more than almost any other state. The state’s pioneering efforts are sure to provide important lessons and inspiration for all those who follow.49

Resource Renewal Institute

43

44

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

IV

Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path

From both the macro and micro perspectives presented in this report, there is no mistaking the fact that a growing number of states are treating sustainable development as a policy imperative whose time has come. On all fronts—framework, innovation, commitment, and governance—an increasing sophistication of activity and purpose is positioning states to make commensurate advances in the underlying environmental policies that drive their programs. At the same time, however, because only a fraction of the 50 states surveyed have incorporated sustainability into their environmental operations, much work will be required to expand the positive developments underway and their overall impact on environmental protection in the United States. As highlighted in the individual profiles, the most promising efforts now being made are concentrated in just a handful of states. It can be expected that as the compelling benefits of these initiatives are made clearer, many more states will act to adopt sustainability strategies of their own. The effect of such activity will be to unleash a new level of environmental entrepreneurship from every sector. As eloquently observed in Stephan Schmidheiny’s book, Changing Course, “A clear vision of a sustainable future mobilizes human energies to make the necessary changes, breaking out of familiar and established patterns. As leaders from all parts of society join forces in translating vision into action, inertia is overcome and cooperation replaces confrontation.”50 Hence, the stage is set for all states to progress down the green plan path. Rather than offering a retrospective summary and distillation of findings, this conclusion looks ahead to the challenges and opportunities in establishing sustainable development as the overarching goal of every state and, ultimately, of the nation as a

whole. It does so to underscore the urgency of the issues at stake—namely the current and future health of our air, water, and land—and the magnitude of the problems that must be overcome (see Figures 19 and 20). Even those states that have done the most to embrace sustainable development continue to face an uphill climb. Minnesota, ranked number three in our survey of green plan capacity, offers a good case in point. Despite the state’s cutting-edge efforts over the past decade, Minnesota residents use more energy and renewable resources, generate more waste, and drive more miles than ever before. Without an aggressive plan and a clear commitment to reverse these trends, the state’s progress toward sustainability will be undermined. Such challenges illustrate the inherent complexities of attempting to achieve sustainable development. At the same time, however, because the state is educating its citizens and building a policy structure based on the principles of sustainability, Minnesota stands a much better chance of surmounting environmental obstacles than all those states that have so far not made sustainable development a priority. In surveying state environmental activities nationwide, this report has endeavored to provide a common baseline of where we are as a country in developing strategies capable of leading to sustainable development. With this information in hand, the bigger questions that must now be asked are: Where do we go from here? and How do we get there? Our report indicates that the answer to these questions include three elements. First, efforts must be made to expedite expanding interest and initiative, being sure to build upon the strides already underway by establishing an interstate communication network that informs states of ongoing

Resource Renewal Institute

45

Figure 19.

Environmental Threats and Challenges

Examples of the environmental challenges that need to be addressed in the century ahead include: 1. Climate change. Rising global temperature, related to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, brings threats of glacial melting, sea level rise, and volatile weather patterns. Although disagreement exists among the scientific community on the potential level of impact, few scientists disagree that climate change is now real, and will soon impact the daily lives of all U.S. citizens. 2. Impact of our ecological footprint. Estimates of our ecological footprint put the U.S. at 30.2 acres to support the lifestyle of one person; this compares with 15.6 acres in the Germany, and 2.6 acres in India.1 With increased global trade, the impact of the U.S. on the global environment is likely to increase. 3. Extinction of species. Globally, more than 1,000 plant and animal species become extinct each year. Though the Endangered Species Act has had numerous successes in the U.S., many species remain threatened by habitat destruction from urban development, deforestation, and intensive farming. 4. Population growth, urbanization, and sprawl. While not as rapid as global population growth, the population of the U.S. is nevertheless expected to grow from 285 million (in 2001) to a projected 400 million by 2050.2 Much of this growth will occur in sunbelt states, with attendant auto-dependent sprawl and urban growth. Sprawl is a problem throughout the U.S., even in midwestern and northeastern cities that are experiencing no population growth. 5. Water scarcity. Accompanying population growth and urbanization in the western United States will be a growing demand on the region’s scarce water resources. This will likely increase the competition between urban, agricultural, and environmental needs. 6. Environmental contaminants. Some health problems are attributable to environmental problems, such as the increased incidence of waterborne pathogens and exposure to toxic chemicals. Approximately 1,000 new chemicals are introduced into the global market every year. Some synthetic chemicals and heavy metals—often found in pesticides and in industrial inputs and by-products—have been found to cause problems in our intellectual development and in the reproductive, immune, and endocrine systems of wildlife and humans.3 7. Energy use. The energy crisis in California threatens to spread across the country, which is not surprising given that U.S. residents consume, on average, 8.7 times more electricity per capita than residents of other countries.4 As the population grows, energy demand will likely increase, as long as utilities’ funding for energy efficiency measures continues to decrease. Most U.S. electricity comes from coal power, which emits mercury and other hazardous pollutants. In 1998, only 7.5% of total U.S. energy was generated from renewable sources,5 mostly from hydropower and biomass (not solar or wind power). 8. Loss and degradation of agricultural land. Globally, agricultural land is lost to erosion, conversion, and desertification at a rate of about 20 million hectares per annum. The U.S. can be expected to play an important role as the agriculture sector faces the enormous challenge of meeting the food needs of 1.7 billion more people over the next 20 years. 9. Degradation of the marine environment. Overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution of the marine environment threaten the primary protein supply for 1.2 billion of the world’s people. Among the problems facing the U.S. is a “dead zone” that has developed at the mouth of the Mississippi River because of nutrient overloading from agricultural runoff. This problem alone threatens a multi-billion dollar fishing industry. 1 National Geographic, July 2001. 2 Ibid. 3 Lester Brown, Michael Renner, and Brian Halweil. Vital Signs 2000. Worldwatch Institute, 2000. 4 U.S. Census, 1997. 5 “U.S. Renewable Energy Consumption,” U.S. Department of Energy, March 2000.

46

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

progress in every region of the country. Not only should this network serve as an interactive conduit that reaches all states, it should also function as an organizing vehicle for regional and national interchange via conferences, workshops, and exchange programs that periodically bring states together to learn from each other firsthand. Knowing that the systemic change called for will require broad-based cooperation, this effort must engage both public and private sector interests at the highest levels of influence and authority. Contributors to this work should include, among others, the Environmental Council of the States, the Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), the Council of State Governments, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. Second, to optimize the potential of these activities, green planning can be the common thread that weaves them together, ensuring consistency and coordination of sustainable development programs across state lines. High priority should therefore be placed on equipping state leaders with the knowledge and skills required to apply the green plan methodol-

ogy. RRI’s Green Plan Leadership Program was founded with this purpose in mind and is one example of how the learning process can be undertaken (www.rri.org). Through the Green Plan Leadership Program, RRI is developing the necessary tools for enabling states to pursue green plan adoption. Program advisors include experienced green plan practitioners and implementation experts from the U.S. and beyond. Third, the federal government must serve as chief facilitator for the transition to a regulatory system built upon the principles of green planning. Working with states and the private sector to establish an overarching set of environmental targets and long-term goals for the nation as a whole will provide the basis for coordinated and efficient actions aimed at achieving sustainable development. It will also foster the complementary roles that federal and state governments must play throughout the process. Recognition of the need to move in this direction is seen in the NEPPS program and in a congressional proposal titled the Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act (HR3448).51 It is also exhibited in a recent letter from

Figure 20. State of the World Environment 1950 - 1997

1. Population 2. Megacities 3. Food 4. Fish catch 5. Water use 6. Rainforest 7. Elephants 8. CO2 9. CFCs

1950 2.5 2 1,980 19 1,300 100 6.0 1.6 --

1972 3.8 9 2,450 58 2,600 85 2.0 4.9 1.4

1997 5.8 25 2,770 91 4,200 70 0.6 7.0 3.0

Key 1. Billion persons 2. Cities w/populations greater than 8 million 3. Average food production in calories/capita 4. Annual fish catch in million tons 5. Annual water use in cubic kilometers 6. Index of forest cover 7. Million animals 8. Annual CO2 emissions in billion tons of carbon 9. Atmospheric concentration of CFCs in parts/billion (represents ozone layer depletion)

Source: World Resources Institute, cited in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Exploring Sustainable Development: Global Scenarios, 1997.

Resource Renewal Institute

47

the MSWG to the USEPA and congressional leaders that calls for creation of “the next generation of environmental law and policy.” According to the MSWG, “the problems of maintaining the quality of life are difficult but solvable. A wave of new thinking and innovative problem solving abounds in the public and private sectors, presenting a great opportunity for the Congress and the Administration, in partnership, to address this important national issue.”52

A. ELEMENTS OF A SUSTAINABLE STATE Knowing the major elements of a sustainable state is the first step in working to become one. What follows is not meant to be a prescriptive list; however, it appears unlikely that sustainability can be achieved without incorporating all of these provisions.

1. Goals, Indicators, and Benchmarks To determine where, when, and how a sustainable state is to be reached, it is necessary to establish goals, measure progress toward those goals, and know when and if the goals have been achieved. To be effective, the goal-setting process needs to involve a wide crosssection of the public, have the cooperation of all government agencies, and be multidisciplinary. Knowing when to answer yes to “are we there yet?” constitutes the first sustainability requirement.53

2. Integration of Law and Policy with Program Consistency of government action both vertically, from local to national, and horizontally, between state cabinet-level agencies, is essential for any sustainability goals to be achieved. Thus public housing policy, transportation planning, water quality planning, environmental regulations, budgeting, and tax policy all have to be integrated accordingly. Because most state law is derived from enabling statutes originating at different times and with varying purposes, it is seldom consistent with a sustainability agenda. The Netherlands has attempted to integrate its laws to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Plan.54

48

New Zealand revisited all of its environmental laws and integrated them into one act, the Resource Management Act, which has at its center the goal of achieving sustainable management. Here in the U.S., New Jersey has taken two steps toward the integration of environmental and growth management laws within the state’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) and water quality regulations to make them consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP). The SDRP is the unofficial instrument for implementation of the Sustainable State goals.55

3. Growth Management or Smart Growth In many respects, how we arrange ourselves on the landscape with new construction and how we manage the built environment determine how just, healthy, and efficient our future will be. Therefore, determining what is needed, planning what is to be built, where it is to be located, and when it is appropriate are key elements in searching for a sustainable future. As reported, several states have smart growth initiatives starting on an integrated growth management path; Oregon, New Jersey, and Maryland are among the leaders.56

4. Public Education No sustainability effort will be successful without ensuring public buy-in. Compliance with environmental protection law, indeed the development of law itself, requires the support of major political players and the public. Most environmental protection law is perceived to apply to industry and public agencies, not to individuals. Yet, when the case is made and carried to the people, cooperation is obtained. Such is the situation, for example, with recycling and cigarette smoking in public places. Two decades ago, both recycling programs and smoking bans for indoor public places were a rarity. But intensive public education campaigns enabled strong laws to emerge and new norms to take hold on both fronts.

5. Social Equity Everyone aspires to a healthy and safe environment. But while affluent communities use more

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

resources than poor communities, low-income areas typically face greater environmental burdens. Equal access to clean air, water, and land is integral to sustainability. This can best be achieved through the deliberative efforts of government, industry, and the NGO community working together and recognizing the links between health, education, employment, poverty, overconsumption, and environmental quality.

6. Procurement Policy Government has the opportunity—some would say obligation—to lead by example in ensuring that the products it buys and its methods of operation contribute to a sustainable condition. The effectiveness of procurement policies has already been demonstrated in recycling, where governments have mandated purchase of recycled materials, and therefore created markets, which have in turn led to widespread availability of recycled products that are competitive with virgin materials.

calculating our gross state and national products. Proper accounting of natural resource depletion and internalizing pollution costs are critical for making the informed decisions necessary to become a sustainable state.

B. STEPPING STONES TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE STATE The following actions can help any state forge programs and policies that incorporate the above elements and meet the long-term needs of all its citizens. This list fuses the major features of green planning with applied examples drawn from various state initiatives highlighted on these pages. In all cases, the environmental, economic, and social needs specific to a state will dictate the terms of both the process and the product. •

Initiate a focused effort that brings together diverse interests to consider the long-term future of their state, enabling each sector to express its priority needs/desires. Examples: The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project, the California Environmental Dialogue, Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, and the Eco/Eco Policy Forum of Maine have provided formal and informal settings for commencing this dialogue. The state legislature in New York is considering a bill to establish a sustainable development task force that would have this action as its first step (see Appendix C).

•

From this dialogue, craft a unifying vision for the state that captures the contributions of all its voices and engenders a “chorus of concern” for the state’s long-term quality of life. Example: The vision statement of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative provides an excellent model worthy of adoption by any state (see Figure 21).

7. Media Transfer Policy The U.S. traditionally has had a single-media focus in its environmental regulatory policy. Washing street contaminants into storm drains entering the nearest river, dumping sewage sludge into leaking landfills, or even stripping water pollutants and discharging them into the air are some of the many examples of how pollutants are transferred from one medium to another under the present system. Integrated policy that requires a holistic view of pollution is fundamental to creating a sustainable environment. The Dutch established such a policy as part of their first National Environmental Policy Plan.

8. Level Playing Field – Green Economics No sustainable development program is likely to be successful unless what are now considered externalities are internalized in our economic reporting system. For example, under the present system pollution prevention activity is considered an economic cost and oil spill remediation an economic benefit. Further, we make no allowance for the depletion of natural resources in

Resource Renewal Institute

49

•

•

•

50

Articulate the underlying principles that comprise the vision. Examples: Once again, Minnesota provides a good model with a set of five principles that cover the complex attributes that together define sustainable development (see Figure 21). As explained by the multi-sector round table of interests contributing to the Sustainable Development Initiative, “Principles are general guideposts along the path. A set of rules for long-term economic, environmental, and social well-being…” In its work, the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee of Oregon identified a longer list of principles flowing from a vision statement that features three key values: the environmental compatibility of business practices, the right and responsibility of every citizen to have a voice in determining the state’s future, and the need for accountability on actions impacting the environment. Equip multi-sector leaders and the general public with a detailed understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the state thus allowing for informed recommendations and decisions to be made. Examples: As described earlier in this report, state of the environment reports are an effective tool for this purpose. The report can be a straightforward accounting of environmental conditions such as in the states of Indiana, South Carolina, and Hawaii, or it can be based on the guiding principles and vision that give the report a focused theme and purpose. Reports from Oregon and Maine offer good examples of the latter. Worth reiterating is the fact that more than one-third of states (19) have not yet produced such reports. With a reliable and comprehensive information base, establish a clear and defensible premise for pursuing new policy actions that better serve the needs of each sector. Examples: The premise or rationale for undertaking

policy actions meant to achieve sustainable development can come in a variety of forms. California’s Innovation Initiative builds upon a detailed premise that spells out the environmental, economic, and social basis for moving toward sustainability (see the initiative summary in Appendix C). Alternatively, as in Minnesota, the premise can be presented in the context of a strategic action plan outlining the challenges that compel the state to pursue sustainable development policies. •

Develop an integrated set of goals and objectives with a corresponding timetable and an appropriate set of indicators for tracking progress. Examples: New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project Report contains 11 goals “shaped with extensive public input, which embody the highest aspirations of New Jerseyans from all walks of life.” Together with its 43 indicators for measuring progress, the report provides a comprehensive picture of the factors that will determine long-term quality of life in New Jersey. Not included in the report, however, is a set of strategies or a timetable to achieve the goals laid out in the report. The Minnesota Milestones and Oregon Benchmarks programs also offer goals and indicators of progress, but like New Jersey neither effort provides strategies or deadlines for fulfilling the goals.

•

Implement new policies and programs aimed at realizing the stated goals and objectives. Examples: At the state level there are two major avenues for implementing new programs and policies—either through executive or legislative action. The majority of states that have made advances on sustainable development have done so through gubernatorial initiative. The various actions taken by New Jersey that are profiled in this report were all accomplished administratively under Governor Whitman. The story in Oregon is similar, if not as extensive, with Governor Kitzhaber having taken steps to move the sustainability agenda

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

forward. Following a failed attempt at legislative action in 1998, the governor signed an executive order in 2000 to make state operations sustainable (see Appendix C). It is slated to be the first in a series of executive actions on sustainable development. In Minnesota, what began as an executive initiative ultimately received endorsement by the state legislature, where numerous bills were passed that contribute to the state’s sustainable development goals. The measures are described in Minnesota’s state profile (see Section III). •

Devise strategies to ensure long-term commitment to the policies and programs adopted. Examples: Because state implementation of the sustainable development agenda is still very much in its formative phase, tested examples of this action are not yet available. It can be expected, however, that the leading GPC states will provide the best-informed models for use in other states.

Implementing these actions will create a framework for achieving sustainable development. It will also spawn and strengthen the policy innovation necessary for continuous progress to be made. Because of the diverse support that comes from incorporating the priority concerns of all sectors, commitment to this endeavor will be strong, especially as its benefits are realized over time. This, in turn, will prompt the efficient governance and leadership required for ensuring long-term success. Integral to the overall process of creating a sustainable state is the need to educate participants in the practice of green planning. Given that success hinges on changing a regulatory structure that has effectively segregated both the issues and the interests involved, the learning curve to be reckoned with is steep and will require focused action that brings policy makers in contact with viable alternatives to the status quo. Through the Green Plan Leadership Program, RRI has learned that progress made stems from progress seen. Thus the “Seeing is Believing” policy tour has become the cornerstone of RRI’s education effort. Having led

more than a dozen delegations to the Netherlands and New Zealand, RRI has found that there is no substitute for the inspiration and understanding derived from direct exposure to green planning in action. In fact, there is a strong correlation between those states that have participated in policy tours and their ranking in the Green Plan Capacity Index. Oregon and New Jersey, ranked number one and two respectively, were both motivated by experiencing the Dutch plan firsthand. As Judy Jengo, advisor to New Jersey Governor Whitman and policy tour graduate, recently wrote, “The effective strategy developed by the Dutch has not only been an inspiration for New Jersey; it has also provided us with a conceptual blueprint for the determined pursuit of sustainable development.” An important caveat resides in the elusive nature of this pursuit. Sustainable development has yet to be achieved by any state or country. While the technical know-how already exists for defining and measuring elements contributing to a sustainable condition, up until now it has been relatively easy for detractors to dismiss the concept as academic, self-limiting, and impractical. But a more enlightened view is beginning to take hold, the essence of which is summed up in the following passage from a World Business Council for Sustainable Development report: The extent of our inter-connectedness has changed the speed with which knowledge is transferred and problems are perceived—but not the speed with which these problems are solved…our problems seem baffling in their interlinked complexity, and the slow and insufficient response of our institutions leaves many people feeling frustrated and disillusioned.57 This sentiment is contributing to an accelerating push for effective new policies grounded in the cooperative and integrated principles of green planning. In the United States, nowhere is this activity more apparent than in the growing number of states that are setting the pace for lasting change, an encouraging trend that carries with it the promise of a sustainable future.

Resource Renewal Institute

51

Figure 21. Vision Statement & Principles of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative VISION STATEMENT The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative envisions a future where businesses grow and prosper while respecting the natural and human environments that support them. In this future: • We Minnesotans make commitments and choices to preserve the options future generations will need to secure the quality of life we now enjoy. We see sustainable development as a positive, fundamental change in the way we define social progress, do business and protect the environment. • We view the health of our natural environment, the strength of our community and our economic security as interdependent. We maintain our quality of life through the sustainable use of energy and natural resources, recognizing that population growth, resource consumption and lifestyle choices determine the options we leave for future generations. • Our communities are places where all citizens enjoy rich opportunities in education, employment, involvement in community and appreciation of the environment. • Our economy is healthy, diversified, globally competitive and in harmony with Minnesota’s ecosystems; it provides all citizens ample opportunity for a fulfilling life. • Our natural environment is biologically and ecologically diverse and able to provide the resource benefits, products and services needed for the indefinite future. • We continually work to change our political and economic systems so that they consistently reward economically efficient, socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable behavior. PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR MINNESOTA The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development offers five principles as guideposts along the path of sustainable development. They are: • Global interdependence. Economic prosperity, ecosystem health, liberty and justice are linked, and our long-term well-being depends on maintaining all four. Local decisions must be informed by their regional and global context. • Stewardship. Stewardship requires the recognition that we are all caretakers of the environment and economy for the benefit of present and future generations. We must balance the impacts of today’s decisions with the needs of future generations. • Conservation. Minnesotans must maintain essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life-support systems of the environment; harvest renewable resources on a sustainable basis; and make wise and efficient use of our renewable and non-renewable resources. • Indicators. Minnesotans need to have and use clear goals and measurable indicators based on reliable information to guide public policies and private actions toward long-term economic prosperity, community vitality, cultural diversity and healthy ecosystems. • Shared responsibility. All Minnesotans accept responsibility for sustaining the environment and economy, with each being accountable for his or her decisions and actions, in a spirit of partnership and open cooperation. No entity has the right to shift the costs of its behavior to other individuals, communities, states, nations or future generations. Fullcost accounting is essential for assuring shared responsibility. Source: Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life, Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, 1998; and Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future, 1994.

52

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Appendices

APPENDIX A GPC Index Methodology and Data Tables Detailed Methodology Outline for GPC Analysis Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index Environmental Commitment Sub-Index Governance Sub-Index GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked

57 60 61 62 63 64 65

APPENDIX B A Comparison of GPC Index Rankings with Existing Measures of State Environmental Quality and Socio-Economic Quality

67

APPENDIX C State Legislation and Administrative Action Related to Sustainable Development i. Oregon HB 3135 (did not pass) ii. Oregon Executive Order No. EO-00-07: Development of a State Strategy Promoting Sustainability in Internal State Gov’t Operations iii.New York State Bill A5676 (awaiting passage) iv. Connecticut Bill: “An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems” (enacted) v. California EPA Innovation Initiative Summary

Resource Renewal Institute

72 77 83 87 90

53

54

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX A

GPC Index Methodology and Data Tables

Note: A more extensive review of the indicators comprising the GPC Index can be found in a separate volume (Detailed Results of the Green Plan Capacity Analysis), which is available upon request or by visiting RRI’s website at www.rri.org.

Resource Renewal Institute

55

56

Resource Renewal Institute

6 Existence of a framework for sustainability 2 Existence of a framework for sustainability

Resource Renewal Institute

of of of of

information information information information

$

1 . 3 Availability of Information to the Public (Website Review) What level of information is available on the website(s)? 1.3.1 Is there environmental data available online from state government agencies? 1.3.2 Are topical reports on the state of the environment available, i.e., air, water, land? 1.3.3 Is a searchable database of environmental information available? 1.3.4 Is there a comprehensive state of the environment report available (online or in hard copy)? How 'user friendly' and encouraging of participation is the website? 1.3.5 Overall design and 'user friendliness'? 1.3.6 Are reports dowloadable (PDF)? 1.3.7 Is the content in-depth, or just "up front"? 1.3.8 Are contact details available easily?

1 . 2 Existence and quality of State of the Environment report 1.2.1 Is there a comprehensive state of the environment report available (online or in hard copy)? 1.2.2 Is there a temporal analysis of environmental trends, or does the report present more of a 'snapshot'? 1.2.3 Does the report include projection of environmental quality and discussion of possible future scenarios? 1.2.4 Does the report include an analytical narrative on trends (beyond presentation of raw data)? 1.2.5 Does the report include case studies? Does the report show innovation in any particular way? 1.2.6 Is the report part of a larger process? (e.g. progress boards, linked to strategic planning process) 1.2.7 Is the report linked to state environmental agency/state government goals? 1.2.8 Is the report a 'one-off' production, or is it part of an on-going process? 1.2.9 Is there more than one comprehensive state of the environment report? (usually a progress board report and SoE report) 1.2.10 How recent is the report? (1 point if more recent than 1996; 1/2 point if prior to)

* Total for State Environmental Management Framework Sub-Index, 25 Sub-Factors

Percentage out of 28 programs, under 5 acts (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act; percentage has been converted to a point score)

1 . 6 Proportion of Federally Delegable Programs Delegated to States 1.6.1 What proportion of federally delegable programs have been delegated to each state?

1 . 5 State Planning/Development Act - modernization & strength of state role 1.5.1 Similarity to 1920s legislation - has the state government modernized and customized its land use planning laws? 1.5.2 What is the strength of the state role in planning and development? Can the state coordinate planning statewide at all?

1 . 4 Existence of State Planning Office/Program 1.4.1 Is there a state planning office or state planning program in the state?

45 Sub-total 3 5 ==> pro-rated down to 35 points overall

3 Strength of state role in environmental mgt ==> scored as 3 pts in sub-index

3 Base for comprehensive planning 2 Base for comprehensive planning 5 ==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

1.1.3 Support for State Sustainability Planning in Legislation (1 point for pending legislation)

1 . 1 Existence of a State Sustainability Plan (with Legislative Support) 1.1.1 Existence of a State Plan focused upon the achievement of sustainable development 1.1.2 Existence of a State Plan inclusive of the concepts of sustainable development

Content and usability of website Content and usability of website Content and usability of website Content and usability of website Sub-Total ==> weighted down to 5 points in sub-index

Availability Availability Availability Availability

Availability of information Level of analysis Level of analysis Level of analysis Level of analysis Level of usage and impact of report Level of usage and impact of report Level of usage and impact of report Initiative for broader SoE reporting Initiative for updated SoE reporting ==> scored as 20 points in sub-index

2 Initiative for comprehensive planning 2 ==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 25 5

5 5 5 0

0 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 3 3 1 1 20

INDICATOR

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

2 Existence of a framework for sustainability 1 0 ==> scored as 10 points in sub-index

35 pts

WHAT EACH INDICATOR MEASURES

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW, OUTLINE OF SUB-FACTORS USED IN GREEN PLAN CAPACITY ANALYSIS

The State of the States

57

58

Resource Renewal Institute

Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation ==> scored as

0 2 2 1 1 6

in in in in in 6

in in in in 8

energy management renewable energy renewable energy renewable energy renewable energy pts in sub-index

pollution prevention pollution prevention pollution prevention pollution prevention pts in sub-index

1 1 2 4

Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation ==> scored as

in in in 4

pollution prevention pollution prevention pollution prevention pts in sub-index

==> scored as 5 pts in sub-index

5 Policy innovation in pollution prevention

Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation Policy innovation ==> scored as

2 2 2 2 8

1 Innovation in local environmental planning 1 Innovation in local environmental planning

1 Innovation in state environmental planning 1 Innovation in local environmental planning 2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

2 Innovation in state environmental planning 2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

2 Recognition and action on broader context

==> scored as 0.5 pt in sub-index

0 . 5 Recognition and analysis of broader context

==> scored as 0.5 pts in sub-index

Programs

Is there pollution prevention legislation in the state? Does this legislation have a numeric goal? Does this legislation have reporting requirements? Does this legislation include funding for P2 programs?

2 . 1 1 Innovation in Comprehensive Plan Requirements 2.11.1 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for urban growth boundaries? 2.11.2 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for critical and sensitive areas?

2 . 1 0 Existence of Environmental Assessment Requirements 2.10.1 Does the state have environmental assessment requirements for state agencies based on NEPA? 2.10.2 Does the state have environmental assessment requirements for local government based on NEPA?

2 . 9 Existence of Bottle Bill 2.9.1 Is there a beverage container refund law?

* Note: only California has this legislation, to date (9.2000)

2 . 8 Existence of State-Level "Right-to-Know" Act 2.8.1 Does the state have a state-level "Right-to-Know" Act regarding toxics and chemical presence?

2 . 7 State Authored Inventories of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2.7.1 Does a state authored inventory of greenhouse gas emissions exist?

2 . 6 Existence of State Climate Change Action Plan 2.6.1 Does the state have a climate change action plan? (2 pts for draft; 4 pts for completed)

2 . 5 Existence of Environmental Leadership Program 2.5.1 Does the state have an Environmental Leadership program? 2.5.2 Is the Environmental Leadership Program being effected? 2.5.3 Does the Environmental Leadership Program have legislative support?

2 . 4 Existence of a National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) Program 2.4.1 Does the state have a NEPPS program? Does it have a PPA (4 pts for NEPPS without signed PPA)?

2 . 3 Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables 2.3.1 Comprehensive Restructuring Policies 2.3.2 Renewable Electricity Standards 2.3.3 Renewable Electricity Funds 2.3.4 Net Metering 2.3.5 Disclosure

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

2 . 2 Pollution Prevention

2.1.1 Existence of Air Quality Standards above Federal Clean Air Act* (both air quality and tailpipe standards) 2.1.2 States Opting into California Standards (tailpipe standards only, above Federal level) * Note: only California has this mandate, other states can opt into these standards.

2 . 1 Air Quality Standards (above Clean Air Act)

(Note: states cannot score in both categories)

6 Policy innovation above Federal requirements 6 Policy innovation above Federal requirements 6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY INNOVATION SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

0 . 5 Recognition and action on broader context

40 pts

State achievement in recycling State commitment to recycling State commitment to recycling State commitment to recycling ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index

==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

4 State commitment to alternate transp. modes

==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

4 State commitment to open space protection

3 State government environmental commitment 3 State government environmental commitment 6 ==> scored as 6 pts in sub-index

2 2 1 1 6

Resource Renewal Institute

4.0

GOVERNANCE

4 . 2 Existence of a Green Government (Procurement/Operations) Program 4.2.1 Existence of a Green Government (Procurement/Operations) Program

TOTAL OF 65 FACTORS GRADED

Total for Governance Sub-Index, 7 sub-factors

$

* Pro-rating was done to provide proportionality to the sub-indices and ensure that all factors are accounted for and that their relative contributions are accurately reflected.

1 0 0 TOTAL

15 ==> scored as 15 points overall

4 . 3 Voter Participation Rate 2 Community reflection of state/federal governance 4.3.1 Percent of people who reported voting in the 1996 November elections. 2 ==> scored as 2 pts in sub-index

3 Commitment to internal govt sustainability 3 ==> scored as 3 pts in sub-index

Indexed and averaged from 5 factors above (equally weighted)

4 . 1 Governance Grade, 1999, G o v e r n i n g 4.1.1 Financial management 4.1.2 Capital management 4.1.3 Human resources 4.1.4 Managing for results 4.1.5 Information technology

magazine

* Total for Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index, 8 sub-factors

3 . 4 Recycling levels and targets 3.4.1 State-wide recycling rate 3.4.2 Recycling rate target 3.4.3 Mandate on local government to reach recycling target 3.4.4 Curbside recycling, percent of population served

3 . 3 Expenditure on public transport 3.3.1 Per capita transit spending

3 . 2 Open space protection 3.2.1 Open space protection, from Sierra Club Sprawl Report

3 . 1 State budget environmental commitment, 1997 3.1.1 State environmental agency budget per capita, 1997 3.1.2 State environmental agency budget as a proportion of state taxes, 1997

SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

Effective state governance Effective state governance Effective state governance Innovation in strategic management Innovation in information technology 1 0 ==> scored as 10 pts in sub-index

10

15 pts

Total for Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index, 25 Sub-Factors

2.11.3 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for natural hazards? 2.11.4 Is there a comprehensive plan statutory mandate for visioning or public participation?

3.0 FISCAL & PROGRAM COMMITMENT SUB-INDEX (ATTRIBUTES)

20 Sub-total 10 ==> pro-rated down to 10 points overall

10 pts

40 Sub-total 40 ==> scored as 40 points

1 Innovation in local environmental planning 1 Innovation in local environmental planning 4 ==> scored as 4 pts in sub-index

The State of the States

59

Appendix A. Table 3. Environmental Management Framework Sub-index.

State of the Availability State State State Sustainability Environment of Information Planning Planning 1 2 3 4 5 Rank State Report (website) Office Act Plan
    1 Oregon 2 New Jersey
    3 Minnesota
    4 Washington      5 Florida  
  6 Maine      7 Vermont  
  8 Utah      9 Pennsylvania    
1 0 North Carolina  
  1 1 Connecticut      1 2 Kentucky  

1 3 Maryland 

  1 4 Idaho  

1 5 Delaware 
   1 6 Georgia 
   1 7 South Carolina 
 
1 8 Illinois      1 9 Massachusetts    
2 0 Indiana  
  2 1 Hawaii      2 2 Wisconsin 

  2 3 Missouri 
   2 4 Virginia 

  2 5 Michigan 

  2 6 Texas 
   2 7 Tennessee 
   2 8 Iowa 
   2 9 Kansas 
   3 0 New Hampshire      3 1 Montana 
   3 3 California    
3 2 Ohio      3 4 Rhode Island      3 5 Arizona    
3 6 West Virginia      3 7 New York      3 8 Nevada      3 9 Nebraska  
  4 0 Louisiana      4 1 Arkansas      4 2 Colorado      4 3 South Dakota      4 4 Mississippi      4 5 North Dakota      4 6 Oklahoma      4 7 Alaska      4 8 Alabama      4 9 New Mexico      5 0 Wyoming     
above average  below average KEY  high 1. Source: Website research, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000. 2. Source: Phone survey and website reviews, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000. 3. Source: Website reviews, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000. 4. Source: Website research, Resource Renewal Institute, 2000. 5. Source: American Planning Association, 2000. Element includes "strength of state planning role." 6. Source: Environmental Council of States website (http://www.ecos.org), 2000.

60

Resource Renewal Institute

Federally Environmental Delegable Environmental Management Programs Management Framework that are Framework Sub-Index 6 Sub-Index (score) Delegated
 33   31
 28   26   25   23
 22
 21   20
 19

19 
19 
19 
19

19

18

18

18 
17

16 
15 
15

15 
14

13 
13 
13   12   12   12   10   9
 7   7   6
 6   5   5
 5
 5
 4
 4
 4
 4
 3
 3   3
 3
 2
 2  low

The State of the States Appendix A. Table 4. Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-index.

Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index (score)

   

Environmental Policy Innovation Sub-Index

                                            

Comprehensive Planning Mandates11

                                                 

Environmental Assessment Requirements10











 











  

     




 



 


Bottle Bills9



  



 
 
  




    
     




       


State “Right-to-Know” Legislation8

Union of Concerned Scientists U.S.A. website http://www.p2.org/ Union of Concerned Scientists U.S.A. website US EPA website & ECOS website Tellus Institute US EPA US EPA

       
                
                       below average

Emissions Inventory7


































 



  
 

Climate Change Action Plan6






  

 

                    
    

   

State Environmental Leadership Program5

NEPPS Agreement4

Source: Source: Source: Source: Source: Source: Source:

          
          
  
  
            
  
    

  
                                      above average

Energy Policy Supportive of Renewables3

State Massachusetts Maine New York California New Jersey Oregon Vermont Minnesota Connecticut Washington Arizona Texas Illinois Georgia Indiana Rhode Island Wisconsin Mississippi Colorado Iowa Maryland Delaware Michigan Montana New Hampshire Florida South Carolina South Dakota Missouri Kentucky Louisiana Ohio Alaska Idaho Oklahoma Arkansas Hawaii North Carolina Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah Nebraska North Dakota Kansas Nevada New Mexico Virginia Wyoming West Virginia Alabama  high


State Pollution Prevention Legislation2

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Air Quality Standards/ Tailpipe Emissions Above Federal1

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 KEY

 



                           
            


  

            
 
    
  
               

         












 

                      

30 29 27 26 25 24 23 23 20 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 2

low

8. Source: Barry Rabe, "Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization," in Vig & Kraft, Environmental Policy, 2000 9. Source: National Council for Science and the Environment 10. Source: "Problems and Prospects in Local Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the United States," Rolf Pendall, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41 (1), 5-23, 1998 11. Source: American Planning Association

Resource Renewal Institute

61

Appendix A. Table 5. Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-index.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 KEY 1. 2. 3. 4.

62

State Oregon New Jersey Illinois Maryland New York California Washington Pennsylvania Vermont Florida Massachusetts Connecticut Rhode Island West Virginia Georgia Hawaii New Hampshire Texas Delaware Minnesota Maine Colorado Missouri Tennessee Ohio South Carolina Arizona Michigan Virginia Nevada South Dakota North Carolina Utah Montana Alaska Indiana Louisiana Nebraska Wisconsin Iowa Alabama Kentucky New Mexico Mississippi North Dakota Arkansas Idaho Kansas Oklahoma Wyoming  high

State Budgets for Environmental 1 Agencies       

 
 
   




  
 


       
     
above average

Expenditures Open Space on Public 2 3 Protection Transit                   
                      

  
      

    

    
                           below average

Recycling 4 Policies       










   
 



 
  

      
     low

Source: http://www.stateline.org/ Source: Sierra Club, Sprawl Report: Rating the States, 1999. Source: Sierra Club, Sprawl Report: Rating the States, 1999. Source: BioCycle magazine, State of Garbage report, 1999.

Resource Renewal Institute

Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index          













                         

Fiscal & Program Commitment Sub-Index (score) 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0

The State of the States Appendix A. Table 6. Governance Sub-index. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 KEY

State Missouri Washington Virginia Utah Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin Iowa Nebraska Ohio Pennsylvania Delaware South Carolina Maryland North Carolina Kentucky Texas Montana North Dakota South Dakota Kansas Louisiana Oregon Vermont Massachusetts Illinois New Jersey Tennessee New Hampshire Colorado Indiana Mississippi Florida West Virginia Georgia Nevada Maine Wyoming Idaho Alaska Oklahoma Arizona Rhode Island Connecticut New Mexico Arkansas New York California Hawaii Alabama  high

Governance Green 1 2 3 Grade Procurement Voting Rate                 
                                






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
                                   
above average  below average

Governance Sub-Index          

















                       low

Governance Sub-Index (score) 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

1. Source: Governing Magazine, 1999 2. Source: RRI website research, 2000. 3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Resource Renewal Institute

63

Appendix A. Table 7. GPC Index, Final Results I, Ranked F r a m e w o r k I n n o v a t i o n C o m m i t m e n t Governance GPC Index GPC Index   
 73 1 Oregon 2 New Jersey   
 71  
  64 3 Minnesota  
  59 4 Maine 5 Washington      57


 57 6 Massachusetts   
 55 7 Vermont

  45 8 Connecticut


 45 9 Illinois 1 0 Florida 
   43



43 1 1 Maryland 1 2 California    
42



42 1 3 Georgia   

42 1 4 Pennsylvania

 
41 1 5 Indiana




40 1 6 Delaware




40 1 7 Texas    
39 1 8 New York    
39 1 9 Utah   

38 2 0 North Carolina

 
37 2 1 Wisconsin



37 2 2 South Carolina
 

36 2 3 Kentucky


36 2 4 Missouri

 
36 2 5 Michigan 
 
34 2 6 Iowa
    31 2 7 Idaho  
  31 2 8 New Hampshire   
 30 2 9 Montana
    29 3 0 Virginia 
   29 3 1 Arizona 

  28 3 2 Rhode Island


 28 3 3 Tennessee

  28 3 4 Hawaii      26 3 5 Ohio 

  25 3 6 Colorado   
 24 3 7 Kansas 
   23 3 8 Mississippi   
 22 3 9 South Dakota   
 22 4 0 Louisiana      20 4 1 Nebraska      18 4 2 Nevada      17 4 3 Alaska  
  17 4 4 West Virginia   
 17 4 5 North Dakota      15 4 6 Oklahoma      15 4 7 Arkansas      11 4 8 New Mexico      10 4 9 Wyoming      8 5 0 Alabama  high
above average  below average  low KEY

64

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States Appendix A. Table 8. GPC Index, Final Results II, Ranked Out of 35 pts Out of 40 pts Framework Innovation 1 Oregon 33 24 2 New Jersey 31 25 3 Minnesota 28 23 4 Maine 23 29 5 Washington 26 18 6 Massachusetts 17 30 7 Vermont 22 23 8 Connecticut 19 20 9 Illinois 18 16 1 0 Florida 25 10 1 1 Maryland 19 13 1 2 California 9 26 1 3 Georgia 18 16 1 4 Pennsylvania 20 7 1 5 Indiana 16 15 1 6 Delaware 19 12 1 7 Texas 13 17 1 8 New York 5 27 1 9 Utah 21 7 2 0 North Carolina 19 7 2 1 Wisconsin 15 14 2 2 South Carolina 18 10 2 3 Kentucky 19 9 2 4 Missouri 15 10 2 5 Michigan 13 12 2 6 Iowa 12 13 2 7 Idaho 19 8 2 8 New Hampshire 12 11 2 9 Montana 10 12 3 0 Virginia 14 5 3 1 Arizona 6 17 3 2 Rhode Island 7 15 3 3 Tennessee 13 7 3 4 Hawaii 15 7 3 5 Ohio 7 9 3 6 Colorado 4 13 3 7 Kansas 12 6 3 8 Mississippi 4 14 3 9 South Dakota 4 10 4 0 Louisiana 5 9 4 1 Nebraska 5 6 4 2 Nevada 5 6 4 3 Alaska 3 8 4 4 West Virginia 6 3 4 5 North Dakota 3 6 4 6 Oklahoma 3 8 4 7 Arkansas 4 7 4 8 New Mexico 2 5 4 9 Wyoming 2 4 5 0 Alabama 3 2

Out of 10 pts Out of 15 pts C o m m i t m e n t Governance GPC Index GPC Index
7 8 73 7 8 71
4 9 64
4 3 59
5 8 57
5 5 57
5 5 55
5 2 45
6 5 45
5 4 43
5 6 43  5 2 42  4 4 42  5 9 42  2 7 41  4 6 40  4 6 40  5 2 39  3 8 39  3 9 38  2 6 37  3 6 37  2 6 36  4 8 36  3 7 36  2 6 34  2 3 31  4 4 31  3 5 30  3 8 29  3 3 29  4 2 28  3 5 28  4 2 28  3 6 26  4 4 25  1 5 24  2 4 23  3 5 22  2 5 22  2 6 20  3 4 18  3 3 17  4 4 17  2 5 17  1 3 15  2 2 15  2 2 11  0 3 10  2 1 8 

Resource Renewal Institute

65

66

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX B

A Comparison of G.P.C. Index Rankings with Existing Measures of State Environmental Quality and Socio-economic Quality

Resource Renewal Institute

67

The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) produced Gold and Green 2000 as an update to its 1994 report. The report ranks states according to 20 indicators on their economic/social (gold) health and 20 indicators on their environmental (green) quality. Economic (Gold) Indicators: Workplace deaths, workers in high-injury jobs, workers with toxic injuries, workers in jobs with high risk of disease, disability benefits, employer health insurance, laws protecting workers, unemployment rate, youth unemployment rate, unemployment duration, employment growth, women’s opportunities in top jobs, minority opportunities in top jobs, annual pay, households in poverty, income gap between rich and poor, high-school educational attainment, tax fairness, business start-ups, job growth in new business. Environmental (Green) Indicators: Hazardous waste generated, toxic chemical discharges, cancer-causing toxins, solid waste generated, solid waste recycled, pesticides, fertilizer use, total water use, hazardous spills, global warming gases, air quality, gasoline use, miles driven, energy consumption, change in energy consumption, state spending on environment, portion of state budget for the environment, environmental policy record, pollution subsidy versus investment, emissions-to-job ratio. Gold and Green 2000 found that “states with the highest environmental standards also boast the best economic performance.”1 Furthermore, a comparison of the Gold and Green rankings with GPC Index rankings shows a relationship between states’ environmental and economic standing and their green planning capacity. Of the seven top-scoring GPC states, three are also in the seven top-scoring states on the Gold and on the Green indices. On the economic, Gold index, Minnesota, Vermont, and Massachusetts all scored within the top seven. On the environmental, Green index, Vermont,

Table 9. Comparison of GPC Index with Gold and Green Index Rankings State Oregon New Jersey Minnesota Maine Washington Massachusetts Vermont

68

GPC Index Rank

ISS Green Rank

ISS Gold Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 24 6 (tie) 6 (tie) 11 18 1

23 10 2 13 18 4 3

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Minnesota, and Maine scored within the top seven. Furthermore, all of the top-seven GPC Index states scored within the top 25 (the top half ) of Gold and Green rankings. The fact that states like Massachusetts and New Jersey score high in the GPC Index but not as high on environmental quality can probably be attributed to a couple of factors. First, it makes sense that states with greater environmental pressures (from population density and industrial development) have had more of a need to build the policy capacity to address those pressures. (This partially accounts for the low GPC ranking of states like North and South Dakota, which do not experience these pressures to the extent that other states do.) Secondly, some of the innovative policies that states like Massachusetts and New Jersey have put into place are relatively new and have not been fully implemented. Therefore, those policies may not have translated yet into measurable environmental improvements. While some correlations are apparent between the various indices, this information is primarily presented to round out the profiles of these states.

1

Gold and Green 2000, Institute for Southern Studies, http://216.22.158/ goldgreen2000.html.

Resource Renewal Institute

69

70

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX C

State Legislation and Administrative Action Related to Sustainable Development

Resource Renewal Institute

71

APPENDIX C (i). Text of Oregon HB 3135 70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—1999 Regular Session LC 1787 House Bill 3135 Sponsored by Representative WELLS; Representative PIERCY (at the request of Stewardship Planned Partnership) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Declares sustainable development as policy goal of State of Oregon. Establishes Sustainable Development Task Force to study feasibility of adopting goal oriented and performance based regulatory system to achieve goal. Declares emergency, effective July 1, 1999. A BILL FOR AN ACT Relating to sustainable development study; appropriating money; limiting expenditures; and declaring an emergency. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. { + As used in sections 1 to 5 of this 1999 Act: (1) ‘Benchmarks’ means interim indicators that measure the progress in achieving measurable objectives and long term measurable goals. (2) ‘Long term measurable goals’ means the attainment of the condition for a parameter that is necessary to achieve sustainable development within 25 years. NOTE:

72

Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within { + braces and plus signs + }. Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

(3) ‘Measurable objectives’ means measurable achievements at specific points in time, typically in two- to five-year segments that over the duration achieve long term measurable goals. (4) ‘Natural resource agency’ includes the Office of Energy, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Environmental Quality Commission, State Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Water Resources Department, State Forestry Department, Division of State Lands, State Parks and Recreation Department and State Department of Agriculture. (5) ‘Sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to meet their current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. + } SECTION 2. { + The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: (1) In order to establish a policy of sustainable development, the State of Oregon must achieve the following intermediate value goals: (a) A competitive and balanced economy; (b) A healthy environment (c) A continuing resource base; and (d) Communities that provide a good quality of life, for both current and future generations of Oregonians. (2) Although Oregon has made progress toward the goals set forth in subsection (1) of this section, Oregon lacks an integrated strategy for achieving these goals concurrently. Oregon also lacks established mechanisms for measuring the success of activities implemented to achieve these goals. (3) To develop an integrated strategy for achieving the four goals set forth in subsection (1) of this section, and thus establishing a sustainable development policy, the State of Oregon must: (a) Examine the feasibility of establishing clear, long term measurable goals for environmental and natural resource stewardship along with measurable objectives and interim benchmarks to monitor progress towards the goals in accordance with ORS 291.110 and 291.200; (b) Examine a performance based system in which long term measurable goals can be attained by carefully monitored and self-generated, incentive based strategies that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental management and regulation for businesses, communities and government; and Resource Renewal Institute

73

(c) Integrate environmental and natural resource goals with economic and societal goals. + } SECTION 3. { + In order to achieve the goals set forth in section 2 (1) of this 1999 Act, the State of Oregon shall examine an environmental and natural resource management system that is based on a policy of sustainable development and that: (1) Establishes clear long term measurable goals and measurable objectives in accordance with ORS 291.110; (2) Is incentive based and performance oriented; (3) Allows attainment of superior environmental and natural resource management performance by adoption of a performance track in which entities would be held accountable for achieving long term measurable goals but have freedom to choose how to accomplish them; (4) Assures predictability for participants; (5) Is integrated, cross media, cross agency and flexible; (6) Focuses on managing the causes of environmental degradation rather than simply impacts; (7) Concentrates on issues of long term ecological significance; and (8) Achieves the objectives of subsections (1) to (7) of this section in the most costeffective, economically accommodating and community oriented manner. + } SECTION 4. { + (1) There is created a Sustainable Development Task Force consisting of not more than 18 members. The President of the Senate shall appoint two at-large members, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint two at-large members, and the Governor shall appoint one at-large member who shall serve as chairperson of the task force. In addition to the five at-large members, each director of a natural resource agency shall appoint one member. The Governor shall appoint the remaining members of the task force to represent industry, public interest groups and municipalities. (2) The task force shall conduct the examination described in section 3 of this 1999 Act and determine the viability of adopting a goal oriented and performance based regulatory system with sustainable development as the overarching environmental policy for the State of Oregon. (3) The task force may cause to be employed such persons as are necessary to the performance of the function of the task force. The task force shall fix the duties and amounts of compensation of such employees. The task force shall use the services of natural resource agency staff to the greatest extent practicable. (4) All agencies, departments and officers of this state are directed to assist the task force created under this section in attaining its mission, and to furnish such

74

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

information and advice as the members of the task force consider necessary to perform their functions. (5) Subject to the approval of the Emergency Board, the task force created under this section may accept contributions of funds and assistance from the United States or its agencies or from any other source, public or private, and agree to conditions thereon not inconsistent with the purposes of the task force. All such funds are to aid in financing the functions of the task force and shall be deposited in the General Fund of the State Treasury to the credit of separate accounts for the task force and shall be disbursed for the purpose for which contributed in the same manner as funds appropriated for the task force. (6) Official action by the task force established under this section shall require the approval of a majority of the quorum of the task force. A majority of the members of the task force constitutes a quorum. All legislation recommended by official action of the task force must indicate that the legislation is introduced at the request of the task force. Such legislation shall be prepared in time for presession numbering and presession filing pursuant to ORS 171.130. + } SECTION 5. { + In accordance with the requirements established by the Sustainable Development Task Force, each natural resource agency shall determine the following and report to the task force: (1) The degree to which a state policy of sustainable development will assist the agency in carrying out its mission. (2) Methods for establishing long term measurable goals to achieve sustainable development, including interim benchmarks, from the agency’s perspective. (3) How collaboration would occur with other governmental entities and state agencies under a policy of sustainable development. (4) Changes to statutes, rules, policies, intergovernmental agreements, strategic plans, relationships with private and nonprofit sectors and the agency’s organization and processes that would be necessary to implement a policy of sustainable development. (5) Whether resources are being allocated in reasonable proportion to the ecological significance of sustainable development and the resource allocation changes necessary to bring the allocation into proper proportion. (6) The extent to which new systems can be developed, particularly incentive based programs, to achieve measurable superior environmental protection and natural resource management. + } SECTION 6. { + The appointing authorities shall appoint the members of the Sustainable Development Task Force on or before October 1, 1999. The task force shall convene its first meeting on or before October 15, 1999. + } Resource Renewal Institute

75

SECTION 7. { + In addition to and not in lieu of any other appropriation, there is appropriated to the Sustainable Development Task Force for the biennium beginning July 1, 1999, out of the General Fund, the sum of $___, which may be expended for the purposes set forth in section 4 of this 1999 Act. + } SECTION 8. { + Notwithstanding any other law, the amount of $___ is establish for the biennium beginning July 1, 1999, as the maximum limit for payment of expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts, excluding federal funds, collected or received by the Sustainable Development Task Force. + } SECTION 9. { + Sections 1 to 6 of this 1999 Act are repealed on ___. + } SECTION 10. { + This 1999 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 1999 Act takes effect July 1, 1999. + } Source: Oregon State Assembly.

76

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX C (ii). OREGON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO-00-07: DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE STRATEGY PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY IN INTERNAL STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS WHEREAS the unique natural qualities of the Pacific Northwest are unparalleled in the world and state government, as a large employer and facilities manager, impacts these qualities through its internal state government operations; WHEREAS the people of the State of Oregon have a long history of finding innovative solutions to the most challenging and complex problems; WHEREAS the State of Oregon strategic plan, Oregon Shines, reflects values that balance community, environmental and economic aspects of life in Oregon; WHEREAS analysis of current trends described by the Oregon Benchmarks and by the Oregon State of the Environment Report shows significant threats to quality of life and environmental and economic sustainability; WHEREAS the State of Oregon aspires to learn from the leadership of private industry, business, labor, educational institutions and other governments in addressing the goal of sustainable development; WHEREAS it is the goal of the State of Oregon to increase efficiency in state government, cut long-term costs associated with state programs and save taxpayer dollars; and WHEREAS this complex challenge is evolving, it is believed there are important steps the State of Oregon can take now to amend internal government operations to meet important goals. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: The State of Oregon shall develop and promote policies and programs that will assist Oregon to meet a goal of sustainability within one generation—by 2025. A number of significant steps will be necessary to achieve a sustainable future and will require the participation of all Oregonians. As an initial effort under this

Resource Renewal Institute

77

executive order, the State of Oregon shall focus on improving its internal operations as state government’s first step toward meeting the goal of sustainability. This step is the first of many to be taken as we advance the state toward a sustainable future. The State of Oregon adopts the following definition, goals and guidelines to promote sustainability. Definition Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides that future generations can meet their own needs. Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community needs. Goals 1. Increase the economic viability of all Oregon communities and citizens; 2. Increase the efficiency with which energy, water, material resources and land are used; 3. Reduce releases to air, water and land of substances harmful to human health and the environment; and 4. Reduce adverse impacts on natural habitats and species. Guidelines As the State of Oregon works toward sustainability, the state shall: 1. Employ the knowledge, expertise and creativity of Oregon’s citizens in developing solutions; 2. Build upon existing private and public efforts throughout the state to ensure efficient and complementary results; 3. Integrate efforts in ways that enhance the effectiveness of new and existing efforts; 4. Collaborate and cooperate to remove barriers and find solutions; 5. Emphasize on-going learning and adaptive management as techniques needed to inform and improve the process continually; 6. Develop voluntary, incentive-based and performance-oriented systems to supplement traditional regulatory approaches; 7. Seek to understand the full costs and benefits of possible actions to ensure that decisions are fully informed; 8. Using good science, measure resource use, environmental health and costs to determine progress in achieving desired outcomes; and 9. Establish clear, measurable goals and targets to guide state efforts toward sustainability. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: All state agencies and employees are expected to take actions to promote sustainable practices within state government. As an initial step, the Department of

78

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Administrative Services, with its central role in state buildings, procurement and communication, shall lead efforts focused on internal government operations. The following specific actions shall be taken under this executive order: 1. Adopt Sustainability Practices within State Government Operations to Demonstrate how to Reduce Waste The Governor designates the Department of Administrative Services as the leader in implementing early sustainability measures in such areas as: facilities construction and operations; purchasing; energy usage; vehicle use and maintenance; information systems operations; and publishing and distribution. The Department of Administrative Services, in collaboration with other state agencies, shall implement the following objectives: a. Within six months following the date of this order, the Department of Administrative Services shall adopt sustainable facilities standards and guidelines. These shall guide the siting, design, construction, deconstruction, operation and maintenance of state buildings and landscapes, and the selection, terms and conditions for state leaseholds. The department shall: i. Review and consider sustainable facilities standards, practices and principles employed by businesses, educational institutions and other governments; ii. Obtain input from the existing Central Facilities Planning Committee and the existing Capital Projects Advisory Board, organized for state facilities coordination under ORS 276.227; iii. Review and update state sustainable facilities standards and guidelines at least biennially; and iv. Track and report key sustainable facilities performance elements through the existing State Facilities Coordination Program. b. The Department of Administrative Services shall use the North Mall Complex design, construction and maintenance as a pilot project to employ and evaluate sustainability methods and programs. The facility design shall employ a wide range of compatible, reliable sustainability actions. Where feasible, it shall test such programs and standards as the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. c. The Department of Administrative Services shall expand state government purchasing power by aggressively entering into joint bidding agreements with other state and local governments and with multi-government purchasing alliances, and by encouraging local governments to access resulting low-price, high-value purchase agreements that promote sustainability. This will make sustainable products and services more widely available to local governments. d. To the extent that it is effective and practical to do so, the Department of Administrative Services shall take immediate action to purchase electrical energy Resource Renewal Institute

79

from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. In the immediate future, this shall involve purchasing green power from private utilities as appropriate; beginning October 2001, this shall involve purchasing green power through direct access to the power generation market. e. The Department of Administrative Services shall appoint a Sustainable Supplier Council. In consultation with the council, the department, by June 2001, shall develop sustainability purchasing policies, targets and benchmarks for each of the following areas: paper products; building construction; cleaning products and coatings; general purpose motor vehicles and office furniture. In determin-0 ing benchmarks, the council shall consider benefits and costs that could arise as a result of purchasing sustainable alternatives. The Department of Administrative Services shall develop, based on its experience in implementing the preceding objectives, appropriate mechanisms to assist other state agencies in efficiently achieving sustainable internal operations. Mechanisms may include replication of department procedures or collaboration on the development of alternative approaches. In this effort, the department shall consult with the sustainability work group. The Department of Administrative Services shall report biennially to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly on actions taken to promote sustainability. The first such report shall be submitted by December 15, 2000 and shall address actions taken by the Department of Administrative Services and other state agencies to implement this executive order. 2. Create a Sustainability Work Group To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of efforts related to the sustainability of state operations, the Governor shall assemble a Sustainability Work Group comprising representatives of the Legislative Assembly, state agencies, business, natural resources industry and environmental interests, labor, education and local government for the purpose of providing evaluations, recommendations and feedback on state efforts. The work group shall also be asked to develop options for additional steps the state can take to promote sustainability. Staffing for the work group shall be coordinated by the Governor’s office. The work group shall present a first report to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly by December 15, 2000, with a final report due by June 1, 2001. 3. Assess Options for Sustainability Indicators and Targets The Oregon Progress Board shall evaluate potential measures, including Oregon Benchmarks and the State of the Environment Report, for their effectiveness in

80

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

measuring progress toward sustainability. In this evaluation, the Progress Board shall consult with the Sustainability Work Group and with the Department of Administrative Services. The Progress Board shall report to the Governor and Legislative Assembly on their findings as part of the board’s biennial reporting process. 4. Conduct Business, Community and Public Outreach Business and Community Outreach In order for state government to develop sustainable internal operations and assist local organizations to do the same, the Economic and Community Development Department, after consultation with the Economic and Community Development Commission, other Community Solutions Team agencies and other appropriate state agencies, shall develop and implement strategies to accomplish the following actions: a. Develop partnerships among state and local governments, businesses and communities that support and promote sustainability; b. Coordinate efforts to better market sustainable products, industries and services from Oregon and encourage development of environmental technologies; c. Develop a range of resources to support organizations adopting sustainable practices. These resources may include training and educational opportunities, electronically available information, case studies and other services of greatest value to businesses, communities and other organizations; d. Intensify efforts to increase the economic stability of communities designated as “economically distressed;” and e. Evaluate a range of incentives that would make investments in sustainablyoriented businesses and practices more attractive. By September 30, 2000, the Economic and Community Development Department shall prepare and submit to the Sustainability Work Group for its review a plan to encourage businesses and communities throughout the state to learn about and voluntarily adopt sustainable practices. By December 15, 2000, the Economic and Community Development Department shall prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly a report on the actions taken to implement this executive order. Public Outreach The Governor’s office, the Department of Administrative Services and the Economic and Community Development Department shall, after consultation with the Sustainability Work Group, develop and maintain Internet web sites describing the plans, actions and accomplishments of state agencies and highlighting examples of successful sustainability practices from the public and private sectors. In addiResource Renewal Institute

81

tion, these entities, in collaboration with the Sustainability Work Group, shall develop and implement short-term plans to communicate with the general public about the state’s efforts to promote sustainability. 5. Pursue Further Efforts The State of Oregon, in cooperation with businesses, non-profit organizations, local governments and other citizens, will pursue further actions in an on-going effort to meet the goals and principles outlined in this executive order. The Governor, in subsequent orders and directives, may announce additional objectives to be pursued by agencies. Directives may also identify steps to ensure broad public participation in this sustainability effort.

Done before me at Salem, Oregon, this 17th day of May, 2000. John A. Kitzhaber, M.D. GOVERNOR Source: Oregon Governor’s Website.

82

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX C (iii). Text of New York State Bill A5676 STATE OF NEW YORK 5676 2001-2002 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY February 27, 2001 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. GRANNIS, SCHIMMINGER, SILVER, HOYT, CAHILL, STRINGER, P. RIVERA – Multi-Sponsored by – M. of A. BRAGMAN, BRENNAN, CANESTRARI, CLARK, A. COHEN, M. COHEN, COLTON, COOK, DESTITO, DiNAPOLI, GALEF, GLICK, GOTTFRIED, GREENE, JACOBS, JOHN, KAUFMAN, LAFAYETTE, LAVELLE, LUSTER, MARKEY, McENENY, MILLMAN, MORELLE, ORTIZ, PAULIN, RHODD-CUMMINGS, SANDERS, SCARBOROUGH, SEDDIO, SIDIKMAN, SWEENEY, TOWNS, WEINSTEIN, WEISENBERG — read once and referred to the Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry

AN ACT creating a sustainable development task force to study the feasibility of adopting goal oriented and performance based regulatory systems to achieve a goal of sustainable development for the state of New York THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. As used in this act, the term: (1) “Benchmarks” means interim indicators that measure the progress in achieving measurable objectives and long term measurable goals. (2) “Long term measurable goals” means the attainment of the condition for a parameter that is necessary to achieve sustainable development within 25 years. EXPLANATION: Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets { } is old law to be omitted. Resource Renewal Institute

83

(3) “Measurable objectives” means measurable achievements at specific points in time, typically in two- to five-year segments that over the duration achieve long term measurable goals. (4) “Sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to meet their current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. S 2. The legislature finds and declares that: (1) In order to establish a policy of sustainable development necessary for economic competitiveness in the twenty-first century, the state must achieve the following intermediate value goals: (a) A competitive and balanced economy; (b) A healthy environment; (c) A continuing resource base; and (d) Communities that provide a good quality of life, for both current and future generations of New Yorkers. (2) Although New York state has made progress towards the goals set forth in subdivision 1 of this section, it lacks an integrated strategy for achieving these goals concurrently. It also lacks established mechanisms for measuring the success of activities implemented to achieve these goals. (3) To develop an integrated strategy for achieving the four goals set forth in subdivision 1 of this section, and thus establishing a sustainable development policy, the state must: (a) Examine the feasibility of establishing clear, long term measurable goals for environmental and natural resource stewardship along with measurable objectives and interim benchmarks to monitor progress towards the goals; (b) Examine a performance based system in which long term measurable goals can be attained by carefully monitored and self-generated, incentive based strategies that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental management and regulation for businesses, communities and government; and (c) Integrate environmental and natural resource goals with economic and societal goals. S 3. In order to achieve the goals set forth in subdivision 1 of section two of this act, the state shall examine an environmental and natural resource management system that is based on a policy of sustainable development and that: (1) Establishes clear long term measurable goals and measurable objectives; (2) Is incentive based and performance oriented; (3) Allows attainment of superior environmental and natural resource management performance by adoption of a performance track in which entities would be held accountable for achieving long term measurable goals

84

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

but have freedom to choose how to accomplish them; (4) Assures predictability for participants; (5) Is integrated, cross media, cross agency and flexible; (6) Focuses on managing the causes of environmental degradation rather than simply impacts; (7) Concentrates on issues of long term ecological significance; and (8) Achieves the objectives of subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this section in the most cost-effective, economically accommodating and community oriented manner. S 4. (1) A sustainable development task force is hereby created to conduct the examination described in section three of this act and determine the viability of adopting a goal oriented and performance based regulatory system with sustainable development as the overarching environmental policy for the state. (2) The task force shall consist of fifteen members, each to serve for a term of two years, to be appointed as follows: two shall be appointed by the temporary president of the senate and one by the minority leader of the senate; two shall be appointed by the speaker of the assembly and one by the minority leader of the assembly; seven shall be appointed by the governor. The appointees shall be broadly representative of the geographic areas of the state and include representatives of industry, public interest groups and local government and the public at large. No more than four appointees shall be legislators. Commissioners of the department of environmental conservation and the department of economic development shall be ex-officio members. The governor shall designate the chairman and vice chairman from among his appointees. Vacancies in the membership of the commission and among its officers shall be filled in the manner provided for original appointments. (3) The task force may employ and at pleasure remove such personnel as it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions and fix their compensation within the amounts made available therefor. (4) The task force may meet within and without the state, shall hold public hearings, and shall have all the powers of a legislative committee pursuant to the legislative law. (5)The members of the task force shall receive no compensation for their services, but shall be allowed their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties hereunder. (6) To the maximum extent feasible, the task force shall be entitled to request and receive and shall utilize and be provided with such facilities, resources, and data of any court, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or agency of the state or any political subdivision thereof as it may reasonably request to carry out properly its powers Resource Renewal Institute

85

and duties hereunder. S 5. In accordance with the requirements established by the sustainable development task force, the departments of environmental conservation, economic development, agriculture and markets, and parks, recreation and historic preservation and any other agency or public benefit corporation deemed appropriate by the task force shall determine the following and report to the task force: (1) The degree to which a state policy of sustainable development will assist the agency in carrying out its mission. (2) Methods for establishing long term measurable goals to achieve sustainable development, including interim benchmarks from the agency‘s perspective. (3) How collaboration would occur with other governmental entities and state agencies under a policy of sustainable development. (4) Changes to statutes, rules, policies, intergovernmental agreements, strategic plans, relationships with private and nonprofit sectors and the agency‘s organization and processes that would be necessary to implement a policy of sustainable development. (5) Whether resources are being allocated in reasonable proportion to the ecological significance of sustainable development and the resource allocation changes necessary to bring the allocation into proper proportion. (6) The extent to which new systems can be developed, particularly incentive based programs, to achieve measurable superior environmental protection and natural resource management. S 6. The appointing authorities shall appoint the members of the sustainable development task force on or before 90 days after this act shall have become a law and the task force shall convene its first meeting on or before 60 days thereafter. S 7. The task force shall make a preliminary report to the governor and the legislature of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations not later than August 1, 2002 and a final report of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations not later than March 1, 2003, and shall submit with its reports such legislative proposals as it deems necessary to implement its recommendations. S 8. This act shall take effect immediately. New York State Assembly 2001

86

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

APPENDIX C (iv). Connecticut Bill: “An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems.” General Assembly January Session, 1999

Amendment LCO No. 17014

Offered by: SEN. DAILY, 33rd Dist.; REP. MUSHINSKY, 85th Dist.; REP. BACKER, 121st Dist.; REP. CARON, 44th Dist.; REP. BERNHARD, 136th Dist.; REP. DAVIS, 50th Dist.

REP. MADDOX, 66th Dist. REP. COLLINS, 117th Dist. REP. ROY, 119th Dist. REP. O’ROURKE, 32nd Dist. REP. SAWYER, 55th Dist.

To: Subst. House Bill No. 6830

File No. 799

Cal. No. 576

“An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems.” Strike out everything after the enacting clause and substitute the following in lieu thereof: “(NEW) (a) Any business required to obtain a permit or other approval from the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to operate in this state may apply to the commissioner for the benefits of the program established under subsection (e) of this section. Such application shall be on forms and in a manner prescribed by the commissioner. The advisory board convened under subsection (c) of this section shall consider, and may approve, such application if the business has demonstrated to the satisfaction of such board that such business (1) has an exemplary record of compliance with environmental laws which shall include, but shall not be limited to, evidence that such business has not been found in violation of any such law, other than a minor violation as determined under section 22a-6s of the general statutes, within the preceding three years; (2) has complied with the provisions of section 22a-6s of the general statutes, and any orders of the commissioner under said section, with regard to any minor violation, as defined in said section; and (3) consistently employs practices in its operation that ensure protection of the natural environment to a degree greater than that required by law.

Resource Renewal Institute

87

(b) Upon approval of such application, the commissioner may provide the benefits of the program to the business if the commissioner finds that (1) the business is registered as meeting the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System Standard and has adopted principles for sustainability such as the CERES principles, the Natural Step, the Hanover Principles or equivalent internationally recognized principles for sustainability as determined by the commissioner, or (2) in the case of a small business, as defined in section 32-344 of the general statutes, the business has an equivalent environmental management system which employs a data collection system for the categories of information described in 63 Federal Register 12094 (1998). The environmental management system of any business approved for the program system shall include provisions for commitment of the management of the business to the environmental management system, compliance assurance and pollution prevention, enabling systems, performance and accountability, third-party audits and measurement and improvement. Any business approved for the program shall be issued a certificate by the commissioner evidencing such approval. (c) The commissioner shall submit an application of a business under subsection (a) of this section to an advisory board convened by the commissioner for consideration of such application. Such board shall consist of a representative of the Council on Environmental Quality; the Attorney General, or a designee; a representative of the industry in which the business is engaged, provided such representative has no business relationship with the applicant; and the commissioner, or a designee. (d) If the commissioner finds that a business that has been approved for the program ceases to be qualified for the program because it no longer complies with the requirements provided for in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the commissioner shall revoke the certificate issued under subsection (b) of this section and the business shall not be entitled to any further benefits under the program. Any such business may reapply to the program at any time. (e) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may establish a pilot program to attract to this state, or to support in this state, businesses which require a permit or other approval from the commissioner in order to operate in this state and which have a history of providing for the best protection of the natural environment in the operations of such business. Such program may be based on any model plan developed by a multistate working group or may replicate a pilot program developed by such a group. Such program shall provide for expedited review of permit applications and a public recognition process which may include issuance to businesses of a symbol or seal signifying the exemplary record of environmental protection and exclusive use of such symbol or seal by the business in its advertising or other public displays. Notwithstanding any provision of title of the general statutes and the regulations adopted by the commissioner under said title, such program may provide for (1) less frequent reporting, consistent with federal law, of information otherwise required to be reported as a condition of the business’ operation in this state, (2) a facility-wide permit for all approvals required from the commissioner for operation of a facility operated by the business in this state, (3) a

88

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

permit that would allow for changes in individual processes at a facility without the need for a new permit provided the total pollutant emissions or discharge from the facility does not increase, or (4) reduced fees for any permit required from the commissioner.” Source: Connecticut State Assembly.

Resource Renewal Institute

89

APPENDIX C (v). Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative Cal/EPA’s vision: “A California that enjoys a clean, healthy, sustainable environment that enhances the quality of life for current and future generations, and protects our diverse natural resources.” Purpose: In 1999 Cal/EPA launched an Innovation Initiative to evaluate the environmental and public information benefits of environmental management systems (EMS) in up to eight pilot projects. The Innovation Initiative has been further expanded to: • engage stakeholders in dialogue about the environmental goals and strategies necessary for a sustainable California; • conduct other regional, sector and facility EMS based pilot projects to test methods to improve environmental performance and to identify areas in the regulatory system that inhibit environmental excellence; and • create, at Cal/EPA, a model green agency. Cal/EPA seeks to develop the appropriate mix of regulatory and collaborative management systems and practices that will lead to superior environmental protection and a sustainable California. The Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative is one of four Agency Secretary strategies designed to accomplish that goal. Along with improved access to regional and facility based environmental information, an integrated approach to our regulatory responsibilities and completion of both a structural redesign and a strategic planning process, the Innovation Initiative seeks to help define a second generation of environmental management approaches that will lead to sustainability. To accomplish this mission the Innovation Initiative will focus in five areas: 1. Create a “California Sustainability Plan,” a long-term vision for sustainability that delineates, for both regulated and unregulated environmental aspects critical to a sustainable future, goals, improvement targets and measures, contributing sectors, and appropriate regulatory or collaborative strategies. It will be developed in partnership with the California Environmental Dialogue, with input from a broad group of stakeholders and the public. Its goals will help guide Cal/EPA and other State Agency strategic plans and guide the selection of regional, sector and facility environmental targets. 2. Develop regional environmental management systems (EMS), multi-party agreements between Cal/EPA and state and local regulatory agencies, business and public

90

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

advocacy groups, to address California’s sustainability goals, to target improved performance in significant regional environmental aspects and to identify regulatory barriers to enhanced environmental performance. Implementation will be accomplished through sector partnership agreements between Cal/EPA and state and local regulatory agencies and a responsible business sector, to achieve specified improvement that is beyond both current standards and current performance. Cal/EPA’s part of the agreement will be to agree to explore such appropriate regulatory rationalizations as unified permitting, inspection and reporting that can significantly contribute to accelerating the pace, or reducing the cost of environmental improvement. 3. Initiate “environmental excellence” agreements, with facilities that are currently in compliance with regulations, to deliver additional “beyond compliance” and “beyond current performance” improvements in significant regulated and unregulated environmental aspects. Aspects that are targeted by the California Sustainability Plan and by the regional EMS would receive the first consideration for action. Cal/EPA’s part of the agreement will be to agree to explore such appropriate regulatory rationalizations as unified permitting, inspection and reporting that can significantly contribute to accelerating the pace, or reducing the cost of environmental improvement. 4. Conduct EMS Pilot Projects, designed to inform public policy makers and stakeholders whether and how the use of an EMS: • increases public health and environmental protection, and • provides better public information than existing regulatory requirements. In order to determine if an EMS provides these benefits, Cal/EPA will conduct up to eight pilot projects. Data on changes in environmental performance and regulatory compliance, pollution prevention, and stakeholder involvement will be collected and evaluated, as well as information on the types and quality of information available to stakeholders. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted to the Legislature, with the final analysis due January 1, 2002. These pilot projects are also part of a national study, sponsored by the US EPA, the Multi-State Working Group on Environmental Management Systems (MSWG) and the University of North Carolina, on the efficacy of environmental management systems. 5. Develop a Cal/EPA environmental management system with the goal of creating a model green government agency for California State government. Demonstrate exemplary environmental practices in both regulated and unregulated aspects and disseminate the knowledge gained about the reduction in environmental impacts and cost savings to other state and local government agencies and to California schools through the Cal/EPA school education program.

Resource Renewal Institute

91

Legislative Authority: Governor Gray Davis formally established the Cal/EPA EMS Innovation Initiative. Assembly Bill 1102 was cosponsored by Assembly Members Jackson, Nakano, Correa, Reyes and Senator Sher. Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 1102 on July 6, 1999. The statute codifies and clarifies existing practices in Public Resources Code, Section 71045 et. seq. January 1, 2000 is set forth as the Initiative’s establishment date, and it is due to sunset on January 1, 2002. Appropriation from the State’s General Fund provides the revenue to support this work. Source: Cal/EPA, 2000.

92

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Endnotes 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Bob Hall and Mary Lee Kerr, 1991-1992 Green Index: A State-By-State Guide to the Nation’s Environmental Health, Island Press, 1991. Gold and Green 2000, Institute for Southern Studies, Durham, North Carolina, 2000. (First report published in 1994.) The Role of States in Sustainable Development Programs in the United States, A report presented at the National Town Meeting on Sustainable Development, convened by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in Detroit, MI, May 4, 1999. This report was prepared by Donald A. Brown, Senior Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of the Environment, and officials from other states. http://www.rri.org/bestpractices/PCSD/ roleofstates.html Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. See: OECD Environmental Performance Review: United States, OECD, Paris, 1996. “In the U.S. it takes 12.2 acres to supply the average person’s basic needs; in the Netherlands, 8 acres; in India, 1 acre. If the entire world lived like North Americans, it would take three planet Earths to support the present world population.” Source: Donella Meadows, “Our ‘Footprints’ Are Treading Too Much On The Earth,” Charleston (S.C.) Gazette, April 1, 1996. See: Huey D. Johnson, Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. For a detailed examination of the process leading up to the creation of the Dutch green plan, see: Paul DeJongh and Sean Captain, Our Common Journey, London: Zed Books, 1999. Concern for Tomorrow, National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1989. Thus a well-informed and participatory public was critical to the success of the Dutch green plan, a

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

measure which is included in the Green Plan Capacity Index of this report for all 50 states (using voter participation rate as an indicator). Portions of this section (including references) are drawn from: Phil Greenberg, Toward a U.S. Green Plan, a report commissioned by the Resource Renewal Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1993. environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC, November 2000. See, for example: Michael Kraft and Norman Vig, “Environmental Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An Overview,” in Vig and Kraft’s Environmental Policy, CQ Press, 2000. Discussion regarding improvements in the quality of the environment can found on pp. 19-27. See Paul DeJongh and Sean Captain, Our Common Journey, London: Zed Books, 1999, p. 226. Karl Hausker, The Convergence of Ideas on Improving the Environmental Protection System. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 1999. This program evolved into the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Norman Vig, in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy, p. 114. The PCSD closed their office to little fanfare following a “National Town Meeting for Sustainability” held in Detroit in April 1999. See: Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanowski, and John Peterson Meyers, Our Stolen Future, New York: Dutton, 1996. The article continues further in this regard: “Departments such as Interior, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development implement most of the national policies that affect environmental quality. Scientific agencies like the White House Office of

Resource Renewal Institute

93

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 27

94

Science and Technology Policy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration support critical research that must be incorporated more fully into the policymaking process. There must also be much more integration of international and domestic environmental policy, since most serious threats to the environmental are now regional and global and scope.” Michael Kraft and Norman Vig, “Toward Sustainable Development,” in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy. Dan Beardsley, Terry Davies, and Robert Hersh, “Improving Environmental Management: What Works, What Doesn’t,” Environment, September 1997. Paul R. Portney, “Looking Ahead to 2050: Environmental Problems and Policy (2000-2050),” Resources, Resources for the Future, Winter 2000. R. Steven Brown, “The States Protect the Environment,” ECOS, Summer 1999. Mary Graham, Environmental Protection and the States: “Race to the Bottom” or “Race to the Bottom Line”?, Brookings Institution, 1998. http:// www.brook.edu/press/review/win98/grahwi98.htm OECD Environmental Performance Review: United States, OECD, Paris, 1996. The highly industrialized southern states of Texas and Louisiana have been particularly criticized in this regard. For example, see: John B. Judis, “It’s the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!,” American Prospect, Vol. 11, Issue 21, 9/24 - 10/2, 2000. OECD Environmental Performance Review, p. 35. See: An Environmental Perspective on Regulatory Reinvention - The NGO “sniff test,” presented by Steve Skavroneck of Citizens for a Better Environment in July 1999, outlines criteria that regulatory innovations must meet to be acceptable by NGOs, and Sierra Club Guidance for Evaluating Regulatory Reform Proposals - Another “sniff test” for regulatory innovations published by the Sierra Club in November 1999. Both available at: www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/ mswg/ngo.htm

28

29 30

31 32 33

34

35

36

37

38

Mary Graham, American Prospect, 1998. http:// www.prospect.org/archives/36/36grahfs.html Ibid. Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,” in Vig and Kraft, Environmental Policy, 2000. Ibid. See NEPPS discussion in Part 3. Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “The Government Performance Project—Grading the States: A Management Report Card,” Governing, 1999. www.governing.com/gpp/gp9intro.htm. Note: The 2001 update of the Government Performance Project rankings is now available, but not in time to include it in the Green Plan Capacity analysis. Overall, state grades did not change substantially between 1999 and 2001. Note: Though state scores appear as whole numbers, they are actually rounded off from scores with decimal points. Those states that appear to have tied scores are ranked according to their hidden decimal point scores. See: Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000. The Virginia Environmental Quality Index (VEQI) is another state of the environment study worthy of mention. It was not included in this analysis, as it came to our attention after the research for the report was completed. The index, which presents county-by-county indicator trends between 1985 and 1999, was developed by Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Environmental Studies in partnership with federal and state agencies and environmental non-profit organizations. Information on the VEQI can be found at www.veqi.org. Defined in this report as broader than land use planning, to also include long-term strategic planning and performance measurement, and sustainability planning. Planning Communities for the 21st Century, American Planning Association, Chicago, 1999.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Environmental Council of the States, www.ecos.org. Note: Data were also available for EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act), FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), and OPA (Oil Pollution Act), however the data for these three acts were not utilized as it was either (a) programs that were not delegable to states, or (b) all programs were delegated, so there was no differentiation between states. Source: www.ucsusa.org/, and conversations with staff in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ air quality program. Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000. Steven Clemmer, Bentham Paulos and Alan Nogee, Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 2000. According to discussions by RRI staff with the Tellus Institute and NJ Department of Environmental Protection. For a different perspective, see also: Duggan Flanakin, EPA’s Relations with the States: Top-Down Commander or Managing Partner?, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.cfact.org), January 1999. Jeanne Herb and Michael Crow, A Review of State Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs), a research report undertaken by the Tellus Institute on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, April 2000. See: Janine Bloomfield, Ph.D., with Molly Smith and Nicholas Thompson, “Hot Nights in the City: Global Warming, Sea-Level Rise and the New York Metropolitan Region,” Environmental Defense, June 1999; “Confronting Climate Change in California: Ecological Impacts on the Golden State,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 1999; Jim Woehrle and Julie Bach, “Playing With Fire: Global Warming in Minnesota, Second Edition,” Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, 2000. Barry Rabe, “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,” Environmental Policy 2000.

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Rolf Pendall, “Problems and Prospects in Local Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the United States,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41 (1), 1998, p. 5-23. Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “The Government Performance Project—Grading the States: A Management Report Card,” Governing, 1999. www.governing.com/gpp/gp9intro.htm. Note: The 2001 update of the Government Performance Project rankings has been published, but was not available at the time that the Green Plan Capacity analysis was conducted. Overall, state grades did not change substantially between 1999 and 2001. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board issued the following valuable document just before the publication of this report: From People to Policy: Sustainability in Minnesota, by John R. Wells. Minnesota EQB, St, Paul, MN, March 2001. Stephan Schmidheiny, Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1992. HR3448, 106th Congress, 1st Session, November 18, 1999. The letter was issued to EPA Administrator Whitman on February 21, 2001. See: Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, 1999. See NEPP III, Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan, Netherlands Ministry for Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment, 1998. See Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) regulations and New Jersey Water Quality regulations. See, for example, the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, the Oregon Growth Management Plan, and the Maryland Smart Growth Policy Plan. Exploring Sustainable Development, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1997.

Resource Renewal Institute

95

96

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Bibliography Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Greene. “The Government Performance Project—Grading the States: A Management Report Card.” Governing, 1999.

Caldwell, Lynton. “A Constitutional Law for the Environment: 20 Years With NEPA Indicates the Need.” Environment, vol. 31, no. 10, December 1989.

Barringer, Richard, ed. “Toward a Sustainable Maine: The Politics, Economics and Ethics of Sustainability” Conference Proceedings. Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, 1993.

Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota: A Minnesota Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development. Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, and Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, 1995.

Beardsley, Dan, Terry Davies, and Robert Hersh. “Improving Environmental Management: What Works, What Doesn’t.” Environment, September 1997. Bloomfield, Ph.D., Janine, with Molly Smith and Nicholas Thompson. Hot Nights in the City: Global Warming, Sea-Level Rise and the New York Metropolitan Region. Environmental Defense, June 1999. Brown, Donald, et al. The Role of States in Sustainable Development Programs in the United States. A Report Presented at the National Town Meeting on Sustainable Development, Detroit, MI, May 4, 1999. Brown, Lester, Michael Renner, and Brian Halweil. Vital Signs 2000. Worldwatch Institute, 2000. Brown, R. Steven. “The States Protect the Environment.” ECOS, Summer 1999. Brownfields in Minnesota: An Opportunity for Sustainable Development. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. Cahn, Robert, ed. An Environmental Agenda for the Future. Washington, D.C.: Agenda Press, 1985. Cal/EPA Innovation Initiative. Cal/EPA, 2000.

Clemmer, Steven, Bentham Paulos, and Alan Nogee. Clean Power Surge, Ranking the States. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA, April 2000. Coglianese, Cary. “The Limits of Consensus,” A review of the Enterprise for the Environment report: The Environmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a More Desirable Future. Environment, April 1999. Colburn, Theo, Dianne Dumanowski, and John Peterson Meyers. Our Stolen Future. New York: Dutton, 1996. Common Ground: Achieving Sustainable Communities in Minnesota. Sustainable Economic Development and Environmental Task Force, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, September 1995. Community-Based Planning Act: Law sets the stage for community-based planning. Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, September 1997. Comp, T. Allen, ed. Blueprint for the Environment: A Plan for Federal Action. Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1989. Concern for Tomorrow. National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1989.

Resource Renewal Institute

97

Connecticut General Assembly Bill 6830: An Act Concerning Exemplary Environmental Management Systems. January 1999 Session. Confronting Climate Change in California: Ecological Impacts on the Golden State. Union of Concerned Scientists, 1999. Davies III, J. Clarence, and Barbara Davies. The Politics of Pollution. Indianapolis: Pegasus/Bobbs-Merrill. DeJongh, Paul and Sean Captain. Our Common Journey. London: Zed Books, 1999. Development Report Card for the States: Economic Benchmarks for State and Corporate Decision Makers. Corporation for Enterprise Development, Washington D.C., 1999. Energy in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC, November 2000. The Environmental Protection System in Transition Toward a More Desirable Future. Final report of the Enterprise for the Environment, National Academy of Public Administration and the Keystone Center, 1997. Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act, Senate File 1956. Minnesota State Senate, Minnesota State Government, 1995.

98

mental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July, 1997. Flanakin, Duggan. EPA’s Relations with the States: TopDown Commander or Managing Partner? Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, January 1999. Frieder, Julie. “The Resource Management Act: An Observer’s View.” Primary Industry Management, New Zealand, 1998. From Rio to the Capitols: State Strategies for Sustainable Development, Conference Proceedings. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Louisville, KY, May 1993. The Global 2000 Report to the President. Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Global Future: Time To Act. Council on Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., 1981. Gold and Green 2000. Institute for Southern Studies, Durham, NC, 2000 (first published in 1994). Graham, Mary. Environmental Protection and the States: “Race to the Bottom” or “Race to the Bottom Line”? Brookings Institution, 1998. Graham, Mary. “Regulation By Shaming.” The Atlantic Monthly, April 2000. Green Permits and the Environmental Management Systems Incentives Project. Department of Environmental Quality, OR, January 1998. Greenberg, Phil. Toward a U.S. Green Plan. Resource Renewal Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1993.

Exploring Sustainable Development. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1997.

House of Representatives 3448: Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act. 106th Congress, 1st Session, November 18, 1999.

Fiscal Patterns: Population Trends. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environ-

Hall, Bob and Mary Lee Kerr. 1991-1992 Green Index: A State-By-State Guide to the Nation’s Environmental Health. Island Press, 1991.

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Hausker, Karl. The Convergence of Ideas on Improving the Environmental Protection System. Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 1999. Herb, Jeanne, and Michael Crow. A Review of State Environmental Leadership Programs (ELPs). Tellus Institute/Florida Department of Environmental Protection, April 2000. Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life. Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development, Minnesota Planning, May 1998. Investing in Minnesota’s Future: Economics and Incentives. Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development, Minnesota Planning, July 1998.

Kraft, Michael, and Norman Vig. “Environmental Policy from the 1970s to 2000: An Overview,” in Environmental Policy, CQ Press, 2000. Legacy: The Newsletter of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative. Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1996. Legacy: The Newsletter of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative. Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, October 1997. Lerner, Steve. Eco-Pioneers: Practical Visionaries Solving Today’s Environmental Problems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1997. Living with the Future in Mind, New Jersey Future, Trenton, NJ, 1999.

Investing in Minnesota’s Future: Sustainable Communities. Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development, Minnesota Planning, June 1998.

Making Plans: Community-Based Planning’s First Two Years. Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, August 1999.

Johnson, Huey D. Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

Meadows, Donella. “Our ‘Footprints’ Are Treading Too Much On The Earth.” Charleston (S.C.) Gazette, April 1, 1996.

Johnson, Huey D. Investing for Prosperity: Enhancing California’s Resources to Meet Human and Economic Needs— An Update. California Natural Resources Agency, January 1982.

Meyer, Secretary George E. A Green Tier for Greater Environmental Protection. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource, June 1999.

Judis, John B. “It’s the EPA and OSHA, Stupid!,” American Prospect, Vol. 11, Issue 21, 9/24 - 10/2, 2000. Kitzhaber, Governor John. “The Oregon Plan: Finding Common Ground to Protect the Coho Salmon.” ECOS, January/February 1998. Koziol, Leo. A Green Plan at the Crossroads: New Zealand’s Resource Management Act: The Transition from Theory to Practice. Resource Renewal Institute, San Francisco, CA, 1997.

Miller, Norm. “The New Environmental Paradigm: Better Ways of Being Green.” New Jersey Reporter, November/December 1995. Manufacturing in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. McCarthy, James E. Bottle Bills and Curbside Recycling. Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, CNIE, 1993. Minnesota Milestones: A Report Card for the Future. Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, December 1992.

Resource Renewal Institute

99

Minnesota Milestones 1996 Progress Report. Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1996. Minnesota Milestones: Measures that Matter. Minnesota Planning, August 1998. Minnesota Policies Affecting Residential Development. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. Multi-State Working Group (MSWG) letter to EPA Administrator Whitman, February 21, 2001. Netherlands National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP), Ministry for Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment. New York State Assembly Bill 5676 (sustainable development task force). February 22, 2001; 20002001 Session. OECD Environmental Peformance Review: United States. OECD, Paris, 1996. Oregon Executive Order EO-00-07: Development of a State Strategy Promoting Sustainability in Internal State Government Operations. Governor John Kitzhaber, Salem, OR, May 17, 2000. Oregon House Bill 3135 (sustainable development policy). 70th Legislative Assembly, 1999 Session. Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon’s Strategic Plan: A Report to the People of Oregon. Oregon Progress Board, Salem, OR, 1997.

100

Portney, Paul R. “Looking Ahead to 2050: Environmental Problems and Policy (2000-2050).” Resources magazine, Resources for the Future, Winter 2000. Rabe, Barry. “Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization,” in Environmental Policy, Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, eds., CQ Press, 2000. Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future. Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, February 1994. Schmidheiny, Stephan. Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1992. Selected Public Incentives in Minnesota: A Briefing Paper. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. Should Minnesota Pursue Progressive Tax Policy to Stimulate Investment in Pollution Prevention and Energy Conservation? Case Studies and Social Benefits. Pathways to Sustainable Development Project, Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, July 1997. Skavroneck, Steve. An Environmental Perspective on Regulatory Reinvention. Citizens for a Better Environment, July 1999. Sierra Club Guidance for Evaluating Regulatory Reform Proposals. Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., November 1999.

Pendall, Rolf. “Problems and Prospects in Local Environmental Assessment: Lessons from the United States.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41 (1), 1998.

Solving Sprawl: The Sierra Club Rates the States. Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., 1999.

Planning Communities for the 21st Century. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1999.

The State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States. Progressive Policy

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Institute, Technology & New Economy Project, Washington, D.C., 1999. The State of New Zealand’s Environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, 1997. Sustainable Development: The Very Idea. Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, January 1998. Sustainable Development for Local Government, House File 1800, Chapter 454. Minnesota State House of Representatives Bill, 1995. Sustainable Maine: Integrating Economy, Environment and Community. A Primer. Sustainable Maine, Portland, ME, 1996. Taking Root: State agency efforts toward sustainable development in Minnesota. Environmental Quality Board, Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, MN, April 1998. Vig, Norman. “Presidential Leadership and the Environment: From Reagan to Clinton,” in Environmental Policy, Norman Vig and Michael Kraft, eds., 4th Edition, CQ Press, 2000. Wisconsin Climate Change Action Plan: Framework for Climate Change Action. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Air Program. Woehrle, Jim, and Julie Bach. Playing With Fire: Global Warming in Minnesota, Second Edition. Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, 2000.

Resource Renewal Institute

101

102

Resource Renewal Institute

The State of the States

Online Resources Resource Renewal Institute www.rri.org

New Jersey Future www.njfuture.org/

International Network of Green Planners www.ingp.org

Oregon Progress Board www.econ.state.org.us/opb/

World Business Council for Sustainable Development www.wbcsd.ch

Oregon Solutions for a Sustainable Future www.oregonsolutions.net

Netherlands Embassy, Washington, D.C. www.netherlands-embassy.org

Iowa 2010 www.iowa2010.state.ia.us/

Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment www.minvrom.nl

Illinois EcoWatch Network www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin/ecowatch/ Save Louisiana Wetlands www.savelawetlands.org

New Zealand Government www.govt.nz New Zealand Ministry for the Environment www.mfe.govt.nz

Maine Department of Environmental Protection www.janus.state.me.us/dep GreenWorks Channel, Pennsylvania www.greenworkschannel.org

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov U.S. Department of Energy’s Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development www.sustainable.doe.gov

Environment 2000, An Assessment of the Quality of Vermont’s Environment, The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources www.anr.state.vt.us/env00/index.html

Minnesota Planning www.mnplan.state.mn.us/

Watch Over Washington (WOW) www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/wow/index.html

New Jersey Office of State Planning www.state.nj.us/osp

West Virginia DEP Public Empowerment Program www.dep.state.wv.us/pubemp.html

Resource Renewal Institute

103

Environmental Council of the States www.ecos.org Center for Strategic and International Studies www.csis.org Aspen Institute www.aspeninstitute.org National Academy of Public Administration www.napawash.org Brookings Institution www.brook.edu Reason Public Policy Institute www.rppi.org Redefining Progress www.rprogress.org Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) www.ceres.org Stateline www.stateline.org Environmental News Network www.enn.com

104

Resource Renewal Institute

About the Resource Renewal Institute The Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that supports innovative environmental management strategies in the United States and worldwide. RRI’s mission is to catalyze the development and implementation of green plans. To this end, RRI evaluates the effectiveness of existing and emerging green plans, educates government, business, and public interest leaders about the attributes of green planning, and inspires state and community leaders to spearhead green planning processes throughout the United States. RRI’s programs include: the States Campaign; the Green Plan Leadership Program; and the Green Plan Center—RRI’s international clearinghouse of environmental information. Huey D. Johnson founded RRI in 1985 to explore innovative environmental ideas and to catalyze green planning in the United States. Prior to RRI, Mr. Johnson founded the Trust for Public Land, and served as California Secretary for Resources. He is best known for establishing California’s 20-year “Investing for Prosperity” program, a precursor to green planning that created and protected jobs in fisheries, forestry, and alternative energy industries. RRI staff are multidisciplinary, bringing experience from government, resource management, communications, finance and education. In addition, several of RRI’s staff members have hands-on green plan development and implementation experience at the state and national level. Headquartered in San Francisco, California, RRI also has an office in Albany, New York. RRI’s international panel of advisors includes green plan leaders from Canada, the Netherlands, Mexico, New Zealand, and across the United States. And as a member of the International Network of Green Planners, RRI has had a unique opportunity to learn from the experiences of green planners around the world. Further information on RRI and its programs can be found on our website: www.rri.org.

Resource Renewal Institute Fort Mason Center, Pier One • San Francisco, CA 94123 415.928.3774 tel • 415.928.6529 fax e-mail: [email protected] New York Office • 128 Plank Road • Feura Bush, NY 12067 518.768.2667 tel/fax e-mail: [email protected] www.rri.org © 2001 RESOURCE RENEWAL INSTITUTE