Weakened Enforcement

In the 1960s and 1970s, visionary state and federal leaders passed laws creating new agencies to protect the environment, such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The laws required environmental impact statements for projects that posed significant risks to our air, water, or land.

Regulatory systems went through profound changes in the 1990s. Up until then, regulators emphasized enforcement to get companies to comply with permits. According to a 1998 article on Deterrence vs. Cooperation and the evolving theory of environmental enforcement, the emphasis on enforcement “often breaks down the goodwill and motivation of those [corporate] actors who were already willing to be socially responsible.” 

Federal and state governments began moving away from deterrence strategies towards a more cooperative approach. For example, in the 1990s, the Clinton Administration began “experimenting with non-adversarial approaches, including greater reliance on self-enforcement and greater willingness to waive penalties in exchange for compliance,” the article said.

The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Polluters have learned to game the system. They do the minimum to comply. If violations are flagged, they often promise changes and are then slow to deliver. They know the fines will be weak, or dropped, if they come into compliance.