Volume 7, Issue 4, July 2019, Page: 117-126
An Overview of American Interstate Ecological Governance and the Enlightenment for China
Guo Yongyuan, School of Public Administration, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan, China
Xiao Li, School of Public Administration, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan, China
Received: Jul. 6, 2019;       Accepted: Aug. 15, 2019;       Published: Sep. 2, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20190704.13      View  90      Downloads  13
Abstract
The existing US interstate ecological governance system can be divided into three categories according to the governance subject: traditional government governance, inter-governmental cooperation governance and special organizational governance. Traditional ecological governance is a government-led public governance, that is, the use of public power. US interstate eco-governance governance includes administrative control-led environmental regulation, legislative legislative ecological behavior, and judicial system environmental litigation ruling. Interstate issues are essentially intergovernmental relationships, so inter-governmental cooperation mechanisms are the proper meaning of interstate ecological governance. Traditional interstate agreements and central government cooperation governance are two common ways of interstate cooperation governance. The special organization is the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which is a company based in the United States. It is a state-owned company that was established in May 1933 in accordance with the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. Formal operation, it is a regional comprehensive governance and comprehensive development plan, "is the first organized attempt in the history of the United States to skillfully arrange the fate of the entire basin and its residents." The US interstate ecological governance system is effective and relevant. The governance system that basically meets the requirements of multi-center governance plays an active role in dealing with interstate ecological environmental disputes and protection. China and the United States have certain similarities in the field of ecological governance. On the basis of national conditions, China's cross-regional ecological governance can learn from the US's governance experience to achieve "good governance" of cross-regional ecological problems.
Keywords
United States, Interstate Ecological Governance, Essential Attributes, Revelation
To cite this article
Guo Yongyuan, Xiao Li, An Overview of American Interstate Ecological Governance and the Enlightenment for China, International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. Vol. 7, No. 4, 2019, pp. 117-126. doi: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20190704.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Brian Singleterry, Marketing Interstate Harmony: Interstate Water Markets as an Alternative to Resolving Water Conflicts, 2 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 527, 2015.
[2]
WONDOLLECK J M, YAFFEE S L. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons From Innovation in Natural Resource Management [M]. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 2000.
[3]
SCHEBERLE D. Federalism and Environmental Policy: Trust and the Politics of Implementation [M]. Mishawaka, IN: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
[4]
About EPA [EB/OL]. [2013-09-21]. http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa#pane-4.
[5]
About the office of congressional and intergovernmental relations (OCIR) [EB/OL]. [2013-09-21]. https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-congressional-and-intergovernmental-relations-ocir.
[6]
Regional HazeRule [EB/OL]. [2013-12-26]. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/frnotices/rhfedreg.pdf.
[7]
DELLAPENNA J. Transboundary water sharing and the need for public management [J]. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 2007, 133 (5): 397-404.
[8]
Reed D. Benson, Can a State's Water Rights Be Damned? Environmental Flows and Federal Dams in the Supreme Court. Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, Vol. 8 & 371, 2019. Florida v. Georgia, 138 S. Ct. 2502, 2516 (2018).
[9]
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations. Supreme Court Decision on the EPA’s Ozone & Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards [EB/OL]. EPA. (2001-02-27) [2013-10-17]. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/2001_court_summary.pdf.
[10]
DAVIDSON J. Federal leadership in clean air act implementation: the role of the environmental protection agency [M]//DAVIDSON J, NORBECK J M, eds. An Interactive History of the Clean Air Act. Oxford: Elsevier, 2012: 19-40.
[11]
SHERK G W. The management of interstate water conflicts in the twenty-first century: is it time to call uncle? [J]. New York University’s Environmental Law Journal, 2005, 12 (3): 764-827.
[12]
Hall N D, Regalia J. Interstate Groundwater Law Revisited: Mississippi v. Tennessee [J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2016.
[13]
MURCHISON K M. The Snail Darter Case: TVA Versus the Endangered Species Act [M]. Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2007.
[14]
Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill 437 U.S. 153 (1978) [EB/OL]. [2013-10-17]. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/153/case.html.
[15]
SHERK G W. Dividing the Waters: The Resolution of Interstate Water Conflicts in the United States [M]. Hague Nethetand: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2000: 29-30.
[16]
The Clean Air Act [EB/OL]. [2013-12-25]. http://www.epw.senate.gov/envlaws/cleanair.pdf.
[17]
HUTCHINS W A. Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States [M]. Washington, DC: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2004: 66.
[18]
MANDARANO L A, FEATHERSTONE J P, PAULSEN K. Institutions for interstate water resources management [J]. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2008, 44 (1): 136-147.
[19]
MCCORMICK Z L. Interstate water allocation compacts in the western united states–some suggestions [J]. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 1994, 30 (3): 385-395.
[20]
Cathy Suykens, 'Critical Success Factors in Transboundary Water Management: a US-EU Comparison' (2018) 27 European Energy and Environmental Law Review, Issue 1, pp. 2–14.
[21]
KENNEY D S. Institutional options for the Colorado River [J]. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 1995, 31 (5): 837-850.
[22]
MANDARANO L A. Protecting habitats: New York-new jersey harbor estuary program collaborative planning and scientific information [D]. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 2004.
[23]
Garrick, D. E., Hernández-Mora, N. & O’Donnell, E. Reg Environ Change (2018) 18: 1593.
[24]
EKBLADH D. “Mr. TVA”: Grass-roots development, David Lilienthal, and the rise and fall of the Tennessee valley authority as a symbol for U.S. overseas development, 1933-1973 [J]. Diplomatic History, 2002, 26 (3): 335-374.
[25]
About TVA [EB/OL]. [2013-09-23]. http://www.tva.com/abouttva/ index.htm.
[26]
STOKER G. Governance as theory: five propositions [J]. International Social Science Journal, 1998, 50 (155): 17-28.
[27]
WEISS E B, DE CHAZOURNES L B, BERNASCONI-OSTERWALDER N. Fresh Water and International Economic Law [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 35-59.
[28]
Halvorsen, Emily. Compact compliance as a beneficial use: increasing the viability of an interstate water bank program in the Colorado River Basin [J]. University of Colorado Law Review. Summer2018, Vol. 89 Issue 3, p937-966.
Browse journals by subject