As the first American settlers expanded west into the frontier, they were met with a seemingly infinite abundance of resources. From gold and timber to bison and beavers, the New World supplied industries with a bounty of raw materials. There was, as former ambassador to the WTO Michael Punke says, a myth of inexhaustibility about the American west (Burns, 2023, 1:41.00). The prairies, forests, and mountains were so vast, that it was inconceivable to most Americans that those resources could ever be depleted. This was no more apparent than in our management of the American Buffalo. What began as herds in the tens of millions were hunted nearly to extinction. Historian Dan Flores calls it a destruction of animal life without precedent in human history (1:44.00). Yet the same society that nearly wiped out the bison acted to save them from extinction. It is with similar irony that many of America’s early conservationists were hunters, foresters, and other people whose lives depended on a fruitful and sustainable land. This paper explores America’s approach to natural resource management, the role of government, and the tools employed to ensure sustainable policies.
Natural resource management begins at home. It is perhaps one of the easiest points of entry for the public to engage in good environmental stewardship, however it remains one of the most contentious issues in contemporary politics. Drs. William Lowry and John Freemuth write that public lands and national parks are widely supported by the public at both the state and federal levels; however, what to do with those lands remains politically contested (Vig et al., 2021, p. 209). At the same time, from 2005 to 2017, national park visitation increased by over 20% (p. 212), suggesting that Americans value the environment and resources within it. The public’s role in natural resource management is therefore divided. On the one hand, American’s value having access to those resources. On the other, conservation has become entangled with political affiliation and partisan points of view.
While partisan politics have slowed environmental progress in recent decades, Congress has passed conservationist legislation with bipartisan support. The Endangered Species Act is one such example. In fact, from 1980 – 2020, spending on conservation and land management increased by 27% (Vig et al., 2021, p. 19). National parks have expanded greatly over the last two centuries as well, broadly due to congressional action. However partisan politics remain active within the conservation debate. For example, University of Wisconsin Professor of Political Science, Michael Kraft writes, Republicans have consistently favored industrial interests, particularly since the mid-1990s (p. 112), representing a shift away from the bipartisan collaboration of the prior two decades. The partisan shift has also prevented reform to existing regulations, like the aforementioned Endangered Species Act and the Superfund program (pp. 128, 129). In short, Congress is the primary federal entity capable of passing laws that protect natural resources, however party politics can impede progress.
The fact that Congress has been able to achieve any movement on environmental issues is somewhat remarkable given the lack of jurisdiction granted by the constitution. However, Political Scientist Kimberly Smith writes, that while the constitution doesn’t provide Congress with explicit authority over natural resources, Article IV has been broadly interpreted by the courts as giving Congress such jurisdiction (Vig et al., 2021, p. 146). This interpretation grants extraordinary power to Congress as the legislature controls Federal funding to the agencies charged with managing natural resources. Critically however, the President appoints the heads of these agencies, which often carry partisan motivations. The nominations of Presidents Reagen and Trump to the EPA are good examples of such appointments (pp. 91, 100). Therefore, while the courts have granted Congress the authority to manage America’s resources, the agencies in charge of executing that management are largely directed by the President.
On the one hand, the size of the United States supports a direct regulation, command-and-control approach like that discussed above. On the other hand, the diversity of environments, population centers, local economies, and industrial concerns make such an approach unrealistic. However, central planning has nonetheless resulted in successful policies. The Antiquities and Resource Conservation Acts are good examples of such regulations. The former protects natural and manmade artifacts and has been used to expand America’s national parks (National Parks Service, 2023). The latter helps to protect waterways and other natural resources from contamination (Vig et al. 2021, p. 375). Federal agencies such as the National Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service combine to manage forests, access to natural resources, and protect wild spaces. While agencies’ agendas can fluctuate with different presidencies, their centralized nature allows for broad application of regulations. Driving consistency across the American continent would be difficult if such objectives were left entirely to individual states. That said, centralized planning is not without drawbacks.
To begin with, the ecological diversity of the United States makes a one-size-fits-all approach impractical. This has led to policy friction between federal and state authorities. For example, natural resources like fossil fuels are often subject to federal and state guidelines (Vig et al. 2019, p 208). Local industries can influence state policies in ways that conflict with Federal objectives. For instance, partisan politics played a role in the GOPs pursuit of privatization for large swaths of federal land, as lawmakers from those states sought to represent local interests (p. 208). That said, while partisan politics have hindered progress over the last two decades, they’ve opened the door for an era of collaboration.
Drs. Chris Ansell and Alison Gash of Berkley define collaborative governance as the process of bringing various environmental interests together with the goal of fostering collaborative decision making (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p 543). This approach theoretically results in a more informed solution by involving opposing interests such as conservation groups and timber companies. The Colorado river is one such example of collaborative management, where state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, and agricultural interests are working together to share the river’s resources (Kenny, n.d., pp. 71-76). These are certainly positive indicators for a collaborative approach; however, Drs. Ansell and Gash point out that participation can be court ordered or mandated by other authorities. Hence, the incentives and good faith efforts of the participants are paramount (Ansell & Gash, 2007, p. 552).
While efforts to manage the Colorado river are an example of collaborative governance, they are a better case study in sustainability planning. Rivers, forests, and fisheries are all examples of what academics refer to as common pool resources (Ostrom et al., 1999, p 278). In such cases, quotas or shares are assigned to private interests as a way of managing the overall resource (p. 279). In the case of water rights, those interests can also be public entities. Ideally managing common pool resources takes on a self-sustaining, industry-led capacity. That is, the various interests monitor their usage of natural resources in a responsible way, free of direct regulation. Drs. Ostrom et al, write however that such normalization is not always effective and typically regulatory oversight is required. Nonetheless, collective cooperation can be established, and flourish provided self-interested parties are not dominant (p. 279).
Finally, science-based decision-making can play a strong role in each of the above approaches to resource management, however whether it does is largely up to the special interests involved. How we manage natural resources is inherently a scientific question, whether it be how we extract oil from shale or the effects of overfishing on various aquatic species, science is simply the involvement of data. Though this can mean a scientifically led approach to policy, it does not necessarily mean so. In fact, most scientists prefer to not take a dominant role in setting policy (Steel et al., 2004 p. 5). The role of science should be to advise policymakers on the likely outcomes of various decisions and allow legislators to determine the best course of action. That said, science is not impervious to special interests. The issues of global warming, leaded gasoline, and tobacco are all examples where industrial interests funded science that supported a continuation of the status quo. For this reason, the profit motive has largely stifled market solutions to conservation.
The American buffalo is perhaps the best example of just how destructive market forces can be toward natural resources. America’s salmon and king crab fisheries are also examples of how free market priorities forced regulatory intervention. However, policy makers and markets do not have to be at odds. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development advises governments to treat resource efficiency as economic policy, and proactively engage with international supply chains to reduce duplicity and waste. The OECD also advocates for reducing investment barriers to environmental goods and services (OECD, 2018 p. 21). Such collaborative policies ought to reduce hostilities and produce better long-term solutions. More importantly, there are incentives for companies to act in the interest of conservation. First, conservation ensures not only the sustainability of the resource, but that of the dependent economies as well. Second, there is broad public support for conservationist policies from both rural and urban populations (Brunson et al., 2009 pp. 6-7). Furthermore, the increased power of urban centers, consumer spending, and social media provide powerful incentives for companies to act in sustainable ways. This could be Weyerhaeuser publicizing its land management and reforesting practices, or the efforts of mineral extraction companies to restore depleted mines. There are opportunities for market forces to change behavior as research by Ostrom et al (1999). showed, however these changes must be incentivized by the market. In other words, consumers must choose where they spend their money and reward those companies who embrace sustainable practices.
In summary, natural resource management invokes federal and state agencies, special interests, and a mix of central and collaborative planning. Market forces are largely kept out of the conversation except where consumers reward sustainable practices. Managing our natural resources, therefore, requires a mix of all the major players, from federal and state agencies to private interests and consumers alike.
References
Ansell, C. & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. The Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory.
Brunson, M., Shindler, B., & Steel, B. (2009). Rural versus urban differences in natural resource
management. Oregon State University.
Burns, K. (Director). (2023). The American Buffalo [Film]. Florentine Films.
https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-american-buffalo/
Kenny, D. (n.d.). The environmental politics and policy of western public lands (pp. 71-79). Oregon
State University.
National Park Service. (2023). Antiquities act of 1906.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/archeology/antiquities-act.htm
OECD. (2018). Global material resources outlook to 2060. Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development. https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/highlights-global-material-resources-outlook-to-2060.pdf
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the
commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278-282.
Steel, B., List, P., Lach, D., & Shindler, B. (2004). The role of scientists in the environmental policy
process: A case study from the American west. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 1-13.
Vig, N. J., Kraft, M. E., & Rabe, B. G. (2021). Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-
First Century (11th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781544378039