海角大神

States鈥� rights are sacred for many conservatives in the United States.

So how did liberal California become a poster child for states鈥� rights in its escalating battle with the Trump administration on environmental regulation?

From fuel emissions to oil and gas drilling permits, California is at war with the Trump administration. And at the heart of the feud is the state鈥檚 desire to set its own environmental regulations 鈥� an issue of states鈥� rights, and also a continuation of the 鈥渃ooperative federalist鈥� model that has long been a backbone of American environmental policy. But in this case, as well as in environmental battles being fought in other states, it鈥檚 the Republican administration arguing for the supremacy of federal rule.

鈥淭hey鈥檙e exercising what the Western Governors鈥� Association executive director has called 鈥榝air-weather federalism,鈥欌�� says David Hayes, executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University School of Law and deputy interior secretary under President Barack Obama. 鈥淎s long as states do what they want them to do, it鈥檚 fine. If they exercise their rights in a way that the feds don鈥檛 like because it鈥檚 not consistent with their policy, then they鈥檙e against it.鈥�

In California, as in some other liberal-leaning states, states鈥� rights has become a rallying cry. 鈥淭o those who claim to support states鈥� rights 鈥� don鈥檛 trample on ours,鈥� proclaimed California Attorney General Xavier Becerra last month, after the Trump administration revoked the state鈥檚 long-standing waiver that allowed it to set its own vehicle emissions.聽

The idea of states鈥� rights as a conservative principle is somewhat more nuanced: For decades, both liberals and conservatives have touted federalism when it suits them on some issues, and not on others.聽

鈥淚 often talk about selective federalism,鈥� says Barry Rabe, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan. 鈥淔or the party out of power there鈥檚 often a kind of discovery of federalism because it gives a greater chance of getting what you want.鈥澛�

But, he notes, in the absence of significant environmental legislation from Congress in the past 30 years, creative engagement between state, federal, and sometimes local authorities has allowed real advances to be made in cleaning up the nation鈥檚 air and water. What鈥檚 happening now, he says, seems to be dismantling that, and points to a starker division that鈥檚 emerged on climate, in particular.

When President Obama issued the Clean Power Plan, 24 state attorneys general immediately filed suit. When the Trump administration removed the Clean Power Plan, 22 states went to court to protest that move. 鈥淭here is a pattern here, and it shows a real deep divide,鈥� Professor Rabe says. This is 鈥渢he next step in a process that鈥檚 been intensifying for some period of time.鈥澛�

And the lack of federal action on climate, says Mr. Hayes, has meant that some states have tried to step into the void.聽

鈥淭raditionally, states鈥� rights are considered a conservative principle, but it鈥檚 the more progressive states now that are showing the way to environmental protection in the climate area in particular, so it鈥檚 kind of flipped the script a little bit,鈥� says Mr. Hayes.

Battle over tailpipe emissions

In California, the biggest shot across the bow came last month when the Trump administration announced it was revoking California鈥檚 waiver that allows it to set its own auto emissions standards. The state has held this waiver since 1967, when Congress made the exception in recognition of the unusual pollution challenges that California faces. Since 2009, California鈥檚 waiver has expanded to include greenhouse gases in its list of pollutants, affecting Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. That was a more unusual move (and was denied by the Bush administration when the state first made the request in 2007), but several automakers voluntarily joined with California, pledging to raise CAFE standards to nearly 50 mpg by 2026. And 13 other states have joined with California鈥檚 stricter tailpipe emissions.

It鈥檚 the impact those standards have on the rest of the country that acting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler took issue with.聽

鈥淭o borrow from Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, CAFE does not stand for California Assumes Federal Empowerment,鈥� Mr. Wheeler said in a September speech to the National Automobile Dealers Association. 鈥淲e embrace federalism and the role of the states, but federalism does not mean that one state can dictate standards for the nation.鈥�

A week later, Mr. Wheeler sent letters to California officials charging that the state was failing to take enough action to clean up its air and water, and threatening to withhold some federal funds as a result.

And on Friday, the Trump administration announced it was opening up 720,000 acres of federal land in California for oil and gas development. There had previously been a five-year moratorium on leases in the state, following a court ruling that there was insufficient analysis of the environmental impacts of fracking.

Anticipating that decision, state lawmakers have been fighting back.聽

Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat who represents a Southern California district, authored legislation to ban building any new oil and gas infrastructure on state land that would be used to support oil and natural gas extraction on protected federal lands (which could impact some of the lands being opened for leasing). The bill passed last month, but has yet to be signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

鈥淚f there鈥檚 anything that brings bipartisan outrage in California, it鈥檚 when people start messing with our beaches and oceans,鈥� Mr. Muratsuchi says. Last year, he initiated a bill that prohibited the construction of new infrastructure in state coastal waters that would aid federal oil and gas development.

The legislator casts his latest bill as an extension of the state鈥檚 ongoing efforts to be a world leader on climate change and renewable energy 鈥� even if that means bucking the Trump administration. 鈥淲e鈥檙e not looking for a fight,鈥� Mr. Muratsuchi says. 鈥淏ut if we need to stand up to protect our state, our people, and our beautiful lands, we will.鈥�

A consistent pattern

While California 鈥� and the emissions waiver, in particular 鈥� is a major example of the federal government breaking with tradition and revoking a state鈥檚 power, it鈥檚 only one of several, says Mr. Hayes. Also under attack, he says, have been states鈥� right to approve or disapprove projects based on their water-quality standards, to petition the EPA to take action against upwind states that negatively impact their air quality, and to determine what kind of energy they want, as fossil fuels claim they鈥檙e being unfairly pushed out by states that want clean energy.聽

It鈥檚 a consistent enough pattern that last month, the Environmental Council of the States, a nonpartisan association of state environmental agency leaders, sent a letter to Administrator Wheeler raising their concerns. The organization is 鈥渟eriously concerned,鈥� it stated, about unilateral actions 鈥渢hat run counter to the spirit of cooperative federalism and to the appropriate relationship between the federal government and the states who are delegated the authority to implement federal environmental statutes.鈥�

In California, the threats to revoke federal funding over failing to meet clean air and water standards seemed to some critics like a declaration of war on the state.

鈥淚t strikes me as a really special kind of hypocrisy that [Administrator Wheeler] attacks California over its air quality and the problems it鈥檚 facing with air pollution a mere week before the administration opens three-quarters of a million acres for oil and gas drilling, which will invariably worsen the air pollution problems we have,鈥� says Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued to get a moratorium on drilling leases in 2013.聽

And other Californians worry, primarily, about the effect that the federal actions will have on the state.聽

Several studies in recent years have found that the agricultural region that stretches between San Francisco and Los Angeles has the country鈥檚 worst air quality, says Gustavo Aguirre Jr., a county director with the Central California Environmental Justice Network.

鈥淲e鈥檙e already dealing with bad air and bad water in our area,鈥� he says. 鈥淲ith these policies, we risk making things even worse and undoing the small progress we鈥檝e made in the last 20, 30, 40 years.鈥�