The Actors

  • Joseph F. DiMento
Part of the Environment, Development, and Public Policy book series (EDPE)


Compliance is a human activity outcome. People perform all the activities and transfer all the messages that create compliance, undercompliance, or over-compliance. With varying degrees of autonomy, people determine those procedures, standard and otherwise, that create or avoid environmental violations. To understand compliance one must understand variation among the individuals and groups involved in the regulatory process. Variations among people who fill roles in government, in the business firm, and in advocacy groups are especially significant when norms are both divergent and in transition. This is the case in environmental law.


Support Group Wall Street Journal Enforcement Action American Business Environmental Violation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Interview D.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Inside EPA, Apr. 13, 1984, at 2.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Inside EPA, Apr. 9, 1982, at 6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Interview A-1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See discussion of capture theory in Chap. 6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mannix Letter to the Editor, Regulation 3 (March-April, 1984).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Federal Register, Jan. 14, 1981, Part IX, Environmental Protection Agency, Agenda of Regulation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    461 F. Supp. 266 (1978).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Los Angeles Weekly, Feb. 29-Mar. 5, 1982, at 9, 58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Comments of Steven McDonald, at California Air Resources Board, Air Pollution Enforcement Symposium May 24–26, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 7, 1982. These comments sound mild, however, when juxtaposed with some criticisms by environmentalists. Anthony Roisman, formerly chief of the Department of Justice section of hazardous waste in the Land and Natural Resource Division, speaking before a house subcommittee on oversight and investigation of the Energy and Commerce Committee, concluded: Anne Gorsuch deserves our pity rather than our contempt as she struggles to carry out the orders delivered from the White House,” Roisman said. “The vaunted ‘Ice Queen’ is more an ‘Ice Puppet’ in these political maneuvers.” [He added that [Gorsuch] “has been forced to barricade herself in the EPA penthouse to avoid dealing with an agency in open rebellion, losing two of her top aides to “personal reasons” in six months, still unable to fill key assistant administration positions on her staff, [and] unable to control the flow of confidential agency data to the press. ... Ms. Gorsuch is totally out of her depth-a perfect Charlie McCarthy for the Reagan/Bush Edgar Bergen. Inside E.P.A., Apr. 9, 1982, at 6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Wall Street Journal, Apr. 7, 1982, at 29.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Interviews for this study, conducted early in the first administration of President Reagan, cited the inaccessibility of Ms. Gorsuch.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Environment Reporter, at 1838 (1977).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Environment Reporter, at 1838 (1977).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Interview D-7 in DiMento (1976).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Interview D.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Interview D.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Interview B.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    116 Cong. Rec. 33096, Leg. Hist. 335.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Observations by monitor of proceedings in Bob’s Plating (see Appendix for complete citations).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See surveyed enforcers, discussed in Chap. 2, p. 36.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quoted in The Louisville Courier Journal, Dec. 27, 1978, at E7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Derewal (see Appendix for complete citation).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S.42 (1970); United States ex ret. Johnson v. Johnson, 340 F. Supp 1368 (E.D. Pa 1972): and United States v. Chadwick, 97 S.Ct. 2476 (1977).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Derewal, government’s Memorandum of Law III, May 9, 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Interview with Bruce Chasan, Jan. 8, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 691.1201-. 1207 (Supp. 1973).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    West Michigan Environmental Action Council v. Natural Resources Commission, 405 Mich. 741, 275 N.W. 201 538 (1979).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lincoln Township v. Manley Brothers, No. 001113-CE (Cir. Ct. Byrns) Dec. 20, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Board of Commissioners of Kalkaska County v. State, No. 74–619-CE (Cir. Ct. Kalkaska County, July 4, 1974).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See Michigan State Highway Commission v. Vander Kloot, 392 Mich. 159, 220 N.W. 2d 416 (1974) (involving the state Highway Condemnation Act); Superior Public Rights, Inc. v. DAT?, No. 73–15862-CE (Cir. Ct. Reisig), Mar. 2, 1976 (involving the State Department of Natural Resources’ procedural duties); and Little Wolf Lake Property Owners Association v. Haase, No. 74–000837-CE (Cir. Ct. Glennie, July 8, 1975), applying MEPA to the Subdivision Control Act.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Inside EPA, Mar. 12, 1982, at 4.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971); Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, 354 F.2d 608 (1965); Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F. 2d 1109 (1971); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972); and TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Interview J.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    This rule was developed when ice came from rivers, some of which were polluted (Clay, 1983). 37 In 1982 the EPA again raised the possibility that environmental regulations should be integrated across all media. A policy analysis indicated that a single open “organic act” might be an improvement.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Councilman Escondrias, Aug. 19, 1982, at Santa Fe Springs Advisory Council Public Hearing.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Surveyed enforcers, discussed in Chap. 2, p. 36.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Respondent D-23 in DiMento (1976).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Respondent A-2 in DiMento (1976).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Inside EPA, May 25, 1984, at 2.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    From a tape of the State of Michigan Senate debates on the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, June 26, 1970.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Some business respondents felt that their positive profit profiles made them tempting targets for enforcement action, but this factor was ranked “not at all important” by 45% of the enforcers surveyed and “very important by” none. Surveyed enforcers discussed in Chap. 2, p. 36.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    See “3M Gains by Averting Pollution,” Business Week, Nov. 22, 1976, at 72.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Interview D. See also Mitnick (1981) specifically citing the Chrysler Corporation as facing this problem.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Interview K.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    The study also found that a sizable majority (88%) of its respondents lodged environmental policy decisions at the level of company vice-president or higher.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Both a large company with a relatively nonspecialized legal division and a small business reported this vulnerability. Executive interviews discussed in Chap. 2, p. 36.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reported one automobile manufacturer in an interview for this study: “Our senior attorney is not versed in environmental law” (Interview D). Strategic advice of the most experienced lawyers is not always followed. Advice to oppose (during the rule-making process) the selective enforcement audit rule under the Clean Air Act—a rule which later became a major source of problems for the auto industry—was not followed by one manufacturer (Interview A).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    In re Kovacs, 29 B.R. (S.D. Ohio 1982).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Id., see also 15 ELR 20121 (U.S. Jan. 9, 1985) wherein the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the “site operator’s obligation under an injunction to clean up its site can be subject to discharge in bankruptcy.”Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    11 U.S.C. § 362.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Inside EPA, Apr. 2, 1982, at 13, quoting Jeffrey Miller.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Inside EPA, Apr. 12, 1982, at 13, quoting Jeffrey Miller.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    “Business Strategies for Industries in Transition to Deregulation,” course announcement, Wharton School Executive Education Program, May 15–19, 1983, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    J. B. Schnapp, Corporate Strategies of the Automotive Manufacturers (Lexington, KY: Lexington Books, 1979).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    The Wall Street Journal, July 2, 1984, at p. 17.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Interview A-2.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1, 1983, at 3.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph F. DiMento
    • 1
  1. 1.University of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations