Managing Adaptation: Developing a Learning Infrastructure in the United States’ Federal System

  • Alejandro E. CamachoEmail author
Part of the Environmental Protection in the European Union book series (ENVPROTEC, volume 4)


Though there is much solid evidence that anthropogenic climate change has already had and will increasingly have substantial adverse effects on biota and ecological processes, the chief barrier to effective natural resource governance over the next few decades will likely be the exceptional uncertainty that accompanies attempts to adapt to the effects of climate change on natural systems. Consequently, the effective adaptation of natural resource management to climate change hinges on the development of a regulatory infrastructure that provides public and private actors the capacity to assess and manage uncertainty. This chapter briefly sketches the options originally considered for natural resource governance in the United States, their insufficiency in the key function of managing uncertainty, and how to build a more effective federal system for managing natural resources in preparation for climate change. Uncertainty underscores the value of regulatory experimentation and learning in a largely decentralized and overlapping federal system, and suggests a crucial role for national governments and international institutions of promoting agency learning and inter-jurisdictional information sharing.


Federal Agency Climate Change Adaptation Adaptation Planning Federal System Regulatory Fragmentation 
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.


  1. Adelman DE, Engel KH (2007) Adaptive federalism: the case against reallocating environmental regulatory authority. Minn Law Rev 92:1796–1850Google Scholar
  2. Adelman DE, Engel KH (2009) Adaptive environmental federalism. In: Buzbee WW (ed) Preemption choice: the theory, law and reality of federalism’s core questions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 277–299Google Scholar
  3. Adler JA (2005) Jurisdictional mismatch in environmental federalism. New York Univ Environ Law J 14:130–178Google Scholar
  4. American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009Google Scholar
  5. Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together: the practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Buzbee WW (2003) Recognizing the regulatory commons: a theory of regulatory gaps. Iowa Law Rev 89:1–64Google Scholar
  7. Buzbee WW (2005) The regulatory fragmentation continuum, westway and the challenges of regional growth. J Law Polit 23:323–363Google Scholar
  8. Camacho AE (2007) Can regulation evolve? Lessons from a study in maladaptive management. UCLA Law Rev 55:293–358Google Scholar
  9. Camacho AE (2009) Adapting governance to climate change: managing uncertainty through a learning infrastructure. Emory Law J 59:1–77Google Scholar
  10. Camacho AE (2011) A learning collaboratory: improving federal climate change adaptation planning. BYU Law Rev 2011:1821–1862Google Scholar
  11. Carlson A (2009) Iterative federalism and climate change. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 103:1097–1160Google Scholar
  12. Climate Ready Estuaries (2010) Climate ready estuaries 2010 progress report. Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  13. Climate Ready Estuaries, Coastal Toolkit (n.d.) Retrieved 28 Feb 2014, from United States Environmental Protection Agency website,
  14. Craig RK (2008) Climate change, regulatory fragmentation, and water triage. Univ Colorado Law Rev 79:825–927Google Scholar
  15. Craig RK (2010) ‘Stationarity is dead’ – long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 34:9–73Google Scholar
  16. DiMento J, Ingram J (2005) Science and environmental decision making: the potential role of environmental impact assessment in the pursuit of appropriate information. Nat Resour J 45:283–309Google Scholar
  17. Engel KH (2006) Harnessing the benefits of dynamic federalism in environmental law. Emory Law J 56:159–188Google Scholar
  18. Farber DA (2009) Climate adaptation and federalism: mapping the issues. San Diego J Clim Energ Law 1:259–285Google Scholar
  19. Fortney MD (2006) Devolving control over mildly contaminated property: the local cleanup program. Northwestern Univ Law Rev 100:1863–1906Google Scholar
  20. Geltman EG, Skroback AE (1998) Reinventing the EPA to conform with the new American environmentality. Columbia J Environ Law 23:1–56Google Scholar
  21. Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai J (2006) Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl 16:2411–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conservat Biol 8:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, summary for policymakersGoogle Scholar
  24. Karkkainen B (2004) New governance in legal thought and in the world: some splitting as antidote to overzealous lumping. Minn Law Rev 89:71–497Google Scholar
  25. Karkkainen B (2008) Bottlenecks and baselines: tackling information deficits in environmental regulation. Tex Law Rev 86:1409–1444Google Scholar
  26. National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee (2013) Draft National Climate AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  27. National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (2008) Retrieved 2 Aug 2010, from United States Geological Survey website,
  28. Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (2001) California Fish & Game Code, §§ 2800-2840Google Scholar
  29. O’Connell AJ (2006) The architecture of smart intelligence: structuring and overseeing agencies in the post-9/11 world. Calif Law Rev 94:1655–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2010) Adapting to climate change: a call for federal leadershipGoogle Scholar
  31. Presidential Executive Order 13653 (2013) Preparing the United States for the impacts of climate change. White House, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruhl JB (2010) Climate change adaptation and the structural transformation of environmental law. Environ Law 40:363–435Google Scholar
  33. Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2010) Climate change, dead zones, and massive problems in the administrative state: guidelines for whittling away. Calif Law Rev 98:59–120Google Scholar
  34. Salkin PE (2010) Cooperative federalism and climate change: new meaning to ‘think globally – act locally’. Environ Law Rep News Anal 40:10562–10571Google Scholar
  35. Schapiro RA (1999) Polyphonic federalism: state constitutions in the federal courts. Calif Law Rev 87:1409–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schapiro RA (2005) Toward a theory of interactive federalism. Iowa Law Rev 91:243–317Google Scholar
  37. Siegel JA (2009) Collaborative decision making on climate change in the federal government. Pace Environ Law Rev 27:257–312Google Scholar
  38. Staudinger MD, Grimm NB, Staudt A, Carter S, Stuart FS, Kareiva P, Ruckelshaus M, Stein BA (2012) Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services: technical input to the 2013 National Climate AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  39. United States Climate Change Science Program (2008) Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4: preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resourcesGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Congressional Budget Office (2005) Uncertainty in analyzing climate change: policy implicationsGoogle Scholar
  41. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2012) National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation StrategyGoogle Scholar
  42. United States General Accounting Office (2003) Great Lakes, an overall strategy and indicators for measuring progress are needed to better achieve restoration goals. Report no. GAO-03-515Google Scholar
  43. United States Global Change Research Program (2013) About the metadata access tool for climate and health, retrieved 20 June 2013 from United States Global Change Research Program website,
  44. United States Government Accountability Office (2007) Climate change: agencies should develop guidance for addressing the effects on Federal land and water resources. Report no. GAO-07-863Google Scholar
  45. United States Government Accountability Office (2009) Strategic Federal planning could help government officials make more informed decisions. Report no. GAO-10-113Google Scholar
  46. United States Government Accountability Office (2011) Climate change: improvements needed to clarify national priorities and better align them with Federal funding decisions. Report no. GAO-11-317Google Scholar
  47. United States Government Accountability Office (2013) Climate change: various adaptation efforts are under way at key natural resource management agencies. Report no. GAO-13-253Google Scholar
  48. White House Council on Environmental Quality (2010) Progress report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: recommended actions in support of a national climate change adaptation strategyGoogle Scholar
  49. White House Council on Environmental Quality (2011a) Federal actions for a climate resilient nation: progress report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task ForceGoogle Scholar
  50. White House Council on Environmental Quality (2011b) Instructions for implementing climate change adaptation planning in accordance with Executive Order 13514Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Irvine School of LawUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations