Comments on: Why Agencies Fail: Revisiting the Oil Spill and the MMS

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:28:32 +0000

Matt – Thanks for the input regarding the process-focused as opposed to results-oriented impact of NEPA on off-shore drilling. But what does this say about Oynes’ claim that the MMS often sought to avoid the lengthy process required to comply with EIS regulations? He seems to imply that in order to expedite the permit process, the MMS was willing to work informally with the oil companies to draw up drilling guidelines. Thoughts?

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:17:46 +0000

Bob – This sentence of yours gets to the heart of what differentiates Democrats from Republicans: whether ones sees the “government’s role as less a matter of promoting private enterprise for public benefit (although this will always be important) and instead insist that first and foremost its role is to mitigate the “social costs” (the environmental damage, the harm to human health & even life itself, etc.) that can result from business’s focus on the bottom line.” The history of American politics is in a large sense driven by where the moderate middle of the public places themselves in relation to this divide. More often than not they have fallen on the right side of this divide. That changed, however, beginning with FDR and the New Deal. But beginning with Reagan, the moderate middle has tended once again to be suspicious of government’s ability to mitigate social costs. I wondered, with Obama’s election, whether that view would shift left of the divide once more, toward a greater appreciation of government’s ability to protect the public from capitalism’s excesses. I think the jury is still out regarding whether Obama has accomplished this shift. The worry for Democrats, I think, is that he has not fully taken advantage of what appeared to be a golden chance to enact a sea change in the public’s attitude toward government’s role.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:53:46 +0000

Great Post – I think your conclusion that, “[Bureaucratic failure's] roots usually run much deeper, into the mix of political and institutional incentives that determine how an agency defines its mission, and how it carries it out” is spot on.

Often times, the media focuses on the agency/personnel involved in the action and overlooks the legislation guiding the agency. In this case, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) were the guiding forces for MMS. OCSLA and its resulting regulations grant offshore drilling permits a “categorical exclusion” from the extensive environmental studies that NEPA requires (such as the EIS mentioned above). NEPA, however, is not a pro-active environmental law. It does not carry the enforcement weight of the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act that the EPA actively protects. It simply insures that the environmental impact of an agency action is reviewed and considered publicly through notices, meetings, and environmental reports-there is no environmental standard or limitation that must be met.

The legal considerations, therefore, only make the process of offshore oil drilling more dynamic and certainly impact the course of government policy from its origin in Congress to its implementation by MMS.

By: Bob Johnson

Bob Johnson — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:30:55 +0000

Matt,

Great blog. The moving finger writes, and keeps pointing back to Congress.

Nothing will change unless the public’s conception of what serves the public interest changes — until we see government’s role as less a matter of promoting private enterprise for public benefit (although this will always be important) and instead insist that first and foremost its role is to mitigate the “social costs” (the environmental damage, the harm to human health & even life itself, etc.) that can result from business’s focus on the bottom line.

Bob