Regulations: Just drop ’em? Not so fast

By Dennis Goemaat

---

This campaign season, there seems to be a lot of talk about eliminating regulations. This sounds good in theory, but does it actually work in practice?

When I hear talk about eliminating regulations, I wonder which ones they believe should be repealed. I know the Libertarian argument is compelling: unrestricted freedom to keep government out of our way. The problem is everyone doesn't play nice with unregulated freedom. People make choices that impact other people - sometimes in very negative ways. Ethics often are not considered.

Rights and responsibilities are opposite ends of the same continuum. Ultimately, it is important that these two principles remain in balance. A generic “get rid of regulations” approach causes me a great deal of concern for a couple of reasons.

It is worthwhile to consider which came first, the regulation or the abuse. My guess is that usually the abuse occurred and regulations were enacted to address the problem. Again, someone tried to cut ethical corners in order to get what they want without considering other people. Expediency over ethics is not a good approach.

The economic collapse in 2008 highlighted many problems in the financial sector. Most people seem to agree that something needs to be done to ensure that the abuses that occurred don't happen again. Perhaps the regulations went too far - I don't know enough about financial regulations to be certain.

On the other hand, I do know something about environmental regulations. Many of the major environmental regulations that have been enacted in the past have resulted in improved environmental quality. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act all made strides in improving environmental quality for everyone. I hope these important laws and regulations are not the ones being targeted for repeal. The reason these regulations were enacted was serious environmental insults that hurt the average person.

All of us need clean water. We all need healthy, clean air to breath. I hope regulations that help protect these important resources are not on the chopping block.

Before the Clean Water Act, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire. People and businesses along the river were taking the easy, expedient way to maximize profits and minimize costs. This approach had substantial costs to the environment and to people's health. The river was used to dispose of toxic, flammable pollutants and the environment suffered as a result.

Garrett Hardin described the problem of shared resources being used for self-interest and called this dilemma the “tragedy of the commons.” Essentially, Hardin in his article in the journal Science in 1968, argued that shared, limited resources will be used by individuals to maximize individual interests even if their actions damage the resource for everyone else. Regulations ensure that benefits of shared resources are enjoyed by all.

Iowa has fought poor water quality for a long time. Most Iowans understand that our surface water is generally poor quality. Most want to see our rivers and streams improved.

What is the best approach? My hunch is that dropping existing regulations won't improve water quality and may allow it to deteriorate further. The same is true of other major environmental regulations.

My suggestion is to encourage people to do the right thing. We should reward those who do, but leave regulations in place so society has a way to go after the bad actors - the ones who choose expediency over ethics. Our shared natural resources like air and water are too important not to protect.

Dennis Goemaat is Deputy Director of the Linn County Conservation Department. It does not have any regulatory responsibilities. However, it is concerned with protecting the environment and natural resources as well as promoting livable, sustainable communities and a high quality of life. Comments: www.my

countyparks.com/

Contact/ContactUs.aspx