Developing Air Pollution Control in Ohio and New Jersey

• In Event: New Approaches to Environmental Policy Research

Abstract

“New Jersey is called the Garden State, but gardens haven’t had much chance lately in the state’s environment of smog-choked skies and polluted rivers,” wrote Richard Bragaw for the Dayton Daily News (Dayton, Ohio) in May of 1971. Nevertheless, Bragaw conceded that experts considered New Jersey to have one of the best state pollution control programs in the nation at that time. Moreover, even though “Ohioans pride themselves on the fact that the state was one of the first to get started on pollution programs,” Bragaw acknowledged that that Ohio’s antipollution agencies were weak, underfunded, and understaffed compared to those from states like New Jersey.

After World War II, New Jersey and Ohio were both heavily-industrialized, densely-populated and home to doctors, scientists, and citizens who were concerned about the deterioration of air quality. Despite these similarities, New Jersey was an environmental pioneer which developed a statewide air pollution control program in 1954 and enhanced its capacities during the 1960s while Ohio only developed its first state agency, the Air Pollution Control Board, in 1967. Furthermore, New Jersey’s air pollution control program has traditionally ranked higher than that of Ohio, which has consistently been among the top states with respect to the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air.

Why did Ohio — a pioneer in the Progressive Era anti-smoke movement — fall behind New Jersey in air pollution control after World War II? Why was New Jersey able to partially overcome the opposition of business interests to air pollution control while Ohio remained imprisoned by them? More generally, what accounts for the development of effective air pollution control in the United States after World War II, given the historical institutional constraints on environmental policy?

This paper will demonstrate that robust statewide action prior to 1967 was more likely in states with geographical mismatches between the problem (air pollution) and the local governments concerned about it, and that political entrepreneurs and election campaigns played a key role in raising the profile of air pollution as an issue of concern. Furthermore, it confirms the claim that campaigns help set legislative agendas, even when the issue in question — air pollution control — was a minor or secondary issue in campaign discourse. Finally, this study shows that states are more likely to respond to threats of federal policy preemption than to other forms of federal encouragement.

Author

• Ann-Marie E. Szymanski, University of Oklahoma