Can David and Goliath Get Along? Federal Land in Local Places

Abstract

It is often unclear what the role of a local jurisdiction is with regard to land use management on nearby federal properties. Yet federal lands clearly impact nearby local communities. The US Department of Energy (DOE), with over 100 sites across the United States with varying degrees of environmental contamination, may be in a very difficult position with regard to relationships with local government about land use. Yet few, if any, studies have examined DOE land use issues. This study asks: (1) In general, how do local planners feel about federal government relationships with them? (2) Do local planners feel differently about the DOE than they do about other federal agencies? (3) What reasons explain any differences observed in answer to the second question? To answer these questions, local planners were interviewed from communities adjacent to non-DOE federal properties, and their responses compared to those of planners located near DOE facilities in the same regions. Findings showed that compared to other federal agencies that own land in the same regions, the DOE is relatively poorer at actively involving local officials in land use decisions at its sites. Primary reasons are the historic legacy of a culture of secrecy, focus on mission, and especially the lack of experience, training, or mandates in local planning cooperation. Findings also suggest that this attitude is markedly stronger in areas west of the Rocky Mountains. Recommendations for improved federal-local communications include the development of a vision for local government involvement that is supported by top levels of management and filtered effectively to the site level.

Root causes of unsatisfactory performance of large and complex remediation projects: Lessons learned from the united states department of energy environmental management programs

“…Our surveys found that local officials almost always trust the US DOE less than other federal agencies and departments with nearby sites (DOD, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture; Lowrie & Greenberg, 2001). Notably, these polls show that the public living within 50 miles of the four major sites (Savannah River, Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge) trust DOE's science more than DOE's public communications (Greenberg at al., 2007a(Greenberg at al., , 2007b.…”

National Government Policy Options for Contributing to Regional Economic Stability: The US Department of Energy's Major Nuclear Weapons Sites

“…The DOE as a whole and the EM program, more specifically, are not focused on economic redevelopment, although they implicitly have taken on that function because of the huge increment of federal dollars they have poured into the sites. Added to the long history of secrecy, the surrounding regions often view the DOE as Goliath and themselves as David without a slingshot (Lowrie & Greenberg, 2001). The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the EDA, with participation from the EI'A, the DOT, and their state and local progeny are the appropriate organizations to lead regional strategic planning efforts for the rural and dependent regions that will focus on rebuilding and diversifying these economies.…”

“…We also personally interviewed or surveyed on the phone local planners, elected officials, and other prominent leaders, including selected members of DOE citizen advisory committees. For example, one survey was of 66 city or county planners representing 52 counties and cities (Lowrie & Greenberg, 2001), and another was of local officials from DOE and federally owned sites (DOD, Department of the Interior, and others) within thirteen miles of Hanford, INEEL, Rocky Flats, Savannah River, Los Alamos, and the Nevada Test Site (Lowrie & Greenberg, 2001). We read and analyzed over four hundred news articles to compare perceptions of the DOE Savannah River and Rocky Flats with the DODs Tooele and Anniston chemical weapon stockpile sites (Lowrie, Greenberg, & Waishwell, 2000).…”

Mandates to Coordinate: The Case of the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act

“…Cultural attributes of agencies can also be a limiting factor (Dawes, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2009;Head & Alford, 2015;O'Toole & Montjoy, 1984). For instance, recent research suggests that federal agencies face significant cultural barriers to acting collaboratively (Mitchell, O'Leary, & Gerard, 2015), particularly the federal land management agencies, when, as in this case, it comes to working with municipalities (Culhane, 1981;Kaufman, 1960;Koontz & Bodine, 2008;Lowrie & Greenberg, 2001;Steelman, 2010). Should mandates to coordinate be put in place without consideration for the antecedents of coordination, there is further reason to expect an emphasis on administrative demonstrations of coordination without building the necessary relational infrastructure.…”