![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
State governments
Q: Broadly speaking, how were relations between EPA and the state governments?
MR. RUCKELSHAUS: Broadly speaking, they were terrible, because the agency itself represented a repudiation of what the state regulators had been doing for the previous 20 years. They felt, often with a good deal of justification, that in the face of very little public support--and therefore, very little political support--they had made remarkable progress and were getting no credit for it. The very existence of EPA itself symbolized to state environmental agencies the lack of appreciation the public had for their, "laboring in the darkness for lo these many decades." One of the first things I did at EPA was travel around the country and talk to state regulatory officials. I convened meetings with them in the various EPA regions. I heard the same story over and over and over again: "You're pushing us around too much; you're trying to dictate what ought to happen; we can handle this stuff ourselves; just give us more money, more federal grants; stay out of our hair." Some of the more philosophic ones acknowledged that EPA was really a gorilla in the closet. So long as we didn't come out of the closet and we let the states alone, the gorilla could help induce compliance. But I had some quite angry meetings with these state regulatory officials.
There were also some growing pains in the agency. As it got new powers from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to regulate state activities, EPA had to be sure the states had adequate bureaucratic mechanisms in place before delegating to them the operation and administration of new programs. This oversight created a very, very difficult period between the EPA and the states. The states thought we dictated too much, were too intrusive. Again, a lot of it stemmed from resentment for not having gotten adequate credit for what they had done.
When I returned to the agency ten years later, that was all gone. In most cases, we worked with new people. The air and water programs were much more mature, and had been delegated now for eight or nine years. The toxic waste programs, however, were taking on many of the qualities of the early Air and Water programs because they were much newer and the delegations had not taken place. The states responded just as before: "You're pushing us around, imposing too many standards and too many rules; just give us some money and get out of our hair."