**Consult States: CP**The United States federal government should enter into a process of prior and binding consultation with the 50 states and relevant territories and propose to [INSERT]. THe united states federal government will continuously advocate the plan but will allow the states propose specific changes to implementation. All state proposals on implementation will be accepted.

1NCStates want prior binding implementation consultation and cooperation from the USFGDunlop 5Becky Norton, Vice President of External Relations at the Heritage foundation, specializing in Federalism, environmental regulation, and property rights, Improve the Environment Leave it to the states and the people, speech given 4/20/05, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Improve-Environment.cfm, accessed 6/28/09What are some of the environmental challenges that we are looking at today and what do we see happening in Washington D.C.? One of the good things is that the EPA has devolved more authority to the states on environmental issues. They have recognized the fact that there is no race to the bottom of the environmental barrel in the states. In every state, people want to have clean air and clean water. So EPA has turned over increasing amounts of authority to state officials. There is another side to the devolution coin, however. Oftentimes, EPA is simply making state officials administrative agents of the federal government. The job of state environmental officials is to look out for their own citizens, to improve the quality of the environment for their particular state or locality. You dont want them to become the agent of some other entity, which has a point of view with which they disagree. So there are two sides to that coin of sending more responsibility to the states. We need to keep working to make certain that Congress takes action to return not only more enforcement responsibility but also more program authority.

Courts deferring to cooperative federalism and avoiding preemptionplan engages in preemption but the counterplan maintaining itBarrington 2Copyright (c) 2002 Whittier Law Review Whittier Law Review Summer, 2002 23 Whittier L. Rev. 1127 LENGTH: 25708 words NOTE AND COMMENT: PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA V. CONCANNON AND MAINE'S PRESCRIPTION DRUG REBATE STATUTE: A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY SOLUTION TO THE MEDICAID CRISIS NAME: Conrad J. Barrington* BIO: * Whittier Law School, Class of 2003.The court began its analysis by stating that courts are traditionally reluctant to exercise federal preemption of a state law, and that such action is to be considered "strong medicine." n283 In passing, the court also mentioned that this is even more true when the federal program is one of "cooperative federalism," where " "coordinated state and federal efforts exist within a complementary ... framework.' " n284 Though the court delved no further into the idea of "cooperative federalism," the United States Supreme Court case of New York Department of Social Services v. Dublino n285 offers interesting parallels to the Concannon case. In Dublino, a group of public assistance recipients filed suit against New York's welfare department, challenging the constitutionality of a New York Social Welfare Law under the Supremacy Clause. n286 The plaintiffs claimed that the federal law (encompassed within the work incentive program provisions of the 1967 amendments to the Social Security Act) preempted the New York statute. n287 Both statutes benefits provisions for families with dependent children, provided that the parents were employable. n288 The New York law, however, had more stringent work requirements than the federal law, providing the impetus for the lawsuit. n289 [*1160] Under the terms of the federal law, states were given broad discretion in dispersing their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) resources. n290 As in the federal Medicaid program, the states were expected to set their own eligibility requirements and to determine the different levels of benefits. n291 Despite this discretion granted to the states, the plaintiffs argued that New York had nonetheless stepped beyond the boundaries of the federal statute. n292 The Court held that in this sort of "cooperative federalism" relationship between the state and federal government, the standard for a facial challenge to a statute is a high one. n293 According to the Court, "Congress "has given the States broad discretion' [under the AFDC program] ... and "(s)o long as the State's actions are not in violation of any specific provision of the Constitution or the Social Security Act,' the courts may not void them." n294 The Court also stated that "[it] has repeatedly refused to void state statutory programs, absent congressional intent to pre-empt them." n295 It took special note of the fact that New York's intentions were admirable, and that the state was attempting to correct the major societal problems of rampant unemployment and need. n296 The Court stated that "the problems confronting our society in these areas are severe, and state governments, in cooperation with the Federal Government, must be allowed considerable latitude in attempting their resolution." n297 U.S is competing for influence to shape Ukrainian federal model- maintaining Cooperative federalism model key to crowd out Russia. Parlett 4/19William Partlett. "JURIST - International Constitution-Making in Ukraine."JURIST - International Constitution-Making in Ukraine. Jurist, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. .JURIST Guest Columnist William Partlett of Columbia University School of Law William Partlett is an Associate-in-Law, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, and Lecturer at Columbia Law School. Dr. Partlett holds a J.D. from Stanford Law School as well as a DPhil in Soviet History and MPhil in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Oxford (where he was a Clarendon Scholar). Dr. Partlett draws on this cross-disciplinary background to work in the field of comparative constitutional and criminal law.The Ukrainian government's voluntary transfer of constitution-making decisions to the international level in order to counter Russian pressure suggests a scenario of outsider influence in constitution-making that lies somewhere between the imposed and supervised models of the spectrum of outsider influence. In this scenario, constitutional bargaining takes place at both the domestic and the international level. We are seeing this already. On March 30, after a phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, the US Secretary of State met with Russian Foreign Minister to find a "political solution" to Ukraine. This political solution was primarily focused on discussions of Ukrainian constitution-making, including the transfer of an American document that was a "response to the Russian plan." More recently, in response to the capture of government buildings by pro-Russian militias, Russia, Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States met and agreed to de-escalate the process by supervising the "constitutional process." This shift to international bargaining in Ukrainian constitution-making poses some dangers. In particular, it could lead the outsiders to decide key issues without important domestic input. This could lead to a dangerous disconnect between constitutional negotiations and actual events on the grounds. Claims by pro-Russian groups that they will not recognize a recent deal between Russia and the West suggest that this is a real danger. More importantly, the dangers of a disconnect between international negotiations and domestic events could lead to key groups rejecting the final Ukrainian Constitution outrightan outcome that could undermine the constitution-making process altogether. The internationalization of Ukrainian constitution-making also, however, has some advantages. In particular, it could make it politically easier for the Ukrainian government to compromise with Russia. On the issue of federalization this might be already happening, as the US and Europe have pushed Ukraine to compromise with the Russians. The Ukrainian Prime Minister has said that Ukraine "need[s] to immediately implement constitutional reform and give people what rightfully belongs to them - power in the regions." Ukrainian authorities have then described this de-centralization project not as a way to compromise with Russia, but as a proposal that conforms with the European Charter of Local Self Government. And this Charter accords with at least one of the Russian demands: It calls for localities to have the ability to elect "councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage." While the devil will be in the details of Ukrainian federalization, there does seem to be some room for negotiation on this point.

Nation State disintegration happening cooperative federalism key to prevent escalation. Rieth 4/16Peter Strzelecki Rieth. "Ukraine: A Case for Federalism - The Imaginative Conservative."The Imaginative Conservative. N.p., 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. .

As to the nationalist fear that Federalism means national disintegration: this is not true. Federalism would only mean national disintegration if the Ukrainian government in Kiev continued to demonstrate to the world that it is incompetent and incapable of governing. If the Kiev government cannot govern, if Ukraine is indeed so splintered and barbaric as to be incapable of self-government, if we continue to see Ukrainians on the streets beating one another, Ukrainian members of parliament beating one another, oligarchs vying for power and attempting to suck Europe, Russia and America into a wider conflict to serve their own interests, then I humbly submit that perhaps Federalism would offer the only peaceful resolution of the inevitable disintegration of Ukraine which is possible. Then, Kiev and Lvov can vote to return to Poland (and thus the EU) while Eastern and Southern cities can vote to return to Russia. If there are true Ukrainian patriots in the country committed to peaceful existence rather than brawling in the streets, they can have they own nation state as well. So long as people vote in a peaceful election, so long as order and liberty are respected, why is territorial integrity a priority? Why not make peace and freedom a priority instead? It is another matter altogether whether Europe and Russia can even manage to absorb such a fractured country and calm its nascent violent factions. Of course, no matter what the political remedy undertaken, none will work unless there is a concerted effort by Russia, America and Europe to deflate the crisis for the common good, rather than escalate it by playing Ukrainians off of one another, inciting faction and violence and pursuing narrow policies which serve narrow and short term interests. To my mind, this is the present policy of the West: they work towards the easy task of inciting revolution and then naively hope another election will miraculously resolve the problems they created. Russia, by proposing Federalism for Ukraine, is making a serious attempt at a settlement. President Putin has demonstrated himself to be extremely well educated and predictable as a Statesman. We would assume an American President would know enough about the benefits of Federalism to at least consider it and perhaps recommend it to the Ukrainian revolutionaries who now reach out to American taxpayers for billions of dollars. Then again, we would assume President Obama would understand the recent history of Kosovo, or have advisors who understood it. Ignorance, it seems, is the prelude to crisis and war. Alas, the XX century seems to continue. When Isaac Asimov said that the XXI century would be guided by one ideano more XXth centuries! he was apparently engaging in wishful thinking. Time will tell.

Ukraine war causes extinctionBaum 3/7/14http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-baum/best-and-worst-case-scena_b_4915315.htmlSeth Baum is Executive Director of the think tank Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. He recently completed a Ph.D. in Geography at Pennsylvania State University and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship with the Columbia University Center for Research on Environmental Decisions. Based in New York City, Baum's research covers a variety of topics including ethics, economics, climate change, nuclear war, and life in the universe.

No one yet knows how the Ukraine crisis will play out. Indeed, the whole story is a lesson in the perils of prediction. Already we have a classic: "Putin's Bluff? U.S. Spies Say Russia Won't Invade Ukraine," published February 27, just as Russian troops were entering Crimea. But considering the best and worst cases highlights some important opportunities to make the most of the situation. Here's the short version: The best case scenario has the Ukraine crisis being resolved diplomatically through increased Russia-Europe cooperation, which would be a big step towards world peace. The worst case scenario has the crisis escalating into nuclear war between the United States and Russia, causing human extinction. Let's start with the worst case scenario, nuclear war involving the American and Russian arsenals. How bad would that be? Put it this way: Recent analysis finds that a "limited" India-Pakistan nuclear war could kill two billion people via agricultural declines from nuclear winter. This "limited" war involves just 100 nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia combine to possess about 16,700 nuclear weapons. Humanity may not survive the aftermath of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war. It seems rather unlikely that the U.S. and Russia would end up in nuclear war over Ukraine. Sure, they have opposing positions, but neither side has anywhere near enough at stake to justify such extraordinary measures. Instead, it seems a lot more likely that the whole crisis will get resolved with a minimum of deaths. However, the story has already taken some surprising plot twists. We cannot rule out the possibility of it ending in direct nuclear war. A nuclear war could also occur inadvertently, i.e. when a false alarm is misinterpreted as real, and nuclear weapons are launched in what is believed to be a counterattack. There have been several alarmingly close calls of inadvertent U.S.-Russia nuclear war over the years. Perhaps the most relevant is the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident. A rocket carrying scientific equipment was launched off northern Norway. Russia detected the rocket on its radar and interpreted it as a nuclear attack. Its own nuclear forces were put on alert and Boris Yeltsin was presented the question of whether to launch Russia's nuclear weapons in response. Fortunately, Yeltsin and the Russian General Staff apparently sensed it was a false alarm and declined to launch. Still, the disturbing lesson from this incident is that nuclear war could begin even during periods of calm. With the Ukraine crisis, the situation today is not calm. It is even more tense than last year, when the United States was considering military intervention in Syria.

**GenConsult = Cooperative Federalism

Consulting and deferring to states on implementation leads to cooperative federalismFischman, 05. Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington. NYU Environmental Law Research Journal, Cooperative Federalism and Natural Resources Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=824385Cooperative federalism describes an arrangement under which a national government induces coordination from subordinate jurisdictions, such as states and tribes, through incentives rather than requirements. In environmental law, cooperative federalism highlights the divide between pollution control and resource management. This article examines the divide from both sides. Even though almost all of the environmental law commentary on cooperative federalism focuses exclusively on the pollution control side, the basic elements of cooperative federalism can be combined in a wider variety of forms than are recognized by most pollution control programs or scholarship. This article reviews the ways in which resource management law has brokered the state-federal relationship to expand the otherwise cramped spectrum of arrangements that might fairly be called cooperative federalism. The narrow, pollution control model entails the fostering of state administrative programs that can receive authorization to tailor and implement federal standards. Natural resources law demonstrates three broader categories of cooperative federalism: place-based collaboration, state favoritism in federal process, and federal deference to state process.Consulting K2 Solvency Consulting The States key to Cooperative Federalism. Nash 5/30Jonathan R. Nash. "Keeping Cooperation in Cooperative Federalism."TheHill. N.p., 30 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. .Nash is professor of law at Emory University School of Law. He specializes in the study of courts and judges, federal courts and federal jurisdiction, legislation and regulation, and environmental law

Some regulatory regimes are "cooperative federalism" regimes, under which the federal and state governments work together to achieve federal regulatory goals. Cooperative federalism regimes offer two substantial benefits: They improve federal-state relations by empowering states to act under federal law, and they allow society to reap the benefit of state innovation instead of having one federal law preempt the field. In short, cooperative federalism regimes are invaluable when they work well. Yet, in a part of the opinion that hasn't garnered much attention, the Supreme Court's April decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation sheds light on a design flaw in the statute that most prominently features cooperative federalism the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act may be structured, counterintuitively and unhelpfully, to discourage state participation. The Clean Air Act divides responsibility for implementation between the federal and state governments. In general, the federal government sets goals (both through statute and regulation), and the states are free to choose a regulatory approach so long as those goals are attained. If a state fails to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) that is designed to meet those goals, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can call for appropriate amendments, and if such amendments do not materialize after a two-year period institute its own federal implementation plan (FIP). The FIP option displaces state freedom of choice, and arises only where the state fails to fulfill its obligations on its own within the two-year period. One application of cooperative federalism under the Clean Air Act is the implementation of the act's "good neighbor provision," under which "upwind" states that are producers of pollution are required to develop SIPs that protect "downwind" states from that pollution. In the years leading up to Homer, the EPA had found upwind states' SIPs inadequate, only to have the courts reject the EPA's proposed interpretation of the good neighbor provision. Then, in 2011, the EPA promulgated a new regulatory approach and simultaneously issued FIPs to implement that approach. The upwind states argued and Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent agreed that it was unfair for the EPA to issue a FIP at the very same time that it announced its revised interpretation of the relevant statute. Shouldn't the state be given an opportunity to comply with the newly announced federal interpretation before a FIP is issued? However, Justice Ruth Ginsburg's opinion for the court flatly held that EPA was within its rights. One might think that the EPA correctly assessed that the upwind states in the Homer case had had a long time to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision, and the years of recalcitrance balanced the loss of a final opportunity to do what the act directed. However, the Supreme Court's holding goes beyond that: Since more than two years had elapsed since the original finding that the upwind states' SIPs were inadequate, the EPA was obligated to issue FIPs. After Homer, then, it seems that the Clean Air Act affords the EPA no discretion to give states that have acted in good faith a window within which to comply with a newly announced federal standard when the original finding that the states were out of compliance is more than two years old. This makes little sense. While it seems logical to give the federal government the leeway not to provide a window for state compliance with a new standard where the federal government adjudges that a state has not acted in good faith, it nevertheless seems that the federal government should have the leeway to provide such a window where a state has acted in good faith and realistically could not guess what standard the federal government would in the end promulgate. Cooperative federalism should reward cooperative behavior, not punish it. Cooperative federalism regimes rest on governmental cooperation. States won't waste the time to draft their own proposals if they expect the federal government to do what it wants in the end anyway. That's to no one's benefit: States lose a little sovereignty, while we all lose out on the benefits of state regulatory innovation. Cooperative federalism regimes should be designed to foster cooperation, not discourage it. Congress should amend the Clean Air Act to remedy this problem, and should consider the importance of fostering cooperation when it designs new cooperative federalism regimes.

Consulting States are Key to Environmental Law enforcement. Coop Federalism internal Reisnger 2010WILL REISINGER*, TRENT A. DOUGHERTY, and NOLAN MOSER. "ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT AND THE LIMITS OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM: WILL COURTS ALLOW CITIZEN SUITS TO PICK UP THE SLACK?" Duke Law Publications (2010): n. pag. Http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=delpf. Web. 28 June 2014. Staff Attorney for the Ohio Environmental Council and Member of its Ohio Environmental Law Center. J.D., Ohio Northern University; B.A., Emory & Henry College. ** Director of Legal Affairs for the Ohio Environmental Council and Director of the Ohio Environmental Law Center. J.D., Capital University Law School; B.A., Ohio State University. *** Director of Clean Air & Energy Programs, the Ohio Environmental Council. J.D., Case Western Reserve University; B.A., Austin CollegeAs one senator has stated, without effective enforcement, environmental protection lacks meaning, lacks truth, lacks reality.13 Indeed, environmental statutes are only effective to the extent that they are enforced. Any standard set by statute or regulation, if not enforced, acts merely as a recommendation. To facilitate the massive task of ensuring compliance with environmental laws, Congress created a parallel enforcement regime consisting of both agency and citizen enforcement.14 Congress hoped that citizen suits would supplement government action at times when a lack of resources or political considerations would prevent agencies from detecting violations or enforcing the law.15 In fact, citizen suit provisions have been called sustenance to a starving agency16 and the essential backbone of environmental regulation.17 Congress intended that environmental laws would be enforced through a dual regime consisting of both government and citizen enforcement.18 This part will explain these two components and the theories supporting each, first by discussing the cooperative federalist approach to regulation and enforcement, and later by examining the structure and purpose of citizen suit provisions.

Cooperative federalism: Solves FundingCombination creates the greatest possible growth and profitsStringer 11 (Scott, President of the Manhattan Borough organization, 2011, BANKING ON THE FUTURE: A New Paradigm For Rebuilding Our Nations Infrastructure, http://www.libertycontrol.net/uploads/mbpo/BOTFpaper.pdf///TS)

It is clear that the United States must begin a period of sustained infrastructure investment in order to kick start the national economy, maintain global competitiveness and keep existing infrastructure in good working order. National, regional and state infrastructure banks can afford the opportunity to achieve this goal in cooperation with private sector partners. By leveraging the private sector with public funds, infrastructure banks will allow for the greatest possible growth and shared responsibility across private and public spheres. Profitability is also a critical factor that can be successfully realized.

Binding Consult k/t Cooperative Federalism

Cooperative federalism requires geniune power sharing with the statesScheiber 2k MacMillan Reference, Cooperative Federalism http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_02/eamc_02_00628.htmlNumerous analysts who celebrate these developments as signifying that old-style FEDERALISM is "dead," displaced by "intergovernmental relations," argue that the tension, pretensions at autonomy, and the notion of separateness of responsibilities that characterized governance in the pre-New Deal periods of constitutional development no longer form part of the reality of the federal system. Some scholars argue that relative power distribution is no longer a relevant issue. Forgotten is the elementary notion that "sharing" does not necessarily mean equality. Characteristically, in the modern grant-in-aid programs, the national government has not only raised and distributed the revenues, it has also designed the programs and established the goals, quite apart from overseeing administration.

Cooperative federalism requires binding consultation between the federal government and statesLawton & Burns 961996 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 1996 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 71 LENGTH: 9326 words SYMPOSIUM: THE STATE ROLE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION: Models of Cooperative Federalism for Telecommunications NAME: Raymond W. Lawton * and Bob Burns * Associate Director and Senior Institute Attorney at The National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio The third model of federalism is cooperative federalism. Under this model, costs, policies, and powers are shared by state and federal levels of government. n48 Education and highways are two areas where cooperative federalism can be seen. At least one author has identified three common attributes of cooperative efforts: shared costs, shared administration, and shared blame. n49 The important point is that intergovernmental relations occur between parties that either have common goals or interests, or have otherwise agreed to cooperate. It is important to recognize that coordination and intergovernmental cooperation do not just happen. No state official can force a federal agency to do something; both parties have to agree to act. Dual federalism, in some sense, never "goes away" because each level of government is sovereign. Even for nominally preempted areas, the transaction costs of federal enforcement may be high enough that the federal government often finds it prudent to be cooperative rather than purely preemptive.

Dual Federalism Fails

Dual federalism failsincreases bureacracy and bankrupts states Mount, 09. Steve. The U.S. Constitution Online. Constitutional Topic: Federalism http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.htmlSome advocate a return to an emphasis on dual federalism as a returning of power to a government closer to the people, and hence under better popular control. There are many problems with this, however, as many states found in the Reagan era. President Reagan was a strong advocate of states rights, and wanted to return many of the powers taken up by the federal government to the states. But in many cases, this created more bureaucracy, as each of the 50 states had to establish offices to administer programs the federal government handed over. Worse, the transition was often unfunded, meaning that the costs of the programs were shifted to the states, but federal taxes were not reduced accordingly, leading to a higher tax burden on the people as states raised taxes to fund the programs. Worse, when federal taxes were cut, federal aid to the states that did exist was cut as well. But despite the appeal of cooperative federalism, there is an on-going appeal to a degree of dual federalism. The failure of President Bill Clinton's national health care initiatives is a perfect example of an area of politics that the people feel is best held more closely, in spite of some of the benefits of a national system.

Land Use Consult

Consulting over land use and environmental issues key solves case better and prevents expensive duplicationFischman, 05. Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington. NYU Environmental Law Research Journal, Cooperative Federalism and Natural Resources Law, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=82438Conversely, natural resources law can benefit from adaptation of the narrow, pollution control model of the cooperative federalism. This article applies some of those tools to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and discusses recent developments that modify my previous work in this area. There is an acute need in the ESA program for federal coordination with state and local jurisdictions because land use is such an important determinant of habitat quality for biodiversity. Federal certification of local programs for the purpose of meeting national standards can spur more effective grass roots conservation while eliminating awkward duplication. However, the problem of inadequate inducements highlights important limitations. In particular, experimentation with narrow cooperative federalism through ESA's 4(d) rules modifying strict prohibitions on adverse habitat modification illustrates a kind of Gresham's Law of regulatory choice: lax standards drive stringent standards out of circulation.

Consult Solves Better Than Plan

Cooperative federalism solvesSchutze 09. Professor of Law, Durham University. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/?view=usa&ci=9780199238583This transition from dual to cooperative federalism is viewed as a positive development that will benefit both levels of government - the European Union and the Member States - since the ideal of structuring the law-making function according to the problem at hand is more flexible and efficient than the idea of mutually exclusive spheres of power. The mechanism of common federal standards supplemented by territorially differentiated national solutions best expresses the idea of unity in diversity.

Allowing states to enforce federal law solves for diversity of federal policies. Weiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act, page 4. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf Starting most notably with the environmental protection statutes passed in the 1970s,11 federal regulatory programs increasingly have relied on state agencies to implement federal law.12 In enacting such programs, Congress opts for the benefits of diversity in regulatory policy within a federal framework. Rather than preempting the authority of state agencies and supplanting them with federal branch offices, cooperative federalism programs invite state agencies to superintend federal law.

Consulting the states allows them to tailor federal policies for a local fit. Weiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf Cooperative federalism programs set forth some uniform federal standardsas embodied in the statute, federal agency regulations, or bothbut leave state agencies with discretion to implement the federal law, supplement it with more stringent standards,13 and, in some cases, receive an exemption from federal requirements.14 This power allows states to experiment with different approaches and tailor federal law to local conditions.15 When implementing a cooperative federalism statute, the state agency often steps into the shoes of the federal agency and makes federal law.16 A state agency thus may have greater authority when implementing the federal act than otherwise available under state law.

Cooperative Federalism solves at a local level while increasing competition and determining the best policy option. Weiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf Put simply, the cooperative federalism regulatory strategy makes sense where the benefits of allowing for diversity in federal regulatory programs outweigh the benefits of demanding uniformity in all situa- tions.21 Either by contemplating state variances from the minimum federal standards (e.g., environmental regulation) or by encouraging state discretion in implementing federal law (e.g., the Telecom Act), Congress often prefers cooperative federalism programs to unitary federal administration.22 In particular, there are at least three related reasons why the federal government has decided to promote diversity in federal regulatory regimes: (1) to allow states to tailor federal regulatory programs to local conditions; (2) to promote competition within a federal regulatory framework; and (3) to permit experimentation with different approaches that may assist in determining an optimal regulatory strategy.

Cooperative federalism creates a race to the top.Weiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf The argument that competition between states can produce optimal results rests upon at least four decades of economic theory and empirical research. Although there are a number of important contexts where competition between states can have negative results,32 a great deal of empirical research appears to support the Tiebout hypothesis that allowing citizens and businesses to choose among competing jurisdictions can help to maximize social welfare.33 That is, by adopting a flexible federal regulatory regime, a cooperative federalism program allows for a degree of competition between the states for residents, capital, and economic activity in an increasingly mobile society.34

States create a race to the top for a better policy option.Weiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf Through the process of interstate competition, other states and the federal government may move to adopt preferable approaches.48 In this sense, a federal regulatory agency, like the Supreme Court, can benefit from percolation of different approaches before ultimately settling upon a single approach or delineating the scope of acceptable approaches.

CoopFederalism K2: Port Dredging States cant manage without federal coordinationCorless 12- Campaign Director, Transportation for America, former California director and national campaign manager for the Surface Transportation Policy Project (James, May 23, Local Voters Need a Partner, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/not-waiting-for-the-feds.php#2211941//MGD)Absent strong federal leadership, states, cities and local communities are indeed stepping out on their own, raising funds from innovative sources, and doing what they can to make it happen. But left to shoulder the burden entirely alone, these communities noble efforts wont be enough to meet the challenges were facing. These communities are stepping forward, but in the hopes that the federal government will take the next step with them and support them along the way. The role for the federal government in transportation is indeed changing, evolving from being the driving factor that it was during the interstate era to being more of a partner in helping localities meet their changing needs. And their needs are a national concern, because they bear on whether Americans have a safe, reliable way to get to work, and whether goods can get to market. No developed nation in the world leaves these matters of basic infrastructure entirely to chance. But there seems little doubt that, for the foreseeable future, federal resources will be constrained, and that makes it more imperative than ever that we set goals for the investment, and measure progress toward those goals. Thats why provisions to do that in the Senates bipartisan transportation bill, MAP-21 bill are so important. Its time we figure out what matters most, and what will get the best bang for the buck. Local communities raising money for transportation are following a tried-and-true blueprint that rewards accountability and specificity: When they know what transportation dollars are going to buy this new transit line, that new busway, this new bridge project and who is accountable for implementation, measures to fund those projects pass close to 70 percent of the time. Such was the case with the transit-funding Measure R in Los Angeles, which earned a two-thirds majority vote. Having passed the tax, Los Angeles is now seeking federal help with low-cost loans that can build 30 years worth of projects in 10. Local bootstraps are great for getting off the ground, but they only get you so far up the ladder if the federal rung is missing. These innovators arent pressing for devolution, theyre simply looking for a dance partner. Coordination key- federal government has a monopoly on researchKatz et al 10 (Bruce Katz, Jennifer Bradley, and Amy Liu, November, Delivering the Next Economy: The States Step Up, The Brookings Institution, Brookings- Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation //MGD)States already share responsibility with Washington for many of the public-sector investments that will move the next economy forward. There is a continuum of federal and state spending and engagement on the constituent elements of the next economy, with both levels of government involved to a greater or lesser extent. For example, the federal government dominates in research funding, with federal actual outlays for R&D in FY 2007 of $116 billion, compared to less than $700 million spent by state agencies and another $3 billion spent by state (and local) governments for R&D at colleges and universities.3 By contrast, for every dollar that the federal government spends on highways, the states spend about two.4 The federal Department of Education spent some $68 billion in FY 2008, on both K-12 and higher education, plus another $21 billion in tax expenditures related to education, but states spent more than $400 billion of their own funds for the same purpose.5

Federal regulations and funding key to private investmentGibbs 11 Subcommittee Chairman (Bob, Memorandum on the Hearing on The Economic Importance of Seaports: Is the United States Prepared for 21st Century Trade Realities?, October 21, 2011, http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/file/112th/Water/Water%20Briefing%20Memo%20%20%2010-26-11.pdf)

Infrastructure Investment Investing in ports not only creates jobs during the construction period, but supports wider and long lasting opportunities. Knowing the value of maritime trade, localities and port authorities have invested in the infrastructure of their ports. The AAPA finds that American ports are investing $2 billion annually in marine terminal capital improvements. The Port of New Orleans has spent $400 million in recent years on landside improvements that make it more efficient and attractive to shippers. Acknowledging that 12% of the country's international containers pass under the Bayonne Bridge, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have pledged $1 billion toward the bridge retrofit that will allow for Post Panamax ships to sail under it and into the Atlantic Coast's busiest port. The cost benefit analysis of the project estimates that this single project will provide a $3.3 billion dollar annual national benefit. Local investments optimize existing infrastructure and increases port efficiency; however, many projects are required to utilize Federal funds and processes. The operation and maintenance of shipping channels is paid for by the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which is funded from a .125% ad valorum tax levied on cargo imports at American ports. The HMTF is a user fee that grows based on the value of cargo coming to ports. These monies pay for the necessary dredging that keeps navigation channels open for business. In fiscal year 2010, the HMTF grew by $1.3 billion; however, only $828,550,000 was spent in total operations of the fund as the balance was diverted to deficit spending. Because the HMTF is not _off-'book' on paper there is a balance, however the reality is that all of the balance has been used to offset other government spending. Because of this inequitable allocation, many of the country's most valuable navigation channels are under maintained, reducing the cost effectiveness and efficiency of maritime trade. While some FY 2012 presidential budget requests reflect goals of the NEI, in the areas of navigation there appears to be a disconnect between the production of exports and the transportation of exports overseas. The International Trade Administration request was $526 million towards the administration costs of implementation. Thirty million dollars of Small Business Administration grants are to be disbursed to states to support export activities. Transportation is addressed in the President's budget request with a sweeping surface transportation authorization request and $70.5 billion to fund the Federal Highway Administration. However, maritime trade, the most prevalent form of exportation, does not receive as much funding necessary to support a significant development much less doubling exports. The President's Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program appropriation request in the Administration's FY 2012 budget submittal is $4.631 billion, which is approximately 6.1% below the annualized Continuing Resolution for FY 2011 of $4.929 billion. These funds are distributed to the many missions of the Corps civil works program including investigations, construction, operations and maintenance, levee safety, flood control and environmental restoration. The Corps budget has a profound effect on waterborne commerce as it shoulders the bulk of coastal infrastructure development and operation and maintenance activities. Unlike surface transportation funding, there is no Federal credit assistance programs for the construction, operation and maintenance of ports' navigation channels. Even local ports with willing investors are often required to wait on Federal appropriations to pursue needed projects. Two accounts within the budget of the Corps have significant impact on maritime trade: Construction - The President's budget requests $1.48 billion for the Construction account. This is $210 million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of $1.69 billion. These funds are used for the construction of river and harbor, flood damage reduction, shore protection, environmental restoration, and related projects specifically authorized or made available for selection by law. Almost half of this budget request is for flood damage reduction projects. However, more alarming is that approximately $470 million are for ecosystem restoration projects that provide Rule or no economic benefits, while navigation projects would only receive $280 million. Operation and Maintenance - The President's budget also requests $2.314 billion for expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood control and related projects. This is $47 million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of $2.361 billion. The budget would use only $691 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund resulting in an increase in the estimated balance from $6.12 billion to $6.93 billion at the end of FY 2012. In addition, while proposing paltry amounts be appropriated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, the President's budget proposes to expand the authorized purposes of the fund for activities not typically associated with the Corps of Engineers maintenance of navigation channels. Among the persistent barriers to trade, only one-third of the nation's federal navigation projects are currently at their authorized depths and widths, and 8 out of the nation's 10 largest ports are not at their authorized depths and widths. Exporters are required to wait for high tide to get out of port or are forced to ship in lighter loads. This reality is especially burdensome for the many raw material exporters whose products are heavy and whose ships require deeper drafts. Overall, the President's proposal does not address some of the nation's most profound infrastructure needs. It does not direct Congress to pursue multiyear reauthorizations that provide stability and predictable funding to projects. Developing world-class infrastructure cannot be hurried to completion in two years to comply with a truncated funding schedule. Even beyond funding, a transportation infrastructure bill could include no cost policy changes that would support maritime trade. The proposed legislation does not streamline the permitting processes, an action that would expedite valuable projects. Permit backlog delays the timeline for construction and increases costs associated with navigation projects that could promote maritime trade. Also, legislation that would support maritime trade would allow non-federal project sponsors to supply more capital to navigation projects without having to wait on the appropriations process. Re-authorizations, permanent policy changes, and regulatory reduction would unlock private capital and hasten project completion, benefitting maritime trade and the economy as a whole existing river and harbor, flood control and related projects. This is $47 million less than the FY 2011 annualized Continuing Resolution of $2.361 billion.

Say Yes: Port DredgingStates Say Yes to Port druging- Recent SC funding proves. Stairs 6/20Clayton Stairs. "State Funding for Port Dredging Approved."South Strand News. N.p., 20 June 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. . South Carolina leaders have announced that state funding of maintenance dredging for the Port of Georgetown has been approved as part of its $18 million budget. The total cost of the project, which will increase the depth of the channel to 27 feet, is $33.5 million and the balance of the funding will come from federal and local funds, as well as the states Ports Authority. Sen. Yancey McGill, speaking on behalf of Sen. Ray Cleary, Rep. Carl Anderson, and Rep. Stephen Goldfinch, announced June 16 that the states Fiscal Year 2015 budget included $5 million for the dredging project and promises $2.6 million in each of the next five years. He added that the dredging project will take four years and port renovations are being planned as well. McGill said, I want to express my appreciation for their cooperation and assistance to the Georgetown County Council, the City of Georgetown, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Tim Scott, Rep. Jim Clyburn, Rep. Tom Rice, Sen. Hugh Leatherman, Jim Newsome and the South Carolina Ports Authority, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and Tim Tilley, Vida Miller, [Georgetown County Administrator] Sel Hemingway, Jim Jerow and Mayor [Jack] Scoville of the Georgetown Dredging Task Force. To secure new capital investment and job creation, we must grow and invest in our economy. This project will promote both commerce and tourism in our state. Finally, the Charleston and Georgetown state ports are moving forward for dredging. Tilley, chair of the Task Force, said he is proud of the local legislative delegation and the General Assembly for taking this big step toward making the dredging project a reality. This is a step in the process required for us to obtain complete funding for the port dredging, Tilley said. Im very excited that the state, through our local delegation, has shown their willingness to protect this state asset. He said the next steps in the process involve obtaining federal funding and local funding. Earlier this month, the federal government passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) with language that will make it easier for small ports like Georgetown to receive funding. Rice, who was instrumental in the passing of the WRRDA, said he applauds state leaders for their hard work on South Carolinas budget and recognizing the economic potential of the Georgetown Port. This port is key to maintaining our states competitiveness. By funding the dredging of this canal, South Carolina has sent a clear signal to our federal appropriators the Palmetto State is serious about deepening the Georgetown Port and furthering its competitive edge, Rice said. For the local portion of the project funding, Georgetown County leaders have appointed a commission to develop a referendum question for a one-cent Capital Projects Sales Tax. One of the five projects for the sales tax funds will be the $6 million local portion of the dredging project funding. Hemingway, who has been leading the Capital Sales Tax Commission, said the state approving funding for the project is very good news. We want to thank our local delegation for their efforts in making this appropriation possible, he said. We look forward to having similar results from the federal delegation so we can move the project forward and complete dredging as soon as possible. Hemingway pointed out that the local contribution, which could be handled by the one-cent sales tax over four years, is necessary for everything to fall in place for dredging. Tilley urged voters to say yes to the one-cent sales tax in November. In my opinion, the sales tax mechanism becomes a very attractive option for us since the revenue stream is from sales tax and visitors to the area will help pay for it, Tilley said. I believe it is a wise choice to fund port dredging through the capital projects referendum.

Miami Ports are cleared by the EPA key to econDredging Today 5-25-12 (USA: Miami Port Dredging Plan Gets Final Environmental OK http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2012/05/25/usa-miami-port-dredging-plan-gets-final-environmental-ok/)MSDAccording to The Miami Herald, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has issued a permit that will allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dredge and deepen in and around Government Cut by up to 50 feet. The project will be put out for bids this summer, with construction expected to begin in early 2013. Port expansion advocates argue the greater depth will allow Miami Port to be more competitive by accommodating larger vessels that are expected to make use of the new and wider Panama Canal when that project is completed some time next year. The deep dredge is critical to our future growth, Port of Miami Director Bill Johnson said. Port of Miami will be one of only three U.S. Atlantic ports to be at [minus] 50 feet when the expanded Panama Canal opens. Oregon coastal ports need dredgingWyden et. al, 7/19/12 (Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator, Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator, Peter DeFazio, Member of Congress, Targeted News Service, "eFazio, Wyden, Merkley, Urge Corps to Dredge Port of Port Orford", Lexis)Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) urging them to find funds to dredge the Port of Port Orford before it becomes unusable and threatens the local economy. DeFazio, Wyden, and Merkley asked the USACE to add funds to dredge the Port of Port Orford to another shallow water dredging contract on the nearby Chetco River. This would save the USACE $400,000 in the long-term and preserve this vital resource. "The Port of Port Orford is a critical lifeline that fuels the local economy, keeps over a hundred fishermen working, and keeps this community alive. We are urging the Army Corps of Engineers to add this shallow water dredging project to the contract already servicing the Chetco River. It will save the Corps money in the long-term and fulfill its commitment to safeguard our infrastructure in ports both big and small," said DeFazio. "Whether it's maintaining jetties or dredging harbors, keeping coastal ports open for business is a federal obligation and is money well spent," Wyden said. "Ensuring that ports such as Port Orford remain operational helps drive the local economy, save existing jobs, create new jobs and generate economic development at a time we need it most." "Oregonians living in coastal communities depend upon the dredging of their ports so they can support their families," said Merkley. "Without proper dredging, rural communities like Port Orford see their economies dry up. We cannot allow the Port of Port Orford to become unusable and cost further job loss. We need to continue investing in Oregon's coastal communities and dredging our small ports is one of the most critical things we can do." A group of Port Orford fishermen has organized a petition on change.org. Community members can show support for the project by signing the petition at: http://www.change.org/petitions/army-corps-of-engineers-keep-the-port-in-port-orford Text of the DeFazio, Wyden, Merkley letter is below: July 12, 2012 The Honorable Jo-Ellen Darcy Assistance Secretary of the Army, Civil Works 108 Army Pentagon Washington, DC 20310-0108 Dear Ms. Darcy: We are writing to request the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) consider using any unallocated funds for dredging at the Port of Port Orford. The Port is in dire need of dredging and will soon be unusable. The Port of Port Orford, located in Port Orford, Oregon, is unique in that it has no harbor so it is directly exposed to the Pacific Ocean. It is also the only port on West Coast that uses a dolly dock to retrieve boats out of the water once they enter the Port. According to the Port, it hosts 60 commercial fishing vessels that employ 120 individuals. Their catch value was $5 million last year. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon State University have also based research operations at this port to study the new Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve. As early as 1873, the USACE began developing plans to construct and build a breakwater at Port Orford to protect it from waves. By 1935, a breakwater was built by "local interests" to protect a pier, but it was not completely effective. The USACE then built a 550 foot extension of the breakwater in 1968, but that extension caused the Port to infill with sand. Emergency dredging took place in 1970, but the problem of sand infiltration did not abate. A 1981 USACE study of shoaling at this Port noted that breakwaters are a good tool to protect against waves. However, if such structures are constructed on "a shoreline with a substantial littoral sediment transport," and "no other measures are taken," sediment deposition will begin to accumulate and infill the channel. This is the case at the Port of Port Orford, in part because of the lengthened breakwater. We have each have worked diligently during our tenures in Congress to secure federal funds to dredge small ports along Oregon's south coast. Administration after administration, regardless of party, has failed to budget needed funds for even the most modest of dredging projects in this area despite having research in-hand that clearly demonstrates its own past construction work exacerbates the need for ongoing dredging. We have had to fight nearly every year to secure funds in the congressional budget process for this work. These federal funds are essential to keep our ports open and safe, and to ensure Oregon's coastal communities are able to thrive. Last January, the USACE did not allocate a portion of its $30 million in the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill for shallow draft ports to the Port of Port Orford for dredging. The USACE Portland District has since scheduled the hopper dredge, YAQUINA, to dredge several ports along Oregon's coast. Even if the USACE Portland District had the financial resources to dredge Port Orford, it is too shallow for the YAQUINA to enter. It requires a clamshell or a similar dredge to get in and do the work. We have recently learned that the USACE Portland District will be letting an emergency contract to have a private clamshell dredge areas of the Checto River in Oregon. This work is part of an emergency clean-up effort from last year's tsunami. The USACE Portland District says it will cost an extra $800,000 to include dredging at the Port of Port Orford in this contract. A stand-alone contract would cost an additional $400,000. We respectfully request you consider allocating any unused USACE funds to include the Port of Port Orford in this dredging contract. We are well aware that USACE budgets have been underfunded for too many years leaving many worthy projects short of needed maintenance funds. However, we are convinced this request deserves additional consideration. The Port is the community's lifeline. Failing to dredge a port that experiences rapid sand infiltration as direct a result of a past USACE construction project seems unreasonable. We also request you view this video made by community residents about current conditions at the Port. It highlights the need for this work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVewO9qo0f0. We are available to further discuss this matter with you either in person or over the phone.

Say Yes: DesalStates say yes to desal strategies- California ProvesBarringer 2013Barringer, Felicity. "In California, What Price Water?"The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 June 2014. .

CARLSBAD, Calif. On a calm day, a steady rain just about masks the sound of Pacific Ocean water being drawn into the intake valve from Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Listen hard, and a faint sucking sound emerges from the concrete openings, like a distant straw pulling liquid from a cup., a senior vice president at Poseidon Resources, at the Carlsbad site. At the moment, the seawater is being diverted from the ocean to cool an aging natural-gas power plant. But in three years, if all goes as planned, the saltwater pulled in at that entryway will emerge as part of the regional water supply after treatment in what the projects developers call the newest and largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. Large-scale ocean desalination, a technology that was part of President John F. Kennedys vision of the future half a century ago, has stubbornly remained futuristic in North America, even as sizable plants have been installed in water-poor regions like the Middle East and Singapore. The industrys hope is that the $1 billion Carlsbad plant, whose builders broke ground at the end of the year, will show that desalination is not an energy-sucking, environmentally damaging, expensive white elephant, as its critics contend, but a reliable, affordable technology, a basic item on the menu of water sources the country will need. Proposals for more than a dozen other seawater desalination plants, including at least two as big as Carlsbad one at Huntington Beach, 60 miles north of here, and one at Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps base are pending along shorelines from the San Francisco Bay Area southward. Several of these are clustered on the midcoast around Monterey and Carmel. The San Diego County Water Authority has agreed to buy at least 48,000 acre-feet of water from the plant each year for about $2,000 an acre-foot. An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, roughly enough for two families of four for a year. The authority has made a long-term bet that those costs now double those of the most readily available alternative will eventually be competitive. But it still means the authority will pay more than $3 billion over 30 years for only about 7 percent of the countys water needs. As Sandra Kerl, the deputy general manager of the authority, said in a recent interview, Theres a lot of eyes on this. The technology used in the Carlsbad plant, known as reverse osmosis, was developed decades ago. It involves pushing the water through a series of microscopic sieves rolled up into larger cylindrical filters. The energy-intensive process separates pure water from both salt molecules and impurities. The filters, some of which are made locally, are cheaper and more durable than they were a decade ago, industry accounts say, bringing down the overall price of the plant and its operations. In the Western United States, where the complexities of water law and heavily subsidized federal and state water projects have complicated the economics of water delivery and hamstrung any widespread development of water markets, the Carlsbad plant offers a peek into a future when water prices reflect the actual cost of procurement and delivery. David Moore, a managing director of Clean Energy Capital, financial advisers to the San Diego County authority, said the water authority had made the call that over time this water is going to be more affordable than other sources. That was the fundamental risk of the transaction. The price of water the authority now gets from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is about $1,000 an acre-foot. The bet on this technology was not an obvious one; the recent history of desalination in the United States and Australia has been mixed, at best. Some recently constructed Australian plants are flourishing while others stand idle some of the time. In this country, technological missteps, delays and bankruptcies dogged the first big plant, which finally opened in Tampa in 2007.AT: Perm

Binding consulation to critical solvencyineffective federal implementation crushes the plan and permutation but the counterplan boosts cooperative federalismWeiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf The local tailoring ability of cooperative federalism regimes facilitates ambitious regulatory ventures like the Telecom Acts attempt to open up local telephone markets to competition. A cooperative federalism approach recognizes that many regulatory problems are so complex that they cannot be resolved by one level of government acting alone; rather, they require cooperation among all levels.24 Economists repeatedly have praised this aspect of federalism.25 Professor Richard Stewart calls it a reconstitutive approach to regulatory pro- grams, a strategy which can afford flexibility to accommodate diverse subsystem conditions and values, broaden decisional responsibility, and reduce costly and dysfunctional centralized decisionmaking.26 The federal government simply does not have the know-how and resources to tailor broad standards to local circumstances.27 As an important case in point, modern environmental regulation convincingly demonstrates how [t]he need to tailor environmental policy to local conditions and the even more important need to use state technical and personnel resources compel Congress to share some of its au- thority.28 Notably, when the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in for the state of Idaho to administer its air quality regulatory program, it clearly was not up to the task, reportedly spending almost five times as much as the state would have spent to do the same job.29 As a result of this need for cooperation, both the states and the federal government are well aware that they are tied together in their ability to administer cooperative federalism programs.30 The resulting interdependence gives each important influence over the other.

The perm is not cooperative federalism: false consultation is really a federal preemptive mandateLawton & Burns 961996 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 1996 6 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 71 LENGTH: 9326 words SYMPOSIUM: THE STATE ROLE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION: Models of Cooperative Federalism for Telecommunications NAME: Raymond W. Lawton * and Bob Burns * Associate Director and Senior Institute Attorney at The National Regulatory Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio This paper examines three basic models of federalism. The first model is the preemption model, which entails a clearly dominant role for the federal government. n5 The second model is dual federalism, in which the states and federal government retain supremacy within their respective spheres. n6 The third and most interesting model is cooperative federalism, where power is shared between the states and the federal government. n7 Unfortunately, rhetoric can often confuse reality; many officials claim [*73] their programs are in the cooperative category when in reality they are not. The sections below briefly examine each model of federalism as it relates to telecommunications as well as other substantive examples used by political scientists. This brief examination is intended to provide telecommunications regulatory policymakers with an objective appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages associated with each model. The cooperative model examines one approach in detail because of its relevance as a way of maximizing federal-state cooperation to develop nationwide telecommunications policies. Two policies that follow the cooperative approach are the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) n8 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT). n9 The proposition presented in this article is that the PURPA approach is directly transferable to telecommunications reform legislation. PURPA's improved energy policies, designed and implemented for electric and natural gas utilities, demonstrate that federal and state governments can cooperate in high stakes regulatory arenas. n10 II. PREEMPTION MODEL OF FEDERALISM The Constitution confers specific, broad, and unstated (or implied) powers to the federal government which include the power to declare war, coin money, and regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. n11 State governments retain the right to regulate commerce within a state, ensure public health and safety, and exert powers that the Constitution neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited the states from using. n12 Both the states and the federal government share other powers, such as the authority to establish courts and expend funds for the general welfare. In a preemptive model, the federal government implements policy that effectively limits the state's [*74] role in a particular area, even where both the states and the federal government share the power to control that area. In a preemptive mode, the federal government does not necessarily overstep its authority, rather it acts within its power to mandate compliance, delegate responsibility, promote negotiation, or obtain services from the states. A prominent example of the preemptive mode is this nation's long history of desegregation, integration, and civil rights. One problem related to preemption is what some have called "mandate madness." n13 This term is used to describe the federal government's attempt to mandate that a state or local government comply with or act affirmatively to adopt or implement a federal policy or piece of legislation. n14 The federal government allocates generous sums of money to state and local governments which cannot afford to lose the money by not complying with these "unfunded mandates." n15 A classic example of linking policies to mandates is granting highway construction monies to states that implement a fifty-five mile per hour speed limit. n16 Dependant upon federal highway funds, a state's autonomy is effectively preempted inasmuch as these mandates provide the state with a program it cannot maintain without federal assistance. n17

Aff Doesnt Solve

States are key laboratories but blanket policies crush aff solvencyprior binding consultation leads boost cooperative federalism and solve the caseWeiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf In perhaps the most memorable defense of federalism, Justice Brandeis explained that [i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens so choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.40 Unlike some New Deal programs that left no room for variation between the states,41 cooperative federalism programs capitalize on these laboratories. When states enjoy significant discretion, they can experiment and learn from one another when performing complex regulatory tasks from setting pole attachment rates (Pole Attachment Act of 1978)42 to encouraging the development of alternate sources of electric power (the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA))43 to making judgments about cost containment in health care reimbursement (Medicaid)44 to setting appropriate water quality benchmarks (Clean Water Act).45 Resisting the immediate institution of a uniform national rule hedges the federal governments bet by waiting to pick a single stan- dard. A national standard may ultimately emerge, but avoiding the premature selection of such a standardor its ineffective administra- tionleads to better regulatory policy.46 The absence of a federal standard in difficult regulatory policy areas can help ensure that the regulatory regime does not lock in a suboptimal standard.

Uniform federal policies crush innovationshould give states authority over federal programs via consultationWeiser 01. Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado. Federalism Common Law, Cooperative Fedearalism, and the Enforcement of the Telecom Act. lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/pubpdfs/weiser/CoopFederalism.pdf The development of federal common law for unitary federal regimes, ranging from the Sherman Antitrust Act, to the Labor Management Relations Act,65 to maritime law, often rests on the assumption that such uniformity is necessary to effectuate the relevant substantive federal policies in each area. In fact, however, courts and commentators have begun to recognize that the aspiration for uniformityboth before Erie and after itoften rests on flawed assumptions.66 By focusing on achieving uniform legal rules, courts often overlook the potential value of diversity and fail to examine adequately the policies advanced by the federal statute.67 Consequently, federal judge-made law and its attendant aspiration to develop a uniform regime impose institutional costs on the lawmaking system by displacing other actors and undermining the benefits of experimentation by state agencies, state courts, and other bodies.

**IndiaNow Key India Pushing for cooperative federalism IANS 3/14Indo Asian News Service. "Punjab Seeks 'cooperative Federalism' for Inter-state Disputes."Yahoo Maktoob News. N.p., 3 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. .Chandigarh, March 3 (IANS) Calling for the early resolution of inter-state issues, the Punjab government Monday sought "cooperative federalism" in the country saying that state and central governments should be "equal and responsible partners in progress". Addressing the Punjab assembly at the opening of its session here, Governor Shivraj Patil said that many inter-state issues concerning Punjab remained unresolved. These issues include the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab, sharing of river water and, transfer of Punjabi speaking areas, he said. "Several important issues relating to the state still remain unresolved. The state has been denied its capital, Chandigarh, and vast Punjabi speaking areas have been left out of it at the time of reorganisation in 1966," he said, adding the deadline for the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab was set by the central government as Jan 26, 1986, but nothing has happened. Highlighting the severe water crisis being faced by Punjab, the Punjab government sought the expeditious implementation of the 'riparian principle' on water-sharing with other states. "Punjab already faces severe water crisis with ground water level going alarmingly down because of excessive reliance of our farmers on tubewell irrigation. Keeping in view, this problem needs to be resolved expeditiously, which has unfortunately not been done so far," said Patil. Justifying the rationale behind seeking cooperative federalism in the country, the governor demanded that the share of states in central taxes be increased from the present 30 percent to 50 percent and that these funds should be given to states in an untied manner. "The state government is in a better position to understand and address the problems of the people of the state. Financial strength and autonomy should be given to the state so that the demands of the people were addressed and met in an expeditious and just manner," he said. Patil said that Punjab was suffering on the front of industrial investment due to the concessions given by the central government to the neighbouring hill states, and sought extension of these concessions to Punjab also.

Inda Modles Federalism India and models us cooperative federalism Starobin, 6-13-09. Author, Divided We Stand. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574219813708759806.htmlThe most hopeful prospect for the USA, should the decentralization impulse prove irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others, might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans everywhere. In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution may likewise be the future for the European continentthink Cataloniaand for the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for Americas founding fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.

Cooperative federalism key to solve kashmir conflictDevra 2kKashmir calls Delhi's bluff on decentralization By Ranjit Devra, June 28, Asia TimesPolitical analysts noted that Abdullah ignored a last minute appeal by Vajpayee to tone down the autonomy demand in order to regain popularity in the state. ''The people of J&K are unhappy with Farooq Abdullah's performance over the past four years. There has hardly been any development and joblessness, collapsed health and educational infrastructure remain huge problems,'' commented The Times of India on Tuesday. ''This is the only way in which Farooq Abdullah feels he can woo back the disenchanted people. But will this really solve the state's problems? The real issues are still unemployment and lack of development and autonomy does not automatically guarantee solutions.'' However, Abdullah has insisted that these problems cannot be solved without autonomy. ''We did not promise them (the people) employment or anything, just the restoration of autonomy . . . we are bound to fulfil that promise,'' he told the assembly before the autonomy vote. A serious debate on the question of a truly federal structure for India is also a demand of regional parties that have played a key role in forming four Indian governments, including Vajpayee's, in the last four years. ''Autonomy must not be viewed as a dirty word and an autonomous Kashmir could become a model of cooperative federalism,'' said political analyst and Kashmir expert Amitabh Mattoo of the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University. Former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral too said that after half-a-century of independence from British colonial rule, it was time for India to adopt the principle of cooperative federalism. Deterrence Will FailOnly Resolving Kashmir Crisis Can Permanently Build CBMs and Prevent War Nuclear Between India and PakistanKapur 05S. Paul Kapur is a Visiting Scholar at Stanford Universitys Center for International Security and Cooperation and Assistant Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College. India and Pakistans Unstable Peace. International Security, 127, Fall//soudersJust as important as these strategic and technical measures, however, will be energetic diplomatic attempts to ameliorate ongoing territorial disputes. Such efforts can help to reduce a key incentive for aggression by new nuclear states, thereby lowering the potential costs of future nuclear proliferation. In the South Asian case, international political and economic support for the Musharraf government's recent efforts to rein in the Kashmir insurgency, and to forge a more cooperative relationship with India, could be useful. While such support cannot ensure increased regional stability, it can help to reduce the Pakistan government's desire to alter the Kashmiri status quo, and thus may lower the likelihood of Indo-Pakistani conflict despite their nuclear weapons' potentially destabilizing effects. An important means of avoiding nuclear danger may thus have more to do with diplomacy than with nuclear weapons themselves.

India Models the US Federalism

India Models US Federalist structuresSmith 6Berkeley Journal of International Law 2006 24 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 218 LENGTH: 27297 words Article: Making Itself at HomeUnderstanding Foreign Law in Domestic Jurisprudence: The Indian Case NAME: By Adam M. Smith* BIO: * Chayes Fellow, Harvard Law School. Modern India has also been strongly influenced by many states that never ruled its territory. For instance, American influence can be found both in the state's judicial process and its constitutional text. n83 The Indian Constitution's express declaration of fundamental rights coupled with the introduction of judicial review n84 marked a radical departure from the British doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, and thoroughly "Americanized" the system. n85 In addition to judicial review, the framers of the Indian Constitution explicitly used the American Bill of Rights as a starting point in their discussions. n86 Moreover, India even adapted its constitution upon the recommendation of an American jurist. Following the terror of partition and Mahatma Gandhi's assassination, many representatives to the constitutional convention began to argue for carving out a constitutional allowance for preventive detention, placing "citizens' freedom at the disposition of a legislature for the sake of a public peace." n87 As a result, constitutional guarantees to due process were removed from the document, a change supported by (and potentially instigated by) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, who served as an unofficial - though evidently persuasive - legal consultant to the assembly

Cooperative Federalism Solves Kashmir

Cooperation key to solve Indian conflictsObserver Research Foundation 4REPORTS Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity 02 November 2004, http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?cmaid=1258&mmacmaid=1259As the world comes closer in the wake of information explosion and gobalisation, the idea of 'Cooperative Federalism', which is seen as a tool to resolve conflicts, is gaining increasing relevance and acceptance. Inspired by this development, a two-day International Conference on "Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity", has been organized from November 2-3, 2004, under the auspices of Observer research Foundation (ORF) , New Delhi, and Forum of Federation (FoF), Canada. Speakers examined the working of federal models in different countries and deliberated upon possibly suitable alternative(s) for India and other developing societies. Inaugurating the Conference, Mr Manishankar Aiyar, India's Union Minister for Panchayati Raj, drew the attention of foreign as well as Indian participants to the nuances of federalism inherent to India's culture, tradition and ethos. He drew examples from the Mahabharat and the Bhagvat Gita. Mr Aiyar said "India was never a true federation" and attested that "it is a Union State". It was the Union which has created the States and it still holds the powers to redraw the boundaries of any State. He felt that co-operation acquires greater importance between the various States and their respective local governments on the issues of economic development, social justice, equity and efficiency.

Cooperative federalism key to solve kashmir warObserver Research Foundation 4REPORTS Co-operative Federalism and Management of Diversity 02 November 2004, http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/report/ReportDetail.html?cmaid=1258&mmacmaid=1259Mr R.K.Mishra, Chairman, Observer Research Foundation, in his opening remarks said it was an irony that the Constitution of India which we gave to ourselves has been amended more than 90 times in its short existence of 54 years. He said that the current tensions between the Center and the States could be attributed to faulty arrangements of federal relations in the Constitution which gave overriding powers to the Center and promotesd a situation of competition among States on the one hand, and between the States and the Center, on the other. Citing two major regions of tension in India, the Northeast and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Mishra made it clear that the time has come to think in terms of 'creative federalism' based on co-operation and mutual trust than merely adhering to an armed solution which even the mightiest power like the US was finding difficult as a method to resolve conflicts.

Cooperative Fism Solves Kashmir War

Cooperative federalism gives Kashmir enough autonomy to solve warThe Times of India 2kA Fine Balance, June 13.First, Kashmir is unique, and must be dealt with specially. Jammu and Kashmirs uniqueness is obvious for a variety of historical reasons recognized even by the Supreme Court, but its singular importance to the very idea of India is often forgotten. A Muslim majority state that voluntarily acceded to India in 1947 lent tremendous strength to the construction of India as a vibrant, secular and pluralistic state. The battle, therefore, to win back the hearts and minds of the Kashmiri people is critical not just for the recovery of the ideals that inspired Indian nationhood, but central to the war against obscurantism and fundamentalism. In other words, Kashmir must no longer be dealt with the kind of political ineptitude and bureaucratic inertia that has often characterized the Centres policies toward many other states over the last decades. Second, autonomy must not be viewed as a dirty word, and an autonomous Kashmir could be become a model of cooperative federalism. It is not often realized that autonomy is synonymous with devolution of decentralization of power. The demand for greater decentralization has been part of the charter of virtually every Indian political partyat one time or another. Even if Article 370 is restored to its pre-1952 shape, it is still possible to strike a harmonious balance between the need to integrate Jammu and Kashmir within the national mainstream, and the states demand for autonomous self-governance. If this balance is struck, Jammu and Kashmir could become a model of co-operative federalism, a special model that could be gradually applied to other states of the Union.

**Ukraine

U.S Influence Key U.S Influence high now- Ukraine distancing itself from Russia Sink 5/29Justin Sink. "Obama Touts US Influence as Changing 'balance' in Ukraine."TheHill. N.p., 29 May 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. .

U.S. efforts to rally the world against Russia's incursion into Ukraine have "rapidly changed the balance and equation" there, President Obama said in an interview with NPR News airing Thursday. "When you look at events in Ukraine over the last two months, there is no doubt that our ability to mobilize international opinion rapidly has changed the balance and the equation in Ukraine," Obama said. He pointed to the election of Ukrainian President-elect Petro Poroshenko and Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement to withdraw troops from Ukraine's border as evidence that international pressure was paying dividends. "Thats an application of American leadership that is sustainable, consistent and is most likely to produce the kinds of results we want," Obama said. Asked if Ukraine could be considered a foreign policy success considering Moscow's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, Obama said it was a mistake to think Putin's moves "reflected strength in this situation." "From Mr. Putins perspective, he was operating from a position of weakness," Obama said. "He felt as if he was being further and further surrounded by NATO members, folks who are looking west economically, from a security perspective. And even in Ukraine, the crown jewel of the former Soviet system, outside of Russia, an oligarchy that was corrupt was rejected by people on the streets." Obama says Putin was "scrambling" to react to that public uprising. "The fact that Crimea, which historically is dominated by native Russians and Russian speakers, was annexed illegally does not in any way negate the fact that the way of life, the systems of economic organization, the notions of rule of law, those values that we hold dear, are ascendant, and you know, the other side is going to be on the defense," Obama said.

Federal Reform Key Federal reform key to Ukrainian stability- now is key Kaurin 4/29Nikola Kaurin. "Distorting Federalism in Ukraine." English Pravda.ru. N.p., 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 June 2014. . Nikola Kaurin is a Sydney and occasionally Zagreb-based foreign policy contributor. His interests include Central European history, the EU, Middle East and post-Soviet studies.

It was quite a shock for those of us who live in charitable, stable and economically prosperous federations to hear EU, US and Ukrainian officials describe federalisation as an attempt to 'destroy Ukraine'. Australia, where I'm writing this article, was recently named by the Global Youth Wellbeing Index as the best place in the world for young people to grow up. Other federations like Canada, the United States, Germany and Switzerland score similarly well in indicators like the Human Development Index. Bosnia and Herzegovina, where much of my family originates, only saw its bloodshed end when the great powers recognised the divisions in Bosnian society and endorsed a realist constitutional framework that reflected these divisions. Meanwhile many Australians can't help but notice what's been happening in the country of their constitutional origins since Australia federated in 1901. Much of Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922 and civil war occurred in the portion that didn't later on. Scotland is having a referendum on independence in September 2014 and the pro-independence forces are gaining ground. Nationalist parties are popular in Wales and Cornwall and even parts of England are known to call for some form of devolution. Being a unitary country hasn't stopped the UK from splitting up (formally or otherwise). Now the time for the obligatory of-courses. Of course there are bad federations and of course there are good unitary countries but by-in-large federations have proved to be the most enduring and best incubators of good governance that the world has ever seen. Seeing as though sovereignty is an important concern for Ukrainians (and rightfully so given recent events) let's look at this statistic. Out of the presently 206 sovereign states in the world, only 6 have survived the incinerators of the 20th century with their territorial integrity intact; Australia, Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Sweden and New Zealand. The first four of these six are federations. Federations have the ability to produce great nations because they combine the best traits from unity and independence - those of common-wealth and home-rule, regional experimentation and national solidarity, integration and diversity. Out of the many reasons that drove Ukrainians to protest at Maidan one of them was certainly a desire to remove their country from the legacy of the Soviet Empire. The USSR oug