.
When it appears that local management of environmental resources is not the best option. In these cases state-centered management should be used. Often times environmental resources such as rivers, large watersheds, airsheds, oceans, etc. stretch into many communities. Thus, a policy set in one community could have direct effects on another community that has no political power in communities other than its own. For example, a highly industrial community may chose to pollute a river without consulting surrounding communities. If the river is not managed at a state-level, all other communities that the polluted river runs through are powerless to stop it. .
Also, local communities sometimes do not have sufficient resources, economic or otherwise, to efficiently manage an environmental resource. For example, solving a particular environmental problem may require specialized skills or knowledge that exists only at the state level. Suppose fish were dying in a county where there was no university and only a handful of biologists or environmental scientists who were equipped to address the problem. Clearly, in this case it makes sense to have the state step in and use their specialists to correct whatever environmental problem the community is facing.
Luckily the decision on which resource management system to implement is not binary. We can choose to combine state and local controls using various policies. Generally speaking, it is my recommendation that whenever possible control of environmental resources be delegated as close to the community as is possible and efficient. If it is clear that a particular resource is in use by more than one community, then the affected communities should be allowed to request state intervention in order to protect their own environmental resources. Further, the state should employ environmental specialists that can be dispatched to local communities in order to work with their leaders on solving a particular environmental problem.