HOW THE BREATHERS BEAT THE BURNERS: THE POLICY MARKET AND THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL CAPITAL IN PURSUING POLICY OUTCOMES. By AARON J. LEY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Political Science MAY 2011 To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of AARON J. LEY find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. ______________________________ J. Mitchell Pickerill, Ph.D., Co-Chair ______________________________ Cornell W. Clayton, Ph.D., Co-Chair ______________________________ Edward P. Weber, Ph.D. ii Acknowledgements This dissertation was written over a period of three years and the final product would not have been possible if not for the invaluable support from family, friends, mentors, institutions, and colleagues. My dissertation committee deserves first mention. They truly have molded me into the man I am today. Cornell Clayton, Mitch Pickerill, and Ed Weber have not only made me a better scholar, but they‘ve taught me important things about life. My family deserves recognition for the support and encouragement I have received throughout the years. Mom and Dad, when the going got tough I thought about how proud you both would be after I finished this project – these dreams are your‘s and mine that time can‘t take away. Todd and Allison, thanks for giving me a place to focus my eyes on the catalyst and stand high in the middle of South Minneapolis. Wade Ley deserves special mention for his qualitative research assistance about the Pacific Northwest hop industry in Seattle, Portland, and Spokane during Spring 2010. Amy, Nick, and the kids - thanks for all the encouragement and for knowing that little metal head would amount to something. Angie, your story is the true inspiration here. Newman the squirrel hunter was also an important participant during the dissertation writing process, making sure I had plenty of breaks so he could wag his little tail around the neighborhood. Colonel Cuddles, Matt Eisenhower, Jacob Day, Benny Sahlgren, and all my gutterballs in Washington when we‘ve roamed where only fools dared. Kimberly Bari and the Bari family gave a lot of support throughout the project. The Foley Institute provided financial support for this project and Xandy Evans helped transcribe personal interviews. I‘d like to thank Atmosphere, the Bouncing Souls, and the Lawrence Arms for helping me fall for the iii beat and stay down for the noise. The fellas at Oskar Blues for the Dale‘s Pale Ale deserve special mention for providing the celebratory brews. Finally, I want to thank all of my stakeholders for talking with me about politics, Deb Ley, Bruce Wenner, Mike Bath, Ingrid Bego, Yasushi Nomura, Mandy Iverson, Scott Simpson, Justin Zackey, all of my students, Yangtze International Study Abroad and the University of Arizona, and the staff of the Department of Political Science at Washington State University. iv HOW THE BREATHERS BEAT THE BURNERS: THE POLICY MARKET AND THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL CAPITAL IN PURSUING POLICY OUTCOMES. Abstract by Aaron J. Ley, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2011 Co-Chairs: J. Mitchell Pickerill and Cornell W. Clayton When making policy in a ―separated‖ system, stakeholders choose among a broad array of policymaking venues for pursuing their policy goals. What explains the decisions of stakeholders to choose among different institutional venues? I use case studies from a pitched environmental conflict in three Pacific Northwest states to explain how the costs and benefits of policymaking differ across multiple policymaking venues and what motivates stakeholders and interest groups to make the strategic decisions they do. Depending on the structure of costs and benefits in each of the various institutional venues, stakeholders may consider pursuing policy outcomes in whichever one maximizes the benefits and minimizes the costs of policymaking in comparison to other policymaking venues. The policymaking process, therefore, is best conceptualized as a policy market where political entrepreneurs use their available technical, legal, and political resources to pursue their preferred policy outcomes across multiple institutional venues. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….………….……….v CHAPTER 1. HOW THE BREATHERS BEAT THE BURNERS: THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL CAPITAL IN THE POLICY MARKET TO EXPLAIN POLICY OUTCOMES AND INSTITUTIONAL CHOICES.……………………………..…………..1 2. FIELD BURNING POLITICS IN WASHINGTON STATE: HOW THE BREATHERS USED SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION IN A SYMPATHETIC PUBLIC AGENCY TO BEAT THE BURNERS…………………………………….…………33 3. FIELD BURNING POLITICS IN IDAHO: HOW THE BREATHERS USED LEGAL CAPITAL TO OVERCOME LEGISLATIVE ENTRENCHMENT………………………………………….………..87 4. FIELD BURNING POLITICS IN OREGON: THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL CAPITAL IN EXPLAINING LEGISLATIVE SUCCESS..………………………..144 5. DIFFERENT STATES, DIFFERENT POLITICAL OUTCOMES: HOW THEORY EXPLAINS INSTITUTIONAL CHOICE IN THE FIELD BURNING CONTROVERSY……………………….............200 6. TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE: THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF INSTITUTIONAL POLICYMAKING…...........................................246 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..287 TABLES………………………………………………………………………….353 FIGURES………………………………………………………….……………..367 vi DEDICATION To the memory of Paul Wellstone, who got me here vii CHAPTER 1 HOW THE BREATHERS BEAT THE BURNERS: THE ROLE OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, AND LEGAL CAPITAL IN THE POLICY MARKET TO EXPLAIN POLICY OUTCOMES AND INSTITUTIONAL CHOICES. I. Introduction: Field Burning in Three Northwest States. Every year since the 1940s, farmers in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho burned crop residue from their grass fields because the practice produced more grass seed. Burning ―shocked‖ the plant into production and exposed it to more sunlight, leading to one of the most profitable agricultural industries in the Pacific Northwest. Without field burning, farmers replanted their fields every three to four years, whereas burned fields remained planted for six to eight years, thus minimizing labor costs. Grass seed is used for lawns and golf courses all around the world and the industry became an important contributor to the economies of all three states. In addition to the economic benefits of the practice, farmers argued that bluegrass was beneficial to the environment, preventing soil erosion and keeping the countryside free of unsightly housing developments. Despite its virtues, field burning produced huge externalized environmental costs and massive public health risks. Despite efforts to minimize the impact of smoke by burning when weather conditions permitted, urban areas were hammered with smoke when unpredictable wind patterns made smoke management impossible. Not respecting man- made boundaries, smoke drifted across county or state lines rendering any effort to regulate the practice by single jurisdictions unworkable. Those with respiratory illnesses were hit hardest by the smoke, mobilizing the medical community against the practice. Children with lung conditions were not able to play outside during school recess. Parents of children with cystic fibrosis were required to take long vacations to flee smoke-ridden areas during burning season. Tourists were deterred from enjoying the scenic beauty of an 2 economically-depressed region that was struggling to displace a declining extractive economic base with a postindustrial economy that needed tourism dollars badly. Field burning in the Northwest is a classic case where the economic concerns of farmers clashed with the post-materialist concerns of environmentalists, the public health community, and disabled populations. Intractable problems of this type, often called ―wicked problems,‖ create policy stalemate because of the broad cross-section of conflicting societal interests involved across multiple and overlapping governmental and policy jurisdictions (Weber and Khademian 2008). Groups are not always able to find common ground in legislatures, bureaucracies, and other policymaking venues that are meant for negotiating and resolving disputes of this type. Despite decades of political conflict over this issue, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon came to resolve the issue in entirely different policymaking venues. In 1996, the State of Washington became the first state in the region to completely resolve the issue of field burning. Field burning was regulated by Spokane County‘s local air pollution control board until 1995 when the agency was legislatively stripped of its authority to declare when and when not to burn by a Republican controlled state legislature. The legislation became a public controversy in the region and the American Lung Association (ALA), members of the medical community, and a citizens group called Save our Summers (SOS) joined forces to lobby the Washington State Department of Ecology for stricter controls over the practice. With greater political support and medical evidence linking fine particulate matter to poor health conditions, Washington‘s 3 Department of Ecology imposed a 120 day emergency order in late March 1996 placing a moratorium on the practice and later banning field burning altogether in 1998. Oregon, on the other hand, struggled mightily to resolve the controversy over field burning through the legislature. In 1986, after limited visibility from field smoke caused a massive