The design of state/federal relations during the last decade has evolved largely in response to the carrot of substantial federal funding and the stick of federal requirements for the structure of state regulatory programs. The resultant relationship has been controversial and stormy; in the last 10 years, however, many trends in environmental degradation have been slowed and in some cases effectively reversed. It is certain that over the next decade federal funds will be increasingly scarce, and it is probable that regulatory requirements for state-administered programs will be eased. In light of this anticipated weakening of the two fundamentals of the state/federal relationship, will it be possible to continue the progress that has been made in protecting human health and the environment? Furthermore, if advances are to be made, what is the minimally acceptable federal role that must be maintained for state governments to be effective?

A dramatic change in the role of the federal government need not be viewed as necessarily disastrous since, at least as a theoretical proposition, the states are better able to implement regulatory programs for environmental protection. There are a series of unique qualities that state government brings to this effort upon which any restructuring of the state/federal relationship must be based and must strengthen.