20 Impact on State & Local Governments

Climate change impacts each state in the United States differently and in a unique way. Which region a state resides in or the amount of coastal land the state borders can determine how it is impacted by climate change and the effects climate change has. States in the south are experiencing extreme heat and bipolar weather. Midwestern states have experienced excessive rainfall, which causes flooding. Western states have experienced extreme heat, drought, and wildfires. Lastly, coastal states have experienced sea level rise and more severe hurricanes. We will further explore how these different groups of states are specifically impacted by climate change. (FH, ARZ)

States in the west, such as California and Arizona, have seen major droughts recently caused by a lack of rainfall. This lack of rainfall leaves water supplies short for residents and businesses. The lack of rainfall also leaves crops without water, and farmers with no natural source of water have resorted to the utilization of irrigation to hydrate these crops. The issue with farmers using the water supply to hydrate their crops is that it is a costly process in terms of water usage. Currently, 60% of water reserves in California are going to irrigation efforts while the state is facing a freshwater crisis (California Waterwatch). The lack of rainfall in these western states has promoted a dry environment.  The dry environment is very favorable for fires to start and spread rapidly. The dry environment caused by the lack of rainfall is the main reason there is a heightened occurrence of wildfires, such as the ones seen in 2024 that spread to parts of Los Angeles. The California wildfires created billions of dollars in damage, which is very costly for taxpayers. A lot of this damage is due to the severity of the wildfires in Los Angeles, as they burned through 50,822 acres of land (Kimelman 2025). (FH, ARZ)

States in the southern region of the United States, such as Texas, have faced an increased occurrence of severe heat waves and irregular weather patterns. An example of the impact of these irregular weather patterns would be the 2021 polar vortex. During the 2021 polar vortex, which impacted much of the United States, Texas was not prepared for it. The freezing conditions froze many of Texas’s wind turbines and power generators, creating a statewide power shortage. Hundreds of Texans lost their lives, and for days, Texas only had one snowplow within the entire state. This took efforts from nearby states to help restore Texas after the severe weather, such as the borrowing of snow plows, but this only happened because Texas was not prepared for such an event. Many lawmakers faced scrutiny during this time for their lack of response and perceived carelessness. (FH, ARZ)

Midwestern states, such as Iowa, have experienced much more rainfall due to the effects of climate change. Although this does not cause the same irrigation issues faced in California due to a lack of rainfall, it is still a serious issue. The issue arises when rivers like the Mississippi River and the Des Moines River overflow and cause flooding in local towns, creating damage. This flooding creates soil erosion which makes it harder to grow crops, and the flooding can damage crops and kill livestock, leaving the farmers with a large financial loss. The Midwest also has seen the tornado valley expand across the Midwest with much more severe and frequent tornadoes. The tornadoes in these regions have been increasing in cost of damage over the past decades. (FH, ARZ)

States that have a lot of coastal borders have seen a rise in sea level, which causes loss of land use due to sea level rise and erosion to the infrastructure caused by water. States such as Florida, which has the most coastal land at risk of sea level rise, will have an urgent problem to maintain their current land area above water. The rapid rise of sea level is creating a lot of skepticism about the long-term sustainability of Florida’s coast. This is a problem financially because many big port cities could be under water or have very weak infrastructure due to erosion, negatively impacting our supply chains. (FH, ARZ)

Regardless of which region of the United States a state lies within, the state governments are very involved in passing laws toward combatting climate change retroactively as it continues to progress. The United States has a federal government that leaves most of the power to the states and local governments for how climate policies and processes are carried out, which leads to differences between each state’s policy and impacts on the local governments. This approach allows the federal government to set broad goals or join international agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement, but the implementation of these goals takes place on the state and local levels. (FH, ARZ)

The lawmakers within each state create laws based on their constituents’ appeal, and this explains why some states have stricter or stronger regulations. Some states prioritize the economic growth of industries such as fossil fuels, coal, and other non-renewable energy sources because that is what makes up much of these states’ economies and their labor force. We will specifically focus on the state of Iowa and explore how the state and local governments contribute to climate change initiatives. By looking closely at Iowa’s renewable energy policies, agricultural contributions, and local community-level efforts, we can better understand how these different levels of government interact and impact environmental outcomes. (FH, ARZ)

The federal government can set general policies, such as setting national emission limits as a goal, but the states can impose their regulations beyond what the federal government requires from the states. For example, the state of California has some of the tightest regulations, with the goal of being carbon neutral by the year 2045 (ca.gov). California lawmakers at the state level have implemented a “cap and trade” program, which caps every company’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the cap will progressively be lowered each year. The trade aspect of the “cap and trade” program is that companies are allowed to sell their unused allowances, and companies who go over their cap must buy other allowances to avoid fees (ca.gov). One of the reasons why the cap-and-trade program of California is unique is that it is one of the climate change initiatives that also generates money, and in California’s case, also creates a sub-economy for the emission allowances. (FH, ARZ)

Although freedom of policy is left to the states to allow for stricter or looser legislation, the individual states usually do not have the funding needed to carry out programs that can combat climate change and limit its impact. This is why the state of California’s “cap and trade” program is important as its ability to generate money allows for greater independence to implement their initiatives. The money can be used towards other important programs, such as climate change awareness and clean up. Using progressive regulation systems like the “cap and trade” program can create more funding to combat the climate change crisis. (FH, ARZ)

States’ economies that are more conservative, like Texas and North Dakota, heavily rely on fossil fuels and oil production for GDP to create jobs in their respective economies. This is why some policies passed by these more conservative states tend to be more lenient on greenhouse gas emissions and drilling for oil. The lawmakers in these states observe that the states’ main income streams rely heavily on fossil fuel production to stimulate their economy, and because of this, their policies frame environmental justice as harming key industries and resulting in job losses. These states are very lenient with drilling and energy companies’ high emission rates, even though their output is contributing to climate change and is a local health hazard. This creates a lot of conflict when it comes to creating other legislation that limits these companies’ emissions because it becomes a situation where more regulation results in lower revenue for these energy companies and decreased financial prosperity for the state. (FH, ARZ)

The state of Iowa approaches climate change policy mainly on the impact it has on farms and the energy production of the state, such as turbines. Iowa is the nation’s leader in wind energy production, with over half of its electricity generated being generated from wind turbines, such as the ones across I-80. This optimization of renewable energy reduces the state of Iowa’s fossil fuel usage for energy, which has shifted Iowa towards a cleaner energy portfolio. This can be attributed to the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, that was created in the year 1983 for this matter specifically (EIA). The state of Iowa was the first in the United States to require their investor-owned utility companies to generate a large part of their power from renewable sources. This was achieved through incentives such as the one-half-cent of tax credit per kilowatt hour of energy created by renewable clean energy sources such as biomass, solar, and wind energy factories (EIA). The Renewable Portfolio Standard mandate is the groundwork for the state of Iowa’s leadership in wind energy and it continues to be expanded through tax credits and partnerships with private companies such as Mid-American Energy, the leading energy company provider in Iowa. Iowa recently has also begun a lot of biofuel production, particularly derived from ethanol, which supports local agriculture while offering alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. Programs such as the Iowa Renewable Fuels Standard and tax credits for gas suppliers encourage the growth of healthier energy. (FH, ARZ)

The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, created in 2013, provides a framework for farmers to join efforts to adopt measures aimed at reducing nitrogen and phosphorus contamination into waterways, helping water quality improvement efforts. Agriculture is the main source of nitrate in local waters (Lehmler Lecture 11/12). Iowa has invested heavily in watershed management programs aimed at mitigating flood risks, which have become an increasingly pressing issue due to climate change. For example, the Iowa Watershed Approach (IWA), funded by a $97 million grant from the federal government, was implemented to focus on building flood preparedness through agreements between state agencies and local governments. Programs like these show the commitment Iowa’s State body has to protecting farmers from the impacts of climate change. (FH, ARZ)

While Iowa’s policies may not be as strict as more progressive states like California, the state of Iowa does have a focus on renewable energy, sustainable agriculture for its farmers, and flood prevention, and it shows us how state-level action can shape local climate efforts. Even though they are limited by state and local budgets, their example brings light to how a state with a strong agricultural base like Iowa can still take meaningful steps to combat climate change and supporting the local farmers as climate impacts challenge both rural and urban communities in Iowa. (FH, ARZ)

In 2008, Iowa experienced severe and harsh flooding in many communities across the state. These floods caused an estimated 10 billion dollars or more worth of damage to crops and infrastructure, left thousands without homes, and damaged public buildings such as hospitals and schools. The floods are said to be some of the worst natural disasters in the state of Iowa’s history, impacting over 80% of Iowa’s counties. In response to the severity of the floods, the state government took a leading role over the local governments in securing and distributing financial aid from the federal government. The state of Iowa also seized the opportunity presented by the occurrence of severe flooding to start building long-term plans and strategies to prevent water damage from intense flooding. One of the major initiatives was the creation of the Iowa Watershed Approach. As mentioned earlier, the IWA was funded by a $97 million grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (DNR). The IWA brought agencies across the state together, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the University of Iowa, and local governments to achieve a common goal to improve flood protection. The combined efforts of the different agencies helped build watershed-based projects designed to reduce the risk of flooding and its negative impacts, such as soil erosion. Local communities like Cedar Rapids in Linn County, which suffered some of the worst flood damage, were able to utilize the IWA to develop flood mitigation to prevent such flooding damage again. Iowa’s state government created the Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa, which focused on fast-paced forecasting to help communities predict and prepare for future floods or disasters. The state of Iowa not only provided financial support to local governments, but the opportunity to build stronger, more sustainable prevention against natural disasters, which are expected to increase in frequency and severity due to climate change. The 2008 floods in Iowa reshaped how Iowa approaches flood planning and prevention, showing how the state government can lead long-term climate strategies to achieve goals on the local level. (FH, ARZ)

Iowa has strong local communities that have a strong impact on local governments. Many of these governments are looking to do what is best for their specific community. For example, Iowa City, which is the home of many students at the University of Iowa, has a young population demographic. Given the youth of the constituents in Iowa City, there has been some early foundational plans that arise in Iowa’s City’s and Johnson’ Counties local governments. This is because the local constituents advocate for fighting the climate change crisis through their local governments. This paves the way for newer legislation that some other counties across Iowa are hesitant to implement. This progressive legislation can lead to positive outcomes in which other counties would be motivated to adopt. (FH, ARZ)

In 2019, Iowa City voted in the “Climate Action and Adaptation Plan” which is a local law set in place with goals and initiatives to be powered by renewable energy. The plan sets goals to reduce carbon emissions by 2030 and to be carbon zero by 2050 (icgov). This was a big success because of the strong partnership with MidAmerican Energy Company, the main energy provider in the state of Iowa. Due to the public support, the city wanted to change the powerplant that is located on the University of Iowa campus to be sourced by renewable fuels such as biomass. The cooperation helped this plan become successful and efficient. Today the plant does not create the same smog and is creates a much better air quality in Iowa City. (FH, ARZ)

On the county and local level in Iowa, governments’ approaches to climate change initiatives differ from each other. Some counties, particularly those with larger urban centers like Johnson County and Polk County, are typically more progressive and willing to implement climate change policy compared to other counties.  These counties have taken more progressive approaches to climate change by implementing climate change progression plans, investing in renewable energy production, and promoting energy conservation by eliminating energy waste. For example, Johnson County has committed to their sustainability goals by having a focus on reducing greenhouse gas, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and expanding public transportation options (johnsoncountyiowa.gov). On the other spectrum, many rural counties in Iowa place less of an emphasis on climate policies, and instead these counties are focusing more on agricultural practices and economic development. These counties can also participate in conservation programs like cover crop cost-sharing but tend to avoid broader regulations or large-scale renewable projects because of their emphasis on crop production. Much like at the state level, these differences between countries are often dictated by its population size and makeup, their economic priorities in terms of production, and how much funding is available, as well the impact on other finances. Counties with more funding and public support are more likely to pursue to further climate initiatives, while other counties may lack the resources or political support won’t have as much as an emphasis. (FH, ARZ)

Local governments in Iowa play a crucial role in directing decisions made on the state level for Iowa’s climate policy and environmental protection commitments. Counties and cities often act to enforce sustainability programs, renewable energy projects, and conservation practices at a smaller level before the state implements something similar at the state level. This has been shown throughout history when larger cities, like Des Moines and Iowa City in Polk County and Johnson County, have adopted plans and renewable energy goals that have pressured state officials engage in these policies that align with these counties’ constituents because it reflects Iowa’s broader population.  There have also been instances when multiple counties collaborate, such as through watershed management programs or regional sustainability initiatives, which can demonstrate that, though collaboration, there can be successful models that the state can pursue and expand funding for. Local governments can also be in communication with state legislators. This is seen when there is strong public support for environmental regulation within local communities that are being impacted by state level decisions. This small level to a bigger level approach shows that the local priorities of communities in Iowa help shape policies made at the state level. This type of impact is particularly seen in policy areas like flood mitigation, agricultural regulation, and renewable energy/fuel development. Over time, the actions of counties and cities governments can set standards for how the state level government addresses climate change and their role. (FH, ARZ)

Time is one of the important aspects to limiting the impacts of climate change. Some states have a hard time with passing bills because there is a lot of debate around what climate change measures are appropriate. These states are usually at a disadvantage in the amount of response time they have to address an issue, so they must be very efficient. This is because keeping up with fast-changing climate change takes quick decisions especially in policy. One of the reasons why bills can be slow is that funding is scarce and limited, so the passing of bills around budget spending are going to be heavily debated upon. It also important to consider there aren’t many political reasons for states to dedicate much of their budget to climate change programs when there is not much of a return on financial investment. This is because when lawmakers try to pass stricter climate change policies, they can often restrict certain industries. According to trickle-down economics, this will hurt a state’s economy. Since there are not many financial gains to commit to the climate change initiative, some states see if it’s easier to favor industry production to stimulate their economies. Given that this hurts the climate, it would beneficial if states set aside more of their budget towards these programs to help alleviate this problem of burdening businesses. (FH, ARZ)

Climate change action in the United States is carried mainly through legislation with similar goals around environmental protection, finances and regulations on the federal and state levels of government but is carried out through different means, mainly on the local level. Even though the federal government has the resources and funding to combat climate change, it lacks the legislative power to influence state policies, like the restriction of emissions, shifting energy production to clean energy sources, and taking other measures to create action in combating climate change. As of the current day, the United States is behind most European countries in terms of regulations and emissions rates, failing to lower output as much as its neighbors across the Atlantic, but the United States overall has seen a shift away from fossil fuels and greenhouse gases (Rossi 2021). Currently, the Trump administration is making many changes, and the situation is too uncertain to put a definite projection of the United States heading and the country’s role in combating climate change. However, currently under the new Trump administration there has been a cut in finances and lifting of regulations on emissions, but there has also been a trend many states still being able to continue to pursue their climate change goals and they are still making a meaningful impact in decreasing rate of output. This observation is showing how the nature of United States environmental policy can be regulated by the federal government but is ultimately left up to the states. We see this in states such as California and New York that have set their own state goals to reduce the state’s emissions and output. They are using their power to implement regulations they are allowed to have on their state level. It is also important to note that some states such as Texas and North Dakota remain lenient on nonrenewable fields such as the fossil fuel industries. This is shown in how their lawmakers continue to allow the high emission rates of these energy companies. Even on a smaller scale, the local governments and counties also play an increasing role, especially in areas where federal funding and regulations have seen a decline. In the future, the impact the United States’ climate response will have is going to be largely dependent on the balance between the federal government’s leadership on the higher level of policy, each individual state’s independent policy making and how they chose to pursue their own goals within each state. Whether the country can catch up to global standards of other nations have will depend on future administrations, economic priorities, and the ability of both state and federal governments to collaborate on long term sustainable solutions which local governments can carry out. (FH, ARZ)

I think that climate change is a major threat to not only to planet Earth but along with that comes the diminishment of natural resources we take for granted. It would be unjust and unfair to depress the earth from species of animal, terrain, clean water and healthy air for the younger generations which older generations before them have the right to. If we continue to ignore climate change, the impact it will have on Earth will be too great for us to come back from for hundreds of years. I think tackling climate change must be a global effort done in a united fashion because no one country can fix it alone. Even if one nation cuts its emissions or switches to clean energy, it will not make as much of an impact if other countries keep polluting at high levels. That is the common theme with environmental regulation which is the tragedy of the commons, in which resources are depleted while many do not take responsibility. To me is a case of greed by other generations. The environment doesn’t stop at the borders of countries for air pollution, the rising sea levels, and global temperatures, because it affects everyone on the same planet Earth that we share, regardless of what side of a border someone lives on. That’s why international cooperation between different countries and nations is so important to effectively combat the changing environment and climate. The biggest barrier to international cooperation is that not every country sees climate change the same way as others do. Some countries rely heavily on fossil fuels for their economy and don’t want to commit to strict climate goals that more progressive countries are committed to. Others don’t have the money or resources to make big changes, especially if they’re still developing compared to already enveloped nations. Wealthier countries have a responsibility to lead and support lower-income nations through funding and technology. This is important because many of these peripheral nations that do not have as many resources to put towards climate change initiatives put out the least amount of carbon dioxide emissions, but see the greatest negative impact from climate change. If larger nations carried most of the weight, this would alleviate that problem. It also would be unfair for these nations to take away from their growing economies to fix issues that other nations mainly created through their high emission rates. It would be unfair to acknowledge that we have seen progress through agreements like the Paris Agreement in terms of global cooperation and nations coming together, but countries still aren’t doing enough to be committed to creating progress in the opposite direction of where we are currently going. There needs to be more accountability within each nation, and there also needs to be more urgency to create policy and lead the way, especially for the bigger nations. If we want to slow down the damage and protect the planet for future generations, all countries need to work together and commit to real changes, not just promises. Without a global effort and local solutions won’t be enough to make a long-term impact. (FH)

*There was the use of AI on this section of the project. AI is a tool that was used to help fix grammar issues, improve sentence structure, and help with clarity. Suggestions for changes and clarification from AI were used to help improve the overall quality of this section*

References

Cap-and-Trade program. (n.d.). California Air Resources Board. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-program

Carbon neutrality by 2045. (n.d.). Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://lci.ca.gov/climate/carbon-neutrality.html

Climate plans and reports. (n.d.). Iowa City, IA. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://www.icgov.org/government/departments-and-divisions/climate-action-outreach/climate-plans-and-reports

Emily@Waterboards, H. (n.d.). A guide for private domestic well owners.

LA fires: How would a blaze this size impact where you live? (2025, January 13). CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/environment/wildfires/2025/01/la-fires-size-mapped/

Renewable energy works for Iowa. (n.d.). Iowa Environmental Council. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://www.iaenvironment.org/our-work/clean-energy/renewable-iowa

Rossi, M. (2021, September 13). Why the U.S. lags behind Europe on climate change goals “by 10 or 15 years.” Yahoo News. https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-the-us-lags-behind-europe-on-climate-change-goals-by-10-or-15-years-090008777.html

Watershed improvement. (n.d.). Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://www.iowadnr.gov/environmental-protection/water-quality/watershed-improvement

Welcome to Johnson County, IA. (n.d.). Johnson County, Iowa. Retrieved May 5, 2025, from https://www.johnsoncountyiowa.gov/sustainability-milestones.