10 Impact on State & Local Governments

Farakh Haider

Climate change impacts each state differently in the United States. Based on which region a state resides in, or the amount of coastal land the state borders has can determine how it is impacted by climate change. Based on region, 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, and lastly, coastal states have experienced sea level rise and more severe hurricanes. We will see how states are specifically impacted by climate change.

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, leading to farmers utilizing irrigation efforts more (Lecture 11/12). Currently, 60% of water reserves in California are going to irrigation efforts while the state is facing a freshwater crisis. The lack of rainfall has also promoted the occurrence of wildfires, such as the ones seen in 2024 in Los Angeles. The California wildfires created billions of dollars in damage when the fires burned through 332,822 acres of land.

States in the south, such as Texas, have faced severe heat waves and irregular weather patterns. An example of irregular weather would be the 2019 polar vortex, which Texas was not prepared for. 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 local states to help restore Texas after the severe weather, but only because Texas was not prepared for such an event.

Midwestern states such as Iowa have experienced much more rainfall. This causes rivers like the Mississippi River and the Des Moines River to overflow and cause flooding in local towns. This flooding creates soil erosion which makes it harder to grow crops and the flooding can damage crops and can kill livestock, leaving the farmers with a big loss. The Midwest also has seen the tornado valley expand across the Midwest with much more severe and frequent tornadoes.

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 caused by water to the infrastructure. States such as Florida, which has the most coastal land at risk of sea level rise, have an urgent problem to contain their current land above water. The rapid rise of sea level it is creating a lot of skepticism about the long-term sustainability of Florida’s coast.

Regardless of which region a state lies within the United States, the local governments are passing laws towards climate change retroactively as climate change 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 joins international agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement, but where these processes are carried out takes place on the state and local levels.

The lawmakers within each state create laws based on their constituent’s appeal and this explains why some states have stricter/stronger regulations. Some states prioritize economic growth of industries such as fossil fuels because that is what make up much of their labor force. We will specifically focus on 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.

State’s Role in Climate Change

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, California has some of the tightest regulations to be carbon neutral by 2045. California lawmakers have implemented a “cap and trade” program, which has capped companies’ greenhouse gases, and the cap will be lowered yearly. The trade aspect is that companies are allowed to sell their unused allowances, and companies who go over their cap must buy other allowances to avoid fees. 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 generate money, and in California’s case, also creates a sub-economy for the emission allowances.

Although freedom of policy is left to the states to allow for stricter or looser legislation, states usually do not have the funding alone to carry out programs that can combat climate change.

States’ economies like Texas and North Dakota heavily rely on fossil fuels and oil production for GDP and to create jobs. This is why some policies passed by these states tend to be more lenient on greenhouse gas emissions and drilling. The lawmakers view that the state heavily relies on fossil fuel production in their economy and view environmental justice policies as harming key industries and resulting in job losses. These states are very compliant with drilling & energy companies’ high emission rates even though their output is contributing to climate change & is a local health hazard.

Paragraph two: Iowa’s role in combating climate change

Iowa approaches climate change policy on the impact it has on farms and energy production. Iowa is the nation’s leader in wind energy production, with over half of its electricity generated from wind turbines, which reduces Iowa’s fossil fuel usage for energy. This can be attributed to the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, that was created in 1983 for this matter. Iowa was the first in the nation to require investor-owned utilities to generate a portion of their power from renewable sources. This also includes one-half-cent of tax credit per kilowatt hour of energy created by biomass, solar, and wind energy factories (EIA). Although the Renewable Portfolio Standard mandate is the groundwork for Iowa’s leadership in wind energy and 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 begun a lot of biofuel production, particularly ethanol-derived from 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.

The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy created in 2013, provides a framework for farmers to join efforts to adopt reducing measures aimed to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus contamination into waterways, helping water quality improvement efforts. Agriculture is the main source of nitrate in local waters (site lecture). 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 given to focus on building flood preparedness through agreements between state agencies and local governments. Programs like these show the relationship Iowa’s State body has with working to protect farmers from the impacts of climate change.

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 shows us how state-level action can shape local climate efforts. These initiatives, though sometimes limited by state and local budgets, bring light to how a state with a strong agricultural base like Iowa can still take meaningful steps to combat climate change while supporting the local economies of farmers and consumers. As climate impacts continue to challenge both rural and urban communities in Iowa, the state’s mix of renewable energy leadership serves as a model for balancing economic interests with environmental responsibility.

Paragraph three: Local governments in Iowa

(What caused the flooding) In 2008 Iowa experienced devastating flooding in many local communities, causing an estimated 10 billion dollars’ worth of damage to crops, leaving thousands without homes, and damaging public infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. The floods are some of the worst natural disasters in Iowa’s history, impacting over 80% of Iowa’s counties. In response, the state government took over a leading role over the local governments in securing and distributing financial aid from the federal government. Iowa also took this as an opportunity 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 (IWA).  The IWA was funded by a $97 million grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The IWA brought state agencies such as the then Department of Health and Human Services, the University of Iowa, and local governments together with a common goal to improve flood protection. The combined efforts helped build watershed-based projects designed to reduce flood risks, improve water quality, and promote soil conservation. Local communities like Cedar Rapids in Linn County, which suffered the worst flood damage, but the county was able to utilize the IWA to develop flood mitigation to prevent such flooding again. Iowa’s state government created the Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa, which focused on fast-paced forecasting tools to help communities predict and prepare for future floods or disasters. The state of Iowa not only provided financial support but also gave power to local governments 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.

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 there is a great concern for air pollution and other environmental hazards.

Iowa City in 2019 voted in the “Climate Action and Adaptation Plan” which is a local law set in place 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. Due to 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 be successful and efficient.

Paragraph four: How do different local counties differ

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 proactive steps by creating climate action plans, investing in renewable energy projects, and promoting energy efficiency programs. For example, Johnson County has implemented sustainability goals that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and expanding public transportation options (citation). On the other hand, many rural counties in Iowa place less emphasis on formal climate policies, often focusing more on agricultural practices and economic development(citation). These counties may participate in conservation programs like cover crop cost-sharing but tend to avoid broader regulations or large-scale renewable projects. Much like at the state level, these differences are often influenced by population size, economic priorities, and of funding is available. Counties with more funding and public support are more likely to pursue further climate initiatives, while others may lack the resources or political won’t have as much as an emphasis.

Paragraph five: Local impact on state decisions

Local governments in Iowa play a significant role in influencing state-level decisions on climate policy and environmental initiatives. Counties and cities often act to enforce sustainability programs, renewable energy projects, and conservation practices initially. For example, larger cities like Des Moines and Iowa City in Polk County and Johnson County have adopted climate action plans and renewable energy goals, which have pressured state officials to consider broader policies that align with these local efforts.  Additionally, when multiple counties collaborate through watershed management programs or regional sustainability initiatives, they can demonstrate successful models that the state may choose to expand or fund. Local governments can also lobby state legislators, especially when there is strong public support for environmental measures within their communities. This bottom-up approach allows local priorities to shape state policies, particularly in areas like flood mitigation, agricultural conservation, and renewable energy development. Over time, the actions of proactive counties and cities can set precedents that influence how the state addresses climate change.

Paragraph six: The relationship between state and local government

Overall, both local and state governments play key roles in addressing climate change, but their powers and responsibilities differ. State governments have broader authority, including the ability to create statewide regulations, manage large-scale energy policies, oversee agricultural programs, and secure federal funding for major initiatives like the Iowa Watershed Approach. States can pass legislation that sets environmental standards and allocates resources across multiple counties and cities. On the other hand, local governments, such as counties and cities, focus on implementing policies at the community level. They have control over zoning laws, public transportation systems, local infrastructure projects, and community sustainability plans. While local governments often have fewer financial resources than the state, they have a closer connection to the public and can tailor climate initiatives to meet specific local needs. Together, state and local governments complement each other, with the state providing overarching policy direction and funding, while local governments put those policies into action on the ground. This division of power allows for flexibility, but it also means that cooperation between the two levels is essential for effective climate action.

Issues states face in combating climate change

Time is one of the biggest challenges in combating climate change. States that have a lot of debate around climate change initiatives are at a disadvantage in passing bills that need to be speedy to keep up with fast-changing climate change. One of the reasons why bills can be slow is that funding is scarce, states do not have many reasons to dedicate much of their budget to climate change programs. Also, if lawmakers pass stricter climate change policies when so these policies often cap certain industries that could hurt a state’s economy. If states set aside more of their budget towards these programs would help alleviate this problem of burdening businesses.

Final Paragraph: Conclusion

Climate change in The United States is assessed and combated with similar goals on the federal and state levels but is carried out through different means. As the federal government has the resources to combat climate change, it lacks the legislative power to restrict emissions, shift to clean energy solutions, and other means to combat climate change. As of right now, The United States is behind European countries in terms of regulations and emissions rates but overall, there has been a shift away from fossil fuels and greenhouse gases. Currently, the Trump administration is making many changes, and it is uncertain the projection of the United States and the country’s role in combating climate change. However, despite federal-level rollbacks, many states have continued to push forward with their climate initiatives, highlighting the decentralized nature of U.S. environmental policy. States like California and New York have set ambitious targets to reduce emissions, while other states remain reliant on fossil fuel industries. Local governments and counties also play an increasing role, particularly in areas where federal support has declined. Moving forward, the effectiveness of the United States’ climate response will largely depend on the balance between federal leadership, state independence, and local action. Whether the country can catch up to global standards will depend on future administrations, economic priorities, and the ability of both state and federal governments to collaborate on long-term sustainable solutions.

Personal statement

I think that climate change is a major threat to not only to our planet but the way many of us grew up. It would be unjust to allow the earth not to have the same species of animal or land terrain for the younger generations as we did. If we continue to ignore climate change the impact will be too great to come back from for hundreds of years. I think tackling climate change has to be a global effort because no one country can fix it alone. Even if one nation cuts its emissions or switches to clean energy, it doesn’t matter as much if other countries keep polluting at high levels. The environment doesn’t stop at borders—air pollution, rising sea levels, and global temperatures affect everyone. That’s why international cooperation is so important. But the problem is that not every country sees climate change the same way. Some countries rely heavily on fossil fuels for their economy and don’t want to commit to strict climate goals. Others don’t have the money or resources to make big changes, especially if they’re still developing. Wealthier countries have a responsibility to lead and support low-income nations through funding and technology. I feel like we’ve seen progress through agreements like the Paris Agreement, but countries still aren’t doing enough. There needs to be more accountability and more urgency. 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, local solutions won’t be enough to make a long-term impact.