DENNIS MYERS Against the Grain Advertisement

The growth of federal power has been nearly inexorable in the last 75 years.

Even administrations like those of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes have expanded federal power. There was a lot of talk about "devolution" -- returning power to the states -- during the Reagan years, but in practice states were given latitude in how to run federal programs, not on whether to have those programs in the first place. The elder President Bush was called the "re-regulation president" by the Wall Street Journal and the younger Bush has freely used federal power to advance conservative goals.

There was a time when there was a partisan divide on federalism, but now there seem to be splits within each party on the issue. Democrats, not surprisingly, are the most enthusiastic about federal power, but there is a wing of the party that supports the decentralization that Robert Kennedy described: "One may argue about the ideal size, but certainly there are strong arguments to support the decentralization of some municipal functions and some aspects of government into smaller units..."

Even Kennedy, though, supported federal power on issues that cross state lines. Certainly the environment is one of those -- pollutants and ecological damage do not stop at the edge of jurisdictions.

Yet in the last seven years, we have seen a remarkable assertion by state and local governments in just that field. George Bush and his administration have more or less yielded sway over the environment. Bush initially rejected the idea that global warming exists. Eventually he conceded that it does but still opposed mandatory greenhouse gas emission limits.

With Bush on the sidelines of the issue, Congress could have moved into a leadership role, but his Republican Party was in control for most of his administration and when Democrats took control they were unable to move at more than a glacial pace, even as glaciers melted.

So state and local governments stepped in.

Some states, Nevada among them, have required power utilities to provide increasing portions of their power from alternative sources. Some have imposed heavier vehicle emissions requirements than the federal government's and some cities have done the same, with the approval of some Democratic Party leaders. So far the courts have been supportive of these initiatives. Most states are now involved in regional coalitions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

On April 16, like a jealous suitor, Bush moved to try to regain control of the issue, announcing a new initiative of his own. "In support of this process, and based on technology advances and strong new policy, it is now time for the U.S. to look beyond 2012," he said. "We've shown that we can slow emissions growth. Today, I'm announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025."

As it happened, state governors and governors' representatives were meeting at Yale on global warming when Bush made his April statement. Representatives of 18 states signed a "Declaration on Climate Change," and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger noted that Bush is about to leave office and be replaced by one of three candidates, all of whom support stronger action on global warming. "I think the deadlock is about to be broken," Schwarzenegger said.

The states signing the declaration did not include Nevada. They were Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.

By contrast, a 2006 "U.S. Mayor's Climate Change Agreement" has been signed by several Nevada cities, including Reno, Sparks, Las Vegas and Henderson.

For those who believe that federal power is a threat, this is a heartening trend. Even for those who don't, the results of local assertions of authority are likely to be encouraging.