United States
             Environmental Protection
             Off ice Of
             The Administrator
EPA 101/F-91/052
April 1991
Growth Management Planning
In New England
The Role Of EPA
                                         Printed on Recycled Paper

Growth  Management  Planning  in  New  England:
                   the  Role  of EPA
      Prepared  for the  US Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                         Region  I
                 Water Management  Section
                     By Edward Prewitt
                      Research  Fellow,
 National  Network  of  Environmental Management Studies  program


This report was  furnished to the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency by  the student identified  on the  cover  page,  under a National
Network for Environmental Management  Studies  fellowship.

The contents are essentially as  received from the author.   The
opinions, findings,  and conclusions  expressed are those of the author
and  not necessarily  those of the U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency.  Mention,  if any, of company,  process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by  the U.S.  Environmental
Protection  Agency.

Table of Contents
Abstract	i

Introduction	1

An overview of  growth  management in  New England	.:	2
The  importance of  growth management	2
Specifics of growth management	4
Growth  management statutes in New England	6
      Local level	6
      Regional  level	7
      State level	10
Federal   involvement in growth  management	12

Lessons for EPA	17
The necessity of local control	17
The  need for federal  participation	19
The argument for EPA	20
      Technical  expertise	20
      Experience	21
      Prestige and notoriety	21
      Money	22

Recommendations	22
      Siting controversial pollution facilities	24
      Writing model ordinances	24
      Focusing  efforts  on the  state and local levels of government	24
      Achieving  federal consistency	25
      Emphasizing  the  geographic  initiative approach	25
      Emulating the Waquoit Bay study	25
      Funding GISs	26
      Publicizing  the issue  of growth management	27
Conclusion	27

Bibliography	28


      Increasingly,  land  use  planning  for  growth  management is  seen  as
the  only  solution  to the  environmental degradation  accompanying rapid
economic  growth  in  New England.   In particular, growth  management is
viewed  as  the best  preventative  of  non-point  source  pollution, which
former  EPA administrator  Lee  Thomas has  called  the agency's  "largest
chunk  of  unfinished  business."
      Because  most  growth management ordinances  are  relatively  new,  the
hierarchy  of  authority  among  the  different  levels  of  government   and
private citizens is  unclear.   This report  seeks to ascertain the proper role of
EPA.  It  examines the experience of  growth management initiatives in New
England,  the  general  requirements   of  growth   management,   and  the
philosophical basis  of federal  involvement in land use.
      The majority of growth management  activities have  occurred at  the
local, regional, and state  levels.   EPA's extensive  and  vital involvement in
growth  management  has  been in  cooperation   with  other  levels   of
government  in  every case examined.
      EPA is  on the  right track in  doing so.   Its  strengths  with  respect to
growth  management,  and  the  basis  for  its  involvement,  lie  in its  technical
expertise,  experience, prestige  and  notoriety,  and  funding.   The eight
recommendations herein  are based  on  those strengths.
      This  report has  been prepared by  Edward  Prewitt,  a master's degree
candidate  at  the John  F.  Kennedy  School  of Government  at  Harvard
University, during the latter half  of 1990 at the request  of Bartlett Hague.
Mr. Hague is the Chief  of Environmental Quality in the Water  Management
Section of the  United States  Environmental Protection  Agency,  Region  I.
The research was paid by  and conducted under the aegis  of EPA's  National
Network for Environmental Management Studies program.   The  opinions
herein are the author's, and  are  not necessarily  shared  by Mr.  Hague  or


      As economic development  surged  in  New England  in  the  late 1980s,
interest resurged  in  "growth  management,"  an  encompassing  phrase  that
first came  into  use  in  the  1960s and  is now  today  gaining  currency  as  a
long-term  solution to the problems  that  accompany growth.   Towns  and
cities; private  organizations;  regional planning  agencies;  the  states  of
Vermont,  Maine,  Rhode  Island, and  Massachusetts;  and  EPA  all  have
worked to  define  growth management  and suggest actions.   The  problems
of  growth  are  clear, and  the  definition  and  recommendations  of  growth
management   are   relatively   established;  what   remains   is   the
implementation  of those recommendations.
      Implementation  is, of course,  the  most difficult part.  No amount of
paper  and  talk  will  do good  until  actions  result:   protecting  open space,
setting  aside  buffer areas  near water bodies,  overlaying  zoning plans,
shutting  down combined sewer  overflows (CSOs) and  building improved
waste  treatment plants, for example.   Some  of the  growth management
actions proposed  are relatively  simple, such as finding  money  for waste
treatment plants; but  others,  such as  finding the will  and cooperation to set
and enforce  performance  standards,  strain  the political  power  of  New
England  institutions.
      Difficulty  of  action  is  compounded  by the  lack  of clarity  over
authority.    Protection of navigable waters and wetlands  is  traditionally  a
federal responsibility.   States pass  zoning  and  land-use laws,  which are
administered by  municipalities.   Fertilizer use — a  significant component of
runoff into  lakes  and bays  — is, of course, left to  the  private landowner.
The  question  inevitably  rises:    who  will  take  the  lead   in   growth


      This report  is sponsored  by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
As  the nation's  largest environmental  organization  (measured by  operating
budget) and the arm  of the  federal system  that  is  charged with  thinking
about  such matters,  EPA  obviously is  interested  in growth management.
This  report examines  EPA's  proper role  in  the matter.    It  does  so  by
studying the experience of growth  management  initiatives  in New England,
the requirements  of growth   management,  and  the  philosophical  basis  of
federal  involvement in land use.

An overview of growth management in New England	
The  importance  of  growth  management
      The   pollution,  congestion,   sprawl,   and   loss   of  open  space
accompanying  rapid  development in several parts  of New  England have
been  met  with sweeping  statutes  for  land-use  control.   The  Cape Cod
Commission Act,  passed  in March  1990 by Cape Cod residents  to  control
some  of the highest growth  rates in New England,  gives  a land-use body
the authority  to  plan  for  the  provision  of  affordable  housing,  economic
development,   historic  preservation,  jobs,  recreation,   coastal  resource
protection, open space, and waste disposal.1 The direct interest  of EPA and
environmentalists clearly is limited  to the last  three  items.
      Similarly, the legislation  for Maine's 1988 Growth  Management Law,
as the bill has been dubbed,  contains ten goals  for  local and state planning.
Among  them   are  providing  affordable  housing,  creating  jobs,  and
protecting  rural character,  in  addition to  protecting  forests, freshwater and
marine  resources,   and  wildlife habitats.2
      While  all  these goals,  including the non-environmental  ones,  are
   1  The  Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Department of the  Attorney, "Summary  of
an Act  Establishing  the Cape Cod Commission" (Boston, Mass.), p. 2.
   2  Maine  Municipal Association, "Growth Management Legislation"  (Augusta, Me.),
pp.  1-2.

certainly  good  and  admirable, the  aspect  of  growth  management  that  is
particularly  important   to   environmentalists   is  the  statutory   emphasis
placed  on  land  use  control.   With  such  power,  growth  management
regulations  have the  potential to prevent and  turn back "non-point  source
pollution,"  which   EPA  has  recognized  as  a  growing  and  unanswered
environmental  threat.
      In  a  report  issued  when  he  left   office  in   1989,  former  EPA
Administrator Lee  Thomas called non-point  source pollution EPA's "largest
chunk of unfinished business" and said it  accounts  for 60 percent of water
pollution in the US.3  Paul Keough,  Deputy  Regional  Administrator  of  EPA's
New  England region, Region  I, in  a  speech  on "Growth  Management:  A  Key
to New  England's  Environmental Future," noted that:

            Having   spent  over  a  quarter  century  restoring
            waters  from   [factory]  pipe  pollution, we  face the
            challenge  to  anticipate   and prevent  another  round.
            of  pollution  from  non-pipe  land  runoff   and
            infiltration   into   groundwater;   we   must  protect
            wetlands,  critical  habitat, and landscapes.4
      Defined  simply,  non-point source  pollution is  air or  water  pollution
that  is  diffuse  and does not  discharge through a pipe.   Examples include
runoff of  fertilizer  from farms and yards,  runoff of  toxic  chemicals from
parking lots and construction  sites,  and  the  combined  exhaust of  thousands
or millions of cars.   Though the diffusion and variety of non-point sources
makes generalization difficult,  one thing that can be said is  that  they  tend
to grow proportionally with  population  density.   The  often  banal  nature  of
   3  Bob  Cummings,  "'Non-point'  pollution difficult  to  control,"  Maine  Sunday
Telegram  (Portland, Me.),  September 10,  1989.
   4  Bart  Hague, US  EPA, Region  I, Water  Management  Division, Chief  of  Environ-
mental  Quality,  "Growth  Management:    A  Key  to  New  England's  Environmental
Future,"speech text  for  Paul  Keough,  then-Acting  Regional Administrator, US  EPA,
Region I (Boston, Mass.),  p.  1.

single  non-point sources  belies  their lethal  cumulativity.   Their  effect  in
the Gulf of Maine, for  instance, has been  declining species of wildlife  such
as the  right whale;  liver lesions and fin rot in fish  and shellfish; and health
advisories  both  for swimming  in  coastal  waters  and  for  eating  fish  caught
in the  Gulf,  which  historically  has been one  of the  country's most  important
fishing  grounds.5
     The  hope  is that  growth  management  statutes  and regulations, by
regulating  land development and management and  the siting  of buildings,
will  be the avenues for prevention  and control of this  difficult  category  of
pollution.   Indeed, growth management  may be  the  only  route  if our
efforts  against non-point  source  pollution  are  to  have the success  garnered
by the long  campaign  against  factory pipes.

Specifics  of  growth   management
      Growth management is described in a recent EPA  handbook on the
subject as  "the  use of planning, zoning, and  other forms of land use control
to direct the quality,  rate,  and  location   of  a community's development."6
Although this  definition is  correct,  a more helpful  distinction  can  be made
between  the planning regulations of the  past  and  a  new  class  of statutes.
For  underlying  growth  management  is  a sense that  zoning is  not enough  to
protect  against  environmental  degradation;  that  "build-out"   of  New
England  —  growth and development  of communities  to the  full  extent
allowable  in a  zoning plan  — would  be  ecologically  and  aesthetically
      Thus  another   EPA-sponsored   report  on  growth  management
   5 Katrina Van  Dusen  and Anne C. Johnson Hay den,  Maine State Planning Office,
"The Gulf of Maine:   Sustaining Our Common  Heritage" (Augusta, Me.), p. 5.
   8 Brian Morrison  et.  al.,  Industrial  Economics,  Inc., "Protecting  Wetlands  and
Coastal  Waters:    A  Land-Use  Guide   for  Growing  Communities,"   second  draft
(Cambridge, Mass.), p.  1-1.

differentiates  between  "the  hundreds  of  zoning  ordinances  and  bylaws,
subdivision  and  health regulations"  that  have  long  been  available  to
communities;   and,    more    recently   conceived,    "a   group   of
mechanisms...[g]enerically labeled as  regulatory tools..."7 with  the  potential
for alleviating non-point  source pollution. The  latter  phrase is applied to
such  imaginative  techniques  as:

• transfers  of development  rights, known as  TDR  programs, in which the
bundle  of legal rights  that  accrues  to each  parcel  of land  is  split into
portions, which are sold
• "land banks,"  formed  when  taxes  on private interests  in land go  to buy
property for  public  ownership
• impact  fees  for  expected harmful  effects  of development
• "performance   standards,"   based  on  the   establishment  of  carrying
capacities  for  pollution
• catch basin maintenance  and other  drainage  requirements
• limits on lawn fertilizer application
• prohibitions  of land uses  involving toxic chemicals
• "overlay"  groundwater  and  surface  water  protection  districts
• vegetative buffers  around  buildings  and  subdivisions
• health  board  reviews  of  development, in  addition  to building  safety
• special   permit  requirements  for  environmentally harmful structures and
• required  sewage system  upgrades
   7  Mary Jo Moubry and Jon Witten, Horsley Witten  Hegemann, Inc., "Water  Quality
Protection Through Growth Management in  Buzzards Bay" (Cambridge, Mass.), p.  1.

      This list is  not  exhaustive.8  (Although  some  of these  techniques  come
under the  heading of zoning, they are  distinguished from  traditional zoning
by  their  emphasis on  protection of  environmental  amenities  instead  of
property  values.9)

Growth  management  statutes  in   New  England
      Most  of the above  techniques and then some are employed at various
spots in New England.   At the local  level, TDR  programs have  been set  up
by  municipalities  in three different parts  of Massachusetts:   Falmouth,  on
Cape   Cod,  for   water  resource   protection;   Townsend,   in   central
Massachusetts,  for  preservation  of scenic  views;  and  Sunderland, in  the
western part of the state, for the protection  of  agricultural land.   In Maine,
the  State Planning  Office has  proffered  a TDR  plan for  the  shoreline  of
Moosehead  Lake,  the largest  lake  in the state.   (Controversy  over the TDRs,
however,  has left the plan unresolved for two  years.10)
      Nantucket  Island  created  its  well-known  land   bank in   1983.
Falmouth   and   Mashpee,   Massachusetts,  have  passed ' performance
standards   for  housing  subdivisions'   contribution  to  water  bodies  of
nitrogen and phosphorus, which  cause  eutrophication.   In  Vermont, where
development  pressures  are  less  intense  but   nevertheless  worrisome,
Conservation Commissions  in the towns  of Randolph  and Williston  have
inventoried  agricultural lands  and open  space,  respectively,  in   order  to
protect  those  environmentally sensitive and  aesthetic areas.
   8 For  a  succinct  discussion  of  different  growth  management  techniques,  see
Moubry  and Witten, pp. 17-26.
   8 It  should be noted that the legal basis  of  zoning is limited to  furtherance of
public  health,  safety,  morals,  or the  general welfare.    Since  the  establishment of
zoning  in  the  1930s,  however,  much  of  its popular support  has  stemmed from the
manner  in which  it  boosts private property values.
   10 Christina  Tree,  "Moosehead  Lake,"  The  Boston Sunday  Globe  (Boston,  Mass.)
August  19,  1990, p. Bl.

      The  town  of Narragansett,  Rhode Island,  after  inventorying  its  land,
designated  overlay   districts  for  coastal  waters  and  wetlands,   "where
natural physical  limitations  render  the   land  unsuitable  for  development
without  restriction."11  Ecology and human  health  are the stated bases  for
protection  of  the districts.   North  Kingstown,  Rhode  Island, .applies a
density  formula  to   proposals for  housing  subdivisions  that  are  within
critical watersheds or that lay over sensitive  groundwater.  These are but a
few  examples  of the diversity  and extent of local  GM  ordinances  in  New
      Growth management  efforts  at  the  regional  level  have  been  quite
notable  in  several   instances.   Regional  structures,  which  here  means
organizations  representing  areas  smaller than states, seem  to  come  in  two
forms.    Regional  planning  agencies  (RPAs),  formed  in  the  1960s  to
administer federal grants, represent groups  of  municipalities  within  single
states; most  states in New England  contain  and  are  constituted of  several
RPAs, which vary greatly in levels of  activity.    More recently,  regional
organizations have  been  established  to  protect   specific environmentally
sensitive  areas  such  as  bays or  rivers.   This  latter angle,  called  the
"geographic  initiative"  approach,  has  resulted in several  impressive  gains.
      One  private group  with the  geographic  initiative mien  is  Maine's
Lakes Environmental Association, headquartered in the  town  of Bridgton.
In  1987,  LEA's  concern  over algae blooms in  several  large  lakes in  the
rapidly  growing   southern portion  of the  state  led  to  its  Long  Lake
Watershed  Study,  funded primarily  by  EPA Region I  and overseen  by  the
Maine  Department  of  Environmental  Protection.    The  result was   the
   11 Appendix B, Narragansett  Code (Narragansett, R.I.), p. 1823.
   12 For  a  comprehensive  register  of  local  growth  management efforts  across  the
United  States, contact the Lincoln  Institute of Land  Policy,  Cambridge,  Mass., which
has  been  conducting  research  on  the  matter  for  several  years,  including   the
compilation of a  database.

development  (by  Maine  DEP)  of   the  Lake  Vulnerability  Index,  a
mathematical  model  which provides the  carrying  capacity  analysis  that  is
necessary for performance standards.   Yankee magazine  has described the
index as a  "program that  can be plugged  into  anyone's  computer and, with
enough  information  about a  lake's  health,  can predict how  much  more
development that  lake  can stand."13
      Another  regional   organization  taking   the   geographic  initiative
perspective  is  the  Great Bay  Estuarine  System  Conservation  Trust,  a
private  group in   New  Hampshire.    The  trust's  work  has led the  New
Hampshire  Office  of Planning,  with the cooperation of the National  Oceanic
and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA),  to  establish  the  Great  Bay
National Research  Estuarine Reserve, which is  essentially a buffer  zone of
500  acres and growing in populous coastal New Hampshire.
      In  north-central  Massachusetts,   the  non-profit   Nashua  River
Watershed  Association  has recently  revitalized  its greenway  project,  which
seeks to persuade owners  of  riverside  land  to donate  a 300-foot buffer to a
conservation trust.  Total donations  stand  at 84  miles  out of 194 total  miles
of river bank.
      New  England's many  geographic initiative  organizations  usually are
well  focused  on  an issue,  which  gives  them  a force  that  often  leads  to
success.   But their voluntary  and transient nature  inevitably  leaves gaps  in
the  prosecution  of  growth  management.    Eliminating non-point  source
pollution  requires  diligence and  "micro"-management, which calls  for full-
time, expert action.  The RPAs of New  England,  with their  planning  staffs
and  experience,  have a role to play.
      From  this perspective,  then,  it  is  unfortunate  that RPAs have little
political power  and  even  less  prominence  in most of New England.  This
     Edie Clark, "The Race  for Clean Lakes," Yankee (Boston, Mass.), June 1990, p. 120.

may  stem from their  historic  basis  as  administrators of  federal  grant
programs, disbursed  first  by the Office of Housing & Urban Development
and later by  EPA, which  dried up.  Many RPAs never recovered;  those that
have,  survived  by  doing planning  studies  for  hire.    Adding  to  the
difficulties  of  RPAs   is  the  renowned  unwillingness   of  New. England
municipalities to give up  control.
      One  RPA  that has  bucked the  trend and  prospered,  perhaps  because
it  represents  the  fastest-growing  area  in  Maine,  is  the  Southern  Maine
Regional  Planning  Commission.    While it does  hire out its services  to
member   municipalities,  SMRPC  has  continued  to  focus   on  land-use
planning  and   related  water  quality  planning,   according   to  executive
director Madge Baker.   A report, "1990:  A Plan for Southern Maine,"  calls
for,  among  other  things,  TDR  programs  and  performance  standards  for
development.  It is worth  noting, however, that the great majority  of the
plan's 89  recommendations require action  by  municipalities rather than  by
the SMRPC itself.   "We have no power," Baker says.14  "It's up to the towns
to act."
      The exception to that  rule of political  power for RPAs — and the  most
successful  instance of growth  management  planning in New  England  — is
the Cape  Cod Commission.   Formerly the Cape Cod Planning  and Economic
Development Commission, which was  the  RPA  for the   15 towns of Cape
Cod,  the  commission  assumed  regulatory authority  on March  28,  1990,
after  a referendum.
      Following  the lead of Martha's  Vineyard,  the commission  has  spent
its  first  year deciding  which  areas  to  name  Districts of Critical Planning
Concern  and which building  projects  to name Developments  of Regional
Impact.   DCPC is the designation of most interest to  growth management
     From a personal interview.

advocates;  all  development  in  environmentally  sensitive  areas  such  as
watersheds  and water  supply  districts  is  subjected  to  commission  review.
In addition, the enabling act provides for a geographic  information  system
(GIS),  an  expensive  computerized mapping system that  puts  land-use  data
such  as  soil  types,  groundwater  drainage  patterns,  topography,  and
population density  into easily-read  forms
     To  find  attempts  at  growth  management  that  match the  Cape  Cod
Commission in  thoroughness,  one must look to the state   level.  In  1988
Vermont  supplemented  an  earlier 'planning  act,  Act  250,  with  Act  200,
known  as the  Growth  Management Act of  1988.  The former was  felt to be
falling  short  of  its  designers'  goal,  which  was  to  provide  long-range
planning  for growth.   In response,  a gubernatorial  commission  headed by
Douglas  Costle, former chief of EPA, held hearings  around  the state.  The
result  was  32  planning  goals,  of  which   more  than  a  third  were
environmentally-oriented, such  as:

           "Special   resource   areas   shall   be  identified,
           development shall  be planned  so  as to  protect  and
           preserve them and, when necessary,  they should be
           placed  in  whatever  form  of  public  or  private
           ownership  that  would  best   maintain  and  utilize
           their value  to the public."15
     The  unwieldiness  of  32 goals  has  since  prompted  the  legislature  to
reduce the  number to a dozen.  Act 200  provides money,  funded by  a
statewide property  tax increase, to  encourage  (but  not require)  towns  to
write comprehensive plans that are consistent with the  12 goals.  The law
strengthens  RPAs   by  requiring  towns to  work  with them, and  by  giving
them authority  to write regional  plans.   Lastly,  part  of the  extra  tax
   16 Vermont  Department of Housing  and  Community Affairs,  "Vermont's  New  Act
200 for Growth Management — A Citizen's Guide" (Montpelier, Vt.), p.  7.

revenue has gone  for the development of a  GIS.
      Maine's Growth  Management  Law, as  described  at  the  start of  this
report, contains  ten planning goals.   As  in Vermont,  the  state government
in  Maine  has  given  the  right  and   the  burden  for  planning  to  the
municipalities  and RPAs.   Using  state money, municipalities  are required to
write Comprehensive Plans  which demarcate  growth areas and rural  areas.
Standard zoning laws apply  to the former, but in the latter

           ...protection  should  be  provided  for  agricultural,
           forest,  open  space,  and  scenic   lands  within  the
           municipality.  Each municipality shall adopt land  use
           policies  and  ordinances  to discourage  incompatible
           development.    These  policies  and  ordinances  may
           include,  without  limitation,  density limits,  cluster or
           special zoning,  acquisition  of  land  or  development
           rights  [TDR programs],  or performance standards...16
      Maine's ten RPAs  have the responsibility  of reviewing  the  completed
plans,  to ensure  that neighboring towns act consistently.   That requirement
has driven  the cities and towns  to  work with  the RPAs from the beginning
of  the  process.   In the  fall of  1990, for instance,  the  Greater Portland
Council  of  Governments  RPA  was  assisting   nine   of  its   21  member
municipalities  with  their  Comprehensive  Plans,   according   to GPCOG
planning director  Mathew Eddy.    Such an incentive  for  cooperation  with
RPAs   is  wise;   the  technical  expertise   required  for  good  growth
management  planning  may be  missing,  otherwise.
      Massachusetts,  the most heavily  developed  state in  New  England,
lacks a  statewide growth  management  law.    A  commission  created  last
year  by the  state legislature  has  called for   mandatory  comprehensive
planning, however, after  the  pattern of the Cape Cod Commission  and the
     Maine  Municipal  Association,  "Growth Management  Legislation,"  p.  4.
                                    1 1

Martha's  Vineyard  Commission.   The commission's  report  recommends
creation  of a  new  administrative  bureau to  oversee  11  goals  for  growth
management.17  State budget  constraints have  thus  far  prevented  serious
discussion  of  the  report.
      Lastly,  in  their laws  for the protection  of  wetlands,  the  states of
Connecticut, Maine,  Massachusetts, and New  Hampshire  all have given
municipalities  a preeminent role.  Nearly all cities and towns in  Connecticut
have  wetlands boards to implement the Inland Wetland  and Watercourses
Act.  A  similar process occurs in the  other states.   New Hampshire also has
a Lakes  and Great Ponds program,  in  which towns  or groups of towns can
request  state  assistance  in  writing  pollution  control management  plans for

Federal   involvement  in   growth  management
      The  remaining  category  in this  digest  of growth management is, of
course,  the federal level.   Properly speaking,  this  section should be  quite
short:   direct  federal involvement  in  growth management  ordinances has
been  rare.   Rather, EPA  Region I devotes  itself to  assisting  states, regions,
and municipalities.  This indicates  that it is on the right  track, as  will be
      Just  two years after EPA was  formed,  and before  the  term "growth
management"  came  into  use,  a charter  section of  the  1972  federal Clean
Water Act directed  the agency to involve  itself  with  planning  growth.
Under §208 EPA  gave large  sums of money to RPAs,  via  state governments.
The  RPAs were  to promote  orderly,  environmentally  sound  growth  by
working  with  municipalities.   Because RPAs  have  no regulatory  power,
however,  many  of their  plans  went unheeded,  and  §208 is  now viewed by
   17 The  Commonwealth  of Massachusetts,  "Special  Commission on  Growth  and
Change:  Final Report" (Boston,  Mass.)-

many as a  great failure.   (RPA  planners  nevertheless remember the period
      Since  then, EPA Region I has taken two different approaches:  on the
one  hand,  granting  money  and substantial discretion  to  state  Departments
of Environmental Protection  (DEPs);  and at  the same time  creating  or
assisting in  "geographic  initiative" projects.  The  former activity takes  place
under §205(j)(5), §319, and §320 of the Clean Water Act.  DEPs  apply for
grants for  specific  projects,  and oversee  the  subsequent projects.   In the
words of a  1988 Region I task force  on non-point source pollution, "[o]ver
the last  15  years, the States have  assumed an  increasingly  greater level of
responsibility   for   daily  program   implementation   and  enforcement
activities."18 A sizable  portion of  the  §205(j)(5)  funds are  supposed to be
passed down to municipalities for studies of their own.
      (In order to receive  grants,  states are required  to write plans for the
management of groundwater  and  non-point  source pollution.   Under the
Clean Water Act,  EPA must review the  plans.   Where states refuse to  draw
up plans, EPA can  do so in their  stead.   But in  an inconsistency, Congress
has  not given EPA  specific  authority to  implement  management  plans
where states have  been  recalcitrant.)
      Geographic  initiatives  are  currently  in  evidence  mostly  around the
coasts of New  England.   In 1984  EPA Region I began a research program on
groundwater protection called the  Cape Cod Aquifer  Management  Program
(CCAMP),  in coordination  with the now-transformed Cape Cod Planning and
Economic  Development  Commission.    Several  reports  were  produced  —
typical   titles   were   "Truro/Provincetown   Aquifer  Assessment   and
Groundwater  Protection  Plan"  and  "A Mass-Balance  Nitrate  Model for
Predicting  the  Effects  of Land Use  on  Groundwater  Quality  in Municipal
   18 US  EPA, Non-Point  Source  Task  Force,"Issue  I:   Federal/State  Partnership/
(Washington, D.C.), P- 1-

Wellhead  Protection  Areas" —  that  have led to  some  growth management
ordinances  passed  by  the affected  towns, and  that  contributed  to  the
political atmosphere in  which the Cape Cod  Commission  Act became  law.
      EPA Region  I and Cape  Cod  Commission officials both term CCAMP a
very  successful  federal/regional cooperative  project.    In an  attempt  to
replicate that  cooperation, EPA  Region I has engaged in a similar study at
Waquoit Bay, a small inlet at the southwestern  corner of Cape Cod that the
NOAA  previously  had  designated  a  National  Estuarine Research  Reserve.
The  bordering towns  of Falmouth  and Mashpee  expressed  interest, and the
state  of  Massachusetts   and  the   National   Science  Foundation   were
persuaded  to  join  (in  fact, the Massachusetts  Division  of Water Pollution
Control  was  already  studying  the  bay),  resulting in  an  extraordinary
      The  goal of the Waquoit Bay  project is to

            develop  a  computer-based  tool and  handbook  for
            predicting  impacts  of  land use  decisions  on  water
            quality  and  aquatic  resources,  and  graphically
            illustrate these  impacts  in a  convincing fashion.   At
            present, no  such tool exists  and land use decisions
            (e.g.  zoning) often  are made in the  absence  of  an
            understanding  of cumulative  impacts.   The  first  use
            of this tool will be by the Cape Cod  [Commission]  and
            the  towns  of Falmouth  and Mashpee to assess  the
            adequacy  of  zoning   in  [Waquoit  Bay's]  critical
If achieved, this  goal will result in  a far  more  scientific quantification of
the  sources  and  causes  of  water  pollution,   especially  non-point  source
pollution,  than  has been  previously  attainable,  according  to  EPA Region  I
   " US  EPA, Region I,  "Waquoit Bay  Land-Margin Ecosystem  Project:   Impacts  of
 Land Use on Water Quality," (Boston, Mass.), p. 2.

employee Bruce Rosinoff,  who  works at the Buzzards Bay project.
      At about  the  same  time  as CCAMP, the  headquarters  office of  EPA
announced  a new endeavor, the  National Estuary  Program, to be  conducted
in conjunction with  state,  regional,  and local agencies.   Three  of the  first
four estuaries chosen for  study are  in  New  England:   Buzzards  Bay, Long
Island  Sound, and  Narragansett Bay.   Maine's Casco Bay joined the  list in
June 1990,  with a budget  of $500,000 over  five years.   Massachusetts  Bay
was  added  shortly  thereafter.
      The Buzzards  Bay Project  was  the  first  to come  to fruition, in late
1990.   Its  management plan has identified  and  recommends  fixes  for  the
major  pollution problems   in the bay:   human  wastes,  excessive nutrients,
and  toxic metals  and  chemicals.  In  addition  to action  plans  for  specific
pollutants,  the  plan proposes  that growth  management mechanisms be
broadly  applied.

            The individual  action  plan recommendations  alone
            are  not  sufficiently protective;  inherent  in each  set
            of  recommendations  is  an  understanding  that  a
            holistic   approach  to water  quality  protection  is
            needed.    The  cornerstone  of  such  an  approach  is
            land-use  planning   for growth   management.2
Among  the  mechanisms  suggested  are:    overlay  ground/surface  water
protection  districts  for  drainage   basins,  performance   standards  for
protection  against   nitrogen  loading,  vegetative   buffers   to  collect
stormwater,  and cluster  zoning for the preservation  of open  space.   The
hope  is that, with  officials from the  local,  regional, state,  and federal  levels
on  the management  committee,  the  report's  recommendations  will be  put
into law.
   20 US  EPA,  Region  I,  and  Mass.  Executive  Office  of Environmental  Affairs,
"Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management  Plan,"  (Boston,  Mass.),
p.  129.

      EPA Region I  has  embarked on  several  other geographic  initiative
projects  of note:    at  the  Blackstone River,  in  Massachusetts and  Rhode
Island;   at  the  Merrimack   River  in  New   Hampshire   and  eastern
Massachusetts;  and  at  Lake  Champlain,  in  northern  Vermont  and  New
York.   All of these  programs have  resulted  in cooperation  between federal,
state, and  local agencies and private  organizations.   A  recent meeting for
the Blackstone  River project  drew  representatives from  EPA, the state of
Rhode Island, four Massachusetts state offices, two private  groups, and one
university21.   In the Lake  Champlain  instance, EPA  Region  I has entered
into  an agreement  with  Region II,  which holds responsibility for New  York
      As  previously  noted,  EPA  has  helped  fund the  Lake  Vulnerability
Index  created  in  Maine.   In  addition,  EPA  has joined the  Rhode  Island
Department  of Environmental  Management  in   funding   an  organization
called the Land Management  Project,  which

            was established  to  provide  technical assistance  to
            communities in  addressing  growth management  and
            nonpoint source control issues  during the statewide
            comprehensive  planning  process.    The  project  is
            promoting  new  principles  of  "sustainable  growth"
            appropriate  for  volunteer  town  governments  and  is
            evaluating  data  and  testing  strategies  to  use  in
            overcoming  specific  obstacles  to change   in  land
            management/growth  management  practice.22
This  project   offers   free   advice,  assistance,  and   training   to   town
governments  on the  environmental consequences  of their  land  and  water
uses.  If the Land  Management Project  is successful  in  its  goals, then EPA
   21 US  EPA,  Region I,  "Summary  of  the Blackstone River Meeting" minutes (Boston,
 Mass.), Attachment  1.
   22 Jennie  Myers,  Land  Management  Project  director,  "The  Land  Management
 Project"  leaflet  (Providence,  R.I.).

through  its  funding  truly  will  have  contributed  to  growth  management
efforts in New England.

Lessons for EPA	
The  necessity  of  local  control
      The  individualism and  singular character of the  New England  Yankee
tradition can be  well  summed  in  one phrase:  private property  rights.   At
the  heart  of growth  management  exists  a  dilemma over  the  need  for
governments  at  all  levels  to respect  the  autonomy  of private property
owners  versus the  need to  reign  in  environmentally  unsound  uses.   The
dilemma becomes more pronounced as pollution becomes  more  diffuse;  for
example,  government  officials  would  be loathe to  contend that regulation
of lawn fertilizer use is warranted to prevent non-point source  pollution.
      The  numerous  EPA reports  and  comments  on  the  subject of  growth
management  recognize well  that property owners  in  the  US  dislike being
told  what to  do:

           The  desire for home rule and local control over local
           concerns  is  a powerful theme  in American history.
           People generally  believe  that  they  know what  is
           best  for  them  —  that  local  problems  are best
           addressed  by local  solutions.   Land use  issues  often
           present prime  examples  of this  attitude.23
           The  NPS   [non-point   source   pollution]  problem
           inherently   requires  that   the   private  sector...
           contribute  to its  solution.24
What is  recognized  less  clearly,  perhaps,  is  an equally  important point:
responsibility and  ownership of land spark a sense  of caring about it.  The
   23 Brian Morrison et. al.,  Industrial Economics, Inc.,  p.  1-6.
   24 US  EPA  Office  of Water,  "Final Report on  the  Federal/State/Local Nonpoint
Source Task Force...," p. 18.

Wall  Street Journal, objecting  to  a criticism by  EPA Administrator William
Reilly  of "mainstream  attitudes   about private  property,"  comments  that
tt[a]s  Soviet  reformers  know,  private  property  rights  lead to  a  cleaner
environment because they  imply  individual  responsibility.    Maybe  what
Bill Reilly and  his  EPA colleagues need is  a  couple of years studying  Lake
Baikal to remind them."25
      The snideness of tone in  The  Wall  Street Journal  notwithstanding,
there  are compelling  reasons  for  leaving land-use  control at the  levels of
governance  closest  to  the  locality.   Non-point  source  pollution  problems
differ  from  town to  town, depending  on  population density,  proximity to
water, water supply, and  other factors.   Local and regional  officials are in
the best  position to  know these  peculiarities,  and  to  promulgate custom-
tailored  regulations.     Furthermore,   the  local  level  of   government
traditionally  has had responsibility for  siting  public  facilities, which are an
important element  in the management  of growth.
      This high  level of  detail needed  for  the administration of successful
growth  management leaves  federal and  sometimes even  state officials  in a
poor   position   to   monitor   and  enforce  regulations.    Thus   growth
management  ordinances,  even  more  than  other  types  of  regulations,
require  that  a  large proportion of the people affected be  convinced that it
is  in  their interest  to comply.   Local-level  officials are  able both to know
when  that is the case,  and to persuade their  constituency of the  necessity
of growth  management.
      Of  course  it  is also true that private  property rights have a powerful
legal  ally:  the  Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution,  which  prohibits  the
taking  of property without  compensation.   Federal  courts  periodically
reinforce  the conclusion that the "taking" issue is not to  be  overlooked.  In
   25 Editorial, "EPA v.  Private  Property,"  The Wall Street Journal (New York,  N.Y.),
August 27,  1990, p. A10.

 decisions last year, the US Claims  Court ordered the federal  government  to
 pay  $3.7  million  to  two  property  owners,  when  the  Army  Corps  of
 Engineers' refusal  of permits  for  development  on wetlands in Dade County,
 Fla.,  and Long  Beach Township, N.J., was found to be unwarranted.26

 The  need  for federal   participation
      Yet  it is  often  true that the complexities  of non-point source pollution
 overwhelm  the  purview of municipalities.  The issue  is  characterized  nicely
 in  an early  report on growth  management by  the state of Massachusetts:

            ...communities   recognize   that   developments  of
            regional   significance  do  exist,   but  these   same
            communities   are  adamant  about  the  need  to
            maintain  local   control  over   such  development.
            Nevertheless,   there   is   a   clear   recognition  that
            certain  problems,  such  as  solid  waste  and  water
            supply, can  be  effectively  addressed  only  through
            some  form  of inter-municipal cooperation.2
      In  the  terms of natural resource economics,  the effects  of pollution
are  frequently  "external"  to  the  property   owner.   That  is,  pollution
disperses from  property that an  owner cares about  and pays to  keep clean,
and  permeates an  outside area.   The eventual  result — whether  dispersal  is
intentional  or  inadvertent  — is  that  "commons"  areas,  such  as  surface
water, groundwater, and  air, become  disposal   sites  for pollution.
      Continuing the economic analysis, there  are two  types  of responses  to
degradation  of  commonses:   either  private  property owners  voluntarily
join in  agreement to  clean  up  and protect   the  adjacent  commons,  or a
"sovereign"  body  with  authority over  all  the landowners  is  created  to
   26 "EPA  v. Private  Property,"  The  Wall  Street Journal.
   27 The Massachusetts Office of State  Planning, City and Town  Centers:  A Program
for Growth  — The Massachusetts  Growth Policy Report (Boston, Mass.), p. 9.

direct  the  cleanup.    Private  organizations  such  as  the  Nashua  River
Watershed  Association   reflect  the  former  reaction.     But  because
enforcement is assured,  the  latter  response  generally is more effective,  and
is  far  more prevalent  in  our society.  EPA  and all  government agencies at
every  level are examples.

The argument for EPA
      When agencies  are  seen in this light,  the obvious ensuing question  is:
what  peculiarities  of  EPA  make  it  stand  out over other  governmental
bodies with  respect  to  preventing  non-point  source pollution?   Put more
simply, what  is the basis of  EPA's involvement with  growth  management?
The answer lies in  EPA's  claim  on  several factors that  are usually  lacking in
agencies  at  other  levels  and private  organizations:   technical  expertise,
experience,  prestige and  notoriety,  and money.
      EPA's   technical    expertise   is   a   valid   form   of  federal
intervention/assistance  because  the  techniques  of  growth  management
require training and  experience  to  implement.   In  particular,  the  scientific
studies necessary to  an  understanding  of  the  relationships  between  non-
point  source  pollution  and  degradation  are  beyond  both  the  reach  and
purview  of most municipal or even  state-level organizations.   EPA's  studies
of  non-point  source  pollution,  particularly   those   with  the  geographic
initiative  perspective,  give its employees critical know-how.
      The study of  Casco  Bay  under the  National Estuary  Program, for
example,  has  the potential  to reveal  fundamental information to  towns in
Maine, according to Jacki Cohen, town planner of  Freeport.   "We have no
idea if anything we're doing  impacts  the bay  because we  don't know how
currents  work," she says.28  "I hope [EPA] will use the  Casco  Bay study as an
   28 From a  personal  interview.

example  of how  to go  about non-point  source  control."
      EPA  studies  have  potential  for providing  scientifically  defensible
information that  municipalities,  regional  organizations,  and states  can  use
in writing  growth  management  ordinances  and  regulations.    Local-level
and  regional-level officials  cite  the  Waquoit  Bay  study,  especially, as
research  of great value for that  purpose.   "The real appeal of [the  Waquoit
Bay  study]  is that specific information  —  like how do  nutrients  get  in [to
water  bodies,  where  they precipitate  eutrophication], how much  nutrient
degrades  the bay, and  how would you manage  it  if you knew how to —  can
be learned here that  can  be  applied to a  lot  of other sites," says Armando
Carbonell,  executive director of the Cape Cod  Commission.29
      EPA's experience in dealing with non-point  source  pollution (which
is a  function  of  its  technical  expertise,  of course) has  resulted  in an
important  bank  of knowledge.    The  example  of  §208  shows  what is
politically  wise to  do and what is difficult; the  geographic initiative studies
are showing  what has to be done.
      EPA's experience  is  further  valuable  to those  working  on  growth
management issues  because  the  complexities  of the  subject have  not  yet
been   fully  realized   by  many.    The  tendency  is  to  expect   growth
management statutes   to  deal  with environmental  degradation with  the
same  degree of precision  applied to point  sources  of  pollution. This mistake
has been apparent  at all  levels of government: witness the futile  clauses of
the federal Clean Air Act and its  amendments over the last 20 years on the
ambient  air  pollution  from  automobiles.
      The  prestige  and  notoriety of EPA come into  play because  of the
aforementioned  requirement, particularly  strong  with growth  management
statutes,  of convincing  citizenries that necessary  constraints  are in  its
   29 From a personal interview.

interest.    Fears  about  unplanned  growth  frequently   are  overmatched
against the American and  New England  tradition of  strong private  property
rights.   In our busy society, local-level  or  even state-level pronouncements
on the dangers of runoff are rarely given much attention.
     EPA's  comparatively  high profile  on environmental  matters  gives a
publicity  boost to  the  issues which  it establishes as priorities.   Were EPA's
community  relations divisions to  publicize  growth  management  as  they
have  the  danger  of  radon,  for  example,  the local, regional,  and  state
officials responsible  for implementing growth  management  laws  might find
their constituencies  more  receptive.
     Finally, EPA's money  continues  to  be  necessary  to  fund   the
geographic  initiatives  that  are  beyond  the  scope of  other  levels  of
government.   It  is  conceivable  that state DEPs  could bring  the proper
"watershed"  perspective  to growth management  studies,  but  given  their
long-time  reliance  on  EPA  for funding  of non-point  source assessment  and
groundwater  management   studies  and  a  host of other  programs, it  is
politically unlikely  that state  DEPs will  do  so in the  near  future.   That
likelihood is  compounded  by the  current budget  shortfalls  in  most  New
England  state governments.   If  EPA  does  consider  non-point  source
pollution its  biggest piece  of unfinished business,  then  it  should apply  its
efforts  and  money toward  resolution.

     The recommendations  of this report follow  from the  section above.
As a preface, however, it  is  important to note that  one  course  EPA should
not follow  is  that  of  enforcer  of growth   management  mechanisms  and

regulations30 .   It is true  that EPA  would  be on solid legal  ground in doing
so:  public  health and safety  are the two  most concrete  bases  for  exercises
of  police  power;  and the  requirement  of  a nexus between public  purpose
and regulation,  set by the  US  Supreme Court in its two famous  1987 cases31
on  the  taking issue,  is clearly met.32
      As  previously  discussed,  though, control  of  land  use is  a cornerstone
of  the  powerful theme of home rule.   Federal  involvement  in land  use
probably  would be  construed  as federal  interference,  quickly  evoking  an
emotional   and  detrimental   reaction.   Indeed,   land   use   control   by
governments  at  any  level  is  likely  to  be  slandered  as  anti-democratic, as
illustrated  by the  comments  of  a Vermont state  senator  on Vermont's  Act

            What the  Act  200 people want is that  every town
            should  plan  in  accordance with   32  state-deemed
            goals  drawn  up  by  the  environmentalists  and  the
            affordable-housing  advocates.    The  goals  protect
            "special  areas."  What are "special  areas"?  Who the
            hell  knows?    It's   something  that   some  planner
            thinks  is special.33
This serves  to  highlight the  centrality of  public cooperation to the success
of  growth  management, as  well as the central role played  on the local level
by  persuasion.    It  also  illustrates  the inevitably controversial nature  of
attempts  at  growth   management.
   30 This  judgment excludes  EPA's review  of  major  developments  under  the National
Environmental Policy  Act  of 1969  (NEPA).    The  agency's function in  that  case  is
commentator  and overseer,  not  administrator  — an  important  distinction.
   31 Nollan  v.  California  Coastal  Commission.  107  S.Ct.  3141  and  First  English
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.  Los  Angeles County,  107 S.Ct.  2378.
   32 Gail  Osherenko,  Esq., "Where  Will the Taking Issue Take Vermont?," Vermont
Environmental Report.  Vermont  Natural  Resources Defense Council  (Montpelier, Vt.),
p. 8.
   33 "John McClaughry"  interview,  Vermont  magazine, March/April  1990,  p. 69.

      Perhaps the  one  activity  relating  to  growth  management  in  which
EPA  should directly  intervene   is  siting   controversial   pollution
facilities.   Although it has been loathe to get  involved  in  this sticky  issue,
the federal government  seems  to  be the  only  level of authority  capable  of
overcoming  political  deadlock.    In  economic  terms,  EPA  is the  sole
authority with potentially  "sovereign" power in this  instance,  and therefore
the only  organization  capable of  acting  effectively.   Julie  Belaga, EPA
Region  I  Administrator, has shown  her  organization's potency  by requiring
that  a  cleanup  schedule be  set  for Boston  Harbor, complete with  dump
sites.    That  requirement  has  not  come without  debate,  but  it  has been
      EPA does  have  a  role  in  assisting  with  the structuring of  state,
regional, and local regulations.  Growth  management  statutes  are  still new,
and  the  lessons   from  various   codes  around  the nation   could   stand
collection  and cataloging.  The feasibility of some of the  mechanisms  listed
at the opening of  this  report is still  unknown.  Accordingly, EPA  could help
its governmental  counterparts and  serve  its cause well by  writingmodel
ordinances.  Of critical importance  to  such  ordinances  is  overt recognition
that  growth  management,  even  more  than  other governmental controls,
must be tailored to the  circumstances of  localities and regions.
      In applying  its  technical expertise  to  model ordinances, EPA  should
remember the lesson  of §208.  Although the regional  level  is  recognized
anew  each generation  as the logical choice for planning the management  of
growth,  until RPAs  gain regulatory  power in the manner  of the  Cape Cod
Commission,  EPA would be wise  to focus efforts on the state  and local
levels   of government.
      While  working with  state and  local authorities,  at  the same time EPA
has a duty  to  get the  federal house  in order,  so to speak.   Some  other


federal  agencies, notably  the  Department  of Transportation  and  the  Army
Corps  of Engineers,  hold  statutory  responsibility  that  relates  to non-point
source  pollution and  growth  management.   On  more  than one occasion
these organizations  have  worked  at cross-purposes with  EPA,  and  intra-
agency  jealousies  are  legendary.   It  is a  truism  that federal deadlocks can
be broken  only on the  federal level.   No  higher  authority exists.  Federal
laws to  alleviate this  situation do not  always work, however:   witness the
federal  consistency  sections of NEPA, the  Clean  Water Act, and the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
      Yet federal agencies  do  work  together on  occasion.  The Corps, long
the  bane  of  environmentalists,  recently   has  signed  a  Memorandum  of
Agreement  with  EPA  and  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife Service  on the
protection  of  wetlands.    A  Corps  officer also  sits  on  the  management
committee  of the Buzzards Bay  Project.    To achieve  federal  consistency,
EPA would  do well  to focus on  projects   such  as  geographic  initiatives or
"issue"  initiatives (e.g.  the  wetlands  MoA),  where  resource  protection
rather  than  agency  power  is the goal.
      The  geographic  initiative approach has been  seen  to earn remarkable
cooperation  from  state,  local,  and  private  officials  and  organizations,
especially  given  the history of antipathy  between  the levels  of governance.
Geographic  initiatives are  also  a  logical  method  of  learning  about the
cumulative  effects of all types  of pollution  in  an   entire  watershed or
biologic system — a  necessary  precursor  to successful growth management
planning, as has  been discussed.  Accordingly,  EPA ought to  emphasize
the geographic  initiative   approach.
      In designing and  funding  geographic  initiative research,  EPA should
emulate the Waquoit  Bay  study,  where scientific   knowledge on  non-
point source pollution is being expanded.   Certainly at  the current  stage of


growth  management activity  in  the  US, hard  data is lacking.   Needed  most,
according to Jim Bernard, Director  of the Natural  Resources program at  the
Maine State Planning  Office,  are  "ground-floor, baseline studies that you
can  replicate  elsewhere:    figuring  out  the  percentage  of point  sources
versus percentage  non-point, trying to assess what methods of  stormwater
management are...most successful,...looking  at  a watershed  and  seeing  all
the uses.   That includes land use versus water use,  water quality versus
quantity,  surface  water  and groundwater."34
      By  baseline  study,  Bernard  means  information  applicable  elsewhere,
along the lines of the Lake Vulnerability Index in  Maine and the Waquoit
Bay  study.    This  sphere  of  technical assistance  appears  to  be  a  major
contribution  EPA  can make to the furtherance  of growth  management.
      In the same category is funding GISs.    Although  to  many people
GISs seem  at first  look   to  be  extraordinarily  expensive  gewgaws,  the
experience  of  the  state of  Vermont  and  the Cape  Cod Commission rebuts
that interpretation.   A  GIS  can spotlight  the  pollution  that would  stem from
different  levels of development,  including  build-out of  current zoning
arrangements, for  example.   (That in  itself could prove the worth of a GIS,
if it persuades ^citizens  that  zoning  plans  are  inadequate to  control non-
point source pollution.)
      By making  work  on  growth  management  a  priority  of its  own, EPA
can  heighten the issue in the minds of state, regional, and local  officials.  To
that  end, it has been suggested that EPA  establish grant preconditions —
that  is, make  grant awards  contingent  on growth  management  planning
and implementation reports.   Although this approach  is tempting (after  all,
few  things  motivate  like a financial incentive) the  likely result is simply
more reports that  do not get  read.   If  people  are encouraged to  think of
     From  a  personal  interview.

growth management  plans as  a  hurdle, they are likely to think as much of
growth  management.
      A better  approach  relies on the carrot  of technical assistance and the
power of persuasion.   To  the  latter  end,  the  last  recommendation
encourages EPA to  publicize   the  issue   of  growth   management,
aiming at local citizens  rather than the specialized audience of state  DEPs.
The  agency's recent use of  television to  heighten public  awareness  about
radon has been  effective and  impressive.   The  same can  surely be done for
the need  for  growth management.

      As  stated earlier,  the  basis  of the  involvement  of EPA,   a  federal
agency, with  growth  management  — at its  heart  a local  concern  —  is
fourfold.   Technical  expertise,  experience,  prestige  and notoriety,  and
money  are  things  available   to   EPA  that  are  often   beyond  other
organizations  concerned  with  growth  management.
      The  above  recommendations  draw  from these  strengths  of EPA.
Funding  GISs  and  studies  that  emulate  the Waquoit Bay assessment  will
require  money  that may   not  be  available  from other sources.    Siting
pollution  facilities  will draw   deeply  on  EPA's prestige  and  technical
expertise.    Coordinating  federal  activities  that affect  non-point  source
pollution —  a  never-ending, if not  impossible,  battle —  will take all  of the
agency's  prestige  and experience.
      Not  only do  these  four  characteristics  provide  a basis  for  EPA's
involvement  in  growth management, they highlight something else:   action
from  EPA is a  necessity.  Without  such  action, the goals of anti-degradation
and   alleviation  of  non-point  source  pollution,   inherent  in  growth
management,  may very  well  go  unachieved.


Bley, Jerry,  Natural  Resources  Council of  Maine.   "Managing Growth,"
Maine Environment.   Augusta, Me., November' 1986.

The  Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.   "Federal Laws:  Water Pollution Act,"
Environment Reporter.   Washington, D.C., January  13, 1989.

Cambareri, Water Resources  Coordinator/Hydrogeologist, et.  al.;  Cape  Cod
Planning and  Economic Development  Commission, Water  Resources  Office;
in  conjunction  with  the   Cape   Cod   Aquifer  Management  Project.
"Truro/Provincetown   Aquifer  Assessment  and  Groundwater  Protection
Plan."   Barnstable, Mass.,  October 1989.

Clark, Edie.  "The Race for Clean Lakes," Yankee magazine.  Boston,  Mass.,
June  1990.

Coalition for the  Cape Cod Commission Act.  "Your  Guide to  the Cape  Cod
Commission Act."  Barnstable, Mass.,  undated.

The  Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  "Special Commission on Growth and
Change:  Final  Report."  Boston, Mass., January 23, 1990.

The   Commonwealth   of  Massachusetts,  Department  of the  Attorney.
"Summary  of an Act Establishing  the Cape Cod Commission."  Boston,  Mass.,

Costle, Douglas M.,  and John McClaughry.   "Douglas M.  Costle" and "John
McClaughry"  interviews,  Vermont magazine,  March/April   1990.

Cummings, Bob.  "'Non-point' pollution  difficult  to control," Maine Sunday
Telegram.   Portland, Me., September  10,  1989.

DeGrove,   John  M.   Land  Growth &  Politics.   (American  Planning
Association), Chicago, 111., 1976.

Doggett,  Lee, Marine  Biologist,  Maine  Department  of  Environmental
Protection,  Water  Bureau.    "Preserving  and  Protecting Marine   Water
Quality  Through  Comprehensive Planning."  Augusta, Me.,  undated.


Dutram,  Paul  W.,  State Groundwater  Coordinator.   "Maine  Groundwater
Management  Strategy."   Augusta,  Me.,  June 1989.

Dyer,  Ronald  E.,  and  Raymond  J.   Voyer,  Jr.,  Maine  Department  of
Environmental  Protection, Bureau  of  Water  Quality  Control.    State  of
Maine  Nonpoint  Source  Pollution Assessment  Report.    Augusta,  Me.,
September  1989.

Dyer,  Ronald  E.,  and  Raymond  J.   Voyer,  Jr.,  Maine  Department  of
Environmental  Protection, Bureau  of  Water  Quality  Control.    State  of
Maine Nonpoint Source Pollution  Management  Report.    Augusta,  Me.,
November 1989.

Ells,  Steve,  United  States  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Region I,
Government  Relations  and  Environmental  Review.    "State  Relations"
internal memorandum.   Boston,  Mass.,  March 14,  1991.

Frimpter,  Michael  H.,  United  States Geological  Survey,  Water  Resources
Division;  et. al, in conjunction  with  the  Cape  Cod  Aquifer  Management
Project.   "A  Mass-Balance Nitrate Model for Predicting the  Effects of Land
Use on  Groundwater  Quality  in Municipal  Wellhead  Protection  Areas."
Barnstable, Mass.,  July 1988.

Goodman,  Denise.   "In Maine, land preservation isn't  always  welcomed,"
The Boston Sunday  Globe.  Boston, Mass., July 22,  1990.

Groffman, Peter M.,  et. al., University of  Rhode Island,  Department  of
Natural Resources  Science.   "Final Report, Narragansett Bay Project:   An
Investigation  into Multiple Uses  of Vegetated Buffer Strips." second  draft.
Kingston,  R.I., March  16,  1990.

Hague, Bart,  United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,  Chief
of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Bureau.   "Growth  Management:   A
Key to New  England's Environmental  Future," speech text for Paul Keough,
then-Acting   Regional  Administrator,  United  States  Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I.   Boston, Mass., November 3, 1989.

Hague, Bart,  United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,  Chief

of Environmental  Quality,  Water  Quality  Bureau.   "Maine  Initiatives  to
Ensure Environmental Quality for a Sustainable Economy."   Boston,  Mass.,
June 26, 1990.

Hague, Bart,  United  States Environmental  Protection Agency, Region I, Chief
of Environmental  Quality,  Water  Quality  Bureau.   "Pollution  Prevention
Opportunities  Thru[sic]  State/Local  Growth  Management."   Boston,  Mass.,

Hamilton,  Dan.  Environmental Perspective.   Barastable, Mass.,  March  1990.

Lakes Environmental  Association.   Lakes  Environmental  Association 20th
Anniversary Special  Issue.   Bridgton, Me., summer 1989.

Maine  Department  of Economic  and Community Development, Office  of
Comprehensive Planning.   "Guidelines  for  Maine's  Growth  Management
Program."   Augusta, Me., December 1988.

Maine  Department  of Environmental  Protection,  Southern Maine Regional
Planning  Commission, et.  al.  "Reviewing Development in Lake  Watersheds:
a  handbook  for  controlling  the  impact  of  development  on  lake  water
quality."   Augusta, Me., March 1989.

Maine Municipal  Association.   "Growth Management Legislation."  Augusta,
Me., undated.

Maine Tomorrow, et. al.   "Shaping  Maine's Future" pamphlet.  Augusta, Me.,

The  Massachusetts Office of State Planning.   City and Town Centers:  A
Program for Growth —  The Massachusetts  Growth Policy Report.   Boston,
Mass.,  September  1977.

McKernan,  John R. Jr., Governor, State of Maine.  "The Nomination of Casco
Bay  to the Natibnal Estuary  Program."  Augusta, Me., July  1, 1989.

McLaughlin,  Jeff,  The Boston  Globe.   "Planners   take reins after  win  on
Cape."   Boston, Mass., March 29, 1990.

Morrison,  Brian, et. al., Industrial Economics, Inc.   "Protecting  Wetlands and
Coastal Waters:  A Land-Use Guide for Growing Communities," second  draft.
Cambridge, Mass., March  1990.

Moubry,  Mary  Jo, and  Jon  D. Witten.   "Water Quality Protection  Through
Growth Management in  Buzzards  Bay."   Cambridge, Mass.,  undated.

Myers, Jennie,  Land Management Project, Director.   "The Land Management
Project" leaflet.   Providence, R.I.,  undated.

Nashua   River Watershed  Association.    Watershed.    Fitchburg, Mass.,
summer  1990.

Natural  Resources Council  of Maine.    Maine Growth Management News.
Augusta,  Me., fall 1989.

Office  of  State  Planning,  New  Hampshire.    "Draft  Work  Program:
Cooperative Planning  Project for  a Great Pond —  Case Study:   The Squam
Lakes."   Concord, N.H., December  1987.

Southern  Maine  Regional  Planning Commission.   "1990  —  A  Plan  for
Southern  Maine."  Sanford,  Me.,  undated.

State of  Connecticut  Department of Environmental  Protection, Water
Compliance Unit.  "Report for the  Blue Ribbon Commission on Housing, on
the  Land  Required  to Support  Residential Development  in  Connecticut."
Hartford, Ct.,  May 1989.

Steppacher, Lee,  United States Environmental  Protection  Agency, Region I;
in  conjunction   with   the  Cape  Cod   Aquifer  Management  Project.
"Demonstration of a  Geographic  Information System for Ground Water
Protection."  Barnstable, Mass.,  September  1988.

Storey, Laurie  J.  "N.H.  seacoast tries  to  balance  growth and  preservation,"
The Boston Globe.  Boston, Mass., June  25, 1990.

Tree, Christina.   "Moosehead Lake,"  The  Boston  Sunday  Globe.   Boston,
Mass., August  19, 1990.

Turkel,  Tux,   and  Joanne Lannin, et.  al.   "Maine's  Troubled Waters:   A
Special  Report," Maine  Sunday  Telegram.   Portland,  Me.,  August  and
September  1988.

United  States  Environmental Protection  Agency, Non-Point  Source  Task
Force.   "Issue I:  Federal/State Partnership."  Washington, D.C., June  1988.

United  States Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of Water.   "Final
Report  on  the  Federal/State/Local  Nonpoint   Source Task  Force  and
Recommended National Nonpoint  Source Policy."   Washington,  D.C.,  January

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region  I.   "Summary of the
Blackstone River Meeting"  minutes.  Boston, Mass., March 19,  1990.

United  States Environmental Protection Agency,  Region  I.   "Waquoit  Bay
Land-Margin Ecosystem Project:   Impacts  of Land Use on Water Quality."
Boston,  Mass.,  January 5,  1990.

United   States  Environmental  Protection  Agency,   Region   I,   and
Massachusetts Executive  Office  of Environmental  Affairs.   "Buzzards  Bay
Comprehensive  Conservation  and Management Plan,"  public draft.   Boston,
Mass., May  1990.

Van  Dusen,  Katrina,  and Anne C. Johnson Hayden, Maine State Planning
Office.  "The Gulf  of Maine:   Sustaining  Our Common Heritage."  Augusta,
Me., November 1989.

Vermont Department of Housing  and Community  Affairs.   "Vermont's New
Act 200 for Growth  Management — A  Citizen's Guide."  Montpelier,  Vt.,

Vermont  Natural  Resources  Council.    Vermont Environmental Report.
Montpelier,  Vt., fall  1987/winter  1988.

The Wall  Street Journal.   "EPA  v. Private  Property," editorial.   New York,
N.Y., August 27, 1990.