-------
-------
0.
UN! TED S I A I I :, I NVIROW ' _N PAL PRO I EC I'iON AGENCY
WASHINGT' -J. J.C. 204GO
October , 1977
/v
>,•-
TO : Administrator
SUBJECT: Land Use arid Environmental Quality
The attached selection of papers on "Land Use and
Environmental Quality" is illustrative of activities of
the Office of EPA Land Use Coordination.
As the foreword suggests, they are intended to stimulate
further understanding and discussion of interrelationships
between land use and environmental enhancement.
We would welcome comment or reaction to the attached
paoers.
Di rector7 'Jfin ce ot
Land Use Coordination
Attachment
cc: Deputy Administrator
Assistant AdmitrisLrators
Office DircUors
Regional Aduiinistrators
original: Water
RECEIVED
OCT 1 3 1977
EPA REGION. 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
-------
-------
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OFFICE OF LAND USE COORDINATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SEPTEMBER, 1977
-------
-------
PREFACE
Most Federal environmental protection activities have impacts
on how land is used and growth is managed throughout the country.
Similarly, State and local land use activities affect our ability
to carry out National environmental protection mandates.
EPA's Office of Land Use Coordination was established in 1975
to ensure that th'ese interrelationships contribute not only to sound
and foresighted land use practices, but also to environmental en-
hancement. It has attempted to do so by identifying and analyzing
land use issues, which if unattended, may have adverse environmental
effects and recommending courses of action to mitigate or avert these
consequences.
To maximize the coverage of its small professional staff, the
Office has appeared before national symposia of interested and affected
groups and issued background reports on a variety of issues for comment
and criticism prior to policy development or recctTtnendation.
The following sampling of topics includes the land use implications
and institutional dimensions of environmental regulations and programs,
how secondary effects can be mitigated, how complementary public benefits
might be assured, the environmental significance of preserving farmlands,
and a "new beginning" toward a national land use policy.
As will bo noted, some of the problems and issues discussed have
already been dealt with by legislative, administrative, or judicial
action. Others are still emerging or more enduring in nature.
The following papers are reproduced in this format mainly to
illustrate the scope of EPA's land use interests and activities and
invite comment or criticism on how they might be improved or better
contribute to the Agency's environmental mission. They are not in-
tended to represent policy stances of the Agency or its senior officials.
Shelley M. Mark
Director, Office of Land
Use Coordination
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CONTENTS
PREFACE
I Land Use Implications of Environmental Protection Agency
Regulations --Shelley M. Mark
II Institutional Dimensions of Land Use and Environmental
Management — Thomas J. Mierzwa
III Mitigation of Secondary Land Use Effects of Wastewater
Treatment Construction Program — Thomas H. Pierce
IV Securing Public Benefits From EPA's Water Clean-up Efforts
Shelley M. Mark
V EPA Programs and Impacts on Prime Agricultural Lands —
Thomas J. Mierzwa
VI A New Beginning to a National Land Use Policy --
Shelley M. Mark
-------
LAND USE IMPLICATIONS OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS .
BY
SHELLEY M. MARK
BEFORE AIP SEMINAR ON PLANNING AND LEGAL ISSUES
OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT
FEBRUARY 27, 1976 - NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Land use legislation, widely heralded as the newest "in" thing
for planners and attorneys and latest buzz-word for politicans, was
not one of 1975's success stories. In fact, judging from your avid
preoccupation here with the new magic of "growth management", its
day might have come and gone. Nevertheless, the great environmental
movement of the late '60's and early '70's has led to passage of the
National Environmental Policy Act, Water Pollution Control Act, and
the Clean Air Act. Land use was ticketed to be next, and the bandwagon
was soon bulging with consultants envisioning happier pay days, zoning
officials whose time had come, attorneys with new clients to serve,
plus a smattering of citizens looking for better land use.
To the latter at least, land jse planning seemed like an ideal
vehicle for confronting'and reconciling often conflicting economic,
environmental, and social goals. What better way for coming to grips
with these problems than to have to make decisions on what to do with
a specific parcel of land. Yet both logic and euohoria seemed to
-------
-------
-2-
fall by the wayside in the wake of a deftly orchestrated lobbying
effort, carried out in a National economic atmosphere of receding
revenues and increasing deficits.
However, the benefits of economic growth, which for a long time
rationalized the Nation's benevolent attitude toward the land-using
proclivities of its citizens, are no longer unchallenged. With unguided
growth have come increasingly perceptible costs of environmental
pollution, urban decay, suburban sprawl, energy shortages, and
resource depletion.
Passage of the aforementioned environmental legislation has
enabled us to come to grips with many, but not all of these issues.
Those who are discouraged or concerned that the.movement has lost its
zest and zeal, should recall that an awful lot was passed in an
awfully short time and a breathing period may be entirely in order
to sort things out. Moreover, those who read polls can point out
that public perception of environmental problems and willingness to
bear additional costs for environmental clean-up remain high—the
remaining arguments being on who should pay these costs. Nevertheless,
a better balance needs to be struck between economic growth and
environmental protection.
The conventional wisdom has been that problems of land use and
environmental pollution are so spatially-oriented they should ultimately
be addressed and resolved at local levels. Yet turning matters over
-------
-3-
to fragmented local authority is not that easy and may well turn
out to be politically embarrassing if the opposition is inclined
to place dollar tags on the newly-devolved responsibilities.
Meantime, the Federal Government is actively involved in
implementing all kinds of land use legislation. For example, the
Coastal Zone Management Act, which has been in existence since 1972,
is essentially a wet national land use law. By early 1975, all 30
eligible States were receiving grants to prepare coastal resource
inventories and comprehensive management plans, as well as create
the legal and administrative means to implement these plans. Upon
approval of their olans, States have the opportunity to invoke the
"Federal consistency" provision of the Act.
That provision seems particularly significant since it gives
States the right to determine in advance whether or not a proposed
Federal license or permit for actions affecting their coastal zones
are "consistent" with the approved State program. Except in matters
of "overriding National interest", the State authority is expected
to prevail. When one considers that such activities as energy facility
siting and Corps of Engineers drec'ge-anci-fill permitting may fall
under this provision, the potency of the Coastal Zone Act for local
land use planning and control cai be readily appreciated. Yet while
this legislation was sailing through Congress with near-unanimity,
the dry-land use bills, scaled down to even lesser authority, are
-------
-4-
having difficulty finding their way through the maze of Congressional
committees.
A more venerable land use program is HUD's 701 planning assistance
program. Although States and locals have been importuned of late to
come up with "land use" elements in their plans, presumably this
is what the 701 program has been all about in the couple decades
of its existence. However, inability to successfully pull off a
701 plan has not been cause for penalty or sanction of any sort.
A more stringent Federal role appears in HUD's Flood Insurance
Program. To qualify for Federal assistance in special flood hazard
areas, State or local governments are required to adopt specific land
use control measures.
Use of the environmental impact statement requirement under
NEPA to rationalize, delay or block actual develooment throughout
the country is well known among planners, lawyers, and developers
alike. On the other hand, the implications of all kinds of Federal
energy resource development and plant siting legislation on land
use patterns are not yet fully appreciated. Thus, the relevant
Issue is not whether we need land use legislation, but what we do
with that which we already have.
And we have yet to discuss the direct and indirect impacts of
various EPA programs on how land is used in different parts of the
country.
-------
-5-
AIR QUALITY PROGRAMS
In terms of air quality, EPA activities are carried out under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, which established a joint
Federal/State program designed to achieve National standards of
air quality. The States are to devise implementation plans or SIP's
for achieving and maintaining the air quality standards. Aspects
with significant impacts on local land use management include the
non-deterioration provisions, air quality maintenance areas, new
source reviews, and transportation control plans.
To protect those areas of the country with relatively clean
air, Federal court action has required that the State planning
process include provisions designed to prohibit any "significant
deterioration" in air quality. This would apply to those areas
which have already met the primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards,'even if such deterioration would not violate those
standards.
The close-related air quality maintenance program is also being
developed in response to a court suit. Air quality maintenance
planning is being undertaken in those areas where pollutant levels
have the potential of surpassing secondary standards over the next
ten year period. At last count, there were 168 such areas throughout
the country. Most of these are SMSA's, although some energy resource
development areas have also been designated.
-------
-6-
Basically, the SIP's are concerned with maintaining air quality
standards in all areas, and thus must ensure that they are not
violated by unexpected growth. The principal mechanism for this is
EPA's new source review procedure. If an air quality analysis
indicates that a new source would cause a violation, its construction
can be prohibited.
Another provision of the SIP applies to those areas where the
use of stationary source emission controls cannot alone solve the
problem. Plans for these areas must be supplemented by control
strategies that would reduce transportation induced pollution,
particularly that generated by private automobiles. The intent
here is to encourage the use of public transportation systems by
enacting measures which will reduce private automobile travel to
and within the central business districts.
At the moment there is considerable uncertainty concerning
the status and future of air quality planning in the country. This
1s compounded bv the prospect of further Congressional amendments
to the Clean Air Act, as well as judicial rulings under the current
Act. Transportation control plans for the roughly thirty areas
throughout the country, where pollution levels are severe enough
to require such plans, are in various stages of development. However
the parking mamgement elements of the TCP's and indirect source
reviews were suspended early last year to await further Congressional
-------
-7-
guldance and clarification of intent. Although the vocal reaction
has been generally opposed to Federal imposition of these programs,
1t is not yet clear whether Congress will insist that EPA work out
an acceptable solution under present statutory language or specifically
delegate the problem to the States. This assumes the Congress has
no desire to retreat from the air quality standards the suspended
measures were intended to enforce.
The non-deterioration program is also awaiting Congressional
action. EPA has designated all areas as Class II where moderate
growth will be allowed. The States have the option to reclassify
certain of these areas as Class I or Class III. To date, very few
States have requested this responsibility, most of the remaining
States preferring to take their chances with further Congressional
clarification. The chariness with which the States are embracing
this new found responsibility may also be due to the enduring
Influence of new industry promoters and the general scarcity of
economic development or growth management planning in most State
>
Capitols.
Be that as it may, EPA air quality programs are having and
wtll have both direct and indirect impacts on a number of land use
categories. The direct impacts relate more specifically to siting
considerations of new industrial and public facilities. Indirect
Impacts are somewhat more difficult to define and assess.
-------
•8-
For example, the TCP's as part of an overall transportation
strategy for an area, can have considerable influence on the general
pattern of residential development. Recommendations as to public
transportation modes and routes designed to alleviate air pollutant
levels must confront the issue of land use densitites at the nodes
or along the corridors of the proposed system. Unless compatible
decisions are made by local planning authorities, the intent behind
both the program and law may be contradicted. ,_
EPA air quality planning requirements can have a wide variety
of other local land use consequences, ranging from the discouragement
of industrial or power plant siting to the encouragement of bikeways
as an additional public recreational resource. Without prior under-
standing of these impacts, and the advance planning to ameliorate any
undesired effects, any resemblance between Federal implementation
and local aspiration may be purely coincidental. At this juncture
it may be politic to shift from hot to deep water.
WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
outline an ambitious national water clean-uo program. Implementation
of this Act involves the development of water quality standards
and guidelines with respect to permissible effluent which may be
discharged into the Nation's waters. It also requires the
establishment of State and area-wide plans and programs for administering
-------
-------
-9-
and enforcing water quality standards. Furthermore, it provides
funding for research, for implementation of Water Act Programs,
and for the construction of wastewater treatment plants. And, it
provides for the creation of a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System. The grants for building treatment facilities
are subject to a number of conditions, including consistency with
area-wide waste treatment management or "208" plans and State plans
developed to implement Water Act standards. Another area of
considerable potential impact is the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
requires the Agency to assure that any Federally-assisted project
within a designated sole or principal source aquifer recharge zone
be carried out so as not to contaminate the drinking water.
The land use impact of these water programs is substantial.
The facilities construction grants program, by oroviding sewage
capacity to existing and future residential areas, will to a large
extent determine the pace and intensity of growth in these areas.
•
The 208 area-wide waste management plans will influence overall
residential patterns by deciding which areas need to be serviced
by public facilities and orescribing alternative methods of maintaining
water quality in the Regions. The fact that many sewage treatment
plant sites have already been selected under the 201 construction
grants program without the benefit of the area-wide 208 perspective
may be injurious, but not necessarily fatal to "good" planning. The
-------
-10-
ultimate test may be whether engineers or planners have the better
hindsight. Nevertheless this is a situation which the Agency and
local officials have to address promptly and judiciously, lest the
wall-to-wall Statewide 208 planning called for in a recent court
decision become merely wall-to-wall plans.
However, the distinguishing and possibly redeeming feature of
208 water quality planning, in addition to the Statewide planning
mandate, may be in how it deals with non-point sources of pollution
(namely, from such activities as agriculture, mining, forestry, and
construction). The economic diversity of these activities, together
with their wide-ranging geographical dispersal, require a much broader
planning and coordination approach than currently visualized for 208
agencies. However, it may not prove too gainful to generalize on
these prospects at this point, since the purpose of the 208 planning
effort is to bring groups of local officials together to look at and
propose solutions to water quality problems on an area-wide basis.
In many cases, these will be new groupings, whose activities are
quite likely to confront practices and proclivities of established
local power centers (i.e., city halls or county court houses). It
may be as much a challenge for 208 planning to straighten out "who
1s to do what", as "what it is in terms of water quality and land
use that has to be done".
Suffice to say that what we do with our water in the future will
-------
-11-
be intertwined with what we can do with our land—whether this be
in determining where and how new shopping centers can be built,
where industrial plants can be located, what capital investment
will be required, where large feedlots may be placed, what kind of
mining practices can be tolerated, where transportation networks
must be directed, and how flood plains must be safeguarded. In
one form or another, these constraints on how we use and care for
our land are contained in existing national legislation.
SOLID WASTE. ET. AL.
Emphasis has been placed in this paper on EPA's air and water
quality programs. These have drawn the greatest public attention,
received the largest Congressional appropriations, and generated the
liveliest controversies. Other EPA involvements have also drawn
fire. These range from the banning of certain pesticides, chemicals,
and foreign airplanes, to return of soda pop bottles. While there
t
are undoubtedly land use implications in these programs, our time
and knowledge do not permit their exposition here.
Mention should be made of EPA's role in administration of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. A major land use consideration of the
Solid Waste Program concerns the siting of solid waste disposal
facilities. By and large, open dumps occupy sites with no apparent
competitive land uses, (e.g., abandoned gravel pits, marshes and
-------
-12-
swamplands). Most of these low cost sites are conducive to
environmental degradation.
Since solid waste management planning is generally a low
priority item with local government, urban sprawl has generally
out-stripped disposal capability and more capacity has to be found
after intensive development has occurred. The default strategy of
the past has caused a number of subsequent environmental problems.
One in five land disposal sites for solid waste surveyed in 1968
actually had refuse in direct contact with ground water. As of
1974, over two-thirds of all landfill sites were located in areas of
possitive infiltration of groundwater recharge areas.
The need for strong planning initiatives becomes more apparent
when one considers that roughly one-third of all U.S. cities surveyed
in 1974 by the International City Management Association have less
than two years remaining in landfill reserve capacity. Clearly, the
future of ground and surface water protection is dependent on advanced
planning and site selection.
From EPA's perspective there is at least a de facto National land
use policy. But lest we get carried away, I call your attention to
a resolution adopted by the County Supervisors of Green Lake, Wisconsin,
which urges Congress to prohibit EPA from getting into the land use
business and imposes criminal penalties on any Federal agent who gets
out of line. This is indeed the new Federalism with a vengeance.
-------
T
J
-13-
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
Yet there is even a lesson to be learned here. Too often are
environmental protection activities of public agencies cast in a
negative or restrictive mode. This comes from the necessity of
putting out brush-fires, or even an occasional river or lake fire,
and responding to legislative mandates, judicial rulings, or budgetary
priorities. Too often therefore the public perception of the Agency
»
is negative—EPA says np_ to Concorde, np_ new steel plants and np_
jobs for a depressed area, no_ pesticides for the harried farmer.
Similarly, put a "land use" tag on something if you want to ensure
its defeat or demise.
Yet there is ample leeway within existing environmental legislation
to devise land use programs that most people, including politicans,
are for. For example, Section 201 of the Water Pollution Control .
Act urges EPA to combine "open space and recreational considerations"
with wastewater treatment planning and management. Thus far, to my
knowledge no one has been thrown in jail or out of office for coming
out in favor of public recreation. At any rate, as 201 projects
begin improving water quality, shoreland previously by-passed becomes
more attractive to private developers and public agencies alike.
Since the costs of water clean-up efforts are largely borne by the
general public, it stands to reason that benefits cleaned water
present in terms of recreational, open space and other potentials
-------
-14-
ought to be captured for public use. It is quite likely that if no
steps are taken to safeguard theretofore fallow shoreland and water-
shed, unplanned developments in these areas could result in the re-
emergence of water pollution problems in future years.
With advanced planning on the part of local communities and
States, through 208, and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's Land
and Water Conservation Fund, recreational and open space sites may
be acquired and developed, in conjunction with the 201 construction
program. This can be done through local public initiative prior to
rising real estate values that may accompany the cleaning of polluted
rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
INCREMENTALISM vs. COMPREHENSIVENESS
Why further legislation? In the land use area, don't we already
have enough or too much? Shouldn't the task now be to straighten
out what we already have? Is it possible to achieve desired objectives
without additional legislation? Should we mandate comprehensiveness,
or can we get there quicker via the incremental approach?
There is much to be said for incremental ism. It is much easier
to focus initially on a single issue—e.g., control of air pollution,
protection of coastal areas, acquisition of recreation areas. It
is also possible to coalesce various sectional interests to get
necessary legislation passed; the political tradeoff process works
best when there is something to trade—protection of my wetlands for
-------
-15-
your prime farm lands, or more crassly your county courthouse. And
it is easier to identify the State or local agency to be charged,
after due planning assistance funding, with whatever the legislation
is to charge it with--i.e., the State Water Pollution Board, the
Energy Coordinator, the local planning commission.
How comprehensive can you get before losing comprehension?
What is "good" land use, and who says so? What or who is to be
legislated, and why? Opponents of national land use legislation
have been able to exploit this situation to their advantage. Pro-
ponents are hard-pressed. It is difficult to stand four-square
behind "good" land use planning ("good" being defined as what planners
think it is) when the opposition is waving the flags of States' rights
or personal liberty. One frustrated official was heard to say after
the last Congressional impasse: "If we didn't have to call it "land
use", we would have gotten the legislation".
The moral seems to be: take it a step at a time. If dirty
water is the problem, clean it up. If polluted air is the problem,
reduce the pollutant level. If energy is running scarce, conserve
it. Not that these represent shining examples of progress or
achievement. But don't complicate matters with interrelationships
and interdependences. You'll get there if you take it a step at
a time.
Yet this does not dismiss the case for comprehensiveness. It's
^ rs, ^WIH njfttupyuiibfc*-
-------
-16-
a tricky business we're involved in. It's difficult to push ahead
on your own mandates without wandering off to someone else's turf.
Examples within EPA itself come readily to mind. Technologies
designed to reduce emissions to one medium (e.g., scrubbers installed
by industrial or utility plants) fnay simply transfer the pollutants
and the accompanying disposal problems to another medium (e.g.,
sludge).
Of greater relevance to local land use concerns are the siting
and sizing of sewage treatment facilities. Located in presently
urbanized areas, which may coincidentally contain the main source
of pollution, they forthrightly fulfill their primary mission of
abating public health hazards. But sewage treatment plants are
not always the most welcomed neighbors and finding desirable and
acceptable locations is difficult. Such locations are often out in
the veritable "boondocks". However, the technology is such that a
network of interceptor and main trunk lines can be laid out, limited
mainly by the capacity of the treatment plant. The nature of this
layout can govern the type, extent, and staging of development in
any given locality. The potency of this potential influence on
land use patterns has led some observers to term sewer systems the
new underground highways. Thus unless sewage treatment planning
goes beyond the single-minded objective of abating public health
hazards, it may provoke unanticipated and undesired community growth
and thus exacerbate existing air pollution problems.
-------
-17-
Without a more comprehensive or better coordinated planning
approach than is called for by most existing legislation, it is
quite possible to wander off into another medium, another mandate o
or another jurisdiction. To avoid resultant problems of conflicting
objectives, confusing directives, and contradictory results in the
absence of more comprehensive legislation now requires a fresher
and harder look at existing authorities.
It is possible to improvise an incremental approach to
comprehensiveness. Stripped of inflammatory dialogue, it may be
viewed simply as devising the institutions and procedures and
motivating the key performers to solve today's problems with today's
technology, but with tomorrow's interests and the concern's of one's
neighbors in mind. Some of the necessary ingredients for this
approach seem to be in place.
States, and to some extent localities, are beginning to approach
their problems more comprehensively—perhaps as a defense against
the plethora of Federal programs and requirements they have been
forced to deal with. Confronted with all sorts of interconnected
and conflicting requirements, State Governors and their planners
and budget officers are beginning to develop or utilize coordinative
mechanisms to rationalize what it is they are supposed to do, what
they may do it with, and what public benefits result from their
so doing. State environmental impact statement requirements, use
-------
-18-
of the A-95 program clearinghouse process, development of State
growth management and land use policies, and more comprehensive
outlooks on functional planning requirements are some examples
of these interests.
Federal agencies might well take a closer look at their planning
assistance programs to see how they can encourage these tendencies.
EPA's court mandated wall-to-wall Statewide 208 planning requirements
should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a disaster. State
planning agencies should be encouraged through funding and technical '
assistance to assume closer coordinating roles among the State air
and water pollution control agencies, among environmental, economic
development, and growth management planning functions, and among the
different agencies arid level of government. In turn, the newly-
energized regional 208 agencies must face up to the realization that
the game may well be over when 208 funding runs out and what happens
thereafter will depend on the bridges they are currently building to
the funding and imolementation authority resting with State government.
The hoped for outcome of such efforts might well be the emergence
of comprehensive planning agencies in each State, responsible to
the chief executives and with authority to deal with various Federal
programs on a coordinated basis.
Approaching comprehensiveness incrementally also requires the
Federal establishment to get and keep its own house in order. What
-------
-19-
1s needed as a first order of business is the development of strong
and meaningful coordinative mechanisms within and among the various
agencies that impact on local community growth and development
decisions. Mutually supportive goals need to be solidified,
conflicting program requirements remedied, and use of common
planning data, projections and methodology encouraged. Turning
things over to the locals is only part of the story; Let's have
a look first at what is being turned over. The Federal Interagency
agreements involving Coastal Zone Management, HUD 701 and EPA 208
programs are good starting points. The intending Interior-EPA
agreement to coordinate wastewater treatment and public recreational
planning is aDther positive step.
The Identification and protection of environmentally critical
areas affords further opportunities for Federal interagency
collaboration in dealing with a major land use issue. Since there
are as many as 140 Federal programs directly related to land use,
going through yet another exercise in coordination is not only
difficult, but meaningless. By focusing on a specific issue, such
as critical areas protection, it may be possible to regain some of
the public support so evident in the earlier success of the environmental
movement and so obviously missing in its recent difficulties, which
Include the failure of national land use legislation.
It would seem fruitful to examine closely such existing programs
-------
-20-
as Commerce's coastal zone management, HUD's flood plain regulation,
Interior's wilderness areas, Agriculture's prime land preservation,
together with EPA's numerous environmental imperatives and
initiatives to see just how they might support or reinforce one
another to meet the broader objective of safeguarding environmentally
critical areas. In this joint effort, it is possible that sufficient
momentum can be developed to assure either visible progress toward
meeting public objectives or passage of any necessary additional
land use legislation. Without the effort, we may be back at ground
zero in this regard.
What seems also in order is a concerted effort at all levels to
articulate, formulate, manage, and coordinate those broader policies
concerning the direction, quantity and quality of growth of individual
communities are more likely to be permitted to chart their own
destinies if they can demonstrate they've done so in a reasonable
and non-arbitrary fashion.,
Their ability to do this would be greatly enhanced if the longer-
range policies and program objectives of State and Federal establishments
were more deliberately formulated and effectively communicated. For
while some judicial decisions may be generally supportive of orderly
growth management, they are usually rendered on an ad hoc basis and
should not be regarded as a substitute for responsive long-range
thinking and responsible comprehensive planning.
-------
21
To conclude with a comprehensive outlook, environmental
protection programs can be short-sighted and off target without full
awareness of their land use impacts. Land use policies are meaningful
only in the context of overall community growth—a context where
tradeoffs between environmental and economy, resource availability and
consuming propensities, today's urgencies and tomorrow's aspirations
are confronted and dealt with in an open manner. This AIP-American
Bar Association seminar on growth management may be applauded as a
substantial first step in this direction.
-------
-------
INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS OF LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
BY
THOMAS J. MIERZWA
BEFORE RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM SPONSORED BY
EPA, REGION II AND RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
MAY 26, 1976 — NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY
LEGISLATIVE MANDATES AS A BACKDROP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency's legislative mandates call
for the delegation of authority to state or designated regional and
local agencies to develop and implement the requirements of federal
environmental quality programs. Included in these requirements are
the development of state-wide and area-wide continuous planning pro-
cesses to enforce water quality standards and waste management plans
{FWPCA, 208), water quality facilities plans (FWPCA, 201), solid waste
disposal plans (SWDA, as amended, 207), and state air quality imple-
mentation plans (CAA, 110), including plans for the prevention of
significantion deterioration and air quality maintenance.
Figure 1 below indicates how a range of EPA programs related to
regional environmental quality management are derived from federal
legislation.
LEGISLATIVE MANDATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
SPA PROGRAHS BELATED TO PEGIOSAl E.Q. HASASEHEUt
CAA
CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1970 • > STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (110)
(AS ArtENCED)
PREvCNTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE
INDIRECT SOURCE REVIEW
, PARKING WNAGEHEHT REVIEW
SWDA .
SOLID HASTE DISPOSAL ACT > STATE SOLID HASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING (207)
FWPCA
FEDERAL KWR POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT (AS Af£NDED)-
-> HATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASIN PLANS (303e)
AREAHIOE inSTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLANNING (208)
FACILITIES PLA.;:UN5 (Z01)
-} NATIOtiAL P'JLLUTIO;; DISChAP.Gt ELIMINATION SYSTEM (331MOZ)
AS wf rrnro BY TIE xrvi-?cr. ca;rnr
AND RKX)'/t~-V ACT OT 1976, PI, 94-S30
-------
In order to implement these programs, environmental quality
agencies at the regional and local level are required to analyze
regional development objectives, population and economic growth
projections, and land use and transportation patterns as they in-
directly affect ambient environmental quality, as well as the
direct effects of pollutant discharges resulting from regional
economic activities. Strategies and operational programs to achieve
environmental quality objectives now include transportation and land
use controls, proposals to modify the final demand for goods and
services in a region, changes in the assimilative capacity of the
natural environment, in addition to the traditional structural control
technologies, such as municipal wastewater treatment facilities or air
pollution control devices on automobiles. Carrying out these complex
control strategies through a combination of implementation instruments
(e.g., emission density zoning schemes, economic incentives and/or
capital improvement programs) places new demands on regional insti-
tutional arrangements for environmental quality management.
Under Section 208 (FWPCA), metropolitan areas have developed or
used a variety of institutional structures to carry out a Water Quality
Management (WQM) planning process, including metropolitan councils of
governments, counties, regional commissions, special-purpose agencies,
and potential cities as well. Under Section 110 (CAA), sub-state
metropolitan areas may be delegated responsibility for Air Quality
Maintenance (AQM) planning. Current efforts between the EPA and DOT
have encouraged Metropolitan Planning Organizations to account for air
quality impacts from transportation planning decisions. Yet, the in-
stitutional structures currently available for integrating the required
transportation and land use controls with air quality management activities
and other regional environmental programs are essentially non-existent.
Figure 2 suggests that a disparity exists between the provisions
of EPA's legislative mandates and the implementation capabilities of
state and local governments.
FIGURE 2: IMPACTS ON THE INSTITUTIONAL "FABRIC" OF GOVERNMENT
ENABLING \
LEGISLATION 7
*
ETC. —$
ETC.
MEDIA
PROGRAM/
ETC.
STANDARDS
REGULATIONS
PLANNING REQ'MTS
PLWTOJG $
GUIDANCE
ETC.
STATE GOV'TS.
LOCAL GOV'TS.
- COG'S
- PLANS
- ORDINANCES
- BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
RELATIONS
SERVICE
AGREEMENTS
BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS
-------
INSTITUTIONS AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
The environmental management process can be viewed as three main
functions: environmental problem identification and analysis, alter-
native strategy formulation, and implementation. Figure 3 on the
following page exhibits these main functions in a hypothetical sequence.
State levels of government are generally involved in problem
analysis and strategy formulation, whereas regional or metropolitan
government entities or local governments are usually responsible for
implementing the strategy. In most cases, the strategies for various
environmental media (air, water, solid waste, etc.) are not integrated,
and seldom is there an effort at coordinating implementation among other
federal environmental-related programs at the regional level. Further
barriers to orchestrated implementation rest in the fact that environ-
mental management programs are of a regulatory/enforcement nature as
opposed to the "development" orientation of most federal assistanre
programs. The management tools for development (e.g., support for
Infrastructure) are normally easier to implement than limits on personal
or market place behavior. While the AQM and 208 programs rely primarily
on transportation controls, land use controls, and standards compliance,
most other federal programs are oriented to public infrastructure develop-
ment, and therefore rely on planning and financing as a control vehicle.
The thrust of recent federal statutes has been to require the
creation of area-wide agencies or authorities in metropolitan areas
to act as recipients of federal funds to accomplish public investment
objectives.
Recent policies and legislation concerning revenue sharing and
pass-through arrangements have made more urgent the need to develop
metropolitan agencies capable of planning and implementing public
programs, particularly for environmental quality management. Yet,
little is known, currently about the nature, composition, capabilities,
and general design criteria of area-wide institutional arrangements
which could effectively carry out such functions.
This problem of regional (metropolitan) implementation capabilities
appears therefore to have several aspects: On the one hand, numerous
special-purpose organizations exist at the regional level to carry
out federal programs, some of which have significant land use and
environmental quality relationships to EPA programs; on the other
hand EPA programs themselves tend to be fragmented institutionally
at the regional level, despite obvious intermedia effects of air,
land, and water. Additional factors which deal with how environmental
-------
:tj
O
vir
n.
U.
5
0
**
X
UJ
fc^
y:
t_j
h-
0
X
o
CO
*
1—
VI
«t
o
a:
u.
/
£
2?
C
:D
a_
o
UJ
5»
t_i
r..
X
UJ
c;
0
y
':.
t. i
\
\
til
rt •-
JT, V>
X V> U.
tp w o 2:
»-. o o
»~ ex' v» •••
o, » *~» ID c*
(_< «-» C."* O UJ
O 0 »1 0- «E
\
_J
< tO
Z C5
O DC
•— «t
v-1 -^ *- O
»•- *J «C Z
r: — ;c «t
< 3r i-.
»— O VI
O ZC U>
_j O UJ
— ' — -^ CT
C" :r x •
o- :* uJ ui
\
>—
a-
Ul
22 <
«C X
UJ
K IE >-
c. o »-
»- C£ •*-•
— -J
0 >• <
Z ^. =>
< u,' cy
N^
cr
t^ O UJ
"~ 2 < £c
O ^ •£ -J 3t
S ^
V)
S 5
O <
K. »--
vi n
V — J
£ £
\
>-
vi ar
CC UJ
c; £
£ £ 3
C- U. UJ V-
*- >• K
i ~ LJ cy:
v"» »— t:> uj
r*- ^ k-
a o o ^~
— U Z «£
•— (j: < t.
\
'^
o
«v-
£T
3
H § 5
u> *- O
o *c
uj uj oc :r
iT VI O O
~ r> c — - •
d o ^ v>
vi rr -r •-•
r( < ^ r
TO — ^ f— L.I
j
.
i
i
I
I
i
i
j
i
t
I
|
1
i
•!
i
i
1
j
i
i
i
i
1
"
j
^
j"
1
J
j
1
i
r
*
i
i
I
1
.
i
' \
* /
\
/
ui _J
•-• »-• -
-J _i «C O
VI »—
*s • <
^c i- • *-
O. 1C UJ VI
X\
i
UJ (
— j fc^ _»
ft: - o.
O — J O 3C X
U. < UJ O — •
»- -J ft
vi z vi
Ui •» 3C 0 Of »-
»- o *: — w vi
r> *- or o •-* * o
_i < •— Z _J VI »—
^ 6C 3» O C3 1/1 H-
2» •— ar tj ra tu <:
>4v
j
ri*
> ii*
o z:
xu t— tu
UJ •-• • «t Iw
< < cy oc • K-
x uj co • «;
c.- i- o cr o:
0 _J CV t-
^v
O i i u. tj fc-»
oc ui n o uj ~J
vi 2: ex, »— vi • %;
< o s: vi s: _i —
uj «_> •— ;r of <;
U. .—. UJ t—
u, «a t- ic o
% vi o sc ac uj
—« >- ui •-* •-• y
x t- a: t- (_
cr — r> < vi cc o
UJ «J «/> *~ iV- »-i •-,
>- — «t a: z: >. s:
ci *- ac s: ic uj *:
/X
O
UJ »~ V>
> < *—
>- t— as u*
u, *a" L*J x
»- c-r uj a;
uj h- a. v
a .j a: se
/^
«< v>
•— VI O UJ
*: cc < a
uj r> o
*— vi i— o
O < JC Uj
CL ui «c »~
a: *- <;
U. _J _j
»— O _J UJ
^ C*' O tJ
o o >~ o
*— *
1
f
t
t
t
1
T
'
1
•
1
v
I
•
*
i
f
i
1
1
i
i
!
1
^
1
•
X
\
7
I .
I /
1
f
-: i
jr. i
n .
.1 i
•< *
>. 1
i !
I: ;
f, f
^ i
J:
cr. »
d *
«. *
t
!
!
|
i
»
t
1 1
1- - t
0 Cr
UJ
U. UJ
S UJ •-*.->-
< o =
=s t- v> at o
0 < vi u.' — •
— — ii <: <:
c > > <: ^
ac i-. - i. vt ,
/N%
^
z
UJ
0 UJ i-'
f 3t
a? <: uj
o ar y:
-< ss
DC . <;
UJ C» S£
o- . c:
O u? <
^^
o t!/ ^ :
w ^ a z z x
f- t_> c' ce er o*
0 ^ «C U.
x ;r z <: u, >-
vi c; -j c^ <: z c^
v. a: co f ' t^j t—
/^
1 y (S) •„.
ui o uj <:
< *" ,L* — _. ^*
.j — OS *?• 0
a. or *j c* «e —
• *- -v. O •*—
X •** •«• f- fir*
•™« U- V> »J !3 ^3
ac o r- t- K- w
UJ »— C- .X »— J-
»- .y* v> t,^ x:
ki <*j ui a: >: o
«*«•-_-". j
FIGURE 3
-------
protection programs actually get implemented through the political
decision-making process would raise questions such as: Who are the
key actors or performers? How and why ordinances or statutes (as
implementation incentives) are adopted, changed or rejected? What
are the relevant relationships among key State agencies or State vs.
sub-state levels of government, and their citizen constitutents?
What are the requirements and constraints in the state-local budgetary
processes, and what are some creative fiscal approaches for an on-going
program? What long-term commitments realistically can be made by
elected officials? What veto powers or sanctions may be exercised
by individual elements of an area-wide organization? What are the
consequences of such actions and how may they be anticipated in the
planning process? What financial, institutional, and organizational
arrangements are required for implementation? How can implementation
of one program be reinforced by implementation of other environmental
protection programs? What are the appropriate criteria (e.g., effect-
iveness, efficiency, equity), for evaluating the performance of en-
vironmental agencies?
These questions all focus attention on the essential role of
insitutional arrangements in carrying out environmental programs.
THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Given the nature of environmental problems, the essential task
becomes one of selecting the institutional arrangements to carrying
out a strategy for managing residuals to achieve environmental quality
goals, consistent with society's desired allocation of resources.
A conceptual framework for regional residuals-environmental quality
management has been described by writers in the field such as Bower,
Ehler, ar.d Kneese. My purpose here is to place the notion of insti-
tutional arrangement in that context.
An environmental management strategy is a specific set of both
structural (hardware) and non-structural (institutional) measures to
be carried out over time and space, resulting in changed ambient en-
vironmental quality. Examples of structural measures would include
changing the technology of a sub-process of an industrial operation,
such as a change from wet (lye) peeling to dry (abrasion) peeling in
canning of peaches, or the construction of a municipal waste oil pro-
cessing riant. Examples of non-structural measures would include an
effluent charge, (i.e., amount of money to be paid for every kilogram
of a resfcual discharged to the environment), the banning of a partic-
ular prccjct, (such as non-returnable containers for beer and soft
drinks), and the specification of a limit on the amount of sulphur
in fuel used in power plants.
-------
In order to conceptualize environmental management activities
at the regional level, the outline of a framework is necessary.
This framework encompasses five key steps:
1) Regional Environmental Quality Analysis, including
the application of models and analytic techniques
for describing and predicting residuals generations
v and discharge patterns over space and time, and
intermedia residuals analysis through an improved
environmental planning process.
2) Strategy Formulation, including the identification
of physical methods of controlling pollution, and
the evaluation of land use controls, economic in-
centives, legal actions, etc., as instruments to
implement sets of pollution controls.
3) Selection of an appropriate institutional configuration,
and the selection of an effective mix of public and/or
private entities which have or can obtain the legal
authority to implement a given regional environmental
quality plan.
•
4} Environmental Quality Management Strategy
Implementation, including the procedural
guidance for actually carrying out environ-
. mental management strategies.
5) Monitoring to determine the changes in
environmental quality resulting from manage-
ment performance of regional environmental
programs, and Evaluation of the effectiveness
of environmental quality management strategies.
Figure 4 on the following page illustrates the linkage between
these management elements.
-------
CO
tu
o
v
z
-J
z
IJJ
UJ
z
1
i
i
t-<:
N. 1-
*I :L
^£
?" i
t? '
y
5:
N^
,
1
. •»
RtMTTVS
FORM!
feg
vf
fc
J\
S5
^3 O
"1
55
•* fc- i
fit
uJ k*j
^
INSTITUTIONAL
COHrlGUi'JtTION
CVAL'JATION 8 SELECTION
OF INSTRUMENTS
VL
P •—
c
-£>
CJ
>
#-*
r:
c
>.—
w
— o
G- C
C
X O
h- UJ
<2h
VI
t: CJ
o en
f C.
4J f3
•3 x:
O <_J
t) C.
£t r
•o «—
If
0 «J
rl
C 1
•r- r?
U. «
-i±h
VI
So
3
<2h
»- •» •
i" i
rv
C-,
r
ti
V
o
CJ
r>
C
c
1)
*J
ra
CT1
LJJ
r
0
• i
<
c
i' 4
O j»
«.j r.
t:
c- —
CJ 0
c. ^
^- o
o
oi r:
o
r*j
CJ
> o
c o
c~ cL
e*
3
O
k.
- t.tccuttvc
- L?i1slat1v<
- Jx'llr.UT
u
•3
C.
CJ
£ > •*-
Cl-C
u
1 ;!
C. 1^1 UJ
— U", 1 *--,.
^ -D C
»- I_ *. C
*> C -D W»
1- C VI
C. C_ T —
r; *-> ~
O */l UJ
C
0.^*0
*0 r: ^ —
i. u C' o
c •— ex
O d — -^,
u c_
^ n ^. *j
> t— ^-, o
r: c,
o
— J
r .
ransportation
-
> C.
r- £
v. C
c c
Tlmlnq Con-.ldcratlftns
Arlminl^trdtlvc Consld.
c
0
C lJ-1
r; c:
— • c
H v-
UJ
X
<~S C"
o
o ^•-
— •?
C TJ
<:
i
71
• • i
^
Prlvd'o:
Legal ConslEtor«\t1ons
PollHc.i1 Considerations
^
-C U
c.
1
>,
-3
3
•3
LLl
4
c
'j r-
* r
1 s^
«.- <. «^
6- >» p
»• *J ft
c !; *^ e
S S i «
00
'tl
Public Responsiveness
elc.
1
-o
CJ
c
C_«.» CJ
c
o
"5
CJ
u
*-* . t/t >- *J fl .
«0 UJ
o
u
*•
• s ^ ;• J-
i X- -?1 '
•S -
'c'- z "^ *
Illllt
ffr).J rffnailun? |
/li w/wt cflit? 1
DiatriliuL-i-in nf cot la
and hrnr.fii.it
\
l|j '
S!i
.'Hit
/
•»»
•»» C X
ni
=•*!.
•FLS""50
^'•sSa,
tT t r, C1
^i t-s
«
'. C
•- =TJ
'I '•' T)
tp a.
«3
C
^ o
Ili
| §?£.
1 • 1
t
— i$ ~
i*" ~j ^
—-St.
•
~1
1
u
o
1
ton to* t
iiiwnttil
s
2.
C
«j
c
i
1
1
-5 I
FiaiRE
-------
EPA PROGRAMS AND FEDERAL/STATE RELATIONS
Federal/State relationships are being significantly changed by
the expansion of regulatory authority assigned to EPA, especially
in the form of the setting of environmental quality standards, the
prescription of implementing regulations, more direct surveillance
of compliance, and the enforcement of standards, should State-level
enforcement be deficient. Complicating these changes is the retention,
at the same time, of State-level responsibility for carrying out these
federally-established regulatory measures.
In other words, the Congress has made it clear that the recent
expansion of EPA's regulatory authority is not to diminish State
authority and responsibility. Thus, the amendments to the Clean Air
Act and the Water Pollution Control Act expressly restated Congress1
determination that the States are to retain the primary responsibilities
(and rights) in the control of pollution.
Recent federal legislative proposals also purpose to alter State/
local and interlocal relationships—and in many States it is forcing a
serious reappraisal of these relationships. Here the changes basically
result from Congressional decisions, already alluded to, to continue to
hold the States responsible for carrying out federally-established
environmental goals and from the increased complexity of environmental
management programs.
Although this complexity is evident in many ways (complex
effluent standards and attention to non-point waste sources are
illustrative), three aspects are especially important in affecting
State/local and interlocal relationships. The first is the shift
from an essentially reactive approach to pollution control to a
preventive approach. A second is the increasing need to integrate
waste management decisions and operations with land use and other
related resource management and economic development policies.
The third is the frequent need to effect this integration on some
regional scale which exceeds the areal jursidiction of any single
local government unit.
Each federal area-wide program grew up with its own federal
requirements for organization, geography, planning, and administration.
Figures illustrates the range of environmental requirements
in Federal programs.
-------
-------
FIGURE 5: Environmental Requirements in Federal Areawide Programs:
1972
Specific Follows Gcnerel Program Policies
Name of Program Requirements Federal Policy Not Yet Issued
Air Pollution Control X
Airport System Planning X
Appalachian Local Development District
Assistance ' X
Areawide Comprehensive Health Planning (314b) X
Areawide Comprehensive Planning Assistance (701) X
Areawide Waste Treatment Management X
Community Action (CAP) X
Economic Development Planning X .
Law Enforcement Planning X
Manpower Planning (CAMPS) X
New Communities X
Open Space X
Project Notification and Review (A-95) * X
Regional Medical Program X
Resource Conservation end Development X
Rural Development Planning • X
Rural Industrialization Assistance X
Solid Waste Planning Grants X
Urban Mass Transportation Planning X
Urban Transportation Planning X
Water/Sewer Facilities X
Water and Sewer Planning for Rural Communities X
Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural .
Communities X
Water Duality Management Planning X
Totals 15 7
: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance; Federal Register; and Program Guides and Directories.
Only recently have federal efforts to simplify and coordinate
these requirements begun to bear fruit. Thus, the area-wide organi-
zation dealing with several federal programs has often found itself
spending a large proportion of its time and talent on activities
commonly referred to as "grantsmanship". This is a confusing and
frustrating set of activities for area-wide planners and politicans.
The organizational approach to area-wide problems stresses
the need for institution building. For example, Section 701g of
the Housing Act of 1954, as amended in 1965, provides general
support to councils of government. The thought is simply that
having such an organization in a multi-jurisdictional community,
with substantial funds available to it, will contribute signifi-
cantly to the solution of area-wide oroblems. Much of this same
thinking has permeated functional assignment decisions made by
EPA programs.
-------
10
FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Issues of functional assignment are at the heart of American
federalism. Whether a service will be performed locally, regionally,
or at a State or national level is a subject of protracted political
debate. Both new and old assignment struggles have focused on deter-
mining the relative powers and responsibilities of the various levels
of government in the federal system. Viable federalism, then, hinges
in large measure on its functional assignment policies.
Figures, beloty illustrates some classic overlaps in functional
assignment.
FIGUJRE 6: Type of Organization Required by Federal Areawide Programs: 1972
General
Purpose
X
X
Special'
Purpose
X2
Type Not
Specified
No. Area-
wide Organ-
izations
X
X
Name of Program
Air Pollution Control
Airport System Planning
Appalachian Local Devel. Dist. Asst.
Areawide Corr.p. Health Ping. (314b)
Areawide Comp. Ping. Asst. (701)
Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Community Action (CAP)
Economic Development Planning
Law Enforcement Planning
Manpower Planning (CAMPS)
New Communities
Open Space
Project Notification & Review (A-95)
Regional Medical Program
Resource Conservation & Development
Rural Development Planning X
Rural Industrialisation Assistance X
Solid Waste Planning Grants X
Urban Mass Transportation Planning X
Urban Transportation Planning X
Water/Sewer Facilities X
Water & Sewer Ping, for Rural Communities X
Water & Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities X
Water Quality Management Planning X
Totals 5955
Source' Ofii/oj o' Federal Domestic Assistance, f~rc
-------
11
Conflict and uncertainty about new service responsibilities often
results in a haphazard pattern of functional assignment. Some defend
this piecemeal approach to service allocation as a reflection of
American political pragmatism, assigning a responsibility to the level
or unit of government that most wishes to perform it. Others see it
as indicative of the incredible geographic, cultural, social, political,
and economic diversity that exists in the country. Still others argue
that the many competing considerations affecting functional assignment
make it impossible to arrive at a general political consensus about
service allocations. Some observers see little need or little possibility
for a systematic service assignment of functional responsibilities.
But, since there is little guidance as to the costs and benefits
of alternative patterns of service allocation, functions continue to
be assigned or reassigned to what many consider to be inappropriate
or illogical levels or units of government.
There are basic defects in the present distribution of service
responsibilities, and many functional assignments seem inappropriate
because they are inefficient, inequitable, ineffective, or undercut
the doctrine of public accountability.
Service inefficiencies occur when governments perform assigned
functions at an excessively high price, offer only a limited range
of services, or do not seek alternative means of delivering services
at a lower cost. A second defect in the present pattern of assign-
ment involves service inequities, which occur when the performance of
a function imposes uncompensated costs or benefits on another juris-
diction. Ineffective service delivery occurs when functions are
assigned to jurisdictions that do not have the management expertise,
scope of functional responsibilities, geographic scale, or legal
authority to perform a function adequately. Fourth, current assign-
ments frequently neglect the need for citizen access and control and
participation in the delivery of services.
Inefficient assignments raise the cost and reduce the quality
and scope of a service. Inequitable assignments result in an unfair
distribution of service costs and benefits. Ineffective assignments
yield illogical and uncoordinated patterns of service delivery, and
unaccountable assignments can produce popular alienation with all
levels of government. These costs arise, to a greater or lesser
degree, from the present, ad hoc distribution of service responsibilities.
A more ordered and reasoned assignment policy could avoid many of them.
-------
12
Areawide functional assignment policies could be an integral
element of substate regional administration. But most decision
makers seem content to allocate functions on a case-by-case basis
with little thought given to defining the overall service and
governance roles of local, county, regional, State and national
governments. Whether a systematic functional assignment policy can
and should be pursued by federal, state, and local decision makers
1s an issue which deserves special consideration in the assignment
of environmental management responsibilities by EPA.
Institutional Design Considerations
Several issues confront programs which require change in current
patterns of functional assignment. The following questions encompass
most of the arguments for and against policies that would systematic-
ally define the service responsibilities of State, areawide and local
governments.
1. Is a systematic distribution of service responsi-
bilities feasible?
2. What are the elements of a reasoned and effective
apportionment of functions?
3. How can a systematic service assignment policy be
implemented?
An attempt is made here to examine a range of design considerations
for institutional and organizational arrangement for environmental manage-
ment at the regional/local government level. One approach for accomplish-
ing this is to develop (categories of) institutional design criteria which
might lead to a full articulation of the range of criteria in some form of
taxonomy. Within this delimitation, categories for criteria would include:
A. Economic Criteria: These consist of factors which
suggest that responsibilities should be assigned
to jurisdictions that can provids the service at
the lowest possible cost and that can finance a
function with the greatest possible fiscal equali-
zation. Generally these factors include economic
efficiency and fiscal equility.
B. Political Criteria: These consist of factors which
suggest responsibilities be assigned to jurisdictions
which can provide a service with adequate popular
political support or political accountability.
-------
13
C. Management/Organizational Criteria: These consist
of factors whereby a jurisdiction (or group of
jurisdictions) can administer a function in an
authoritative, technical proficient, and cooper-
ative fashion. Generally, this would amount to
r Administrative effectiveness.
It can be seen that a complex pattern of intergovernmental and
program relationships affects the placement of functional responsi-
bilities for environmental management. A major improvement in this
assignment process would be the conscious application of a set of
institutional design criteria. The following figure identifies a
range of these institutional design considerations.
FIGUEE 7:
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS
EFFICIENCY IN TERMS OF COSTS
9 PUBLIC SERVICE EQUITY
O DEGREE OF (SOCIAL) CHANGE REQUIRED
O SPEED WITH WHICH MANAGEMENT
CONTROLS CAN BE INSTITUTED
O SIMPLICITY OF OPERATION
© POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY
© FLEXIBILITY IN RESPONDING TO NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Q FUNCTIONAL EFFICIENCY
RELIABILITY IN RESOLVING
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FLEXIBILITY
Q ADMINISTRATIVE EFFECTIVENESS
INTERDEPARTMENTAL FLEXIBILITY
O AMOUNT OF INFORMATION COSTS
ENCOUNTERED IN IMPLEMENTATION
© FEDERAL PROGRAM INTEGRATION
CAPABILITY
6 POLITICAL VIABILITY
{} GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTIONAL ADEQUACY
FISCAL CAPABILITY
...after ACIR (1973), D'Arge (1973), and Ingran (1974)
-------
14
Suggested Institutional Options
Traditional literature starts from the assumption that a unified
structure is a prerequisite for effective administration. However,
institutional solutions which hinge on centralization have lost favor
because fragmentation is a political fact of life, and there exists a
general disenchantment with large bureaucratic organizations. Thus,
while there is still a strong tendency to structure institutions in a
centralized manner, varying forms of organizational arrangements should
be considered for environmental management of their basis of their
feasible performance.
A number of structured and non-structured institutional formats are
briefly mentioned here.
A. Structured Formats:
1. The Natural Resource
District
2. Water Planning Districts
(De Grove)
3. Urban County
4. Metropolitan Councils
5. Special Districts (metro-
wide)
B. Non-Structured Formats:
1. Intergovernmental
Agreements
2. Joint Administration
3. Transfer of functions
4. Joint Service Agreements
5. Contracted Services
6. Annexation
7. Consolidation
8. City-county separation
9. Grass roots strategy - TVA Ungram)
10. Federation
11. Governors' strategy - ARC (Ingram)
12. Compromise strategy - DRBC (Ingram)
13. Natural resources corporation
-------
15
The observation which can be made from this brief listing is that
creative formulation of institutional arrangements will of necessity
comprise existing structures. The challenge we face is to relate
them intergovernmental!,/ and multifunctionally through the use of non-
structured formats and organizational arrangements. The key challenge
for those attempting to use institutions creatively is:
How can we bridge the gap between "what is" and
"what should be"?
These observations only reinforce the need for a deeper examination
into the full range of potential institutional arrangements which might
apply for environmental management. Although the "conventional wisdom"
still remains as the base from which to draw, unique more creative com-
binations need to be devised and tested.
-------
MITIGATION OF SECONDARY IMPACTS FROM THE
WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROGRAM*
THOMAS H. PIERCE
The Case Study Series on mitigating secondary impacts provides
an opportunity for a detailed examination of the variety of ways in
which projected impacts have been resolved within the Wastewater
Facilities Program. The approach draws from cases where realistic
solutions were instituted and builds on the accumulated regional
experience and knowledge in this area. In certain instances, the
study may serve to bring to light constructive opportunities for
new Agency initiatives in nitigating impacts.
The series arose in response to the charge that new regional
sewage facilities may in certain cases be facilitating rapid popu-
lation growth and that such growth may be unplanned, resulting in
adverse impacts on water quality and the total physical environment
as well as on the fiscal resources of local communities.
NEPA, as implemented by the guidelines of the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, requires that agencies analyze the primary and secon-
dary effects of all major Federal actions with significant impact on
the quality of the human environment and determine means of avoiding
or mitigating these effects. Section 5TI(c)0) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments specifically provides that NEPA re-
quirements apply to the construction grants program. EPA's final
regulations implementing the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR Part 6) and
EPA's Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50 were issued to comply with
and clarify EPA's responsibility in mitigating secondary impacts.
Purpose and Objectives
The general purpose for undertaking the case study series was to
provide a forum for information exchange. A description of successful
*The material included in this selection has been excerpted from a
similarly titled, but separately issued document by the Office of Land
Use Coordination. The original document contains seven case studies,
one of which is included here to illustrate how the issues posed in the
introductory material have been dealt with by EPA's Regional Offices.
It should also be noted that the report is current as of March, 1977
and that additional policy has been developed by the Wastewater Facilities
Program concerning the primary and secondary impacts on wetlands and
floodplains in comDliance with two new Executive Orders issued in
May, 1977.
-------
similar impacts may be mitigated in other regions. EPA regional
representatives, states, grantees and the professional engineering
ooninunity engaged in wastewater facility planning and design will
be able to look to the Case Study Series for guidance in implemen-
ting the 201 grants process. A second purpose involves land use
policy development. Thorough discussion of the impacts will con-
tribute a deeper understanding of the issues involved and will serve
to sharpen the focus of EPA policy in this area.
More specific objectives include: first, to demonstrate the need
to make an early determination of projected secondary impacts and to
insure that these impacts are mitigated early on in the 201 process;
second, to develop a documented set of workable mitigation measures
which may be adopted in the various regions; third, to provide back-
ground material for developing supplemental criteria where and if
needed for evaluating the secondary impacts of proposed projects;
fourth, to demonstrate the need for ensuring that the gain in improved
water quality resulting from a new project going on-line is not off-
set by the adverse impacts from induced new development within environ-
mentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains. In such
cases, residuals from the new development would have the potential to
repollute the surface and groundwater systems. A fifth objective is
to encourage increased awareness of secondary impacts questions so
that the EPA funded facility remains compatible with local community
growth objectives.
Case Study Approach
A large variety of land use issues involving secondary
impacts are raised in conjunction with the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities. Many of these issues tend to fall within certain
broad categories such as the general question of reserve capacity or the
placement of interceptor lines. The case study approach will document
regional office experiences in dealing with each of these broad categories.
Each case will be carefully chosen on the basis of how well it exemplifies
the successful resolution of the issues. Wherever possible, the analysis
will attempt to bring out the items of general applicability within each
case.
As mentioned in the objectives above, many of the potential impacts
could be more easily resolved if they were raised early in the facility
planning process. Consequently, the case studies will indicate when the
issues were raised and discuss how they surfaced in facility planning as
opposed to a late public appeal or court suit.
-------
-------
Each case study will include a description of:
o The Project describing the facilities which are
to be constructed.
o The Problem describing the water quality problem
the facilities were designed to correct.
o The Land Use Issues describing the land use
context within which the secondary impacts
are to be considered.
o The EPA Regional Involvement Points describing
where and when the Regional Office became in-
volved in considering secondary impacts.
o The Mitigating Measures describing the mitigating
measures which were taken in each case.
o The Continuing Regional Involvement describing
what has occurred since the mitigating measures
were taken.
o The Regional Contact naming a person in each
Region who can provide additional information.
o The Sources listing available sources and back-
ground material used, in writing the study.
Program Description
The Wastewater Treatment Facility Program (Section 201 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) represents
a Federal commitment of $13 billion for the planning, design, and
construction of treatment facilities. These funds are obligated for
projects on state priority lists. The lists, developed by applying
EPA and State criteria, rank proposed projects within each State on
the basis of water pollution control need. The Federal share is 75%
of the capital costs for planning and construction of each facility
funded under the FWPCA. Once a plant is completed, its operation and
maintenance becomes the responsibility of the local municipality,
although EPA maintains an enforcement role through the municipal
permit authority. After completion, EPA and the States continue to
make inspections and to provide training and technical assistance.
-------
The funding process for planning, design and construction of waste-
water facilities involves three major steps. Step I facility planning,
entails a comprehensive study of the need for public wastewater treatment
for a given area. It also includes an assessment of the various alterna-
tives available for pollution control and an evaluation of the environ-
mental impact of the feasible alternatives. Designs and specifications
are developed in Step II for the treatment alternative selected in Step I.
Step III involves the construction of the treatment facilities. All
three steps are generally funded by separate EPA grants. In addition
to the three step funding process, each project goes through a pre-
appltcation period which includes placement on the state priority list
and an operation and maintenance stage which starts after construction
has been completed.
Secondary impacts
The major secondary impacts-within the 201 program result
from the placement, sizing, and staging of interceptor sewers and the
provision of reserve capacity in those sewers. Primary impacts are
usually of a temporary nature, resulting from construction at the treat-
ment plant site and laying down the interceptor sewer within the right-
of-way corridor. Primary impacts are easily conceived of as being
directly related to the construction process and are generated from a
specific activity, at a specific location, at a specific time.
Secondary impacts are more difficult to determine and consequently,
more difficult to mitigate. They result from indirect or induced changes
in the patterns of land use and population growth and the environmental
effects resulting from those changes. Examples of secondary impacts are
as follows:
A- Changes in the timing, density, type and location of
development including residential, commercial, indus-
trial development, or changes in the use of open space
or other categories of land. The provision of public
sewage capacity is recognized as a determinant in facil-
itating growth particularly for those land uses for
which on-site systems would not be feasible. The cum-
ulative results of these impacts may or may not adversely
affect the environment.
B. Changes in air, water, noise, solid waste or pesticides
pollution stemming from the induced changes in population
and land use. The induced changes have the potential to
-------
further aggravate the water pollution problem the waste
treatment facility was designed to alleviate or to create
new pollution problems from effluent disposal or non-
point sources of pollution.
C. Damage to sensitive ecosystems (wetlands, habitats of
endangered species) or culturally imoortant areas
(parks, historic sites) resulting from changes in popu-
lation densities and land use.
One of the most comprehensive reviews of the secondary impacts of
sewer extensions is contained in EPA publication 600/5-75-002 entitled
Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater Investments: Review
and Bibliography (Bascom et al., T975). The report generalizes from a
number of research efforts on the impact of providing sewer capacity on
growth within four different land use categories as follows:
Single-family Residential; Generally, significant in-
creases in single-family housing construction can be
expected to follow new sewer investments in areas where
there is little vacant, sewered land, where vacant land ?
prices are low relative to the regional average, and t
where large tracts of contiguous undeveloped land exists. »
Any variation from these conditions reduces the likeli- *
hood of major secondary impacts on single-family housing.
Multi-family Residential: The most significant impact
on multi-family development will occur when sewer service
is provided to areas with high access to existing employ-
ment centers and with substantial amounts of vacant lands.
This situation seldom occurs except in conjunction with
highway investments, where previously inaccessible, par-
tially undeveloped areas are made accessible. The combi-
nation of high accessibility and land availability is ideal
for major, intensive residential development.
Commercial; Conditions under which a new sewer investment
will have important secondary effects are: availability
of vacant, previously unsewered land available at low cost,
relative to average cost for comparable commercial sites,
and having high access to households. Individual stores
or small office structures of low density may not require
sewer service. Therefore, some low density commercial
development is possible without public sewers.
-------
Industrial: Industrial location depends primarily on
access to labor and to external markets. So important
are these factors that the relative influence of oublic
sewer service is usually small. The absence of sewer
service'in a particular location may nevertheless
effectively constrain development. While most industries
are not sensitive to marginal differences in land costs,
the need to fund their own private wastewater system may
prove prohibitive in terms of additional__expense.
EPA Policy on Secondary Impacts_
Section 511(c)(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments specifically provides that NEPA requirements apply to the construction
grants program. Current EPA policy on analysis of secondary impacts of
wastewater treatment facilities is contained in the final regulations
implementing the requirements of NEPA (40 CFR Part 6) which were published
in April, 1975. In June, 1975 EPA issued Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50
entitled, "Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in the
Construction Grants Process". The Memorandum states that where
analysis has shown that,
....secondary effects of a project can reasonably
be anticipated to contravene an environmental
law or regulation, or a plan or standard required
by an environmental law or regulation, the Regional
Administrator shall withhold approval of a Step II
or Step III construction grant until the applicant
revises the plan, initiates steps to mitigate the
adverse effects or agrees to conditions in the
grant document requiring actions to minimize the
effects.
In 1973, EPA issued a policy statement entitled, "Protection of
the Nation's Wetlands" (38 Federal Register, page 10834, May 2r 1973).
The policy statement recognizes the Nation's wetlands as a unique,
valuable and irreplaceable resource which needs to be protected. It
specifically mentions the construction grants program as follows:
-------
it shall be the policy of this Agency not to
grant Federal funds for the construction of muni-
cipal wastewater treatment facilities or other
waste treatment associated appurtenances which
may interfere with the existing wetland ecosystems,
except where no other alternative of lesser environ-
mental damage is found to be feasible.
Mitigation of Secondary Impacts
When secondary impacts are found to "contravene environmental
standards, plans or regulations" as indicated above, action is then
taken to mitigate or lessen their effects. There are a large variety
of actions which can provide successful mitigation. PGM No. 50 lists
a number of examples including:
phasing and orderly extension of sewer service.
— project changes.
— improved land use planning
better coordination of planning among
communities affected by the project
— sewer use restrictions
modification or adoption of environmental
programs or plans such as Air Quality
Maintenance Plans
improved land management controls to
protect water quality, such as sedi-
mentation, erosion control, and flood-
plain management.
The Facilities Grants process offers a number of opportunities for
applying the kinds of mitigating actions mentioned above. These oppor-
tunities can be referred to as involvement points since they represent
points in the process where adverse effects on land use and the environ-
ment can be resolved.
-------
Many of the case studies in the series were chosen because they
exemplify successful mitigation by taking advantage of one or more
of the involvement points. A detailed outline of the process shown
on the next page reveals a number of points where significant impacts
should be considered and mitigated early in the life of the proposed
project. *
The Case Study Series seeks to resolve secondary impact issues
affecting the Agency by contributing a clearer understanding of the
issues involved, presenting the different experiences within each
of the EPA Regions and providing a basis for further policy develop-
ment in the area of secondary impacts. The cases will be analyzed
for policy impacts or changes.
The Case Study on mitigating secondary impacts within the Big
Sioux River in Renner, South Dakota is included here to illustrate
the environmental problems and land use issues involved in a waste-
water facilities project. The study describes the involvement points
and mitigating measures utilized by EPA's Region VIII Office to re-
solve these issues.
Mitigating Secondary Impacts From The Wastewater Facilities
Program—An EPA Case Study Series, (Office of EPA Land Use Coordination,
Washington, D.C., 1977)).
-------
T FACILITIES
CC
UJ
I—
co
UJ
:s"
a.
UJ
UJ
O
cC
<_>
t—i
e_
Operation and
Stage Maintenance Stage
c
structio
c
o
<_>
-D -0
QJ QJ
4-> C
O. C QJ
O •!- <4-
ro -r-
4-> E r-
ro X> S-
i— C O
CL ro >4-
0
£^
b •— <
ro i —
CL O- CL
QJ CL OJ
S- ro -l->
CL CO
01
4-> 4-> S-
C -r- O
ro E <4-
4-> -O
r- 3 C
3 01 O
Ol -I—
C XI 4->
O C re
O re O
o
O)
cr
ro
4->
to
C
cn
01
QJ
Q
01
L ' —
S— T—
_Z *~~*
ro i —
CL CL CL
QJ CL QJ
S- ro 4->
CL OO
to
4-J 4-> t-
C -i- O
ro E "+-
4J X2
i— 3 C
3 01 O
CO •!—
C X> 4~>
O C ro
O re O
O
1
CL O X>
cn
c
•i —
c
c
ro
r — •
CL.
QJ
i/> CT
QJ ro
•i- 4J
4-> OO
O
ro
U,
QJ 4-> 3
4-> r—
oo -a o
QJ c:
S- -t-J -r-
O -P
U- •!- c:
ra -M 13
u c:
•r- ro QJ
r— S- +J
CL cn ro
CL 4J
•a: H oo
0
•
4->
C
o
•r—
4->
CO
O QJ
•r- rj
r— (O
CL 4->
CLOO
ro
QJ
^_
n_
t/1 Ol
OJ •<-
O C i—
ro O
•— >)
CL 4-> 4~>
O -r-
QJ QJ S-
4-> ••— > O
ro O -r-
+J S- J-
to CL CL
O
4J
O
QJ
•<~5
0
CL
T3
C •
ro i —
ro
Ol >
4J 0
ro S-
4-> CL
CO D-
ro
O
„!_> £_
o
4-> "4-
c:
rO et
S- 0.
cnuj
XJ
C •
TO r—
(O
QJ >
4-> O
S-
O
4J <4_
c:
ro «=C
i. 0.
cnui
.
^
(O
>> >
-o o
3 S-
4J CL
01 CL
ra
4-
O XI
C
c: ro
ro
CL QJ
•r-
QJ >
-C QJ
4-> i-
cn s_
c o
•r- l+-
01
•M
(J
QJ
r—
QJ
01 •
-»->
-«-> C
C ro
ro -M
O i —
•i- 3
• — 01
CL C
CL O
o
•r- 4-> QJ
-O C 01
C ^w4 -l->
f'^^t ^^
(0 H <«
E H cn
CL-r-
D- ^-> -^
UJ OO E
O
>>
ro
c -o
o c
•f- C 0
4-* O O
ni
•^— ^
•r-
4-> •
s_
01
>
T3
0)
0 4->
ro c
Q. ro
E !-
•r- C£>
O
01
Ol
S-
A3
O.
fit
u^
c
^>
f~\
O QJ ••-
r- i- -Q •
4->
O 01 2
3 4-> O '
S- 0 i— '
4-> QJ
01 •— QJ
C QJ >
O Ol -r-
O 01
-
.- _l...j
f"™" '+"•'
f^ fM
r 1
is in
i
;or .. . . n . .
jpon o Municipality
; collects sewer
service charges
and promulgates
sewer use
regulations.
O O **— -> vl
i— 4-> T3
Q eC~O S-
E 0- C ro
— s- UJ ro 2
— O ro •
ra (4- -a * to
C r— r- 4->
Ol 1_ ro > ro
r- i QJ O O S-
E 3 4-> i- S- •+->
JD XI ro CL CL C
3 nj 4_> CL CL O
01 4J CO ro ra O
, #T3
Ol > C
i- O ro
^_
QJ Q Ol C
JJ O_ C O
•a
01 Ol
•r- 4->
O
4-> 3
Projec
constr
O
O)
S-
OJ
.c
5
^3 4-^ Ol i-^ v— ' ^ — ^^ —™ *"
C C^
O ra Ol
0 I- C
Oiv-
^^ 4 ^
re W «
e H CT
a. ••-
«3^ QJ 4->
a. 4-> •<-
ui to E
0
01 1
Ol C
t- •!-
ro
a. c:
QJ ro
i- i— —
CL a.
4-> Ol
C QJ
ra -i-
4-> 4->
3 i —
01 •!-
C O
O ra
C_) W-
o
,
C 1
O QJ
O S-
CL
"O
C QJ
ro >
ro
4-> -C
C
ro 4->
U C
•r- n3
• — 4J r
CLr-
CL D
•cC to
O
4->
C
ra
(^ +^
-(-> 1—
U 3
fO l/>
O C"
l—l_ i>_
E 0
r- 0
o
1
N
•r- QJ
> E
c: 01
QJ 01
Ol
C 01
ro 01
ra
cn
c: i —
•r- ro
T3 4->
3 C
i — QJ
U E
Ol
4->
1 ra
C +0
O OO
o
_c
c: -»->
o -r-
•~ S
+J
ra QJ «=£
O U D-
r- c UJ
— QJ
CL S_ -o
CL QJ c
ro H- ro
i> M-
^1 O
Eoi
UJ
13 CX
•r- QJ
a:
c
ro to
i— Ol
O. 1
e£
Ol
QJ O
•i— 4J
4-'
•r- T3
i — ' QJ
•r— 4-J
0 4->
ro -r-
u. E
o
Ol
QJ "O
i. c
ro ra
CL
QJ :>-
l_ X3
CL 3
4->
4-> Ol
c
ro H—
O O
•i —
i — c
O. ra
a.t —
OOXJQ.ro
C U
~Q fO 4-* *f""
C 0 <4-
ro 01 O) T-
S-^n 0
«cC (U Q QJ
a. -r- i_ ex
UJ > Q- 01
o
01
QJ ai
,n f; S ••-
^"^ 0) 4J
o c T; £
30- OJ .^.
l?l "•«
° c 7^ aj >+-
U -r— CL ^_i
, . ^ ... ra QJ
4-* re to j i ^.
c u •'- £ ct
3 T- i— w ^
(/) r— *^
C ^?. 0 cr -c,
o 3 ra S: c
0 13- M- uj ,0
0 o
U") •
CTi Ol
I u)
<£ QJ
^j
O O
•M S-
o
to
4J "^
^ J»
•i— QJ
t= .._
C^ "^
-Q >
n QJ
to a;
01
4->
0
O)
•T )
O
] CL
c
1 — 1
o
1
c
o
S-
>
c:
QJ
01
QJ
S-
rO
CL
QJ
S-
D-
c
ro <:
, — CL.
CL Ixl
O
Ol rd
4-> C
rO -r- •
4-> M- C
OO O
ol •!—
-a 4-> 4->
coo
re 3 QJ
-a Q-
€=C C Ol
O- O C
UJ O T-
o
•o
QJ
0. r- S_
O> 1 r- O
4-> Ol •!- M-
00 S- +-> S-
•r- Ol Q)
O 3 CL
C cr-O
QJ r- QJ
01 s- 3 .a
•r- O
< 3 0
0- 4J
QJ UJ Ol
s_ :*: 4-> QJ
QJ c: >
_c •• QJ ro
4-> •— E -C
1 O)
QJ " Ol >
4-> >>T- -r-
rO S- 4->
4-> re 01 re
-Q
^ •
(0 4->
01 C '
4J 4-> QJ
0 T- E
3 XI >>
x) 3 re
c re Q.
0
O i — Ol
re QJ
< c ^
a. -r- re
LU ««- E
0
a.
O)
O14->
c oo
•i—
X) 5-
S- O
re
~z <-<
re >— '
4->
O O- C
4-) QJ ro
4-> S-
$_ CO O)
o
•i— QJ >— <
S- -C «-.
CL4J i— i
a 1
i— C
re o
I 01 O
C T-
QJ ro 01
s- ••-
OO
i — i
UJ
>4-
O
to to c cmn CL
01 O QJ C CL Ol+->
4-> 01 c c:
0 O
re QJ 01 ro
Q- c: QJ
E S- c:
-r— <+- re -I—
r- *" "o X)
re •- QJ QJ
4-> 4-> XI X)
C C QJ
QJ QJ S- QJ
C C 0 C
re re c:
c: r— tl
o re re
•r- 4-> QJ
4-J c: x:
re QJ
S- E 0
re c: -i-
•— o •—
os- _a
QJ -r- 3
xl > CL.
O
S_
re
CL
01
re
X)
QJ
4-)
o
3
X3
^
X3
O)
s_
•r—
3
O"
QJ
S-
C
QJ
.C
s
Ol
to
OJ
O
O
S-
CL
-------
REHNER SANITARY DISTRICT CASE STUDY
RENNER, SOUTH DAKOTA
BY
THOMAS H. PIERCE
Project Description
Problem
Land Use Issues
EPA Region VIII
Involvement
Mitigating Measures
Continuing Involvement o
Sources
Collection system and four lift stations
connecting into the existing treatment
facility of the adjacent City of Sioux
Falls, South Dakota
Groundwater contamination caused by failing
on-site disposal systems and possible con-
tamination of an aquifer which provides the
region with drinking water
Allowing sewer connections for new development
within the floodplain of the Big Sioux River
Determining proper sizing of the collection
system to adequately serve the District's
present needs and to allow for a "moderate"
amount of new growth
Step 1 review of facilities
mental assessment
plan and environ-
Joint meetings between EPA and the County to
discuss the secondary impacts of the project
on the Big Sioux River Floodplain
Issuance of a Negative Declaration and
Environmental Appraisal
The Step II grant was conditioned so that
no connections would be allowed for future
development within the 100-year floodplain
The Region recommended that the collection
line be sized to serve existing residents
plus a "moderate" amount of new growth
The County Planning and Zoning Commission
foresees little difficulty in enforcing
the conditions under its existing flood-
plain ordinance
Negative Declaration and Environmental
Appraisal issued August 22, 1975
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project
Renner Sanitary District is located in Mapleton Township within
Minnehaha County one mile north of the corporate limits of Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. The proposed service area contains 614 acres consisting
of scattered residential and commercial development. 700 residents
presently reside in the District. A portion of the service area lies
within the Big Sioux River's floodplain. Renner is also located within
the recharge zone of an aquifer which supplies drinking water to Sioux
Falls and surrounding areas. Residents in the service area are currently
served by on-site sewer systems—septic tanks with or without proper
drainage fields and what are called dry wells, or outhouses.
The proposed project will consist of a collection system of the
minimum-recommended capacity to serve all existing residences and four
lift stations with force mains to transport the wastes to the City of
Sioux Falls for treatment.
The Step I grant was approved by EPA on September 1, 1975. The
Step II grant for design was awarded on October 19, 1976, following
EPA and State approval. Step III (construction) is scheduled to begin
on March, 1977.
The estimated cost for Step II and III is $693,228. Of this amount,
$519,921 will be paid by EPA; $34,661 will be paid by the State, and
$138,646 will be paid by Renner.
The Problem
In early 1972, the Minnehaha County Department of Health discovered
that the groundwater supply had been contaminated by malfunctioning on-
site systems in a number of low-lying areas, including Renner. The
results of the County investigation indicated that although health
standards had not as yet been violated, serious health hazards could
develop if the problem continued unattended. Since most of the proposed
service area is located within the recharge zone of a major regional
aquifer, it was singled out for special attention. The Minnehaha
Planning Commission indicated that no building permits would be issued
for new or improvement construction until such time as public sewer
facilities were constructed. Only then would the building ban be lifted.
-------
float? fiMtJ
-------
Land Use Issues
Two major land.use issues are involved in planning for Renner's
wastewater facility needs. The first concerns the question of how to
treat that portion of the district located within the 100-year flood-
plain of the Big Sioux River. The second concerns the question of
providing reserve capacity, which may facilitate new growth within
the recharge zone of an aquifer which provides the region with
drinking water.
Out of the fifty-odd lots subdivided for single family dwelling
within the floodplain, thirty-five have already been developed. In
July, 1975, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission decided that
development of the remaining lots must await the completion of the
wastewater treatment system. At this point, new development could
locate in the floodplain, provided that it met the requirements of
the local floodplain ordinance. However, one year later in July,
1976, the County revised its ordinance to prohibit the location of
any new dwelling units within the 100 year floodplain of the Big
Sioux River.
The second issue involves determining the proper capacity for
the collection system to adequately serve the district's need without
unduly inducing new growth. The Renner Sanitary District represents
one of the fastest growing areas surrounding the City of Sioux Falls.
Federal Census Bureau figures show that Mapleton Township, which
includes Renner, grew 44% during the decade of the 1950's and another
41% during the 1960's. By 1970, the population had grown to 1,105
residents. These figures represent a sizeable inmigration from the
rural areas surrounding Sioux Falls, one of the few urbanizing centers
in the region.
Judging from past growth the Consulting Engineer projected future
population for the service area to be four times the existing number
of 700 residents by 1995. As will be seen below, these projections
were not used in final project design primarily because the City of
Sioux Falls imposed limits on the quantity of sewage it would accept
for treatment from the Renner collection system.
EPA Role
EPA Region VIII first became involved when reviewing the facilities
plan and environmental assessment. The Region decided that an EIS would
not be necessary and issued a Negative Declaration on August 22, 1975.
-------
Prior to issuing a Negative Declaration, however, EPA and Minnehaha
County Planning and Zoning Commission held a series of joint meetings
to discuss the secondary impacts the proposed collection system could
have on the Big Sioux River floodplain. As a result of these meetings,
it was agreed by both the County and the Regional Office that EPA
would condition Step II and III grants disallowing connection from
any future dwellings within the 100-year floodplain.
EPA's decision to condition the grant was based in part on
Executive Order (E.O.) 11296 which states that "all executive
agencies responsible for the administration of federal grant
programs involving the construction of buildings, structures, roads,
or other facilities shall evaluate flood hazards in connection with
such facilities and shall, as far as practicable, preclude the
uneconomic, hazardous, or unnecessary use of floodplains in such
connection."
In addition, EPA's own regulations (40 CFR 6.214(5)(2)) states that
"If an EPA action may directly cause or induce the
construction of buildings or other facilities in a
floodplain, the responsible officials shall evaluate
flood hazards in connection with these facilities
as required by Executive Order 11296 and shall, as
far as practicable, consider alternatives to preclude
the uneconomic, haze -dous or unnecessary,use of
floodplains to minir .ze the exposure of facilities
to potential flood damage, lessen the need for future
Federal expenditures for flood protection and flood
disaster relief and preserve the unique and signi-
ficant public value of the floodplain as an environ-
mental resource."
This section emphasizes the need to consider alternatives to
preclude the unnecessary use of floodplains. Further, while E.O.
11296 could be read to apply only to construction arising directly
as a result of a Federal grant, Section 6.214(b) expands the scope
of the Executive Order to include projects which may "induce"
construction of buildings in a floodplain.
In July, 1975, after weighing these considerations, the Regional
Office decided that it was permissable to allow existing dwelling
units and any units to be built in the future on the platted lots to
connect into the system but to preclude connections by any future
dwelling units constructed on currently unplatted floodplain land.
-------
The Regional Office interpreted E.O. 11296 and Section 6.214(b) as
only affecting that future development which would 'be considered as
being induced by the proposed project, i.e., that which would occur
on the unplatted land. However, since the Minnehaha County Planning
and Zoning Commission revised their regulations in July, 1976, to
prohibit the building of new dwelling units within the floodplain on
either platted or unplatted land, they requested that EPA condition
the grant so as to uphold the revised county regulation by prohibiting
hookups from platted floodplain land as well.
Further rational for the Regional decision may be found in EPA
Program Guidance Memo #50 which states in part that "The policy of
the Agency is:
"that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements shall indicate whether secondary
effects may contravene Federal, State and local
environmental laws and regulations, and plans and
standards required by environmental laws or regu-
lations. Where such contravention is possible,
the best available data and analytical techniques
should be applied to analyzing the likelihood and
extent of such violations.
Where careful analysis leads to the conclusion—
that the secondary effects of a project can
reasonably be anticip ;ed to contravene an environ-
mental law or regulat jn, or a plan or standard
required by an environmental law or regulation,
the Regional Administrator shall withhold approval
of a Step II or Step III construction grant until
the applicant revises the plan, initiates steps
to mitigate the adverse effects, or agrees to
conditions in the grant document requiring actions
to minimize the effects."
In the case of Renner, a local ordinance was in effect for the
floodplain in question which might have been contravened by the
secondary effects of the project. The Regional Office, therefore,
established the policy that whenever a proposed service area is subject
to a floodplain ordinance, the grant should be conditioned to reinforce
the goals and purposes of the ordinance. Thus, if the local ordinance
prohibits development within the floodplain, EPA's grant should not
make service available to those areas.
-------
Mitigating Measures:
As the first mitigation action, the Region recommended that the
service capacity be limited to the 700 existing residents plus a
reasonable amount of new growth, instead of the 3,200 residents
originally proposed by the consulting engineer in the initial facilities
plan. A subsequent agreement initiated by the City of Sioux Falls
and signed on September 20, 1976 by the city and the Renner Sanitation
District limits the flow of sewage to the Sioux Falls treatment
system to an 840 population equivalent over the next 20 years. This
amounts to a 20% growth rate through 1996. The system will therefore
be designed with an interceptor line of minimum recommended size
(8 inches) to serve the area.
As the second mitigation measure, Region VIII conditioned the
Step II and Step III grant as follows:
"Within the 100-year floodplain as defined by the
official zoning map of the Board of County Commis-
sioners, Minnehaha County, it shall be permissible
to only connect existing residential housing as of
the date of this grant. Further, any residential
construction after the date of this grant, within
the 100-year floodplain, shall not connect to this
collection system."
Continuing Involvement:
The applicant agreed to the above grant condition on November 1,
1976. The Minnehaha County Planning and Zoning Commission foresees
no difficulty in enforcing the provision under its existing floodplaiji
ordinance. The Renner Sanitation District is currently designing the
collection system and plans to commence construction by March, 1977.
-------
T
1
SECURING PUBLIC BENEFITS FROM EPA'S WATER CLEAN-UP EFFORTS
SHELLEY M. MARK
BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE OF
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 18, 1977
In 1972, Congress enacted sweeping amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, which enunciated the national goal of assuring
drinkable, fishable, and swimmable water for public use.
Much progress toward clean water has been made since these measures
went into effect, and much credit is due members of this Association.
Industries are responding to their permit requirements and installing
the necessary pollution control equipment. Cities, towns, and counties
are building wastewater treatment plants at an unprecedented rate, with
the aid of nearly $18 billion from the federal government between fiscal
1972 and 1977, as you are fully aware. Indeed, the Construction Grants
Program, in terms of annual expenditures, has become the largest public
works effort in history, exceeding even the Interstate Highway program
and the Apollo space program.
And by providing sewage capacity to existing and potential residential
areas, the program will affect patterns of growth and land use throughout
the country. Moreover, the nation's waters are reflecting their cleanup
r
effort. Fish are returning to where they have not been for decades;
people who have never known their rivers and lakes as anything but open
-------
sewers, unfit for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment, are seeing
a transformation begin.
Ironically, this progress toward clean water and the even
greater strides which will be made in the coming few years may
open the way for indiscriminate development and degradation of
the environment on the shores of the Nation's waters. Further-
more, the public, which invested so much of its tax dollars in
water cleanup, could be denied access to these waterways and
enjoyment of their newly regained aesthetic qualities.
Fortunately there is a way out of this dilemma, and it comes
from merely complying v/ith the law. I refer to Section 201 (f) of
P.L. 92-500, which calls upon us to combine "open space and recreational
considerations" with wastewater treatment planning and management.
Precisely how this might be done is beyond my allotted time and mental
capacity. I can only toss out some notions, cite some examples, and
rely on your combined intellectual talent to get this program on the
ground.
Why is this an urgent matter? You know that since land along
polluted waterways is low in value, it can be protected now—through
federal, state, and community open space and recreation acquisition
programs. This enables the public subsequently to enjoy recreational
opportunities as the water becomes clean and fit for swimming, fishing,
and boating, and the waterfront enjoyable for walking and picnicking.
Since billions of dollars are being spent for wastewater treatment and
-------
collection systems, the public's money can be stretched, for example,
by planning which incorporates bikeways or hiking trails into sanitary
Interceptor easements. Moreover, if steps are not taken to safeguard
•heretofore fallow shoreland and watershed, unplanned development will
result in even more water pollution in the future.
Fully cognizant of these opportunities, we have attempted to
develop an approach for extracting Public Benefits from Cleaned
Waters. That approach was launched with a national conference in
Boston, jointly sponsored by EPA and the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation.
From that conference came agreement on a set of underlying
objectives for our program:
1. Ensure that the land uses along the nation's
waterways contribute to, rather than work
against, the goal of clean water.
2. Provide further economic benefits in urban
areas by increasing the value of waterfront
land through shoreline revitalization.
• 3. Ensure that the benefits of the Federal clean
water programs go not solely to speculators
and developers, but to the citizens who paid
for those programs through their taxes.
4. Ensure that clean water means not only the
technical make-up of the water itself, but
-------
Includes the concept of a sparkling clear stream
surrounded by an aesthetically pleasing landscape
to which the public is guaranteed access.
It's a long jump from those rather exhilarating objectives to
provision of open space and parklands along newly-cleaned riverfronts,
but the effort has begun. The early stages have been mainly educational--
working with major EPA programs to point out obligations and opportunities,
secure technical assistance, and obtain commitments to action. After all,
the main job of "201" is to construct wastewater treatment facilities, and
201 funds are not available for acquisition or provision of recreational
facilities. The related 208 areawide planning program is supposedly
concerned with more than water quality, but there is no assurance public
recreation benefits will show up high on its priority lists. However,
we have tried to show that by multi-purpose planning and coordination
with other Federal programs, particularly the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
although there are possibilities in other federal agencies, such as Corps
of Engineers and Federal Highway Administration, we can jointly identify,
plan, and program specific sites which advance these basic concepts.
Let me illustrate by describing an initiative involving our Boston
Regional Office, which has bepn looking into recreational opportunities
evolving from our water clean-up effort along the Fitchbu^g, Massachusetts
riverfront, in conjunction with the Corps, BOR, State officials and local
conservation and watershed groups. What is emerging is a linear riverway,
which will include pedestrian walkways, bicycle trails, and vegetative
-------
-------
5 .
screening and link downtown, shopping centers, schools, churches, play-
grounds and neighborhoods.
This will result from the following cooperative arrangements:
1. The State of Massachusetts and BOR will give highest
priority to a "combined 50 percent BOR grant and a
25 percent State grant to help Fitchburg acquire
lands/easements and development facilities.
2. The Corps will design and construct the local
protection measures in a way that contributes
directly to the riverway plan.
3. EPA will encourage the 208 Regional Planning Agency
to help with shoreland protection and access measures
so as to assist the riverfront program.
4. BOR will explore potential 90 percent Federal
funding for purchase of abandoned rail rights-
of-way under the Railroad Revitalization Act
(DOT administers Act, but Interior handles
rights-of-way grants).
Soon, we can hope that some of that picturesque New England landscape
glorified by Thoreau and Robert Frost will become more than a picture-book
creation once again. All it takes is a strong commitment, a lot of
imagination, and just a little bit of money would help.
But let me tick off a few other examples as time permits. In Lubbock,
Texas, one of the largest urban park developments in the country, the
-------
Yellowhouse Canyon Lakes Project, will soon be finished. To date, all . ...,
the necessary land for the project has been purchased. Four dams are
currently under construction and approximately 19 acres of park develop-
• ment has been completed. Future plans include over 20 miles of bicycle
trails, picnicking areas, and various forms of water recreation.
Initally all water sports in the four lakes will be limited to secondary
contact; however, future monitoring and testing of the water may allow
primary contact. The project's total cost is slightly over $8 million.
Its success has come from: first, the early recognition that wastewater
can be a resource and second, public acceptance and participation in the
planning of the project.
In Miamisburg, Ohio, converting an abandoned wastewater treatment
plant into a pa»*k seemed to be a solution to two problems: the elimination
of an eyesore and the creation of a much needed neighborhood park.
The sludge beds were converted into a lighted multi-purpose hard
surfaced facility to include basketball, volleyball,-stick-hockey,
and one regulation tennis court. The aero-clarifier was converted
to a splash pool and roller skating area. THe administration building
was developed into restrooms, storage and programmed recreation.
The open space originally established for future expansion of the plant
was put into a ball field arid free play area. The digester became
the focal point of an adventure play area. What made this park a
reality? An innovative park/recreation director; a community need
for a park; public participation in the planning process.
-------
For our final example this morning, let's go up North to Pacifica,
which has the only fishing pier within 100 miles of San Francisco. What
makes Pacifica Pier unique besides its availability, is that it serves
/
as a one-quarter mile support structure for the sewer outfall pipe that
dumps treated wastewater into the ocean from the city's wastewater treat-
ment plant.
To give credit where it's due, let's put it in the words of the city
officials:
"It was a fairly clever and innovative idea ftiat was
dreamed up by our former engineer and city manager
and a bunch of people at the state and regional level
bought it. They said, 'hey that's a good idea be-
cause we have a surf problem. We can tear up outfall
lines real easy by putting them down through the surf
as demonstrated by 2 or 3 that are broken up out there.
t
So, the clever idea was to carry it out over the surf.
And somebody said, 'hey, why don't we put a fishing pier
on top of it too, then we can go to (State) Fish and Game
to get some more money. When we are dealing with EPA we • •
- »
can call it a support structure for an outfall line.' -' j
The result of that decision is that we've got one-quarter i
million dollars in it and EPA and Fish and Game have 'I
, *
$750,000 in it."
8
/ j
/1
-------
8
Now I'm not necessarily endorsing this form of double-talk in
dealing with government agencies. But the story here is an imaginative
city government which recognized a multi-use opportunity and capitalized
on it, and only you and I know how it happened.
In your instructions to the panel, you asked us "to examine
environmental protection issues that have not traditionally been a
sewage treatment agency's concern". I'm afraid I've given you one
In spades. But before rushing out to color your effluent green, you
may be interested in some ground-rules. As near as I can make out:
EPA can provide funds for consulting engineers working on construction
grants projects to coordinate with conservation commissions and recreation
groups on potentials for multiple use and joint development, to determine
the feasibility of different proposals, to design the wastewater treat-
ment project to fit in with recreational uses of the area, and to design
landscaping and proper regarding to allow for and encourage recreational
use. EPA cannot, however, provide funds for detailed recreational
designs or master plans or open space acquisition as such.
I think it fitting to close with some words at our Boston Conference
from Russ Train:
."We are going to need all the help we can get in
carrying out this policy of maximizing public
benefits from public investments—from engineers
and scientists, from business and union leaders,
from city managers and land use planners, and / J,
-------
above all, from local government and local citizen
participation.
"For it is the local, ordinary citizen who stands
to benefit most from this policy. We are not
talking about a handful of special interest groups,
but about the ordinary working man and his family..,
whose tax dollars already are invested in clean
rivers...who want and need recreation areas,
particularly recreation areas that are close to
i
home...".
/
/
-------
EPA PROGRAT1S AND IMPACTS ON PRIME AGRICULTURAL LftNDS
BY
THOMAS J. MIERZWA
Well-managed prime agricultural lands often play environmentally
supportive roles by providing assimilative capacity, buffer zones, and
relative environmental stability, when compared to urban-oriented land
uses. There are significant EPA Program effects which may restrict
or stimulate land use change and development, and the amount of prime
farmlands that are being removed from production as a result of these
development pressures and land use changes. However, the Agency cur-
rently does not recognize these combined effects through a policy ex-
pression to assure that its actions, regulations, and programs rein-
force the protection, preservation, and enhancement of environmentally
significant prime farmlands.
Prime Agricultural Lands Defined - In order to provide a basis for
understanding the varied nature of important farmlands, several cate-
gorical definitions are set forth here:
1. Prime Farmland is best suited for producing food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oilseed crops (and available for these
uses). It may be used for crops now or for pasture, range,
or forest. It is not in urban use or under water. It has
the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed
to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when
treated and managed according to modern farming methods.
Prime farmland soils have an adequate and dependable moisture
supply from natural rainfall or irrigation. They are warm
enough and have a long enough growing season for crops adapted
to the area. They are neither too wet for crops nor subject
to frequent flooding. They are neither too acid nor too alkaline
for good plant growth. They are permeable to water and air.
They are not so stony that they interfere with cultivation by
machinery. They are not highly erosive.
In terms of the land capability criteria long used in soil and
water conservation, prime farmland is about equal to Class I
and II land and some Class III land. Of the 111 million acres
of potential cropland that exist, only 24 million acres would
qualify as prime farmland under this definition.
-------
2. Unique Farmland is used for producing specific high-
value food and fiber crops. It usually is not prime, but
is still very important because it has a special combina-
tion of location, growing season, soil quality, an moisture
supply that makes it highly suited for a specific crop when
managed with modern farming and conservation methods. Ex-
amples are lands for citrus, olives, cranberries, avocados,
and other fruits and vegetables.
3. Farmlands of Statewide Importance vary widely. Some
states may be concerned about all cropland in classes I through
IV, and, therefore, are not satisfied with a prime inventory
that would stop somewhere between classes II and III. Another
state might want to know what areas would be prime if irrigation
water were provided, as an aid in statewide water resource plan-
ning. States considering laws to regulate shifts in land use
may have an interest in areas other than prime or unique lands.
4. Farmlands of Local Importance are additional acres where
it is useful and environmentally sound to encourage continued
agricultural production. Local communities generally are more
interested in protecting whole farms or whole corridors of open
space, even if some or most of the land is of mediocre quality
for farming.
Thus, the categorical term "prime land" means the best land, but
it is not the only category of real importance in a given situation.
Categories of prime and unique farmlands rely heavily on productive
capacity, and farmlands of state-wide and local importance rely on
economic and land value factors to determine their importance. All
farmland is important, however, in serving assimilative functions
which aid in maintaining environmental quality.
The Ecology of Agriculture^
Many variables enter into and affect agricultural activities in
our country. Some can be thought of as "internal" variables which
directly affect the biology of the food or fiber production process.
Examples of these variables would include the quality of agricultural
soil, tilling methods and fertilizer used, amounts of available water,
etc., There are other variables whose cause is outside the bounds of
the biological production process, but whose direct and secondary
effects result in changes in agricultural activities. Examples here
include foreign food demands, expanding U.S. population, urban develop-
ment pressures, price supports, etc.
-------
In an effort to illustrate agricultural activity as a set of
interrelated components, a simple operating formula is presented.
Reducing this systematic relationship, or "ecology of agriculture",
to its simplest terms, it can be said that production (P) is the
result of climate (C) (in all its aspects), plus various kinds of
environmental manipulation through technology (T), together multiplied
by the number and quality of the land (L), under cultivation. Hence,
P - f L (C + T).
For Production to remain constant in this formula, a decline in
the amount and quality of "Sand, (within limits), can be easily be
balanced by improvements in climate and technology, which has been
the case up to now. If, however, there is no improvement in climate
and technology, or if there is even a degree of unpredictability, then
the amount and inherent quality of land must either stay the same
or be increased if production is to be maintained.
Uncertain weather patterns, competition for water, air pollution,
increasing costs and scarcities of fertilizers, fuels and other sup-
plies, and environmental management constraints on fanning practices
have affected production. It is becoming apparent that if high levels
of productivity are to be maintained, and if yields per acre are not
increasing, then it becomes important to look to the land supply itself.
At a time when world food supplies appear to be more crucial than ever
before, the.United States could actually be running out of its produc-
tive farmland reserve supply according to a recent survey by the Soil
Conservation Service.
This shift in the supply of prime farmlands will cause a greater
reliance on environmental manipulation through technology, which in
turn will place greater demands on energy supply and environmental
modification of land from its natural state. Changes of land from
its natural state, despite careful management practices, have nearly
always led to environmental degradation. Thus, an adjustment in the
components of the formula for the ecology of agriculture will pose
trade-offs between agricultural productivity, our national economy,
and environmental quality.
-------
Trends i n Fa mil and Convers i on - Land use changes of agricultural
lands to other uses, particularly prime farmlands to expanding urban
uses, have received a great deal of attention in recent years. A
CEQ Annual Report cites estimates from the Economic Research Service
of the Department of Agriculture indicate a net annual loss of crop-
land at about 1.25 million acres. This represents an overall shift
of 2.5 million acres out of cropland each year, offset in part by
the addition of 1.25 million acres of new cropland.
Contrary to general impression, only 10 percent or 250,000 of
the lost acres of cropland is removed by urban development. Rural
transportation—primarily new roads—takes 35,000 acres of cropland
each year, and new reservoirs cover about 50,000 acres. The remaining
acreage, some 2.2 million acres, or 87 percent of the total, is land
reverting to grazing and forest. Much of this land is in the North-
eastern and Southeastern states where contours and soil conditions
make fanning with modern equipment difficult. Although these numbers
may not appear significant in relation to the 470 million acres of
U.S. land that is suitable for crops, cropland abandonment is con-
centrated enough in some areas to cause economic and social problems.
While net losses in land suitable for crops continue, the acre-
age under cultivation has risen sharply in the past 3 years. For a
decade or more, only abojt 330 million acres of the 470 million acres
suitable for crops was planted each year. The remainder was used for
forage crops, or it lay fallow in compliance with government programs
to restrict production. Beginning in 1973, however, the combination
of increased demand for U.S. food on the world market, increasing
domestic food prices, and a phaseout of agricultural programs that
limited food production brought a significant increase in cropland
acreage used for crops. By 1975, an estimated 362 million acres was
under cultivation, the highest since the early 1950's, when productiv-
ity per acre was considerably lower.
There is some concern that much of this new acreage is marginal,
better kept in pasture or forage because it is susceptible to erosion,
dust storms, and other natural forces that cause rapid soil depletion.
There is still a considerable gap between the 362 million acres in
production and the 470 million acres capable of growing crops, but the
gap is slowly closing, and the acreage that remains in reserve is by
no means our most productive land. Nearly all of that is already in
production.
-------
From a USDA viewpoint, Krause and Hair, note that since 1950,
cropland has been shifted to other uses, but less than one-tenth of
the acreage was taken by urbanization. The shift in cropland since
that time—abandonment in some regions and reclamation in others—is
mainly explained by relative profitability. The net effect has been
to increase average cropland productivity as well as to return much
erosion-prone cropland in the East to its natural state.
While about one percent of the cropland base may have been urban-
ized since 1950, the reduction in output is probably less than one
percent. Much urbanization occurred in regions where there is consider-
able economic abandonment of cropland. Even without city growth, much
of the urbanized cropland would have been abandoned for economic reasons.
They feel that the main issue on the question of reserving agric-
ultural land appears to be the economic trade-offs in the rural-urban
fringe. If cropland contiguous to cities is reserved and eventually
becomes an island (land in agricultural production surrounded by urban
development), farm costs would increase and so would urban costs re-
sulting from the need to by-pass these islands for transportation and
utility services. On the other hand, if leapfrog development occurs on
cropland outside the contiguous city area, agriculture must pay to
reclaim other land as a replacement. Besides, there are additional ;
costs to the urban area for all of the higher costs (private and
public) associated with urban sprawl.
Urban uses have doubled in area since 1950, but their present
area includes only 1.5 percent of the total U.S. land base. Highways
and airport transportation uses absorb only one percent* which includes
the interstate highway system and many airport expansions.
Although cropland has remained practically constant for a quarter
of a century, the land actually used for crops in 1972 was 14 percent
less than the all-time high of 387 million acres in 1949. This differ-
ence of 53 million acres is accounted for by land idled under federal
land retirement programs in the effort to reduce surplus production of
food and fiber.
-------
For further expanding the cropland acreage in exploring the pos-
sibility, there appeared to be an additional 264 million acres—a 56
percent expansion—that could be converted to cropland. These acres
consist of class I, II, and III land not now in cropland but suitable
for cultivation if improved and managed properly to prevent erosion and
deterioration. Included are 124 million acres of forest, 117 million
acres of pasture and rangeland, and 23 million acres of other land. If
needed, these lands could be developed and converted to cropland with-
in the next decade.
Added to the present cropland base, these acres could substantially
increase production, as estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
under certain assumptions. These assumptions, aside from the development
ment and management assumptions mentioned earlier, Include (a) favor-
able product prices, (b) adequate available supplies of inputs at
favorable prices, (c) normal climate, (d) unrestricted use of lands
and (3) increased use of technologies. These assumptions are impor-
tant constraints in realizing potential increases in production for
major food, fiber, and feed crops.
Why Farmland Is Lost - Many factors can lead to the excessive loss
of farmland. One set of factors has to do with the added economic
problems faced by fanners on the urban-rural fringe. As urbanization
approaches, the cost of land begins to rise, often pushed upward by
speculators. As the cost of land increases, so do property taxes and
estate and inheritance taxes. The farmer-owner, thus, is burdened
with taxes which often bear no relationship to the profitability of
his agricultural enterprise.
Another set of factors has to do with problems of encroachment
of urban-oriented uses and their impacts on agricultural activities:
pilfering and needless destruction of crops by people entering fields,
increased traffic making it difficult and dangerours to drive farm
machinery on the roads, and complaints from neighbors concerning the
application of fertilizer and pesticides. In some case, as suburbanites
gain political power, their complaints have been enacted into ordin-
ances which restrict normal farming practices. Often too, farmers
are assessed for new water and sewer lines which run through their
property, even though they don't use them.
All these factors change a farmer's view of the future, and once
he is convinced that his area will eventually be urbanized, he stops
investing in improvements to his farm. An "impermanence syndrome" sets
in and a transition from farming activities is almost assured.
-------
As uroan pressures begin to weigh on agricultural operations, a
chain of events is set in motion. Rising taxes and development pres-
sure being to take their toll on neighboring farms; as the number of
farms begins to decline, the important support industries, such as
feed and grain dealers, farm equipment outlets, etc., begin to leave
the area because there simply isn't enough business; in dairy areas
often the milk processors begin to leave for "milk sheds" that will
continue to provide adequate sources of raw milk. In time, farm labor
becomes more expensive and scarce as higher paying jobs "in the city"
come to within reasonable commuting distance for the rural labor force;
the farmer slowly feels his political strength drain away as county and
local governments become dominated by suburban, non-farm residents which
often begin passing "nuisance" ordinances which keep slow moving vehicles
Csuch as tractors) off the country roads during certain hours of the
day, or "health ordinances" which prevent the spread of manure during
certain weather conditions.
Consequently, farmers often begin to make management decisions
based on the opinion that they will not realize a return on further in-
vestment in farming. Consequently, no new investments in improved and
more efftcient farm equipment are made nor is available land purchased
for expanded operations. Also, typically, the farmer's profit margin
begins to shrfnk. For example, feed and grain often becomes more ex-
pensive because remaining suppliers have to travel further for delivery
and no longer deal in cost-saving volumes, and farm commodities must
be shipped to more distant processors—all of which costs the fanner.
For those who wish to remain in farming, the choices come down
to hanging on for as long as possible and then selling to the highest
bidder, usually a developer, or selling out and moving the operation
to an area that has a stronger agricultural community. The figure
on the adjacent page shows the consequences of many of these factors
on a farmer's decision to sell his land.
The underlying point to these illustrations is that once the
impermanence syndrome takes effect within the agricultural community,
it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A county which has a number
of farms may point with pride to the active, producing areas but
those who farm the land may be preparing for what they view as
inevitable—abandonment of farming. Those that do remain are most
often gentlemen fanners who farm as a hobby. Young people interested
in fanning simply can't buy in unless they are prepared to make a
several hundred thousand dollar investment.
-------
In a situation such as this, fanning as an industry has died in
the area, leaving scattered remnants of hobby fanning or estates which
may or may not remain open land over time. There simply is a "critical
mass" which must be maintained in order to keep a viable agricultural
industry functioning.
The following description sums up the effects of the impermanence
syndrome:
Farm businesses require ready access to a wide
variety of specialized inputs—machinery, machinery
parts, machinery repairs, fertilizers, pesticides
and herbicides, to name a few—and assembly out-
lets for raw farm products. There is some threshold
volume of total production below which farm access
to this input and output market infrastructure can-
not be sustained. For example, DM 11 on and Derr
studied the amount of farming activity required to
support the efficient operation of agribusiness
firms related to the production of dairy products,
poultry products, and vegetables for fresh markets.
By way of illustration, their work suggests that a
locality specialized in the production of dairy
products should contain roughly 25,000 cows and
74,000 acres of cropland for the efficient operation
of such local supporting services as feed mills,
retail supply stores, and milk assembly routes.
The implication is that the volume or "critical
mass" of agricultural production in a locality
can erode to the point where support firms can
no longer service farm clients at a reasonable
cost. The services disappear and farm operators
are confronted with the expense and time of
securing services at a greater distance.
-------
Factors Influencing » Farmer's Decision, To Sett
\ ygua- ! : net returns- after
' otr i fcf property taaes nor
{ middJe age ,' " suffioent • ' | or neighbor wiling u
'••.-.• *"""' ~* ""[ ^[ taka over farm
"" - retirement |
--..': -.-ji — ---_.•-!- rl | »on» otner relative; 01
. - - - • * | neighbor willing ur
. - - '- . .-_*- |, take over farm
"""•* ' I
f
desire * ^9)
for
change
i"~^ r. TT
<• intntsioiu |
r^™^^^ i
^r no desire ; *~" • '
r for :
i T I suburban j
t f intnuions. ••
_ • -». J-
^ 1
i I /lv
i T
. i -
!
-*
i - - .
—J- ' ' - "-- ;' - ' - j.
DECISION:
r ATTEMPT Ttt
SELL FARM
ON OPEN
MARKET
'.
DECISION:
DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO
SELL FARM
ON OPEN
MARKET
(except to so QV
relative, or
neighbor for
farming purposes)
C J
change 1
type of 4^.
—. fanning
'--•4
Largely demographic factor
~— Largely economic factor
Largely transitional factor
—— Largely secondary factor
f( p-) — Function of Price
-------
10
Environmental Consequences of Farmland Conversion - Recalling the
interrelationships of the operating formula mentioned earlier, the
conversion of prime farmlands to urban uses will cause a shift to
less desirable land. This shift would likely cause a greater reli-
ance on environmental manipulation, which given current levels of
technology, would cause modification of land from its natural state.
Thus, there are two consequences of prime farmland conversion which
raise environmental concerns: First, the shift to less productive
(non-prime) lands, and second, the implicit requirement for greater
application of technology and environmental manipulation to achieve
prime levels of productivity on less-productive lands.
Likewise, the shift in land use from prime farmlands to urban uses
implies the provision of urban services Ce.g., sewer lines). Unless
this stage of growth is carefully managed, poorly planned and staged
development could lead to adverse environmental effects as well as an
inefficient infrastructure and tax base from which to provide needed
public services.
A recent congressional committee report outlines a series of more
general consequences of prime farmland conversion:
1. Land shifted out of agriculture is often high-
quality land. The probability of shifting it back
is negligible.
2. Urban sprawl, skip development and breaking
farms into 5 to 50-acre parcels has both direct and
indirect effects on agricultural production. There
may be speculative idling of cropland, isolation of
farming enterprises, increasing land values and
production constraints arising from odors, waste
disposal and other land-use incompatibilities
3. Often agricultural land in floodplain areas is
shifted to industrial or commercial development.
Pressure is then created for public investments
to provide flood protection.
4. Modern double-lane highways are sometimes located
where high-quality land must be taken out of production.
Development of such highways may cause farms to be
divided into irregular shapes and access to be restricted.
-------
11
5. Surface mining is on the increase, and its effect
on productive agricultural land should be considered.
The location of power-generating facilities and trans-
mission lines may be an additional concern.
6. Historically, most land-use decisions have been
made by open pricing in the market place. On this
basis, land for agriculture can seldom compete when
the land is in demand for non-agricultural use. In
the future, planning and legislation may have to be
initiated to ensure that the long-term interest of
the public is given due consideration in land use
decisions.
In the same report, a specific consequence is cited: The depth
of favorable soil material over unfavorable subsoil is a major cri-
terion for predicting the effect of excessive erosion on soil produc-
tivity. Information from the central Corn Belt indicates that, with
current management, including moderate use of fertilizer, soils on
a 4 to 12 percent slope from which most of the topsoil has been lost
have incurred a 30 percent reduction in productive capacity if sub-
soils are unfavorable and a 15 percent reduction if subsoils are
favorable. Under high levels of management, including large amounts
of fertilizer, for the same slopes, erosion accounts for a 20 percent
reduction over unfavorable subsoil and a 10 percent reduction over
favorable subsoil.
These arguments and the secondary environmental effects they
imply, along with the specific environmental effects of increased
sediment erosion and transport of particulates, the likely increase
in applications of pesticides and fertilizers, and the subsequent
energy/pollutin effects all suggest that shifts in agricultural land
uses cannot be taken lightly.
State-of-the-Art Approaches For Preserving Farmland
A wide variety of approaches for preserving farmland have been
tried or discussed extensively. The variety is a reflection of the
many-faceted nature of the problem, the differing characteristics
of agriculture, urban development, and political attitudes in various
regions and of the relatively short time during which the loss of ag-
ricultural land in the urban-rural fringe has been recognized as an
important public issue. Cough!in has classified the major approaches
-------
12
to farmland preservation as either "Direct" or "Indirect" methods.
Direct methods are those which directly control what the land can be
used for, either by the purchase of rights in land or through the
regulatory power of government. Indirect methods are addressed prim-
arily to alleviating the problem of the farmer caused by nearby urban-
ization.
Direct Methods of Protecting Farmland - One type of direct method
uses market interventions such as the purchase of development rights
in land by a public body, leaving the private owner the right to use
his land for agriculture and other uses but not to develop it, the
right to keep others off it, the right to sell or lease it, and the
responsibility to pay real estate taxes on it. Important demonstration
projects using this method are now being conducted by the State of
New Jersey and by Suffolk County, New York. Purchase and resale
with restrictions is a somewhat different procedure for achieving the
same result. Purchase and lease is also similar, but here the public,
rather than the farmer, becomes the owner. Neither of the latter two
has been used to any extent within the United States. Another market
intervention is the right of preemption, in which the government exer-
cises the right of first option to purchase properties as they come
up for sale. Properties are then typically sold to bona fide farmers
(as in France) or leased to bona fide farmers (as in Saskatchewan).
The sale or lease can be done with or without restrictions on the
land's use. Once applied, these market intervention methods can be
permanently effective for they all involve the possibility of writing
permanent restrictions into deeds. Because of the public cost in-
volved, however, it may be possible to apply such methods to only a
limited portion of endangered farmland.
A second group of direct methods—Regulatory Methods—are an
exercise of the polic power. Exclusive farm use zoning differs from
ordinary agricultural zoning in that uses unrelated to the operation
of the farm, including the construction of dwellings, are prohibited.
Minimum lot sizes are very large; up to 40 - 60 acres, for example.
It has been used quite extensively in California and Oregon during the
past few years, but is very rare in the east.
Transfer of development rights is a method designed to provide
some compensation for landowners whose right to develop is zoned away.
-------
13
It consists of assigning a number of development rights to each acre
of land, then zoning (or rezoning) in such a way that certain areas
will remain open and development can be concentrated in other areas.
Developers are allowed to exceed zoning constraints in the develop-
ment zones by purchasing the necessary number of development rights
from open space owners whose land is restricted from development.
Transfer of development rights has been discussed widely, but enabling
legislation has been passed by only a handful of local governments and
within those communities there are only a few cases of its having
been used.
Inverse condemnation is a procedure by which the government im-
poses a regulation on the use of certain lands and sets up a speci-
fied time period during which it will consider claims for compensation.
This procedure has been used, apparently successfully, by Massachusetts
to preserve all wetlands throughout the state, but has rarely been used
elsewhere.
Compensable regulation consists of establishing the value of
properties to be regulated, imposing the regulation, and guaranteeing
the owner that, whenever he wishes to sell his regulated land, the
government will make up any difference between the market-determined
price he receives and the value appraised before and without the regu-
lation, corrected for inflation. This method has been discussed at
some length in planning and law journals, but has never actually been
tried.
Development permit systems are in use in California and Vermont.
They require that development of certain types and in certain 1 oca-
tons receive the approval of a government body which is usually con-
stituted at the regional or state level.
Indirect Methods of Protecting Farmland - This category includes
taxes and other measures which help the farmer to continue to farm or
which reduce the profit incentive of the speculator or developer. Tax
concessions are th most widely adopted of these measures. Differen-
tial assessment of real estate for property tax purposes has been in- .
stituted by some 42 states. Under it, farmland is assessed at its
value as a factor in agricultural production rather than at its
market value for urban development, which in urban-rural fringe areas
tends to be much higher.
Differential assessment laws fall into one of three categories:
1. Preferential assessment laws authorize assessors simply
to assess eligible land on the basis of farm use value. They
result in an abatement of the taxes which would have been im-
posed on the difference between assessed value based on fair
market value and the assessed value based on farm use value.
-------
14
2. Deferred taxation laws add an additional feature,
by imposing a sanction requiring owners of eligible land
who convert land to non-eligible uses to pay some or all
the taxes which they were excused from paying for a num-
ber of years prior to conversion.
3. Restrictive agreement laws have both preferential
assessment and, in all states except Vermont, a sanction
in the form of a payment of back taxes and, in addition,
require the owner to sign a contract spelling out his
rights and duties.
All three types of differential assessment laws reduce the current
carrying costs of the land which benefits. Such a reduction would tend
to increase the desirability of owning—and thus the market price—of
the land. However, this increase in value is most likely to occur under
preferential assessment laws. Deferred taxation laws and restrictive
agreement laws, because they restrict options and increase the cost of
sale or conversion, may even depress land value, depending upon the
severity of the restrictive agreements.
Although differential assessment now reduces annual real estate
taxes in most states, up until this year Federal Estate taxes have
been based on market value rather than farm use value. As a result,
many inheritors of farms found that their estate taxes were so high
that they were forced to sell all or a part of their farms to pay them.
The Federal tax problem is greatly reduced by the 1976 Tax Reform Act
which permits assessment based on farm use value, but state inheritance
taxes generally continue to be based on market value.
Agricultural Districts such as those instituted in New York State,
exempt the farmer from assessments or taxes for special districts for
sewer, water, lighting or non-farm drainage, restrict the local exercise
of eminent domain, require the state government to consider the impact
on farming before approving any public construction in the district,
and protect the farmer from local regulations which would unreasonably
restrict or regulate farm structures or farming practices.
Thus, tax concessions and agricultural districting can protect the
fanner from many but not all of the problems caused by nearby urbanization.
They make it easier for him to continue farming but do not prevent him
from developing his land. A final indirect method, capital gains taxes
on the sale of land, is aimed not at the farmer but at the speculator.
By taxing away much of the "unearned increment", such a tax is intended
to discourage speculation by short term owners.
It seems safe to say that if the objective is to preserve farming
that both direct and indirect measures will be necessary: Indirect
measures to insure that farming is economically viable, and direct measures
-------
15
to prevent farm owners from selling to developers to reap financial
gain much faster than they could by continued farming. Neither direct
measures alone nor indirect measures alone are likely to be effective
in preserving farming for a long period of time.
Our history has been to try to make it better for the farmer (in-
direct measures), but to shy away from restricting the possibility of
development (direct measures). As a result, 42 states have some form
of differential assessment, an advantageous Federal estate tax is en-
joyed by all farmers in the United States, and participation in New
York's Agricultural Districting Program has been high, but only a
handful of states have instituted any kind of direct measure to pre-
serve farmland under pressure of urbanization.
The Environmental Case for Preserving Prime Farmland - In addition
to food production, agricultural lands play an important environmental
role. The open space afforded by farms acts to ameliorate local micro-
climate conditions. Farmlans absorb precipitation, thereby replenish-
ing the groundwater supply and reducing the amount of runoff during
periods of highwater. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas
such as wetlands and floodplains from incompatible uses is another
function served by farmlands. Agricultural land may also serve as
a repository for sludge and other wastes or be an appropriate appli-
cation for spray irrigation. While there are costs to farmers in terms
of productivity and crop quality, trees, crops, and other vegetation
act beneficially as a sink for such air pollutants as ozone, sulfur
dioxide and fugitive dust.
Miner suggets that perhaps the strongest rationale for maintenance
of farmland is the open space and environmental benefit inherent in
cropland and pasture. Some of these more readily identifiable benefits
include:
1. Watershed protection is an essential attribute of farming.
Water availability will become an increasingly important issue
in most regions as the population expands and per capita use
tncreases. Open lands, such as farms, help maintain local water
supplies by absorbing precipitation and transferring it to the
groundwater system, protects the hydrologic integrity of water-
sheds through the control of storm water run-off and sediment
damage, protect aquifer recharge areas, and provide buffers for
water supply and other natural areas.
2. Protection of critical environmental entities such as wet-
lands and floodplains are an important open space function of
farms. Most states and counties are now adopting regulations
to protect these valuable resources and nearly all of the pro-
tective measures list agriculture as a compatible use. As long
as the farms remain, these critical areas are protected at no
cost to the public.
-------
-------
16
3. Wildlife habitat is commonly associated with farmland and
particularly deer, grouse, quail, turkey, rabbit and a variety
of non-game species equally important to the web of nature.
4. Aesthetic relief from the pressures and living conditions
of urban areas. Pleasure driving is the most popular form of
outdoor relaxation, and despite the energy crisis, millions of
people take a weekend drive to the country for sightseeing.
5. Many areas of scenic or cultural value, such as unique
landscape or geologic forms, vistas or historic sites, can
be preserved in agricultural land.
6. Farmland serves as a geographic buffer between expanding
jurisdictions, thereby punctuating urbanized areas.
7. The pollution absorption capacity of farmland traps air
pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide. For example,
typical polluted air containing 150 parts per billion (ppb)
ozone would be filtered by a forest of trees 15 feet tall so
that air reaching the forest floor would contain only 30 ppb.
Expressed differently, one acre of vegetation will trap the I
ozone from eight automobiles, or the carbon dioxide from fifty. I
Studies of the ability of vegetation to trap spores of various
fungi show that vegetation is also a very effective filter for
particulate matter. In the summer, the three or four acres of
foliage covering an acre of ground remove large quanities of
dust from the air. Agricultural open space also reduces noise
pollution, which can be considered another unwanted by-product
of our growing society.
8. The potential for use of agricultural land as a repository
of wastes is increasing. The value for this use will become
more important as the population increases, as treatment plants
become more expensive and difficult.to locate, and as the public
more readily accepts the idea of land disposal of municipal
sewage. There are several health-related questions, especially
concerning the heavy metal content of composted sludge, that
must be answered before broad-scale application will be per-
mitted on cropland. However, the future potential seems excel-
lent at this juncture and thus could evolve into a major benefit—
assuming there are farms left to receive the material.
-------
17
9. The value of farmland as a form of "landbank" for future
operations is yet another rationale for retention programs.
Not only as an answer to solid waste problems, but possibly
someday for location of solar energy cells, or less futuristic
uses as the site for a new college or health center. Although,
this- view is not consistent with other rationale that call for
the permanent retention of farmland, but it does, at a minimum,
keep a number of options open that might otherwise be fore-
closed through premature conversion of agricultural lands.
Some significant secondary benefits [having environmental implications)
resulting from prime farmland preservation include):
1. Preservation of a way of life with its unique cherished
values;
2. Provision of fresh, high quality food at reasonable
cost at locations close to the consumer, reducing
transportation and energy costs;
3. Contributing to a stable economy by providing job
opportunities, income, a market for the resources
of production, and general regional self-sufficiency;
4. Contributing to the Nation's balance of payments by
providing food and fiber for export;
5. Providing reserve food production capacity to meet
the future needs of our population.
6. Protecting mineral resources from being pre-empted;
7. Providing productive, taxpaying, privately maintained
agricultural open space with its environmental benefits,
including rural aesthetics and enhanced air and water
quality.
More than ever before, if we continue to convert our desirable farm-
lands to urbanized uses, we will escalate the increases of the relative
cost of new agricultural development by placing greater reliance on
fertilizers and technology. The continuing cycle of agricultural land
conversion and development of alternative (often less productive and
environmentally fragile) lands will be costly for the farmer, for the
consumer, and for the environment.
-------
t.
/
A NEW BEGINNING TO A NATIONAL LAND USE POLICY
BY
SHELLEY M. MARK
BEFORE
NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM, SOIL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA
OMAHA, NEBRASKA - March 22, 1977
•
Land use is an area where there are no easy answers and few simple
questions. As your conference theme has so aptly phrased it: there
are nothing except "tough choices".
Land use is also a topic where it is easy to get into a fight and
tough to win an argument. The fact that so many were willing to travel
so far to listen to so much in so little time is a tribute to the toughness
of our sponsors—the Soil Conservation Society of America. And personally,
1t is reassuring to appear before an audience that's been in the front-
lines, and can guide you around instead of push you into the pitfalls
that lurk throughout the land use debate.
As most of you know, national land use legislation failed to pass
the last Congress or the last several Congresses. But as you might
suspect, it is likely to be reintroduced in one form or another in future
sessions (perhaps in a.very few weeks) until either the problem goes
away (which doesn't seem likely) or an approach acceptable to the majority
1s agreed upon (which could well be a contribution of symposia such as this),
-------
-------
Certainly Soil Conservationists have come to realize first hand
that land use issues lie at the heart of many of the critical environ-
mental and resource management decisions facing the nation—whether
they be how to reduce the air pollutant levels in our metropolitan
areas; where to locate sewer plants, highways, and new housing
developments; how best to manage our public lands, national parks and
forests; how to keep our water not only fishable and swimmable, but
safe to drink; or how to halt the relentless urban encroachment on
environmentally critical, historically significant or agriculturally
productive areas.
LAND USE AND EJWIROE&EOTAL QUALITY
The Environmental Protection Agency, for its part, has recognized
that many of its programs designed to achieve specific environmental
quality objectives are closely related to land use planning and decision-
making. Patterns of land use significantly affect the nature, amount,
and concentration of air and water pollutants, noise emissions, solid
waste, chemicals, and other environmentally harmful by-products generated
by our society. Conversely, environmental protection requirements and
how they are implemented can significantly affect the public and private
decisions which shape land use patterns.
I think it fair to say that the use of land has become one of our
most serious environmental concerns, and today's land use decisions will
determine the quality of our life styles, environment and of life itself
•
for many decades to come.
-------
Indeed land use planning and decision-making is one of ttie most
complex and least understood domestic concerns facing the nation today.
The "frontier" land ethic, the rights of private property owners, the
perceived prerogatives of local communities, the fluid role of state
and federal governments, and a variety of other deep-seated and long-
standing values influence every facet of our present land use system.
As a result, agreement on a national land use policy has been virtually
Impossible.
Yet as much as we cling to these values, most of us would concede
that our most precious national resource—our land—is being committed
daily to new, essentially irreversible uses without sufficient insight
to the future. At the same time, we are just beginning to understand
the dependence of our productive and social systems upon the natural
life support system of the earth, and the necessity to preserve the
integrity and diversity of this support system. This awareness has
been accentuated by the rathsr abrupt changes in weather patterns over
the past winter and the uncertain future consequences of these changes.
We are coming to realize that open space and protected natural
areas are essential for absorption of pollutants, dissipation of flood
waters, maintenance of soil fertility, provision of habitat for biologically
and economically significant flora and fauna. However, as the recent
environmental tome, The Unfinished Agenda, points out: this increased
scientific understanding is occurring when more and more Americans are
-------
f
J
having less and less contact with natural areas. The danger here is
that under these circumstances, we can easily arrive at the erroneous
conclusion that man and his productive system can survive independently
of nature and its life support system.
What should be done? The normal reflex action in the face of
•
problems of this magnitude and complexity is for Congress to pass new
legislation, mandating an administrative agency to carry out its intent,
and setting the stage for judicial argument as to whether it is being
done properly. But this has not happened. I think we should try to
understand why or why not, and then see if there are some more feasible
alternatives that ought to be considered.
Actually your conference theme and program provide the essential
clues. We will be concerned here with competition for the use of land
arising from the economic needs of development and agricultural production,
the human needs for community living space, and the environmental needs for
maintenance of natural space. These needs are each essential in its own
right, highly interdependent, and compete for the use of land that is
becoming increasingly scarce. Although our technical understanding of
many of these issues has improved over the years, our basic diversity
of values, coupled with a free-market system that depends largely on
the development of land, has not only sharpened the competition, but
also placed severe limits on our government's ability to resolve the
conflicting objectives that surround the use of land.
-------
What we will need to do over the next few days is to consider
where each of us is coming from, confront value systems with new
scientific knowledge, examine new and existing mechanisms for conflict
resolution, and seek to agree on the form of national policy expression
that provides the basis for land use decision-making at all governmental
levels. I'm not sure whether this ultimate expression should be in the
form of new legislation. I do know that it will require new attitudes
and new initiatives, or what President Carter has elsewhere termed "a
new beginning". Perhaps we could focus on what might be the primary
Ingredients or elements of a national land use policy before passing
final judgment.
THE FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT
Let's begin with the Federal establishment. While Federal programs
generally have no explicit mandates for direct land use control, many
provisions in their enabling statutes do call for land use planning
and their cumulative impact on land use decisions is considerable.
e -
Consider as a partial sample, the following federal programs as
sources of land use impacts: the forest management, soil conservation
and rural development programs of the Department of Agriculture; the
coastal zone management program of the Department of Commerce; civil
works projects of the United States Army Corps of Engineers; community
-------
-------
development and flood insurance programs of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development; public land management, fish and wildlife,
outdoor recreation, and resource development programs of the Department
of the Interior; and airport, highway, railroad and mass transit programs
of the Department of Transportation, all have a planning assistance
component. Add the EPA's 208 areawide water quality planning program,
the primary and secondary land use effects of its sewage treatment
construction program, the economic growth constraints raised by the
non-significant deterioration and air quality tradeoff issues under
the Clean Air Act, and the new planning initiatives for solid waste
management.
In all, there are nearly 140 separate federal programs which have a •
significant effect on state and local land use planning and decision-
making. They involve direct federal actions (such as navigation controls,
irrigation and flood control projects, public housing), federal loans and
grants (for coastal zone management, metropolitan areawide planning,
sewage treatment plant construction), tax policies, and regulatory actions.
That so many federal programs affect land use is not too significant.
The danger arises when they start contradicting each other, create con-
fusion among those charged with delivery or performance, and produce
consequences at variance with program objectives and expectations. For
example, EPA's wastewater treatment construction program, in attempting
to meet anticipated future needs may also stimulate unanticipated or
-------
T
J
premature growth and development in certain areas, causing secondary
pollution effects in air quality deterioration or solid waste overload,
and perhaps even lead to a re-pollution of the water that was intended
to be cleaned-up initially. On top of this, the Farmers' Home Adminis-
tration, Economic Development Agency, and Housing and Urban Development
have their own sev/er construction programs, quite uncoordinated with
EPA, and with each other.
Moreover, individual programs often have separate sets of planning
requirements which make it difficult for state and local government units
to plan comprehensively. An example of this is in divergent requirements
for population projections, used as a basis for federal program support.
In one case, the promise of increased financial aid encourages higher
population and growth projections, while for other programs a lower pro-
jection is offered to meet general compliance requirements. This amounts
to a schizophrenic growth policy for local governments.
Decentralization of authority and the recent emphasis on the New
Federalism have also caused confusion as to who should be doing what in
carrying out federally-initiated programs. A common dilemma faced by
state and local governments is how to integrate the array of federal
assistance programs into their own service delivery systems to meet their
own peculiar problems and priorities.
Thus, as a first step in this "new beginning" for a national land use
policy, the Federal establishment must get and keep its own house in order.
-------
8
By example, and as part of its impending reorganization and reform, the
Federal government can help lay the groundwork for a land use decision-
making process in which all affected levels of government and sectors of
the community can participate.
Some steps which could be taken through leadership at the federal
level include:
an early initiative to rationalize the planning requirements
and'outcomes of federal programs affecting land use decisions,--
updating and modifying them in accordance with changing times
and conditions, and rejecting those which have clearly outlived
their utility.
- ' Development of coordinative mechanisms among federal agency
programs, so that mutually supportive goals can be solidified,
conflicting program requirements remedied, and the use of
common planning data, projections, and methodology encouraged.
Simplification and consolidation of federal aid programs that
provide management assistance for state and local policy
planning; each of the approximately thirty programs in this
area has its own authorization and funding cycle, performance
requirements, guidelines and regulations, and applicable pro-
cedures. These programs are crucial, since they are the basis
for building state and local management capability to deal with
land use and other environmental issues, and thus implement
increasingly complex program objectives.
-------
Consolidation of functional planning assistance into a
smaller number of broad comprehensive programs in such
areas as human resources, community and economic development,
transportation, natural resources and environmental manage-
ment and energy.
Setting forth a rational planning process for all Federal
lands, installations, and facilities, which recognizes
national goals in defense, security, development, and
preservation, but seeks to harmonize with the needs and
objectives of State and local jurisdictions. Such
planning might well focus on secondary and unanticipated
land use effects of Federal projects and introduce mitigating
measures to avert or alleviate adverse effects.
In addition, joint and coordinated planning among agencies could
result in recapture of maximum public benefits from public investments.
For example, EPA has underway a joint effort with the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation to synchronize its water clean up schedules with acquisition
and recreational use of shore front lands. The rationale here is that
as shorelands become more attractive with water pollution cleanup,
benefits in terms of active and passive recreational opportunities ought
to be recaptured for the public for immediate enjoyment and with the
longer-range view of preventing another re-pollution cycle.
While not exhaustive, this agenda for a more positive federal role can
-------
10
provide a much needed Impetus for more effective land use managment,
can largely be undertaken without new statutory authority, and can be
achieved at minimal additional cost.
WCKL DECISIOEH-iaKING
Having just gone through an awesome array of Federal programs, let me
try to put things back into perspective. Despite the obvious and apparent
land use impacts of these programs, the -vast majority of land use decisions
are made and should continue to be made at the local level. I think it
necessary to make this point at the very outset of any deliberation leading
to a national land use policy because of some fears and misconceptions that
Federal zoning is about to take over in this country. The final decision
as to where and how a house should be constructed, where a commercial or
industrial use is to be located, where open space and parks are to be
provided, and what infrastructure is to be built are all decisions which
for the most part ought to remain in the hands of local elected officials.
The local level is closest to what is happening on the ground. Local
government tends to be the most responsive and accountable in addressing
citizen needs and providing services.
Each decision is likely to receive more public scrutiny. The immediate
impacts of decisions are more pronounced: traffic slow-downs, higher
property taxes, siltation of local streams, mudslides, all are recognizable
at the local level and produce the expected public reaction. These
consequences are felt with less reality at the state capital and take the
form of statistics by the time they arrive in Washington.
-------
11
However no town is an island unto itself. We discover more and
more that many decisions which were considered to have only local
consequences have spillover effects which run across township lines.
The hazards of flooding provide a good example. Towns along the main
stem of a river experience higher floodwaters at increased velocity
due to channelization, unwise floodplain development or bad agricultural
or construction practices from up-stream municipalities. The up-stream
municipalities while solving their own problems often create problems
too large for the downstream municipalities to cope with.
Large scale new development, particularly for coastal communities
facing the unprecedented buildup of new energy related facilities, provides ^
another example of land use issues whose ramifications go beyond traditional
local boundaries. The suddenness of this build-up can lead to widespread
community disruption, involving housing shortages, inadequate school
facilities, labor force diversion from indigenous agricultural and fishing
activities, and inadequate tax revenues to cover growing costs for public
services and facilities. On the other hand, it is possible that the net
long-term impacts on these coastal communities can be beneficial if adequate
advance planning is carried out, if the impacts are considered or distributed
on a regional basis, and if technical and financial assistance is provided
to the communities being impacts.
Other key factors can be identified, which contribute to the need
for considering local land use decisions on a shared', cooperative basis:
-------
12
limited availability of water for urban or agricultural land use; the
pressures of urban sprawl on environmentally sensitive lands; inconsist-
encies between development objectives and the secondary land use effects
of publicly financed projects such as highways, mass transit stations, and
sewer interceptor lines; inability of small jurisdictions to consider a
wide enough range of alternative locations for specific activities.
REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Because of these factors, regional, metropolitan, or area-wide
agencies bodies have been established, to act as clearinghouses for
Federal or state-funded programs, to resolve conflicts, and to pro-
vide a geographic base large enough to encompass important public
issues, such as developing a regional transportation plan or
solving air and water pollution problems beyond the scope of any
one locality.
Regional agencies have the added practical advantage of being able
to obtain the technical expertise needed to cope with the spillover effects
of growth. This has been abetted by the area-wide focus of a number of
important federal planning programs such as EPA's 208 and HUD's 701. The
major disadvantages facing regional agencies is that for the most part
they have little power to coerce local government to take remedial action
or to implement a plan or program. In most cases, they cannot generate
any funding for projects proposed in their plans. What power they are
able to attain is generally at the expense of the townships or counties
which are traditionally reluctant to let go of their authority, or at
the behest of the States which face'all kinds of competing demands upon
their revenues.
-------
13
The planning, coordinative, and technical roles cf regional bodies
should not be under-emphasized. They can lead to more meaningful
Implementation, greater coincidence between program objectives and
program results and the making of better local land use decisions.
However, these roles should be more clearly specified.in any national
land use policy. If regional bodies are to be considered the dominant
planning agencies at the local level, this should be indicated and the
scope and limitations of their authority spelled out. If they are also
expected to carry out programs or implement projects recommended in their
plans, then steps should be taken legislatively or constitutionally, to
transfer statutory and funding authority from other levels of government
or create new authority as needed. My own feeling, which I'll elaborate.
on shortly, is that regional agencies have greater potential for perform-
ance in their planning, coordinative, and technical modes and that funding
and implementation are best carried out by State and local jurisdictions.
These points need to be addressed explicitly in any new land use policy
considerations.
ROLE OF THE STATES
We should look now at what I think is still a largely untapped potential
for land use decision-making in this country. I refer to the States. The
Tenth Amendment of the Constitution gives states authority over land use
decisions within their jurisdictions. Until recently, they have delegated
much of this authority to local government. During the last decade, however,
States have been moving to regain some of this power to address those land
use Issues which are of "greater than local significance."
-------
14
Robert Healy in his recent book, "Land Use and the States", has
observed: "Power over land use should be lodged with the level of
government appropriate to the problem". This may seem almost a truism,
but 1t diverges subtly from the other land use adage, "Land use decisions
should be made by the level of government closest to the people".
While the latter undoubtedly has an acceptable populist ring,
it has been often subverted by the failure or inability of local
government to confront and make the tough choices. In most cases,
it is not so much the capacity and capability of local officials
which are at issue, but the scope and secondary consequences of
the land use problems.
These we have identified as: (1) problems that spill across legal or
jurisdictional boundaries; (2) problems arising from the clash between
specific interest groups and broader public interest; (3) problems
involving areas where local land use controls are absent or ineffective,
and (4) problems related to implementation of statewide policies or state-
funded public infrastructure.
State intervention or involvement in land use decision-making" or State
-------
15
technical and financial assistance to improve or facilitate local
decision-making seem logical approaches to dealing with such "externality"
situations.
The National Governors' Conference has called for a national
policy which would "help State governments to assume responsibility
for major land use planning and management decisions which are of
regional, interstate and national concern."
Their proposed policy statement reads: "Land resource policy should
be...a basic method for coordination of energy, social, economic, and
environmental objectives for the public good and benefit of those
Americans as yet unborn."
Presumably the Governors would support land use legislation which
would assign a primary role to the States in goal setting, data inventory
and analysis, capital investment planning, critical areas designation,
policy coordination, and technical assistance. The resources for carrying
out these coordinative responsibilities could conceivably come from a
modest consolidated grant program or an off-the-top "check off" against
existing Federal program planning grants. This would be in lieu of any
t
massive new Federal grant programs and relieve the necessity of creating
new layers of bureaucracy at both Federal and State levels.
In most cases, existing State planning agencies located in or close
i
to the Executive Office would be able to perform these functions. Cooperation
of the functional areas at both State and Federal levels (e.g., housing,
-------
16
transportation, sewage treatment, resources, economic development) would
be assured by the "check off" procedure. If legislation is indeed deemed
timely and necessary, it might well be centered around such a policy
statement.
PROTECTION AND LAND USE POLICY
How should environmental concerns be treated in a new national land
use policy? It's a bit ironic to recall that one of a number of reasons
•
for failure of land use legislation to pass Congress was its rather lukewarm
or unenthusiastic support from professed environmentalists. This, after
some rather euphoric pronouncements that after Clean Air and Clean Water,
the land would be next. I suspect that this recent reluctance may be
attributed to a feeling that with the Jackson-Udall bills' emphasis on
the land use planning process and with the State given the lead in
developing this process, environmental concerns would necessarily take
a back seat to the developmental programs which have sustained the
States over the years.
Although the legislation would have required participating states to
inventory, designate, and regulate areas of critical environmental concern
(including shorelands, ecosystems, key wildlife habitats and migration
routes, historic sites, natural hazard areas, and renewable resource
lands, such as aquifers and prime farmlands), it may be necessary to
deal with these issues in a more unique and visible manner.
I would propose that the Environmental Protection Agency take the
lead in developing a policy for the protection of environmentally sensitive
areas as part of a new national land use policy effort. This policy should
-------
17
first cover areas where the Agency has statutory responsibility,
such as wetlands, sanitary landfills, floodplains, and aquifers. EPA
should then work with other agencies for better coordination of individual
program efforts and development of broader protective policies toward
environmental sensitive areas. Inclusion of prime agricultural lands
•
as part of this environmental protective effort should be of particular
interest to this audience. Prime agricultural lands, converted into
other (predominantly urban) uses are "irreversibly lost to production".
Other production uncertainties arise from rising energy costs, decreasing
water supply, increasing labor and capital costs, continued urban pressures,
volatile international conditions. Then there are unique regional and
local economic and marketing requirements which argue for retention of
lands in agriculture.
Yet, there seems to be an ambivalence among agricultural interests
and varying degrees of complacency among the public at large as to the
urgency of agricultural land preservation. This stems from various
research findings and prognostications that the supply of land available
for production can adequately meet our anticipated domestic food needs,
as well as sizable world demands.
But, the researchers themselves are quick to point out that the
agricultural land preservation issue should not be determined on productive
capability alone, but must consider other vital concerns such as aesthetics,
recreation, air and water quality, urban sprawl, and the viability of rural
-------
18
conrnunities. I might suggest that these "other" concerns are also
your concerns, as they are mine, as manbers of the ccnmunity-at-large.
LRND USE AND NATIONAL GROWTH POLICY
In considering the elements of a new national land use policy, we
have witnessed the pervasiveness, intricacies, and interdependences of
land use issues and have remarked on both the unwillingness and inability
of our existing institutions to deal with them. We have seen how individual
policies and programs affect land use patterns and decisions. There remain
a set of underlying questions: why should land be used in a prescribed
manner; is there a better use for the land; are there broader or more
fundamental factors or influences which can guide us toward these better
uses?
It 'is evident that both environmental and developmental programs can
be short sighted and off target if they do not fully account for their
land use impacts and implications. Similarly, land use policies can be
meaningful only in the context of the overall growth objectives of the
nation, its regions and communities. What we need then as a fundamental
element in a new approach for dealing with land use issues, is a national
policy on growth—a policy that seeks to spell out, where we want to grow,
how we want to grow, and how to cope with the environmental and land use
consequences of this growth.
Such a national growth policy should dispel the notion that growth
need not, nor will not occur, seek to maintain balance among its economic,
environmental, and social imperatives and between urban and rural sectors,
-------
19
and preserve regional uniqueness and diversity, while contributing to
national purpose and direction. It should draw upon existing but
more limited efforts, such as the Administration's biennial growth
reports and the forthcoming White House growth conferences. Indeed
it should encourage full participation from all levels of government
and all sectors of the community.
What we're calling for is a concerted effort at all levels of
government to articulate, manage, and coordinate those broader policies
concerning the direction, quantity and quality of growth of individual
communities. As recent court decisions on such areas as Petaluma,
California have indicated, local communities are more likely to be
permitted to chart their own destinies if they can demonstrate they've
done so in a reasonable and non-arbitrary fashion and in the broader
context of region-wide concerns.
Their ability to do this would be greatly enhanced if the longer-
range policies and program objectives of State and federal establishments
were more deliberately formulated and effectively communicated. For
while some judicial decisions may be generally supportive of orderly
growth management, they are usually rendered on an ad hoc basis and should
not be regarded as a substitute for responsive long range thinking and
responsible comprehensive planning.
To conclude: we need to make "a new beginning" toward confronting
•
the tough choices and making the crucial decisions on land use allocation
-------
that have been deferred for too long. You will soon be deliberating
on the nature of these choices and the importance of these decisions.
In my talk, I have tried to suggest some directions which can lead to
a new national land use policy.
Some of these may require new legislation, others only simple
• •
amendments, and perhaps most can be accomplished under existing
authority and without extensive additional funding. We've talked
about a new beginning toward a new land use policy, but as you reflect
and deliberate further, you'll see that not much is really new.
What's new I think is a restored climate of open discussion and full
participation, exemplified by this SCSA symposium, which can only
help us make better choices and, better decisions than we've made before.
-------
------- |